Because the law and the economy should be guided by people who understand law and economics?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a lawyer or businessman. It’s a field of study, like anything else and it attracts all kinds.
A politician who champions the cause of reducing the size and scope of government is self-serving? I don’t think so. One certainly could make that argument about an intellectual lefty, such as HRC, but Newt? Nope.
This is the same Newt Gingrich who was railing for more and more government cutbacks in the 1990s while his home district of Cobb County was receiving $4 billion dollars a year in federal funds, right? Making Cobb County the third-largest suburban recipient of government moolah – losing only to Arlington, VA (the Pentagon) and Broward County, FL (Cape Canaveral) – yes? The same Newt Gingrich who brings in $17,000/year for the Coast Guard, even though Cobb County is land-locked?
Yeah, Newt’s one self-serving bastich all right; about what I’d expect from someone who served divorce papers to his wife while she was recovering from cancer surgery. At least Michael Moore was able to make a comedy segment out of Cobb County’s excesses, so we all could get a laugh or three.
I should clarify: Of course players in the highest levels of politics have college educations and often graduate-level educations (usually in law or business). We expect that, and we should expect it. It’s not enough to make one an intellectual. When I started this thread about “intellectuals” in politics, I was thinking more along the lines of personal tastes and interests. Clinton might have been a Rhodes scholar, but that doesn’t make him an intellectual. If he were an intellectual, we might expect him, now that he has some free time, to start writing some books – not personal memoirs, but books about history or political theory or some related subject. I do not expect he ever will. He is just not interested in the intellectual aspects of politics in that way. Same with Hilary. As for GWB, if he even READS books it would surprise me.
And no, Armey and Gingrich are not intellectuals even if they wrote some books; special pleading about their agendas in Congress doesn’t count. (By the way, I recently saw Gingrich’s name, as co-author, on the cover of an alternate-history novel about the South winning the Civil War. It might or might not be a good book, but I don’t even like to think about the implications of Gingrich’s interest in the project.)
Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt wrote books worth reading BEFORE they ever became president. Now I don’t mean to make that part of the definition – “an intellectual is someone who writes books worth reading” – because many intellectuals write nothing. But if you do, it’s a pretty good indication.
I really wish we had Michael Lind for president! Now there’s a public intellectual for you! He’s a senior fellow of the New America Foundation (www.newamerica.net), which has been described as “the Silicon Valley’s think-tank” in Washington. You can check out his published articles on the website. He’s also the author of The Next American Nation, Up From Conservatism, Hamilton’s Republic, and (with Ted Halstead) The Radical Center. He also wrote a couple of non-political books – Powertown, which is a novel about life in Washington, D.C., at several different levels of society; and The Alamo, which is a book-length epic poem about the Battle of the Alamo. (Lind is a Texan, you shouldn’t hold that against him.) A well-rounded man of letters and a fine political intellect. But it’s hard to imagine any circumstances that would lead to him, or anyone like him, running for public office in America today. Why? What has changed between Wilson and TR’s time and today? THAT’s what I’m submitting for discussion.
While Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt were fine and intelligent men I don’t really think either one is by necessity any more of a true “intellectual” based on their books or deeds while in office, than several of the others cited (including Gingrich).
Life is very complex and faster paced today vs 50, 100, 200 or 300 years ago. I think you have your question backwards to some degree. Deep philosphical thinkers with elaborate intellectual constructs are not afforded the same degree of respect as they were in the past partially because there are lots more educated and trained people extant capable (and eagerly) pointing out problems and errors in those models and taking them apart as fast as the proponents can assemble them. Being an effective modern “intellectual” is a lot tougher today than in years past.
Historical “intellectuals” as you posit them IMO really cannot exist in the new age. The new world is smarter, tougher and less forgiving than it’s ever been. “Deep thinkers” are not afforded the same degree of latitude and respect as they had in years past and there are several practical reasons for this.
Posturing aside, educated and powerful people aren’t dumber or less well informed than they used to be. The number of well educated people at the highest levels of public life is higher than it’s ever been. Overall levels of information and awareness have increased by orders of magnitude. For anyone to pontificate with certitude about philosophical, historical or moral issues in the new millennium is more difficult than it was in the past. Beyond this the historical performance and administrative competence of “intellectuals” in crafting public policy is mixed to say the least.
Paul Wellstone had a Ph.D. and taught at Carleton College in Minnesota from 1969 to 1990 – a longer career in academia than either Gingrich or Armey.
But I stand by my earlier point that fierce partisanship is generally incompatible with intellectualism. I do not see how one can contemporize free inquiry into truth and reason with angling for electoral gain.
I’m not so sure that having a PhD. makes one an “intellectual.” To me, “intellectual” means having a wide range of interests, a mind that can grasp nuances, and the ability to incorporate ideas about those wide ranging interests into a rational, coherent viewpoint.
Jefferson certainly did it, Moynihan did it. To often today, politicians are “one trick ponies,” and become focused on a single issue or idea. They don’t the breadth of knowledge (or interest) to be true intellectuals.
Don’t confuse their public and private personas. There are several politicians with intellectual interest in areas outside of what they focus on, but the publicly focus on narrow issues because those are the issues their constituents want them to focus on.
