I don’t want this to BBQ material… but from the rants and threads about the election… one gets the impression that disgruntled voters who hate intelectuals killed Kerry’s chances… while the corporate party (GOP) gives out tax cuts to the wealthy was ok.
If people are going to be jealous why not be equal opportunity jealous ? Why not discriminate the smarty pants and the filthy rich too? I’m from a country that too easily criticizes the wealthy and that is bad. Overly smart people are shunned too… but not more than the wealth would. I’m happy americans aren’t into socialist bull. Still what’s with the “I hate intelectuals” ?
Is being more intelligent discriminated against in the US ? Wealth not ?
Or is it only “intelectuals” that are ? How do you determine the boundary ?
Why would a poor and dumb fellow feel more offended by intelligent people than rich people ?
You’ve hit on one of the most astonishing and puzzling characteristics of US politics, Rashak: How “elitism” came to be based not how much wealth and priviliege you accrue, but whether you speak and write in clear, articulate English.
Read this fascinating article about $1500 hot dogs. It highlights the stark irony of a president who is blatantly economically elitist but who stutters monosyllabically through interviews and press conferences, thus placing himself outside the cultural elite.
I think most folks in the US realize that being rich isn’t a crime…its a goal. As to the intellectual elite, what annoys people I suppose is that holier than thou, I know whats best for you, you stupid shlub attitude many of them have. Doesn’t matter how articulate they are if they are insulting you by saying THEY know whats best and you are too stupid to really have much say so toe the line.
No, being more intelligent isn’t discriminated against in the US…being long winded and beating people over the head for their supposed ‘ignorance’ is. Wealthy is a mixed bag in the US. Americans both look up to and rail against the wealthy here. I think its more a look up too than a rail against usually. Most of the railing is pretty much hold overs from the turn of the century and great depression feelings. Still, I’d say MOST Americans want to BE rich if they can.
Depends on the intellectual and on what they are trying to say. Ivory tower intellectuals I think get mixed reviews in the US, but it doesn’t really play well with ‘the people’, playing more to the left (or right) wing elite.
Maybe because they aren’t as dumb as you think. People see through the thinly veiled insults to their intellegence and the ‘I know better than you how things should be’ better than you (or the intellectual elite on both sides) THINK they do. Again, I’m talking about intellectual elite here, not necessarily intellegent people (who I don’t think are discriminated against, least not like you are saying).
As to the ‘poor dumb fellow’ thinking about the rich: if you are poor you might bad mouth someone who is ‘rich’, but secretly you want to BE rich yourself. Also, its natural to look up to someone who has succeeded, and deep down most people realize that folks who are ‘rich’ got that way through work and success, not by simply inheriting it all.
It’s not so much a matter of being an intellectual, it’s more a matter of thinking you know better how people should live their lives.
Good intellectualism: Explaining the details of some complicated system (like how the tax code affects the economy) or process.
Bad intellectualism: Telling people they should goto more opera performances and fewer movies.
It’s all in the attitude. If I tell you that I’m smarter than you and that my life choices are therefore better than yours, you’re probably not going to have much respect for me.
I don’t think this adequately explains the perceptual problems that accompany this issue. George W. Bush, to be charitable, got rich through work, success, and a big whopping helping of family connections. But somehow, that never comes up. In this past election, one filthy rich Yalie gave off a more “down-home” image than the other filthy rich Yalie, and I don’t think that’s attributable just to the fact the George W. Bush didn’t happen to marry his daddy’s friends like John Kerry married Teresa Heinz.
John Mace’s answer also doesn’t quite explain the perceptual gap. When did John Kerry ever claim he was better than anyone except George Bush, or tell people they should see more opera? But he still got saddled with the “effete snob” label.
I largely agree with the main thrust of each post: it’s clearly the perception of snobbery that separates wealth from intellectualism here, and we liberals badly need to address this image problem. But it’s an image problem that has sources from without as well as from within.
Which of course leads to the question: How does this not apply to red-state social conservatives that have way too much advice for me regarding how I should live my life?
Because if you’re poor, at least you have the possibility (in theory anyway) of becoming rich one day.
But if you’re dumb, you’re never going to become intelligent.
That’s why there is more reason to be envious of the intelligent people and feel some animosity towards them.
That, and the fact that today’s culture “celebrates” dumbness, to an extent (“The Simpsons”, “Married with Children”, etc), so the “smart folk” seem weird and out of place.
Since we’re talking about preceptions – here’s what Tom Wolfe recently had to say on this topic. I don’t know if he speaks for the “red states” – but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t come close, considering the “morality” issue. Bolding mine -
Popular culture reflects popular values at least as much as it shapes them, so I’d see that as a symptom of American anti-intellectualism rather than a cause.
It’s something that goes beyond politics. For some reason, anti-intellectualism is something deeply ingrained in the American psyche. Look how the intelligent are portrayed in popular media - the outcast, the nerd, the freak, the anal retentive elitist, the corporate asshole, the mad scientist, the evil genius. All negative stereotypes. Intelligent people are portrayed as freaky disconnected loners at best and almost sociopathic megalomaniacs (who were usually freaky disconnected loners when they were kid) at worst.
If I were to hazard a guess as to why that is, I would guess the following:
America has a very media focused culture. We grow up constantly bombarded by the impossibly high standards of tv, movies and magazines. This tends to reinforce our stereotypes as well as sets the criteria for how we judge ourselves and each other - physical appearance, style, athletic ability
Intelligence is something that most people can’t comprehend. Unlike, say, athletic ability where even if you suck at sports, you can appreaciate a good football game, it is impossible to appreaciate intellectual achievements without having an intellect. Furthurmore, it can be a cause for resentment in school if your classmates are constantly struggling with problems you find very easy.
Intelligence DOES breed elitism. I don’t know about you, but I prefer not to associate with people who are of a significantly lower education level or quality. I don’t enjoy having to “dumb it down” for people so they don’t look at me with blank expressions. We don’t grasp each others problems. It stands to reason that the smarter someone is, the more difficult it will be for them to relate to the “common man”.
There is something about our culture that values the slacker or the rebel. It’s cool to have the trappings of wealth - cars, nice houses, bitches and hos, bling bling. It’s not cool to work to build wealth at anything other than music, tv and movies, marriage or gambling.
Intelligence is even less inheritable than wealth… but fine…
What irks me is that Bush is by no means a good example of the “self made” man that americans supposedly venerate so much. He just looks the part of the common man. I think Kerry didn’t act snobbish… he was made to appear more snobbish and elitist.
Could it be the opposite ? That intelligence isn't as badly thought of... but Wealth is strongly rated as a positive trait ? Being rich is being right ? Your not rich... you're a loser... shut up...
Nitpick: it was strictly family connections. He ran most of his businesses into the groun in short order, and they were only saved by huge investments from Bush family friends. /Nitpick
Well, I wasn’t really relating this directly to Bush/Kerry to be honest, but keeping it more open ended. To address this specific, I think Bush comes off as more ‘down home’…he TALKS to people, he doesn’t lecture them. Essentially Bush is more approachable to ‘the people’ than Kerry was. Its a personality thing in these two cases. As to the rich aspect…well, again its all about perception.
Kerry LOOKS like a rich aristocrat (i.e. inherited his money the old fashioned way), even though he really isn’t (he married into money, not inherited). Bush LOOKS like a hard working blue collar guy who got lucky or worked his ass off to make his fortune…even though he really isn’t (in fact, he DID inherit his money the old fashioned way). It helps that Bush has a wife that compliments him and plays well to middle America…and hurt that Kerry has a wife that comes across as a spoiled heiress and a ‘rich bitch’.
Well, I’ll let John speak for himself, but I wasn’t really addressing my post to the Bush/Kerry thing. I don’t necessarily think Kerry got labeled with the ‘effete snob’ label to be honest…he got labeled with the ‘liberal senator’ label, and it stuck to him like glue. ‘Liberal’ in the US has conotations of the bad old days during the 70’s when things really started to fall appart…fiscal irresponsibility, tax and spend, social programs that mean well but don’t work, etc etc. Personally I don’t think this is (completely) fair, but its how it is. ‘Liberal’ is also associated with many of the ‘we know whats good for you’ themes that annoy people.
So, I don’t think Kerry was penalized for being ‘intellegent’, nor do I think he was labeled (necessarily) with the ‘intellectual elite’ label…I think he was labeled as a liberal instead which isn’t exactly the same thing. Certainly people TRIED to lable Bush as an idiot, intellectually inferior, etc…but it didn’t stick except with those who already disliked him. Basically Bush came off as a regular guy trying his best to do ‘whats right for the country’. His talking gaffs I think were what many of us could envision ourselves making if WE were up there, so they didn’t necessarily hurt him either. And his message was plain and simple, delivered in plain and simple language…over and over and over again. Woof. For myself, I think a lot of it is an act…Bush is a lot smarter than he lets on, and he is good at ‘folksy’.
Embedded in that attitude, I think, is the belief that the intellecuals don’t actually know any more than the “common” people. Intellectuals are viewed the same way religious cults are - people who have their own set of beliefs and codes. Even when researchers and academics speak about what they’ve been studying their entire lives, they are often perceived as snobs.
The first part “Popular culture reflects popular values at least as much as it shapes them” seems to imply some feedback, but the second part “I’d see that as a symptom of American anti-intellectualism rather than a cause” seems to imply a one-way causal relationship.
Yep… the old rule: KISS (keep it simple stupid). I understand when people said Kerry didn’t show where he stood … yet in another thread a Bushite said Kerry didn’t explain what he was going to do… :rolleyes: Kerry explained it too much in fact… I wouldn’t go as far as saying “lecturing” like xtisme said… but unfortunately Kerry tried to explain what he was about…
