Intellectuals and conservatism
Oh boy, is this post of Ace’s chock-full of things to think about. I have no idea what led me to it at this point (after all, it’s over three years old), but the topic—intellectuals and conservatism—seems even more relevant to me this election year.
And, being an intellectual myself (I always have been, whether on left or right, whether I like to admit it or not), I’ve done a lot of thinking about it.
Conservatism’s underpinnings are both strongly intellectual (Edmund Burke, for example) and profoundly emotional (“live free or die”). Combine the two and you have conservatism.
Modern conservatism had a pretty intellectual spokesperson back when conservatism was thought to be dead in the water: William F. Buckley. His National Review was a forum for ideas, and those ideas took root.
It’s almost funny that Reagan was thought to be a dunce when he actually was a very rare combination—and that combination was responsible for his tremendous success—of being a well-read man of ideas (a fact that only came out after his notebooks were published] and a charismatic popularizer of those ideas. How often are those two things combined? Almost never, and that’s why so far there’s been only one Reagan.
The Founding Fathers were most definitely intellectuals, and by modern standards—not those of their times— conservatives politically, although not in the sense of preserving the colonial status quo. But they were also masters at not sounding too esoteric, at clarity of thought and expression simple enough to allow people to understand their message even if those people were not intellectuals. In that sense perhaps they were also popularizers. And they were most definitely men of action.
Today’s intellectuals (particularly those of the academic variety) are mostly liberals and/or leftists. That’s how it came to pass that I once had dinner with a man who said to me, on learning of my right-leaning politics, “I can’t believe it; you’re so intelligent but yet you’re conservative!” And because he was old enough to remember, I was able to say “Did you ever hear of William Buckley, for example?” He got my point, although he didn’t like my point. He wanted to see Buckley as a complete anomaly, the only intellectual or smart conservative in the world.
But the right is hardly made up solely of intellectuals—or of conservatives, for that matter. There are plenty of other strains on the right, as is being hammered home to us with great force during this particular election cycle. As Ace wrote in that post back in December of 2012:
…ultimately politics is about reaching the common man, and from what I’ve seen, while the common man certainly doesn’t want a dummy in high office, the common man tends to get suspicious of anyone who is too obviously intelligent, or, perhaps, just finds that someone who tribally signifies as Intellectual is not part of his own tribe and ergo does not “share my values.”
I think every political movement needs an intellectual wing. But what I think it needs even more of is a populist wing.
Three and a half years later, mull that one over in the light of the Donald Trump vs. Ted Cruz phenomenon. Back when it was written I would have heartily agreed with it, and to a certain extent I still agree with it—without that popular touch, a candidate will probably lose. But populism is dangerous, too, and there’s something known as an over-correction.
Therein lies the dilemma.
My FIL, who loves to tell people that he has a very high IQ, has become a raging lefty after working in Norway for a few years. I remember that he was ranting on about the evils of GWB and Ronald Reagan one day and my husband (his son) dared to contradict his point of view with my husbands conservative one. My FIL looked at my husband in disbelief and said something to the effect of that he did not think that his own son was stupid but that must be the case.
Interestingly, despite being soooo smart, he does not understand why we don’t visit all that much since then. He is openly hostile to conservatism and will randomly try to draw us into a “discussion” on politics that always turns into an agitating argument with him finally implying that we are simply not smart enough to understand things.
Family….Gotta love em!
This is a topic that has always fascinated me. It used to be said that conservatives think and liberals feel. But there’s also a narrative that liberals are smarter than conservatives. The two themes have conflicted.
In recent years, the new theme has been that liberals rely on facts and conservatives on emotion. This theme usually depicts the Republicans as two groups, the simple rural socons and the elite moneyed who manipulate them.
Religion is tied into this. The supposed conflict between science and faith is mapped over the world of politics, portraying liberals as well-educated atheists and conservatives as anti-science. Religion also plays a part in that religious people are less likely to claim to be smart.
This subject has a lot of moving parts. People don’t give it enough attention.
I think that a part of the problem was described by Charles Murray in Coming Apart. I the days of our founding fathers, even plantation owners knew what it was like to farm and knew how the weather etc affected the crops. Today, many intellectuals come from upper middle class backgrounds and don’t know anyone who works with his hands. They also don’t know how to talk to him. The less intellectual used to respect those who read and thought more and trusted their advice. Now they feel looked down upon because they don’t have the right cars, wear the right clothes, or follow the latest food fad. The intellectuals often have a fantasy idea of what it’s like to be poorer and spend too much time and energy trying to devise programs to make the poor just like themselves.
It seems like people on both ends spend too much time trying to live up the what is being sold to them and not enough trying to be comfortable in their own skins.
Intellectualism devoid of common sense is but intellectual pretense. Cleverness in repartee is often a shield for insecurity and incompetence.
ArmyMom,
I am firmly of the opinion, that it is an implicit admission of failure, when someone in place of reasoned argument, engages in an attack on the character of or capabilities of their opponent. And doing so is also an implicit admission of lack of both character and intellectual honesty.
expat:
Have you seen this brilliant Kundera quote?
The academy is full of “smart” liberals. College is where the Dems recruit their future leaders and many in the rank-and-file.
It is very difficult to be a conservative in college.
Right now I am engaged in a bitter global warming debate at a website affiliated with my alma mater. I am shocked at how so many of my fellow alums can’t see through that scam. The appeal to authority card (97% of scientists!) is their main argument. Crystal clear to me CAGW is a scam. And an expensive one at that.
C.V. Wedgwood thought that intelligence and intellectualism were distinguishable qualities. In her biography of William the Silent, when contrasting him with Philip II of Spain (William was a protégé of Philip’s father, the Emperor Charles V), she commented that William was intelligent without being intellectual and Philip was intellectual without being intelligent. Do we conflate the two qualities with each other, to our detriment in analysis? It’s an interesting question, one for which I have no satisfactory answer.
Lefty’s can’t seem to allow themselves to consider Reagan anything but dim, shallow and mindlessly populist, despite somehow managing to be the “great communicator”.
Case in point, Stephen Schwartz’ lyrics to “Popular”:
I remind them on their own behalf to think of
Celebrated heads of state or
Especially great communicators.
Did they have brains or knowledge?
Don’t make me laugh!
They were popular! Please–
Beyond obviously being well read, having a high IQ ect. I think a large part of being intellectual is being brutally self aware and self reflective. You have to be able to challenge your own assumptions and be critical of yourself. For rhetorical reasons you have to be able to understand your opponent’s point of view without being too dismissive of their arguments. This is easier said than done. It’s much easier to reduce your opponent to a one dimensional object, without nuance or humanity.
You have to be willing to inform yourself. This may sound obvious, but if you want to be able to win an argument or have a serious discussion in general, you have to be willing to spend time and energy educating yourself about all the different facets of a topic. I find that a lot of people who may claim to be intellectual are depressingly under-informed about specific topics that they claim to be concerned with. They may be aware of all the more common arguments and rebuttals to those arguments. I find it frustrating that I often have to socratically walk people toward a conclusion that to me seems obvious to me.
Neo,
That is a great quote. I have somethings in common with Kundera’s mother, and I consider myself very rich for my experiences. When such things are experienced early in life, it is hard for the intellectual BS to overtake them. In fact, the biggest thing that turned me against feminism was the way so many seemed to denigrate all the women I had known in my life. They could do anything from milking cows, making butter, preserving their own slaughtered animals for the winter, sewing their clothes, and making quilts and braided rugs to caring for the sick, comforting the bereaved, and keeping their rambunctious sons in line. Had they worried about a glass ceiling, it would have been more focused on building one over a sunroom than breaking through it. To this day, everything I read or hear has to pass my own experience test.
That’s how it came to pass that I once had dinner with a man who said to me, on learning of my right-leaning politics, “I can’t believe it; you’re so intelligent but yet you’re conservative!”
I have belonged to a book club for 8 years. While we spend little time talking politics, one’s opinions will on occasion come out. As such, most members have an idea of my political views.
