Your NOT refering to Condi Rice are you???
:eek:
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.
Damn straight. She only has these qualifications:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Charles Bowsher, David Walker, Pat Brown
-
An ability to understand and innovate ideas
-
An desire to understand and innovate ideas
-
extra-credit for using 1 & 2 for the public good
A non sequitur if ever there was one.
And why would Wellstone even be considered in the first place?
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.
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).
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! 
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.
Paul Tsongas was an intellectual.
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.”
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.
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?
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.