What ever happened to intellectuals in American politics?

Great Debates
61

SamStone,

To be honest, one can expect that all politicians will lie or at least distort the truth. However lies to justify pork-barrell spending pale in comparison to lies used to cover up accountability for mistakes or manipulate public opinion into supporting a war.

Firstly, her claim in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that the admin had ‘no idea’ that planes might be used as missiles. One would be hard pressed to come up with any other explanation for this lie than to protect the administration from outrage.

Secondly, her mendaciousness re: evidence used to build up support for the attack on Iraq… I’ll guide you to an exchange between Henry Waxman and Ms. Rice wherein he attempts to get a straight answer from her on the administration’s use of ‘evidence’.
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001382.php

Clearly this woman’s behavior does not reflect the principles of ‘intellectualism’ as shown by Jefferson, and to support that claim I’ll include one of his many quotes on the subject of truth:

“Follow truth as the only safe guide, and… eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another.” --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:234

62

John Mace,

To be honest I have done no serious research of conservative intellectual’s philosophies, but I can say that I do agree with statements from various conservative leaders. I’ve agreed with McCain frequently, William Buckley as well… no subject is black or white. Many liberal leaders I feel are contemptible cash-hungry whores, and are no more deserving of the title of ‘intellectual’ regardless of whatever academic credentials they hold, either.

The defensiveness is really distracting… my only claim is that there is a difference between intellectualism as a pursuit of selected fields of knowledge and intellectualism as a pursuit of an idealistic point of view. Since I feel that in particular Jefferson was one of our finest intellectuals by this definition, I cannot help but to hold others up to his standard. Needless to say most all fall far short.

63

Yet Jefferson owned slaves. It’s quite clear that a major stumbling block for him in this area was own self-serving interest to run Monticello. Why not rule him out as an intellectual, per your criteria.

Also, McCain is a Republican, but not much of a conservative. Buckley, yes.

64

So intellectuals can’t lie?

65

Do you realize that you just said you have to agree with the person’s philosophy in order for them to be an itellectual?

66

Do you not recognize or admit that there are universal, objective truths? That it is not whether I personally agree with them, but whether those truths hold true for humanity in general?

True, Jefferson owned slaves. He lived in a time when that was the ‘mainstream’. Warren Buffet has recently graced us with the ability to discuss the great disparity of wealth in this country as a ‘class war’ without fear of being shouted down by the monied class and their protectors. He also takes advantage of every financial loophole there is. Does this make his arguments re: the Bush tax cut any less valid? No. We cannot expect anyone to be as pure as Jesus Christ. We can, however, expect them to at least work toward noble goals, NOT as I define them, but as they exist in objective reality.

The willingness of today’s ‘philosophers’ in the intellectual class to ignore objective reality and morality in general (a la Leo Strauss) is a frightening evolution in the direction our leadership is taking us. It is not whether I agree with them that matters… I have held up Jefferson as the model here, as the OP did, as he is regarded, as the author of the Declaration of Independence, as one of this nation’s greatest champions of representative democracy and the rights of man. You would be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent spokesman on the founding principles of American self-government.

Today we see the occupants of the highest offices in our land advocating wars against third-world nations. We see them tearing down the principles of self-government (free press, by silencing dissent; civil liberties, by frightening the public; etc.) and you claim that what I advocate here by attempting to frame ‘intellectualism’ as something more than the pursuit of self-serving knowledge as ‘what I agree with’?

I beg to differ… all I’m trying to do is advocate the kinds of principles voiced by (though he is admittedly not as perfect as Jesus Christ) Thomas Jefferson, whom the OP mentioned and whom I hold as a model of intellectual thought wrt politics.

In other words, it is not what I agree with, it is the very principle this country was founded on.

“The essential principles of our Government… form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety.” --1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

We are now following the steps of our leaders away from these principles of government. I find it shocking you attempt to define them as ‘what I agree with’.

67

Jenny Jerome, Winston Churchill’s mother, was born in Brooklyn, and AFAIK, lived there until her parents divorced, then she lived in Paris with her mother.

68

I am not arguing against Jefferson being an intellectual. I believe he was one of a high caliber. I am questioning your logic and consistency when you disallow the title of intellectual from a modern politician for “moral failures” but you do not use the same criteria for Jefferson. Slavery may have been mostly in the mainstream in the South, but not in the North and not in most of Europe. Certainly not in France where Jefferson spent lots of time. And remember, he lived long past the formative years of this nation, dying in 1826. We are also pretty darned cirtain that he enslaved his own children via Sally Hennings, who was herself a slave and the half-sister of his late wife. Please compare that to the failings you’ve listed of modern politicians.

And yes, I do believe there are universal truths. I also believe that reasonable people can disagree with what those truths are and that there are many folks I would consider intellectuals, but with whom I disagree over what those truths are. You are still saying, only slightly differently, that someone must agree with your world view in order to be considered an intellectual. You’re just calling it a “universal truth” or “noble goals”. One man’s “noble goals” can be another man’s “nightmare scenario”.

As for why I said you define intellectuals as those with whom you agree, it’s quite simple-- you said it yourself, twice in the same sentence. I asked you to list a conservative intellectual. You responded with (my bolding):

69

Eugene McCarthy(senator from Minnesota and presidential candidate) was pretty smart, and was constantly quoting great philosophers in his speeches and his interviews.

70

astro:

I can name any number of people who fit the “historical intellectual” label, whether conservative or liberal. Whether they’d be electable is another thing altogether, but I read your post as suggesting that such people are not accorded “latitude and respect” (by who?), which simply isn’t true.

Take a look at Richard Posner, for example, or Cass Sunstein.

71

John Mace,

You’ve pointed out nothing I don’t already know. I’ve already addressed your views, yet you seem to choose to want to review them once again. I don’t see the point. Yes Jefferson had his failings. Seeing as how I’m not psychic and don’t claim to be able to communicate with the dead, all that’s left is for me to judge the man by his ideals, which are numerous.

To compare his failings, on balance with the good he did for society by not only authoring the Declaration of Independence and numerous writings on many many subjects of great import; to the relatively simplistic works by ‘intellectuals’ such as Condoleeza Rice and Newt Gingrich, on balance with their failings wrt public policy… it just staggers the imagination. As another informed poster pointed out, Newt served his … what… second wife?.. with divorce papers as she was in the hospital suffering from cancer – either soon after or soon before advocating for the impeachment of the elected President for his similar failings. Sure it’s not on par with Jefferson’s failings you mention (i.e. enslaving one’s own children), however you assume to know how he treated those children… and you also fail to note the VAST difference in the works of ‘intellect’ and the contributions to our government made by each.

I can only assume that you are just arguing for fun, and not to get to the heart of any real issues.

To claim that someone could rightfully call Jefferson’s ideals wrt our democratic republic ‘another man’s nightmare’ is nothing short of ludicrous. I’d be curious to know what form of government an adherent would have to subscribe to in order to define the rule of self-government as such.

And regarding my agreement with the fundamental ideals this country was founded on… you seem to be determined to characterize them as my ideals only… yet another ludicrous point which you make seemingly in all seriousness.

“What government [a nation] can bear depends not on the state of science, however exalted, in a select band of enlightened men, but on the condition of the general mind.” --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. (*) ME 15:114

And that explains a heck of a lot.

72

Firstly, I never claimed any such thing. You’ve either misread my post or haven’t chosen to think about what it acutally means.

And your politics is showing once again. “Failed public policy” is your opinion, not a fact.

73

A close friend (well, my dad, a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons) attended a dinner with one Mr. James Baker (Secretary of State, Kofi Annan’s personal envoy to the Polisario Front, etc.) in 1998.
Anyway, he came away with the impression that if Baker isn’t an intellectual, he does a fine impersonation of one.

74

I have been thinking about the conservative intellectual.

I have begun to agree that there are FAR fewer conservative intellectuals.

I would offer that there are as many intelligent conservatives, but those of a conservative persuasion are much more likely to develop a practical application to their intellect as opposed to a life of study (that’s why CEO’s vote for Bush and college professors vote for Gore…or Nader…)

But what about Scalia as a conservative intellectual? I am sure he would apply.

75

Watson:

I don’t understand how there can be “FAR fewer” of something and that there are “as many” of that same thing at the same time. You seem to be implying that an intellectual who tries to put his ideas into practice gets kicked out of the “intellectual club”.

76

cynicismkills, aren’t you getting hung up on the OP’s Jefferson example? You seem to be somehow conditioning your definition of “intellectual” to whether someone is or is not Jefferson’s equal; as if the definition of being an intellectual depends on a valorative judgement of the moral (according to your scale) effect of the person’s ideas or policies, rather than on the depth, breadth, rigor or commitment of their pursuit of knowledge. “Intellectual” as an honorific term of exaltation, rather than a descriptor of the activities in which a person engages and the attitude with which he approaches them.

Can a person be an intellectual AND be a lousy manager?

Can a person be an intellectual, with creative, original, well-thought-out ideas for the betterment of mankind, put forward honestly and fairly, AND in a personal level be a lousy bastard?

Can a person be an intellectual, committed to Truth and his Fellow Man, a morally upstanding citizen, with creative, original, well-thought-out ideas for the betterment of mankind, put forward honestly and fairly, AND have those ideas not just fail in implementation, but actually cause arm?

… can an intellectual be wrong? or,

… can an intellectual be evil, or become corrupted? Using your own parameters, let’s say that someone is indeed seeking to undo Jefferson’s work (they’ve been at it for 200+ years, BTW, there’s precious little of it left anyway) . Could not it be an intellectual who would be behind that plot?

77

To align yourself as a conservative, liberal, democrat, or republican precludes intellectualism and puts you in the category of ‘idealogue’, your resume and paper credentials notwithstanding.

78

I think that is part of a workable definition for “intellectual.”

To me, an intellectual is almost a synonym for an “academic.”
Essentially, one who’s overwhelming, primary goal is the pursuit of knowledge: almost to the level of “simply for knowledge’s sake”.

Once you start getting into practical application, you are more of a business man, politician, producer, etc.

You may be a genius. You may be as smart as an intellectual, but you lose that oh so valuable intellectual label.

I guess when I think of an intellectual, I think of the people so smart that they’d prefer the lecture hall, lab, or library to interacting with society.

It’s funny though, through all this debate, there have been many requests for a definition of an intellectual, but few offerings.

It is a tough thing to define. I think this is because many of us are lumping intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals in the same definition. Pseudo-intellectual are the hosers who practice their ten best quips for hours before a party and try to steer the conversation to a point where they can be the next Mrs. Parker.

I have trouble with the whole intellectual or psuedo-intellectual crowd. This is possibly because I am a lowbrow, dumbass who prefers watching basketball to going to a museum. Cursed with an IQ too low to be an intellectual, but too high to be oblivous to my short comings.

Or maybe it is because I read the Whore of Mensa at too early an age and became jaded.

79

Watson:

You are certainly free to define an intellectual that way, and no argument from me if you do. We just disagree. But keep in mind that the OP is putting T Jefferson up as the ideal to measured against. He certainly put his ideas to pratical use.

I’m very leery of intellectuals who don’t put their ideas to practical use. Too much of a tendancy to be divorced from reality. But that’s my opinion, and there is no need for you to agree with it.

80

All that’s going on in this thread is an attempt to re-define ‘intellectual’ so as to exclude those who don’t share your worldview. This is a ridiculous position.

An intellectual is simply someone of high intelligence who places great emphasis on matters of intellect.

Here’s Webster’s definition:

I don’t see anything in there about being good, or bad, or selfish, or conservative, or liberal.