Several years ago I was the discussion leader on a book by James Baldwin. At the end of the meeting, a member told me that she was pleasantly surprised by my “fair, unbiased” presentation of James Baldwin.
I gave a thanks, and left.
I regret I didn’t ask her why she was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps I could have educated her by informing her that when I was 15 I requested and received a Leadbelly album. Perhaps I could have told her that the offspring of a Tuskegee airman, whom I have known since we were in 2nd grade, once told me that I was one of three in our elementary school class “that treated me like a human being.” This in New England.
It seems obvious that the concepts are separable. I imagine most know people who are intelligent, and use their intelligence to do things; sometimes big things. They don’t necessarily think deeply.
I should think the definition of an intellectual would be along the lines of someone who thinks conceptually, and most likely expounds on their thinking. An intellectual need do no more to be accepted as such. But, whether the effort is meaningful, depends entirely on the audience.
Obviously, the qualities can intersect; but, not necessarily.
So, the question might be, which is of greater value? That is a subject for intense debate. Whose legacy was more meaningful; Socrates, or Phidias (who designed the Parthenon)? Both were intelligent; but one is remembered as an intellectual.
Well, that question may not have a ready answer. Consider our own history, Ben Franklin was certainly an intellectual (who also did big things). He was joined by other thinkers who are most notable for defining a governing concept. G. Washington was not an intellectual; although an essential element. This model of collaboration between active intelligence and intellectual conceptualization should stand as a guide.
Cornhead, I’ve taken on that argument over the past 10 years at the college where I work. Like other arguments with leftists, facts do you almost no good. After laying numerous observations (ie facts) that contradict the main hypothesis of AGW, most of those I argue with then pull out the “Well you can’t be a very good scientist if you BELIEVE that!” I then say, science is not a belief system, and I guess Richard Feynman wasn’t a very good scientist either, and walk away:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Physicsguys:
I am sick of the argument on the alma mater message board. Lots of name calling. I actually did a poll and I lost 60/40. I thought it would be worse. The critics were very loud. Libs clothe themselves in their superior intellects and morality. I really resent it when they played the morality and Pope cards. There is strong evidence that the high cost of Green energy is profoundly immoral.
When the Pope moved outside his field of expertise (theology) everything is up in the air.
Another problem we conservatives have is that the top layers in Silicon Valley and Wall Street are solid liberals.
Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Samberg, Jeff Immelt and the CEO of Salesforce.com.
Just look what the corporate liberal establishment did to the States of North Carolina and Indiana. Economic blackmail.
But, but….
Cornhead — those are Crony Capitalists.
They are the hand and foot fetishists of the Federal corpus.
{ They glove and shod the Federal beast.
How could it play any other way ?
Blert
But the game the Dems play is that they represent “the little guy.” Libs constantly use the phrase “hard working Americans.” The lie is that the crony capitalists are lined up with the Dems. The prime example is the Green energy scam. Jeff Imelt and GE are big into Green energy.
Neo quoting Ace:
“But what I think it needs even more of is a populist wing.”
Ie, activists.
Neo:
“The Founding Fathers were most definitely intellectuals, and by modern standards–not those of their times– conservatives politically, although not in the sense of preserving the colonial status quo. But they were also masters at not sounding too esoteric, at clarity of thought and expression simple enough to allow people to understand their message even if those people were not intellectuals. In that sense perhaps they were also popularizers. And they were most definitely men of action.”
For a modern example of “most definitely intellectuals” who are “also popularizers [and] … most definitely men of action”, I’ll cite again my go-to example of contemporary counter-Left activism: The Ivy League civil-military campus activists, led by student-veterans (many of whom arrived on campus directly from competing head-on versus terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan), who competed head-on versus Columbia University’s renowned-elite campus ‘SJW’ leftists on the Left’s supposed home turf, won their activist game, and in short order, changed Columbia into a highly ranked military-friendly school, including the restoration of ROTC’s status.
Remember, America’s Founding Fathers are also the founding fathers of modern activism.
