Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I get what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part. However, that's just the Texas GOP, not all of Texas, and certainly not all of America. I think America is kind of a mixed bag, some intellectual, some not so intellectual, and some decidedly anti-intellectual.
I couldn't agree more. While we may not be as diverse as say the European Union, we are a very big and diverse country.
As for why this anti-intellectualism is happening I think it has a lot to do with what that "some" you're talking about actually means. When one starts trying to put numbers on it we could be talking as high as 42% born-again or evangelical according to my gallup link from earlier. But I also don't think that full hook line and sinker is necessary in order to develop a dislike for education and thinking, some get winged by the fundamentalist message but it's enough that when we talk about evolution
quote:
ORIGINAL: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
God created humans in present form
51%
That makes for a horrifyingly big "some". Enough that we should (and do) see their influence on our culture, education system and politics. We aren't just talking about a few percentage points.
I applaud both of you for trying to "quantify" what we are dealing with, but I think it is quite clear that however sizable the "some", they are absolutely large enough to influence who runs, who gets elected, and very importantly, what gets passed as legislation. Again, it is not enough for "smart" people to squeak through the democratic process. Change and progress require not just the right leader, but a public acceptance of the laws that are necessary (even if it is bad tasting medicine in the moment). The "some" who are anti-intellectual prevent a lot of useful legislation from being passed, simply through their existence as voters.
Various politicians do not want to erode their support, so even if the politicians feel something else needs to be done, they often can't be convinced to vote for it for fear of antagonizing the "some", on whose support they rely to hold onto their seat.
So we get stuck. Stuck with either government that appears ineffectual, or government that does things that actually make no intellectual sense (like the Iraq war) because it appeals to those voters who don't understand the situation or know better.
I guess, I feel that I, and people who think like me, are tired of being held hostage by the "some". Because, at the end of the day, the policies and legislation that please that "some", are hurting us as a nation (economically and culturally).
While I was reading your post, for some reason it struck me that a lot of what happens in elections is also due to voter inertia and blind party support. As I was replying to GotSteel about religion's influence over politics, it also occurred to me that some people view their political parties/factions as a kind of "religion," and some can be blindly fanatical about it, too.
Some of it may also be the way politics in the U.S. has been structured, with only a two-party system. In Europe, they often have more than two parties with representation in their legislative bodies, sometimes even including extremist parties, along with everything else in between. They seem to have more political diversity among factions, while in the U.S., we really only have "Choice A" or "Choice B," neither of which seems very palatable.
Of course, the voters can elect anyone from any party they want, but they invariably vote along party lines or the lesser of two evils. Third party or independent candidates hardly stand a chance, which is odd, considering how many voters identify as independent. But most people still vote either Republican or Democrat, since to do otherwise (as many voters reason) would be throwing away one's vote. I remember back in 2004 when Democrats were chastising Nader supporters and claiming that a vote for Nader was actually a vote for Bush. I don't know if that counts as anti-intellectualism or not, but it's the kind of mentality which pervades the electoral process.
So, what we end up getting is the lowest common denominator.
George Washington warned against this kind of thing, in his Farewell Address when he referred to the spirit of party:
quote:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
As to this point you made:
quote:
Change and progress require not just the right leader, but a public acceptance of the laws that are necessary (even if it is bad tasting medicine in the moment). The "some" who are anti-intellectual prevent a lot of useful legislation from being passed, simply through their existence as voters.
When you say "public acceptance," it reminded me that a lot of our political system is built primarily on faith and trust, but much of that trust has eroded over time - and for good reason. So, it may not be anti-intellectualism as much as cynicism and mistrust. That's one of the consequences of screwing and bullshitting people for generations. It's kind of a variation on "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Would the people in that story be anti-intellectual, as in denying reality when there really was a wolf? Or was it because the boy lied so many times that they didn't believe him when he was really telling the truth?
So, that's kind of what we're dealing with here. Even if people might be persuaded to accept this "bad tasting medicine," how do we know that it will even work? How can they be convinced that it isn't yet another lie when they've heard so many others before?
|
RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread