Wednesday, September 24, 2008

McCain Advertises Anti-Intellectualism

By chriszuk

This weekend the New York Times Magazine published an interview with Charles Murray, social scientist and author of “The Bell Curve.” Throughout the interview he talks about the importance of blue-collar jobs and what he sees as the fleeing importance of obtaining a bachelor’s degree in lieu of real world experience. While many of his answers are certainly debatable, I found the last question to be the most interesting:

NYT Question: Why is the McCain clan so eager to advertise its anti-intellectualism?
Murray Answer: The last thing we need are more pointy-headed intellectuals running the government. Probably the smartest president we’ve had in terms of I.Q. in the last 50 years was Jimmy Carter, and I think he is the worst president of the last 50 years.
Really? While personally I might consider a more recent president to be the worst in the last 50 years, the really shocking part of that answer lies in Murray’s assertion that intellectuals have no place in government. George W. Bush ran as the anti-intellectual, every-day American, and look where he’s taken the country. Maybe a little bit of intelligence would have gone a long way in his presidency.
Murray’s support for the anti-intellectual isn’t a new concept. The Republican political machine has repeatedly used the notion against the Democrats, implying that intellectualism equals elitism. They did it in 2000 with Al Gore. They did it in 2004 with John Kerry. And they are trying it once again in 2008 with Barack Obama. For some reason the Republicans seem to use recycled strategies, regardless of the opponent, and for some reason, they seem to be successful.
It’s an interesting strategy. But why does it work? I can understand the American voter’s desire to feel as though their candidate is relatable. But that doesn’t mean that the candidate shouldn’t be intelligent. Personally, I would think that the leader of the free world should be smarter than the rest of us. That’s why we’re electing them. We’re not electing them to have a few drinks with us at the bar or to sympathize with us about our relationship woes. We’re electing them to solve our nation’s biggest problems and to make intelligent decisions about things like war, healthcare, affordable housing, etc.
While I do think that the Republican campaign has tried to use Obama’s Ivy League education against him, I think that it is much more difficult to make the intellectual elitist argument in this election. While he has been called “uppity” and a celebrity, those characterizations really didn’t seem to stick. In his acceptance speech, Obama made the very accurate statement that his story is our story. He highlighted his grandmother’s sacrifices and his single mother’s desire to give him the opportunities that she never had. He spoke about his diverse background and the difficulties he faced because of it. And despite these challenges, he attended an Ivy League undergraduate and law school, he was a successful community organizer in some of the poorest parts of Chicago, and he went on to the Illinois State Legislature, the Senate, and is now one step away from becoming the first African American President of the United States. Intellectual? Yes. Elitist? Absolutely not.
As the election nears, we are repeatedly reminded of the increasing importance of its outcome. Though Charles Murray may argue differently, I think we’ve already had our fair share of the anti-intellectuals running our government. It’s about time for a change. And I think that the child of a single mother turned Ivy League student turned community organizer turned Senator turned presidential nominee brings a combination of “average American-ness” and intellectualism that will only benefit our country. And though he surely can’t be characterized as just another “pointy-headed intellectual,” he sure seems a hell of alot smarter than the current Executive or the nominee who doesn’t know too much about the economy. And in times like these, I’m inclined to think that that’s exactly what we need.

Original here

No comments: