Its even more ridiculous that several posters can’t realize they are doing this even when called on it and when their own posts literally betray that position.
Jefferson was indeed an intellectual, but the qualities that are being attributed to him in this debate are those of a political philosopher, like the fellow he borrowed heavily from, John Locke - folk that write treatises on what man is and how he should be governed and those kind of high-falutin’ ideas.
So I’d refine the OP a bit - whatever happened to political philosophers in American politics? But that’s like asking after the fate of lobsters in a boiling pot. They died off, pretty much. We’re still using much of the same ideas for governing as were present in the Constitution and British law at the same time. Refinements for oppressed minorities since, of course, and a little sidetrack called the Civil War, but not much has changed concept-wise.
The agrument between an ‘isolationist’ and a ‘interventionist’ foreign policy, for example, is wayyyyyy older than Jefferson.
Y’know, the people saying that there are no intellectuals or political philosophers left in American politics might just be betraying the lack of philosophy or intellectual arguments on THEIR side of the fence. Because speaking as a conservative/libertarian, I can tell you that our side is awash in philosophers and intellectuals.
Posted by Sam Stone:
[QUOTE]
Y’know, the people saying that there are no intellectuals or political philosophers left in American politics might just be betraying the lack of philosophy or intellectual arguments on THEIR side of the fence. Because speaking as a conservative/libertarian, I can tell you that our side is awash in philosophers and intellectuals.**
Maybe so, Sam, but for some reason that has never been clear to me, leftist thinkers seem to have some kind of copyright on the word “intellectual” – a copyright which right-wingers generally respect, to the point of turning the word into an insult and never applying it to themselves.
Paul Johnson, for instance, wrote a book called Intellectuals (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), which is essentially a collection of nasty details about the personal lives of intellectuals who might be identified as left-wing (Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Bertrand Russell, Hemingway, Bertolt Brecht, Jean-Paul Sartre) or proto-left-wing (Rousseau, Percy Bysshe Shelley). (The book contains no attempt to evaluate or criticize the contents of the thought or the art of any of these figures; it’s all personal gossip.) Johnson’s thesis is that ever since the 18th century, and the decline of belief in traditional Christianity among the most educated classes, intellectuals have been the “secular priesthood” of Western Civilization, purporting to have revealed truth and show us the way to the future; but when you look closely at them, they are all moral hypocrites who mistreat their nearest and dearest while proclaiming high and noble principles.
Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t. But for some reason, his book completely ignores conservative or right-wing intellectuals – there is no mention of Burke, Carlyle, Nietzche, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, or Ayn Rand. And I know very well that Nietzche and Rand, and probably Lewis, would have fit in perfectly with Johnson’s theory that all “intellectuals” are dysfunctional, abusive, neurotic bastards. A most curious omission. Moreover, Johnson also ignores intellectuals whose thought rarely or never touched on politics – e.g., scientists. Johnson implicitly (never explicitly) defines an “intellectual” as a left-wing political thinker and/or a literary figure with pronounced leftist sympathies; but he gives no reason for so restricting the definition.
Meh, in the olden days all politicans were once lawyers or religous theolgists (sp?) with a profuse amount of education, and on top of that they were all, to some degree, new thinkers with great ideas…but now, even in well to do families, education takes a serious back seat.
I recommend reading “The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It”
interesting read.
Also, where do you get that Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual? I am not saying that he never was, but I have never heard anything about the man that would make me believe that he was an intellectual.
You claim that I misread or “haven’t chosen to think about what it acutally means”.
All I’ve done here is attempt to adhere to the principles set forth in the DoA, BoR, etc… you try to label that as ‘my worldview’. It’s sad really, because your very use of the term ‘worldview’ is where you are showing your determination to stage this as a partisan battle.
I suppose I opened myself up to that by responding to the bait when someone posited that Newt and Condi are examples of intellectuals in politics.
Sorry, wrong again. Hint: “Contract With America”
It’s late and I don’t have the energy now… but just think on that and then get back to me on the successes of that little feather in Newt’s cap.
Again someone uses the term ‘worldview’ and shows their true colors. Thank you.
You can post definitions to your heart’s content. It won’t change the fact that in this country, regardless of one’s affiliation with whatever party or special interest, that if one is a true intellectual wrt politics, that simple observation of the principles this country was founded on will lead those same diverse groups to the same conclusions.
Our country was not always this divisive, you know. Remember, “United We Stand”? It seems those bent on dividing the electorate have been largely successful, though, and it’s worth lamenting the death of bipartisanship.
No, I’m not getting ‘hung up’ on the OP’s reference to Jefferson. I’m simply pointing out that if we’re going to discuss intellectualism in the context of politics, then you cannot in any way disregard the principles this country was founded on. We can throw Locke in, or Adams, or any other of the many intellectuals who risked their lives to leave us what we’ve done so little to maintain. Here you also attempt to characterize my statements here as being only according to ‘my scale’… why??? Can we not all agree that the founding fathers were the models for political intellectualism? (!) Or maybe I’m misled and the OP really meant to discuss intellecutals in politics all over the world.
Certainly… as all intellectuals are human (at least so far… a few more years’ worth of progress on the technology of melding man and machine and… well… you never know) 
Seriously, though… if someone is to be considered an intellectual (and let us leave out those failings which are rooted in the self - i.e. cheating on wives and so forth), if we focus on failures in public policy (again, I feel I have to remind everyone, we’re talking about intellectuals wrt politics), then it would stand to reason that such a person would, being an intellectual and dedicated to reason, recognize those failures and change their stand on such policies accordingly.
Did you read my first post on this thread? If you had, you would see that I named 3 liberals and 2 conservatives as candidates for “intellectual”. How is this a partisan battle? You may disagree with my definition of intellectual, but calling my position here “partisan” is simply false. And I’ll submit my first post as clear evidence for that assertion.
OK. I’ll take you at your word here and assume that I was not clear in how I used the term “nobel goals” in relation to nightmare scenarios. Let me give you an example. It is very common for people to say that Communism is a a system with “noble goals”, but has not been implemented properly. I see Communism’s “noble goals” as a nightmare scenario. It failed not because it was implemented incorrectly, but because it is a tragically flawed system based on a flawed understanding of human nature. But I will still acknowledge that there are intellectual communists out there. While some communists are truly evil, others are truely misguided.
You’re new to this board, so you probably have not seen the many posts I’ve made in other threads praising the DoI (not DoA) and the Constitution. I think both should be at the top of any list of the greatest documents mankind has ever created. Take that into account before you chastise someone here. Consider that you are jumping into the middle of protracted debate, and that you only have very limmited info on what the posters here believe and support. Challenge someone statements, but don’t put words in their mouthes.
I hope we can have some active and fruitful debates in the future. Feel free to rip apart any of my statments and challenge any of my assertions. I have no problems with that. But take the time to read the posts and ask questions first.
**
“THE models for”? Hasn’t been delved into very deeply in this particular thread, really – BUT, I’d be wary as hell of a blanket statement. Some of them would be likely to fall into the ranks of well educated, morally courageous, politicians and leaders, but the Big Thinkers would stand apart. However many individuals or groups thereof among them would be, rather, “AN example of”.
**
If they indeed recognize the failure as failure. An intellectual may be wrong in his/her reasoned evaluation of the results, based on faulty information about the effects in the field. Or reason him/herself into the conviction that there will be some teething problems with the policy that further reasonable adjustments should correct. Oh heck, he may have already reached what he/she is convinced was a thoroughly-reasoned-out conclusion of what IS right and good, and that it would be contrary to reason to change just because the policy is causing great collateral damage. (Defective info + reason = defective conclusions; GIGO) In any case, rightness and wrongness of the policies implemented is NOT what makes or breaks an “intellectual”, IMO. The clarity of thought to correct conclusions and implement the necessary actions to set things straight makes him/her a GREAT intellectual, rather.
Huh? Doesn’t the name Robert E. Lee ring a bell? How about the McCarthy hearings? The Vietnam era? The decision of whether or not to enter the League of Nations? Have you seen Gangs of New York (Overplayed to be sure, but the divisiveness was very real). The country has always been divisive. Leftists and rightists, moderates and extremists have always been at each other’s throat. What has saved this country has not been the lack of divisiveness, but the checks put on that divisiveness by the constitution and its enforcement by legal and military means.
Your own worldview is trumping actual experience here, cynicism.
And as far as
I see where you’re going with this, but I think it’s a bit narrow. By including the disclaimer of practical application vs. pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, you take several names off the intellectual list.
Names such as Feynman, Oppenheimer, Einstein, and Turing (widely considered to be the “father of the computer”), right off the top of my head. Feynman went so far as to switch his major from mathematics to physics, because it wasn’t “practical enough.” He was interested in the theory, to be sure, but only as far as that theory applied to practical problems.
Also, those men would be disqualified from the list by being “one trick ponies.” It’s not like there was much else other than mathematics in their lives (Yes, I know that Feynman had other interests and hobbies, but by his own admission, they all paled next to math and physics).
The fact is that defining “intellectual” to the mutual satisfaction of all is an impossible task–although I agree that one’s idealogy shouldn’t enter into it.
And for the record, I agree that Newt, Condi, Jefferson, Wellstone, and Clinton were all intellectuals. To this list, I’d also add Henry Kissinger. They’ve all exhibited drives to learn and academic achievement. The fact that they have all made mistakes doesn’t mean they’re not intellectuals. It means they’re not perfect.
To base the label on someone’s resume of academic or political achievement seems a bit unnecessarily limiting to me. It would seem that an intellectual can easily be defined as someone who relies upon reason, logic, or science to support the presentation of a arguement, and who in turn welcomes (indeed relishes) challenges to his/her assertions similarly based in reason, logic, and science. The great intellectuals are versed in a wide variety of topics, and as such are often able to use insights from one area of human knowledge in another, thus leading to major breakthroughs in human knowledge.
Recently (time to don the asbestos) the right seems to have distanced themselves from the concept of intellectualism, to the point where it is used as an insult. This is not to say that the right has no intellectuals, but that it keeps those intellectuals behind the scenes, while those in the front lines express things with “moral clarity”. I have no doubts that Condi is a smart woman, but her presentations to the American public relied more upon emotion rather than rational discourse. The current prime denizen of the White House seems to proudly proclaim that he is the exact opposite of an intellectual (“I’m a gut player” from Woodward’s book, his speech at Yale, etc.). This approach plays great on TV, there’s no arguement. But it does little to promote national discourse on current events. On the other side of the political aisle, I would put Jesse Jackson, Lieberman, Al Sharpton and others.
In contrast, I would argue that Clinton qualifies as an intellectual, as the man could speak with authority about most any topic put before him such was his depth and breadth of knowledge. His approach to policy tended to invite debate, and as such, most everything that he attempted became mired down in endless debate and political compromise. One the right, I would put Newt, Rove, and at times GHWB in this camp.
Hopefully the partisan hacking at this post can be minimalized, as I am making no assertions either way about the actual policies of either side, simply juxtaposing their approaches.
I would assert that the intellectual approach is superior if only because you can clearly perform a “post-mortem” on a policy arrived at in this manner to determine where things went right and where they went wrong. This approach is by its very nature more inclusive of all viewpoints which I believe to be essential in a representative democracy. Things move too quickly in today’s world to have to wait every 2-6 years to make one’s voice heard via the electoral system.
The speed of today’s world also, I would submit, has everything to do with why we do not hear so much from intellectuals in the political sphere. Jefferson has the enviable luxury of debating with other men of leisure who could afford to spend a goodly portion of their time debating and discussing political theory. The voters similarly were all highly educated prosperous landowners who not only had a large stake in everything that the government decided, but also had the spare time to learn and argue about current events.
Today, even our wealthiest citizens tend to work long hard days (OK, or golf long hard courses), and few have the time nor the inclination or capacity to even learn the facts of all the political decisions that assault them each day. Simple answers and “moral clarity” allow a busy mind to at least put to rest one decision facing it. Intellectuals just make things fuzzier and the mind work harder.
I would say that you answered this argument with another in the same post:
Just because Condi appeals to emotion in her speech doesn’t mean she didn’t go over it logically and rationally beforehand. I think that what you describe here isn’t a sign of politicians not being anti-intellectual as it is of politicians recognizing the realities of politics. Be as rational, calm and logical as you want. If the American public doesn’t go your way for whatever reason, you’ve failed as a politico, even if you succeed as an intellectual.
I have no doubt that if we were to debate Condi one on one, she would reveal a logical, intellectual basis behind her decision or defense of a decision. Sadly, in today’s high-speed environment, there isn’t always the room to give it.
No doubt. So I guess the question remains, why should someone of obvious intellectual depth feel the need to “dumb down” their arguements in order to present them to the American people. I can undertand that things such as the State of the Union have to be jingoistic and such, but the current administration appears to not feel the need to provide an arguement for anything that they do. Powell’s speech to the UN was done only grudgingly, and that is the only presentation of their case that I heard. Again, I make no arguement that it is not an effective approach to sell someting to the American people, I just wonder why it must be so, and am ashamed that my country is like this (yes, still “Proud to be an American”, even without the bumper sticker, but ashamed of this particular facet of my nation).
As to the definition of intellectual as ideas for their own sake, devoid of practical significance … well then, by definition such a person would be unattracted to politics, where the point is to make ideas practical. That is a definition that answers its own question of why their would be so few in politics. Interested in wide ranging ideas for their own sake yes, but able to find practical value as well is allowed, if not required. Academic is not required.
Why do politicians go for the simple? Because that is what sells. Discussing the grey ends up seeming wishy-washy or weak. Prolonged explanation doesn’t make the 30 second spot. And the channel would be flipped by most before it was over. Besides, we don’t want our leaders to be the type that thinks they’re smarter than the rest of us, especially when they are. Or at least not to act it. It comes off arrogant. That was Clinton’s forte: he was obviously an intellectual, but he could act and communicate like he was just a good 'ole boy. The man had a thousand faces.
But you can hardly blame the politician for this. These are the political realities of the game. Intellectuals have to face the reality of their environments, too.
I still feel this in an inadequate definition of intellectualism. Physicists and innovators of computers are famous for putting seemingly theoretical, pie-in-the-sky theories into realities that wind up shocking the world (the Manhattan Project springs to mind). Recently, a biographer of the late mathematician Paul Erdos posited that in the age of computers and high-speed information networks, mathematics with no practical application was quickly approaching its end. In other words, all math will soon be put to some practical use, according to him. Yet, Erdos, Oppenheimer, and Einstein were certainly intellectuals.
I would say that this transfers to politics as well. I don’t think there’s a rule, or even a guideline, which states that an intellectual can’t get his or her hands dirty. That’s unfair to the intellectuals busy analyzing politics, economics, and polling statistics. And once in a while, one of those intellectuals realizes that he could do just as good of a job as the guy behind the podium getting all the face time. Who can fault him?
I think the definition of intellectual is pretty complicated. But I also think it can, and often does, reflect practical applications.