Intellectualism

[anthrax]

Has Bush (and the republicans in general) benefited from a vote against intellectual elitism?

Pragmatism is more valued than intellectualism in the US while it is the opposite in Europe

-----------------------------

For some reason I don't think this thread is going to be as popular as the Hooters one

 

[Phenom78]

It isn't genuine intellectualism that people have rebelled against.

Its the shallow intellectual laziness of moral equivelancy that most recognize as nonsensical.

 

[heatherrae]

wow...he worked "moral equivalency" into another post. What does that make, about 100 now? (He likes the sound of the phrase)...lol.

 

[pitbullrocco]

except he spelled it with the second "e" and the "a" backwards

 

[anthrax]

It isn't genuine intellectualism that people have rebelled against.

Its the shallow intellectual laziness of moral equivelancy that most recognize as nonsensical.

Well, people care more about image than substance
Truism more than abstract ideas
Short term more than long term
and so on
When is the last time there was a real political debate?

 

[Phenom78]

Another way to look at it is to think of European intellectualism as another dumb blonde who imagines herself to be both witty and intelligent.

 

[Phenom78]

Well, people care more about image than substance
Truism more than abstract ideas
Short term more than long term
and so on
When is the last time there was a real political debate?

The last I recall occured in the 80's. Then Clinton was elected President and spin became the new norm.

But there is truth in what I wrote.

Name for me an example of the divide you referenced in your initial post. Choose anything.

 

[anthrax]

I remember people being interviewed right after Bush election
Most of them thought Bush was in favor of Kyoto, more money for education and Medicare etc but didn't really care
On the other hand he looked more manly and charismatic than Kerry

In Europe a president is elected on his program for foreign policy, social security, political reform,healthcare, Keynesian ideas to decrease unemployment etc

I'm not saying than one is better, just noticing a cultural difference

 

[anthrax]

BTW Clinton had a non intellectual image while Al Gore was the prototype of the egghead

 

[Phenom78]

I remember people being interviewed right after Bush election
Most of them thought Bush was in favor of Kyoto, more money for education and Medicare etc but didn't really care
On the other hand he looked more manly and charismatic than Kerry

In Europe a president is elected on his program for foreign policy, social security, political reform,healthcare, Keynesian ideas to decrease unemployment etc

I'm not saying than one is better, just noticing a cultural difference

Bush never claimed to be in favor of Kyoto. For that matter out of 100 Senators, roughly half of which were democrats, 99 voted against it.

Bush did increase money for education, adding tens of billions to the budget. He also added an additional trillion dollars+ in new medical entitlement spending. This is partly why I tend to think of intellectual and ignorant of the facts interchangably.

Our Presidents run on programs as well. The happy difference is we have elected people who have left us with low unemployment, low inflation, and lower tax rates than our more "intellectual" European counterparts.

I suppose there is a chance we may decide to follow their intellectual lead in the future, but for myself I'd rather not see millions of Americans become unemployed while trashing our superior economy just to feel more sympatico with France and Co.

 

[Phenom78]

BTW Clinton had a non intellectual image while Al Gore was the prototype of the egghead

See

More bad information. Gore was a terrible student who flunked out of at least one university.

As an aside Bush was not only a superior student to kerry, but scored ten points higher on his IQ test.

 

[anthrax]

See

More bad information. Gore was a terrible student who flunked out of at least one university.

As an aside Bush was not only a superior student to kerry, but scored ten points higher on his IQ test.

Who cares about IQ?

Perception is reality

Al Gore had a boring intellectual teacher image which was enough to keep him away from the public (and the voters)

 

[heatherrae]

I was in the post office after the last election and a large group of people were talking about why they voted for Bush. Basically, they all agreed that they voted for Bush because they imagined he would be more fun at a cookout. !!!

 

[Phenom78]

Who cares about IQ?

Perception is reality

Al Gore had a boring intellectual teacher image which was enough to keep him away from the public (and the voters)

LOL @ perception being reality. Is that another example of intellectualism? If so the dems tried to get away with that here as well, so perhaps were more intellectual than you give us credit for. According to them it is irrelevant whether someone actually breaks the law or involves themselves in wrongdoing (provided of course they are republican and not democrat. Just the perception is sufficient to convict and destroy ones life and career.


Here is the truth.

Al Gore had a flaky, somewhat effeminate, "big fat liar" image. He became a joke. He was also perceived as weak and wishy washy. People don't follow leaders who dont know where they want to go themselves.

 

[anthrax]

Bush never claimed to be in favor of Kyoto. For that matter out of 100 Senators, roughly half of which were democrats, 99 voted against it.

Precisely
Even though the Bush and the Republicans were never in favor of Kyoto, a lot of voters thought they were

And, again, I'm not saying that empiricism and pragmatism are inferior to intellectualism just that it doesn't pay of to be an intellectual elitist

 

[anthrax]

I was in the post office after the last election and a large group of people were talking about why they voted for Bush. Basically, they all agreed that they voted for Bush because they imagined he would be more fun at a cookout. !!!

A Roosevelt sitting in his wheelchair fighting polio would probably never be elected todays, as good as he might be

 

[Phenom78]

Precisely
Even though the Bush and the Republicans were never in favor of Kyoto, a lot of voters thought they were

And, again, I'm not saying that empiricism and pragmatism are inferior to intellectualism just that it doesn't pay of to be an intellectual elitist

No they didn't. Your perception is inaccurate.

Most Americans don't know what Kyoto is. Most of the rest were against it. And Bush was vocally against it since before he took office.

And what Im saying is that there is generally nothing intellectual in intellectual elitism. It is nothing but a misnomer.

Here are a few examples of intellectual elitist thought.

IE: The US created Bin Laden in Afghanistan. If it weren't for you he wouldn't exist. So really you are no better than he is.

Soemone whose brain hasn't been exposed to massive doeses of narcotics: The US didn't fund or inevtn Bin Laden. They funded the Afghani mujahadeen who were fighting a Soviet aggressor which invaded their nation in all defiance of international law and agreement. Bin Laden in turn was one of thousands of Saudi fighters (thousands more from the muslim world) who came to help their muslim brothers in their struggle against the Soviets. His militant islamicst character was formed well before this conflict, and was simply actively expressed in this conflict (among others). If not here, his own words and actions demonstrate that it would have been elsewhere. He wasn't a man formed by conflict, but a formed radical seeking conflicts.

 

[anthrax]

No they didn't. Your perception is inaccurate.

Most Americans don't know what Kyoto is. Most of the rest were against it. And Bush was vocally against it since before he took office.

Not according to Noam Chomsky
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thepress/read.php?id=1054

[I already imagine what you're gonna to say about Chomsky.... lol]

 

[anthrax]

Not that I agree with all Noam Chomsky says......

 

[Phenom78]

Not according to Noam Chomsky
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thepress/read.php?id=1054

[I already imagine what you're gonna to say about Chomsky.... lol]

What part?

No offense, because I do like you, but people constantly spit articles at me from sone google search and expect me to not only read them, but then to extrapolate whatever non stated point I imagine they might have and provide a rebuttal. I already have a job.

If you mean to say his view on the Kyoto treaty there is nothing to say. He never provided a source for his claims.

But let me throw this back to you in Norm. If as he suggests the American public was so generally in favor of Kyoto, then why did only a single Senator vote for its passage? One would imagine self interest alone would motivate at least some reasonable number of politicians to support such a popular issue.


The truth is it was opposed by just about every major interest group but extreme environmentalists, which themselves account for the smallest fraction of likely voters. It would have cost our economy millions of jobs and trillions to implement. Of course it was rejected.

 

[heatherrae]

A Roosevelt sitting in his wheelchair fighting polio would probably never be elected todays, as good as he might be

Yes, sadly, this is true. That explains how the "Governator" came to be...lol.

 

[Phenom78]

A Roosevelt sitting in his wheelchair fighting polio would probably never be elected todays, as good as he might be

Too bad the first one got through.

We're still paying for his poor decisions.

 

[anthrax]

Too bad the first one got through.

We're still paying for his poor decisions.

Which ones?
The New Deal?

As for Kyoto, first I agree that the implementation of the treaty would have been terrible for the US and most western countries.
I was just comenting on the voters not even aware of the candidates stance on the subject (if Chomsky and another article I read are accurate)