Gingrich and Forstchen also previously wrote an alternate history book about WWII. I don’t think it means anything other than that Gingrich is interested in US military history, and that Gettysburg is a popular topic to write “what if” histories about.
Winston Churchill also wrote an alternate history story about the South winning the Civil War. What are the implications of Churchill’s interest in the project?
astro has made some very solid points – another element in this: the high degree of specialization and compartmentalization in most academic/professional pursuits in modern times, as one of the factors that gives modern intellectuals “less latitude”. You’re likelier to be called out for speaking “outside your area of expertise” even by fellow “intellectuals”. Even in the academic community, you are expected to have a specific public “gig” that is what you’re recognized as being good at, and your other pursuits, however broad, don’t really count.
This in effect plays into the lawyers/businessmen dominating politics as the JD/MBA is perceived as more of a “generalist” education; and being successful at their trade does involve everyday use of skills useful in politics, such as thinking quickly on their feet, looking up sources on issues they knew nothing about until this morning, negotiation/transaction, offering win-win scenarios, massaging the facts, knowing when to settle for a good-enough deal, keeping a straight face under pressure, knowing when to move in for the kill, etc.
However…
Technically true, but this does not prevent the likes of Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, etc. tormenting us. Which may be another factor: Real intellectuals DO find it difficult to pontificate with certitude, AND in the eyes of the voting public, that translates into “heh, he can’t even convince himself”.
I think you find the intellectuals in today’s Washington behind the scenes. Think of the entourage and support structure today’s politicians have. You have staffers, researchers, aides, the GAO, the IG, Rand, Booze Allen Hill….human and technical resources beyond belief. The frames had each other…that’s it.
You don’t need to be an intellectual as a politician today. You can surround yourself with them and as long as you are at least smart enough to sift through it all, you can very effective.
The reality is several key power brokers in Washington are congressional staffers. While politicians come and go staffers have lifetimes on the Hill. They are the ones who shape much public policy. They do the research, innovate, study, write Bills. And the politicians know what the staffers tell them and say what they tell them to say.
Behind the scenes there are intellectuals. So if you are saying there are no intellectuals in politics, you are wrong. There are simply very few intellectuals who are politicians. Being a politician today and being an intellectual are not really very compatible. You have to bother yourself with fundraising, committee meetings, hearings, etc…it doesn’t leave much time for deep thought.
Posted by Captain Amazing:
Well, I don’t know where Churchill’s sympathies lay, but I do know his mother was a Virginian . . . and he might have picked up some of her point of view.
Digression: Princess Diana was Churchill’s granddaughter. When her son Prince William comes to the throne, he will be the first British monarch in history with American ancestors!
Newt has written a number of books, including at least one novel, and a number of books of ‘ideas’, such as ‘Window of Opportunity’ in which he argued for a new, robust space program and opportunity enhancement through computers.
Face it - the guy’s an intellectual. It was his undoing. He was fond of ideas, and ran off at the mouth with them. That goes over well at cocktail parties, but not in front of the national press.
And of COURSE Condi Rice is an intellectual. If she doesn’t qualify, no one does. Not only has she spent her life in academia, she’s also been on a number of think tanks, worked policy in government since the Reagan administration, and she’s a concert-level pianist. She’s got egghead written all over her.
And someone else made this point, but the current driving force in Republican politics is neoconservatism, and it is an intellectual movement, chock full of guys swimming in sheepskins, who have spent their entire lives doing little else other than talking about ideas. You may not like their politics, but there you go - an entire enclave of intellectuals, hanging out in the corridors of power in the United States.
Which brings us round full-circle… if you define ‘intellectual’ as someone who seeks ideas for novel purposes (i.e. which only serve to support their own self-interest), then of course Condi and Newtie count.
If you only count those who broaden their scope of knowledge to include the moral and ethical ideals which serve the entire human race (such as Jefferson clearly did), those people named above fall pitifully short.
Posted by cynicismkills:
I think I get what you’re trying to say . . . but why do you equate “novel purposes” with “self-interest”? There is absolutely nothing novel about self-interest.
By ‘novel’ in this usage I mean ‘new’ or ‘strange’… as in… Jefferson would find it strange indeed that people who consider themselves to be “Americans” are now working towards removing the civil liberties that he and his co-horts worked so hard to secure for us…
I see. So let’s see if I’ve got this straight - you can’t be an intellectual unless you ‘consider ethical ideals which serve the entire human race’. And Newt and Condi don’t do that, because their ideals are not ethical.
Therefore, it is impossible for Republicans or conservatives to be intellectuals, since they are unethical.
Is that about it?
Your sarcasm is neither warranted nor productive for this debate.
They don’t consider knowledge which contradicts their self-serving goals based on empirical evidence. It is not impossible for Republicans to be intellectuals. It is only obvious that those two in particular are not good examples of such if one compares them to the type of ‘intellectualism’ exemplified by Jefferson.
Okay, so what is your evidence that Condi Rice does not consider the ethical ideals which serve the human race? Do you have an example?
I agree with Sam that you are saying one cannot be a conservative and an intellectual at the same time. But since you claim you are not saying that, why don’t you give us a few examples of conservative intellectuals?