They inspired the French revolutionaries, Marx, and the rest who have followed. The ideas and details of their varied activist games are different, of course, but there’s a straight line from former to latter in terms of the basic activist mindset and method.
The essence of America is activism, which animated the Founders for their activist game that won the social dominance necessary to seize the social and physical ground for the creative destruction and reconstruction to create our nation.
To do it, the Founding activists displaced their neighbors (subsequently, Canadians), socially and physically, more harshly than the alt-Right activists who are now displacing conservatives by mimicking the Left activists who displaced liberals.
In the essential sense, Democrat-front Left activists and Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists are more true to the Founding Fathers than the chronically activism-averse, and now displaced-as-a-result, conservatives who eschewed their basic responsibility of social activism in the Right-GOP alliance and insisted – despite the obvious social cultural/political structural misfit – on passing the buck on activism to the GOP, resulting in the harmful consequence we’re faced with now.
“I can’t believe it; you’re so intelligent but yet you’re conservative!”
I usually get: “I can’t believe you think THAT with your background and education!”
By Golly! If I had a dollar for every time someone said something like that to me I wouldn’t have to worry about how this Obama economy has screwed us all over. I’d be retired by now – and retired early too!
The general public fears and dislikes intellectuals because their logic and thinking and knowing is mostly guided imagination, having less experience in the real world, less empathy for others that become logical placeholders, and willing to logically justify literally anything and any horror in belief would achieve some goal even if it won’t while hiding the glee to their ego if their idea is attempted. Even better is to be disrant from the dirty work and blame but close enough to grab credit, they look down on the cogs they wish to orchestrate and need, and would dispose of them once they are no longer needed
Nothing outside the intellectual sphere has ever reached the heights of immorality pretending morality that would industrialize a slave system designed to work their own people to death, while insuring a constant new supply…. Which is now even contemplating rewriting the genetic code of beings without any regard to the dead end contemplated and explored in literature they hold in disdain
Even worse… This nasty force has such like scruples they would stand in line to be the ones selected to lead such projects…
Gulags, education camps, mind control, Holocaust, poisons, human experimentation, eugenics, euthanasia… On and on and sometimes packaged in ways that make them available, acceptable, and desired by its potential victims
What’s not to like it your just a regular person who wants to be free, live decently, and not be molested by such a group and their any of helpers..
That’s one take, there is lots more depending on your strata
Aldous Huxley – “An intellectual is a person who’s found one thing that’s more interesting than sex.”
George Orwell – ‘There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
The downfall of many, not just intellectuals, is
Hubris – excessive pride or self-confidence. synonyms: arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity, superciliousness, superiority
The Founding Fathers were activists but not populists. In fact, they were very wary of popular passions and hence came up with a system of government designed in large part to hold them in check.
Ann:
I agree that the Founders were not populists.
“And, being an intellectual myself (I always have been, whether on left or right, whether I like to admit it or not), I’ve done a lot of thinking about it.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x-fkSYDtUY
My general advice: don’t think you can change someone’s intellectual life in one conversation. Don’t try to prove yourself smarter than them with a zinger. One man sows, another man reaps. If you accomplish nothing more than nudging someone in the right direction, well, that’s a lot.
Some of them really do think that you’re motivated by evil. They might not put it in those terms, but if they want to save the world and you want the opposite, then…yeah, what they think of you pretty well conforms to a traditional definition of evil. If you make it all the way through a discussion of James Baldwin without shouting the “n” word, then you’ve just impressed them. That’s good. I’ve gotten compliments like “I don’t think you’re motivated by hate”, and that means I did just change the person’s impression of conservatism. That person isn’t going to vote Republican next year. But next year maybe they’ll read a conservative comment before downvoting it, or maybe they’ll vote for the second most liberal candidate in a primary. Take what you can get.
Cornhead: Sorry to get in here so late.
As to the “97% consensus” here’s the summary report by Doran and Zimmerman, the parties who conducted the study. You will be startled at how short it is. Note that invitations to participate were sent to 10,257 “earth scientists,” of which 3,146 decided to respond (self-selection). Doran and Zimmerman decided to narrow that down to the 79 scientists whom they felt were the most knowledgeable, and of that, 77 answered two questions the way Doran and Zimmerman liked. 77 out of 10,257.
The rare person these days is someone who has an open mind, who questions appearances as well as stated beliefs. That open mind can pop up in the most unusual places, even a loading dock on San Francisco’s waterfront. In the end it is a striving for the truth, no matter where the journey ends. The good ones practice a rigorous logic and a no holds barred look into the depths of human evil or the heights of artistic beauty. They can no more snap out it than a patriotic soldier lay down his weapon, turn traitor, and join the other side. It’s called intellectual courage, Gerard.
Cap’n Rusty Says:
June 1st, 2016 at 10:14 pm
Cornhead: Sorry to get in here so late.
&&&&&&
It’s deemed improper to lay back on moral authority, personal history and contributions to science — no matter how great.
However, if I were to break discipline, you’d fall out of your chair.
I can’t imagine anyone living that has more morale authority WRT the atmosphere than I. It’s just not possible.
Use your imagination.
And I’m telling you that carbon dioxide is an ESSENTIAL fertilizer for modern agriculture — but no-one isolates it as a factor in crop yields in the tropics — where the poorest live.
When water, sunlight, and fertilizer// minerals are in super sufficiency — then the RATE LIMITING compound is Carbon Dioxide.
As humans, we don’t see the suffering.
But any plant could tell you that they are gasping for breath — for carbon dioxide.
PROOF: NASA research half-a-century ago.
PROOF: ALL current bio-Diesel programs use saturating carbon dioxide in their apparatus.
It’s not a coincidence.
MOST of the biota has been extinguished because it could not tolerate such LOW partial pressures of carbon dioxide.
The MASSIVE coal deposits ALL occurred when the partial pressure of carbon dioxide was DRASTICALLY higher than it is today.
The SOLE reason that plant energy capture is so feeble — so marginal — is because the critters are STARVING for carbon dioxide.
Get it ?
That’s why EVERY attempt at bio-Diesel uses industrial gas bottles of carbon dioxide — same as any soda jerk.
&&&&
Ask me some time how oil feedstocks will expand exponentially for the next century — or two.
Or how robotics will make humanity rich before it gets old.
( Hint, robotics are staggeringly deflationary — because they have a terrible union — and a fanatical dedication to their work. )
They don’t even have Workman’s Compensation !
It’s so BAD that robots are undercutting slave labor — even forced labor.
Almighty… it’s come to this !
Invest in tourism — forget ‘plastics.
&&&&&&&
Say…
Did I ever talk about how semi-submersibles will robotize the Alaskan king crab fishery?
Or utterly transform tropical tourism ?
%%%
Did I ever bring up how undersea cables will be replicated as undersea FUEL links — pumping staggering amounts of hydrogen and methane across the planet ?
$$$$
Did I ever bring up how Amazonian rainfall will spit out so much hydro-power that Peru, Brazil, Columbia will be PERPETUAL ‘Saudi Arabias’ of energy — as in millennia without end ?
####
Did I ever bring up how the Rhone river would be piped across the Med to swap for Algerian methane — via a titanic plastic garden hose that is draped across that sea floor ?
Yes — it’s all gloom and doom from where I post.
Cry me an Amazon.
Blert:
An example of Self parody, you may know what it means.
BYW you may want to reconsider your knowledge of military history regarding North Africa and Stalingrad. http://weaponsman.com/?p=32373
CEO of Intel bullied into canceling a Trump fundraiser in CA.
I guess conservative CEO’s of major corporations have no First Amendment rights. Like the Mozilla CEO.
Cannot remember in which of Tom Wolfe’s books it appears, but he has a very amusing example of the difference between ‘intelligent’ and ‘intellectual.’ He pointed out that ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, while obviously an intelligent man (doctorate from MIT), was not generally considered an intellectual. But he could be, if he would only make a number of lifestyle and social-signaling changes, none of them having anything to do with brainpower.
