# What ever happened to intellectuals in American politics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 20, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219 "2003-06-20T17:53:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hilltopper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@hilltopper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hilltopper)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/21 "2003-06-20T19:39:38Z")
> [@](#): > > I’d consider the following to be at least fairly high on the intelleI’d consider the following to be at least fairly high on the intellectual list: > > Nixon > Clinton (hey if a Rhodes scholar doesn’t qualify, who does?) > Moynihan > Rice > (Army and Gingrich) > Bradley > : Your NOT refering to Condi Rice are you??? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/22 "2003-06-20T19:56:41Z")
I thought this thread was going to be about PUBLIC intellectuals: like the sort of people many European countries hold in esteem. It’s quite odd, but we’ve generally lacked such people in the last century or so: no big thinkers thinking big thoughts that the general populace is actively interested in and debates. This could be, I guess, because we are so diverse: there are just so many issues that no one becomes a big name. But still, political yakking seems to dominate public debate in this country to a greater extent than in other countries. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/23 "2003-06-20T20:02:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hilltopper \* > \*\*Your NOT refering to Condi Rice are you??? > :eek: \*\* Damn straight. She only has these [qualifications](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html): > [@](#): > > She earned her bachelor’s degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master’s from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995 and the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003. > > As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors – the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching. > > At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador’s Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/24 "2003-06-20T20:07:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hilltopper \* > \*\*Your NOT refering to Condi Rice are you??? > :eek: \*\* What’s so shocking? She’s got a PhD, was provost at Stanford, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, written several academic articles and books, been a faculty member at Stanford since 1981, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of International Studies, and a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control among many other academic and intellectual distinctions. ---
**Author:** ![hilltopper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@hilltopper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hilltopper)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/25 "2003-06-20T20:16:07Z")
I personally know people that have been in meetings with Condi Rice and seen her in action. She is not an impressive person. She apparently does give the impression of grasping complex concepts or articulating points well. I guess “impressive” resumes with loads of honorary degrees and co-authored books is not the criteria we have been struggling to find to define an “intellectual ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/26 "2003-06-20T20:22:45Z")
> [@](#): > > _asked of me by **John Mace** :_ > > Why do you find it amusing other than that you disagree with his politics? My disagreement with his politics has nothing to do with it. I’ve just never personally seen evidence of a high wattage in the man’s speaking or writing. But seriously, if we’re talking about intellectuals in politics, I’m assuming we mean those who formulate, contribute to or otherwise have an appreciable impact on the intellectual basis for a political philosophy or movement. Having a PhD, while qualifying one as a “political academic” is insufficient, IMHO. Creating or influencing a political ideology, I think, would qualify one for the label “political intellectual”. Dick Armey, while a prominent acolyte, does not seem to me to be an architect of present neocon “thinking”. He is, however, one of the major (if not the primary) political gunmen for the neoconservative movement. He is an implementer, rather than a formulator. Mr. Armey operates where the political rubber meets the proverbial road. Others appear to be steering. I don’t mean to be insulting here, by the way; there are scads of things for which I can honestly direct scorn at this man, but he has been a very effective party leader. Intellectual, however… Gingrich, I would say, is far more influential in terms of ideological framework. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/27 "2003-06-20T20:24:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hilltopper \* > \*\*I personally know people that have been in meetings with Condi Rice and seen her in action. She is not an impressive person. She apparently does give the impression of grasping complex concepts or articulating points well. > > I guess “impressive” resumes with loads of honorary degrees and co-authored books is not the criteria we have been struggling to find to define an “intellectual \*\* Well, I guess that does it. Who could argue with quality second-hand info like that? Out she goes!:rolleyes: Seriously, though, why don’t you offer a definition and throw out some poeple who fit it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/28 "2003-06-20T20:27:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Armey also taught at the college level. If having a PhD in economics and teaching it in college doesn’t make one an intellectual, what more would one need? > > BTW John Ashcroft taught in law school and co-authored two legal textbooks. Is Ashcroft an intellectual? :eek: \*\* Any credits toward intellectualism are subject to offsets for political bombthrowing and grandstanding. And before you ask, yes, in my book, Paul Wellstone was not an intellectual, either. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/29 "2003-06-20T20:34:53Z")
To me, an intellectual is one who is passionate about ideas and knowledge. Clinton, while a lawyer and Rhodes scholar, didn’t strike me as one who obsessed over ideas the way a Gingrich would. As an intellectual myself, and as much as I dislike his politics, if I had to choose between a private dinner and chat with Clinton or Gingrich, I’d choose Newt. I think that his intellectualism actually hampered his political aspirations, as he would often state the position he believed in, rather than couching it in more politically acceptable terms. In academia, you call a spade a spade. Even if he was wrong a lot (most?) of the time, I admire him for telling it as he saw it (even if he couldnt live up to it at times.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/30 "2003-06-20T20:36:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > Dick Armey, while a prominent acolyte, does not seem to me to be an architect of present neocon “thinking”. He is, however, one of the major (if not the primary) political gunmen for the neoconservative movement. He is an implementer, rather than a formulator. Mr. Armey operates where the political rubber meets the proverbial road. Others appear to be steering. > > I don’t mean to be insulting here, by the way; there are scads of things for which I can honestly direct scorn at this man, but he has been a very effective party leader. Intellectual, however… Gingrich, I would say, is far more influential in terms of ideological framework. OK, this is something we can debate. I agree that “academic” and “intellectual” are not synonymous, but I think it’s a good place to start. If we’re talking “towering intellectuals”, that’s a didfferent story. I’d be hard pressed to name anyone in the modern era. As for leadership, Armey was one of the key GOP members who orchestrated the GOP takeover of House in the mid 90s, after which he bacame House Majority Leader. I don’t see how that makes him more of a follower than a leader. Anyway, I would certainly agree that Gingrich is more of an Intelectual, although I’m uncertain if that’s what you are saying in your last paragraph-- it’s unclear what refers to Armey and what refers to Gingrich. ---
**Author:** ![hilltopper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@hilltopper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hilltopper)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/31 "2003-06-20T20:42:32Z")
Charles Bowsher, David Walker, Pat Brown 1. An ability to understand and innovate ideas 2. An desire to understand and innovate ideas 3. extra-credit for using 1 & 2 for the public good ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/32 "2003-06-20T20:46:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ravenman \* > Any credits toward intellectualism are subject to offsets for political bombthrowing and grandstanding. A non sequitur if ever there was one. And why would Wellstone even be considered in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/33 "2003-06-20T20:48:41Z")
> [@](#): > > As for leadership, Armey was one of the key GOP members who orchestrated the GOP takeover of House in the mid 90s, after which he bacame House Majority Leader. I don’t see how that makes him more of a follower than a leader. Intellectualism is hardly a requirement for effective leadership. Calling Armey an “implementer rather than a formulator” merely deals with his particular contribution to the movement he represents. One can be (and I think it would be hard to argue that Armey is _not_) a strong leader in terms of strengthening a political theory, while being a limited theoreticist. > [@](#): > > – it’s unclear what refers to Armey and what refers to Gingrich. Only that last sentence refers to Newt Gingrich. Newt, I think, could be considered one of the midwives of the 90’s resurgence of neoconservatism. Arguably, he is as much formulator as implementer, which would seem to put him in that amorphous category we’re trying to nail down. I agree with **Ravenman** about Wellstone, and with **Ludovic** about Clinton. Neither man seems to fit as an intellectual (although, as pointed out, Clinton was a Rhodes scholar). ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/34 "2003-06-20T20:54:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Your NOT refering to Condi Rice are you??? Three question marks? You’re in that much disbelief? OK. I don’t agree with her politics and I think people try too hard when it comes to praising your abilities, but Rice fits all the descriptions of an intelluctual. She certaintly makes Baby Bush look like a thumb-sucking idiot. And she talks SO well! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/35 "2003-06-20T20:56:47Z")
Although I threw Clinton’s name out there, I’d tend to agree, Xen, that he doesn’t qualify. Especially if we look at a “love of knowledge for its own sake”. I see Clinton as a power monger who used knowledge and learning as a stepping stone to gain that power. Too much of a pargmatist to be an intellectual. He seemed more interested in what would get him elected than in what was actually “right”. Nixon fell under that sway as well, but he certainly was “learned” if not a true intellectual. ---
**Author:** ![hilltopper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@hilltopper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hilltopper)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/36 "2003-06-20T20:57:59Z")
Paul Tsongas was an intellectual. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/37 "2003-06-20T21:02:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dal\_timgar \* > \*\*Television and our version of democracy makes them unacceptable. I saw a man on the street interview where a man said that Al Gore sounded like he was talking down to people. \*\* He was. Prince Albert’s arrogance was blatantly visible throughout his campaign. Had he a more unassuming presentation, he’d have done far better. But he came across as “I know better than you do, you smelly ordinary Americans.” ---
**Author:** ![Lear\_s\_fool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@Lear\_s\_fool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lear_s_fool)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/38 "2003-06-21T01:45:42Z")
I think a slightly better question is why do lawyers and businessmen dominate American politics and December before you start squawking about Newt’s PHD being in History I know but the fact is he’s a pretty rarer exception. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/39 "2003-06-21T02:40:20Z")
Lear: It’s probably because it’s a rare intellectual indeed who can actually translate his or her intellectual ideas into a practical plan of action. Businessmen tend to be action and results oriented. As for lawyers, well they kind of have a leg up on the rest of us when it comes to the law, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![cynicismkills](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@cynicismkills](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cynicismkills)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219/40 "2003-06-21T02:54:58Z")
I find it interesting that BrainGlutton hasn’t graced us with another post… When you define ‘intellectual’ as he did it can broadly fit any of the many well-qualified, but definitely not well-meaning, individuals mentioned in this thread. However, if one reads what Jefferson’s pursuits of knowledge actually fostered in him in re: his ideas about government, morals, etc., you can hardly apply the same ‘term’ to Newt Gingrich. His passionate pursuit of knowledge was limited to self-serving ideas only. Additionally, as more than one poster has commented, the American public admires physical strength or beauty more than intellectual prowess, and this is encouraged, so … you reap what you sow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-ever-happened-to-intellectuals-in-american-politics/183219.md?page=3)