Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times op-ed celebrates Barack Obama’s election for a very different reason then his race or policies.
Barack Obama’s election is a milestone in more than his pigmentation. The second most remarkable thing about his election is that American voters have just picked a president who is an open, out-of-the-closet, practicing intellectual.
What are you suggesting, Nick, that Sarah Palin wasn’t smart? Sorry. I couldn’t resist.
Maybe, just maybe, the result will be a step away from the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life. Smart and educated leadership is no panacea, but we’ve seen recently that the converse — a White House that scorns expertise and shrugs at nuance — doesn’t get very far either.
Kristof goes on to argue that intellectualism has not proven to always be the cure for society’s (both this and others, going back as far as Nero and Rome) ills. But lack of intellectualism, which has been touted ad naseum as the alternative, has proven to be even more of a failure. Anti-intellectualism has an appeal to many Americans, since it elevates their thoughts and opinions on a subject to a status of worthiness that they would otherwise never enjoy. “Common sense” has become a mantra for those who don’t want to pull a muscle by thinking too hard.
What has this done for us in producing our upcoming decisionmakers?
We can’t solve our educational challenges when, according to polls, Americans are approximately as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution, and when one-fifth of Americans believe that the sun orbits the Earth.
Almost half of young Americans said in a 2006 poll that it was not necessary to know the locations of countries where important news was made. That must be a relief to Sarah Palin, who, according to Fox News, didn’t realize that Africa was a continent rather than a country.
I personally don’t believe that Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent. There’s no reason to exaggerate. Things were plenty bad without this allegation.
But it’s not entirely clear that America’s election of an out-of-the-closet intellectual was intentional.
Granted, Mr. Obama may have been protected from accusations of excessive intelligence by his race. That distracted everyone, and as a black man he didn’t fit the stereotype of a pointy-head ivory tower elitist. But it may also be that President Bush has discredited superficiality.
Whether superficiality has been recognized, no less discredited, is a separate issue. While an overwhelming number of Americans believe that the Bush administration was a massive failure, I doubt that many spend a lot of time pondering the question of how so many patriotic Americans could make such horrible policy choices. I’m fairly confident that most Americans who voted for Bush in 2004 aren’t wondering how they could have missed the obvious signs of superficiality back then.
Kristof”s discussion neglects the fact that intellectuals are not a monolithic block, all in agreement about how to solve problems. Indeed, varying factions within the intellectual community harbor fundamental disagreements with each other, causing them to call each other by such harsh names as “Keynesians” and “Supply Siders.” Ouch. There is still plenty of room for disagreement and debate, even if it involves words that most of us would never use at a cocktail party.
But the idea that ideas are back in fashion is one that I find hugely appealing. And for those who haven’t had much reason to flex their intellectual muscle over the past 8 (26?, 50?) years, please consider some light weight training first. The last thing we need now is a nation in spasm. We already have enough pain.
Aside: The New York Times Magazine has a fascinating article about how the Senate failed, over the past 8 years, to fulfill its duty as a counterweight to the forces of superficiality. What is remarkable is how politics and ego remain the primary problems that concern the senators interviewed. The most interesting part of the article is the penultimate paragraph:
For all of the legislature’s complaints about being excluded from the political process during the Bush years, it seems fair to question whether Congress really wants to be a full partner in America’s government. Senators may not like being kept in the dark, but they seem to prefer to leave the big decisions — especially those concerning national security — to the executive. “There’s a psychology of vassalage to the president,” Fein says. “They don’t want to be out there on a limb.”
Whether our next president will seek to continue the unchecked expansion of executive power and secrecy, as this is not a defect of either the right or left, and whether Senators will abide it has yet to be seen. Hopefully, a professor of Constitutional Law will have a deeper appreciation of why the Senate exists and that unfettered executive power may not be a good thing, even in the hands of an intellectual.
On the other hand, the underlying concerns of our senators hardly give a warm and fuzzy feeling, when they happily trade-off the public welfare to play the game of politics.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott, During the election when many were saying, ‘I will vote for Sara Palin because she’s just like me’ I couldn’t help be amazed.
I know I don’t want someone ‘just like me’ in the most powerful positions in the country (and some consider in the world) I want someone who exhibits traits which I do not have, at least not at the levels I have…someone who is unique in ways I am not. And I was not alone in my thinking. Why would I want an ‘average’ questionable intellectual running this country? There is nothing average about the job and the job requires intellect…serious ‘elite’ intellect to grasp those very nuances, piece the jigsaw puzzle together, project consequences of actions taken today upon future generations.
I want someone who is extraordinary. And if that is considered elite then they are using the word properly. Elite is the few…not the many.
It takes an extraordinary person to run this country, a nimble macro-thinking intellectual. Intellectualism by itself is not the cure, either. But intellectualism is a requirement. Ego, calculated sound bites, blatant self-interest, and being labelled ‘average’ shouldn’t be.
The whole “she’s like me” concept befuddled me as well. Do they really (I mean, really) believe that “anybody” could be President? Do they really (I mean, really) believe that it’s all about “common sense” and understanding what matters to the “regular” guy? They may want to believe that to be true, but do they really believe?
I think they want to believe that if someone is ‘like’ them they can relate to their worries and concerns and interests. If they are ‘elite’ they can’t possibly and therefore the government won’t understand and won’t be able to push forth their interests.
The idea is the ‘elite’ serve their own needs. Well, it’s fair to say the ‘average’ serve the elite’s needs, too, as we’ve witnessed these past eight years so that’s not the answer, either.
I agree that they want someone who can relate to them, but I think it goes beyond that to the belief that’s been fostered over the past 8 years that “regular” folk have more common sense then egghead elitist intellectuals. Of course, that doesn’t explain conservative intellectuals, but no theory is perfect.
There are two elites. The wealthy elite and the intellectual elite. I think people fear the wealthy elite to be entirely self-serving, but the intellectual elite to be out of touch with reality.
But the idea that ideas are back in fashion is one that I find hugely appealing. And for those who haven’t had much reason to flex their intellectual muscle over the past 8 (26?, 50?) years…
We’ve elected lots of smart presidents recently. Clinton, Bush, Sr., Carter, Nixon
Smart and intellectual are not the same. One might well argue that the last true intellectual to run for President was Adlai Stevenson. He didn’t fare well. Someone described Nixon as a self-loathing intellectual. They were at least half right. And Clinton was assuredly very smart, his Bubba act notwithstanding, but I doubt anyone would call him intellectual.
It occurs to me that when an individual is looking for legal representation, he would be best served by hiring an attorney who has been educated at one of the top ranked law schools and who then has been employed by one of the leading law firms. I believe the term for those firms is “biglaw”. If possible, an attorney who is a professor of law would seem to be a good choice for legal counsel. Then again, there are those who argue that a person is best served by an attorney who is from the trenches and that the hiring of an elite or intellectual lawyer is not a good decision as they are unable to provide the best possible representation. I wonder which is the better choice in attorneys and in elected officials?
So many assumptions with so little connection. Do you wonder whether someone from an elite college would do the best job collecting your refuse and dumping it into a truck? Do you wonder whether the same skillset and mindset would be necessary for the dog catcher as the President? On the whole, we would be better off as a society if everyone possessed intellectual curiosity and concern, from garbageman to dog catcher to President. It may not have anything to do with their job performance, but it would make them better people and ultimately produce a better society than if everyone was a blithering idiot. Are you still wondering?
In America, “anyone” can be President. That doesn’t mean that “anyone” should be President.
Most regular people just want a President that cares about them and their problems.
That also goes for all elected representatives.
The problem is multi-faceted when it comes to the reality of running a country in a complex world where there are rarely any simple answers to any of the big questions. Making decision A will almost always affect decisions B, C and so forth, along with other aspects of the country’s workings and relationships with the world.
In my opinion, I think a lot of people see what I see: Politicians acting in their own self interest above the interest of the people they represent. Politicians who slavishly follow the dogma of their party, independent of the effect it will have on their constituents.
But as far as elections go, it is like so many things: The average person tends to beleive what they are told by the press and by the politicians themselves. Neither of which have proven to be very reliable.
Of course, people believe all kinds of wierd things, but any time something is put into print or broadcast on a national news station, it lends authority to it, whether it has any basis in fact or not. And few people go to the trouble to investigate on their own whether or not any of it is true or even makes sense.
Obama appealed to so many people because he really seems to care about them. Do you really think that he got voted in because the majority of the voting public see him as a macro-intellectual when most of them probably can’t define that term?
Of course he wasn’t elected because the public saw him as a macro-intellectual, but they also didn’t hear him lay claim to being Joe Six-Pack. He wasn’t packaged as the “regular Barack,” just like you and me, but was known to be the editor of HLS, a law school professor and, generically, a brilliant man. I think this is a step forward.
I agree.
And, in at least some cases, they’re right.
There have been cases of very, very intelligent, intellectual people generating kinds of trouble that wouldn’t have occurred to the less gifted. “McNamara’s Morons” springs to mind — it took a genius to come with that idea, among other bad ones.
I’m kind of hoping we’ll be spared similar ideas over the next four years.
In at least some cases, everybody’s right. The “clock that’s stopped” theory. I agree with you about being spared similar ideas over the next four years. So do a majority of American voters. Ain’t life grand?