Intelligence is a tool. It can be used for a great many things.
Intellectuals define themselves by the purposes to which they believe intelligence should be put — their intelligence and that of others.
By way of example — an idiot savant, who can multiply 100-digit numbers easily but is barely literate otherwise, certainly shows intelligence (but not intellectualism). That would be a person whose intelligence is a tool that is used for a very narrow purpose. I’m tempted to offer the stereotype of the absent-minded professor — brilliant in his own specialty, downright stupid in other areas — as another example.
Similarly, there are many intelligent people that simply don’t choose to think deeply about the same things that intellectuals like to think about. They may use their smarts for their professional work, for example, and leave the philosophy to others.
RNB
Tom Wolfe is the best!
Cornhead — try Paul Johnson’s book
“Intellectuals.”
What is conservatism? Isn’t the Anglo-American definition of conservatism connected to the idea of the autonomous individual, fully in command of himself?
Historian David Hackett Fischer does an excellent job of identifying and analyzing the origins of American political thought in his book, “Albion’s Seed”.
Fischer points to the perpetual conflict between the Puritans (who favored group rights) and the Royalist Cavaliers (who favored individual rights) as the foundation of American politics. He makes a compelling case that the alliance between Quackers and Puritan descendants set the stage for progressivism or liberalism and that the alliance between the Scots-Irish and Anglican cavaliers heralded modern conservatism.
Perhaps Silicon Valley CEOs need a clandestine organization like Hollywood’s Friends of Abe (which, sadly, is disbanding).
Junious,
I, and my extended family, are the children of Albion’s Seed via Scotland, then Ireland, and finally the Cumberland Gap. We inherently, and by teaching our children well, have a deep distrust of government, seek to go our own way and let others go their ways, and well, do what it takes to stop/kill any who may say otherwise. We be overly proud, stubborn people.
Most Democrats really do think of themselves as more intelligent than almost any Rep. Plus, they feel that they are “morally superior”, because they intend for their policies to help the poor.
The fact that, in the past, similar policies have been tried and have hurt the poor, this fact doesn’t seem to matter much.
Both intellectuals and the intelligent have the ability to tell untruths to themselves so that they believe it. Believing your own untruth, because of your heart, is how most people are, most of the time. For a large number of voters, a key issue of feeling is: “Is this guy on my side?”.
If one person doesn’t feel the politician is “on his side”, the person will be unlikely to give support.
To not be redundant, but as an ex-modern day liberal I will say this: it’s been my observation that smugness is almost monopolized by The Left. I would’ve considered myself smug when I was a modern day liberal, holding the “we’re sophisticates and you’re not” mentality.
I’d say the chances of finding a bitter liberal in an metro is greater than finding a conservative who’s actually racist/sexist/phobic. Take for example The Memphis Flyer, an alternative newspaper that leans left. Take note of the comment section, especially between posters CHG and PACKRAT.
Let’s then look into a piece in the NYT written by an academic saying that there is indeed a bias against conservative professors and those interviewing who hold conservative views. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
The facebook page that was referenced in the NYT aricle: https://www.facebook.com/kristof/posts/10153882635067891
What do these two links share? Those in the comment section view conservatives as unwilling to be moved by facts, are anti-intellectual, and are racists (among other things). There is glee and relish in the tone, if not out right sneering (PACKRAT’s misquote of Augustine’s Theory of Knowledge when it came to peer-reviewed studies).
The Memphis Flyer – http://m.memphisflyer.com/memphis/the-myth-of-reaganomics/Content?oid=4494534
Thomas Sowell wrote the book Intellectuals and Society in 2009. It is an excellent explanation and condemnation of their thinking and their influence on society [political culture].
Russell Kirk, Christopher Dawson, Wilhelm Roepke, and a goodly number of Judeo-Christian humanists in the mid-20th century developed a coherent conservative worldview. G.K. Chesterton never called himself a conservative, but his liberalism was grounded in natural law and ideas of transcendence. Unfortunately, the polite discourse of “Firing Line” has been replaced with the mud-wrestling of cable news.