Hydrogen, I agree this is something of a rant and includes stereotypes and generalizations (hence why I called them out myself) but I think you've gone a bit out of your way to portray my statements more broad than intended and dismiss some outright.
The trouble with stereotypes and generalizations is that they only serve to obscure things. Even the title of this thread suggests, by way of a question, a gross over-generalization.
Perhaps my memories have become sugar-coated, but I don't remember the same screaming and hysteria and partisan editorial commentary masking as "news" to the extreme that I see today. I'm certainly not the first to observe this, and I think there's something to it.
What I am saying is that what you call "hysterical" partisanship has always existed, and that well-formed coherent opinions still exist, and as always, you have to go looking for the latter. Partisan editorial commentary is as old as newspapers, and people like Pulitzer and Hearst made a mint off of trying to shape political outcomes by whipping up the partisan emotions. But it should be noted that this type of activity was and is not restricted to the United States. As you no doubt have noticed, with the ever expanding universe of news outlets, there is a need to
make news, and what you get is dance wherein parties use the media to get headlined, and media outlets use any partisan statements to yarn a couple of stories from (
inevitably including those lengthy commentary and analysis segments analyzing what such statements could possibly mean). There's a lot of time to fill on TV.
I am calling them stereotypes, but I think they are reasonably valid caricatures of what is seen as the "norm" for the given demographic of each time period. What I am comparing is societal expectations, which are embodied in the stereotypes. I clearly understand that individuals vary in both time periods, but what I'm aiming for here is some sort of consensus.
I'm not entirely sure what "consensus" you are trying to find here. The glamorization of the 1950's is well established, and that the values that defined that stereotype were so roundly attacked by the 1960's is also quite telling. By the same token, there can be little doubt that there is caricature of youth today as being lazy slackers with only their self-interest at heart. I just don't see how stereotypes reveal anything about anti-intellectualism or relative levels of stupidity (however
that is being measured).
No, I'm only talking about anti-intellectuals here, not all Americans. That is the topic of this thread. This argument was used quite plainly against Kerry in the 2004 election, again, I am not the first to observe it. It was also alluded to in the article I linked to at the beginning of my post.
I doubt that the sentiments concerning Kerry and Obama are held by the majority of Americans (big words, etc). No doubt some people were quoted saying as much, but yet again it comes down to repetition standing if for a measured majority. No doubt that people will judge politicians in many different ways, and not all of them are useful - or even nice. I found it odd when some perceptive, well-educated women who were Democrats said they couldn't vote for Clinton because they found her shrill. It was perplexing that this perceived quality so overshadowed the expression of ideas. Sadly, this type of approach to voting is not restricted to the United States. By the same token, intellectuals can be some of the biggest anti-intellectuals around. And who better to get a handle of crafting the messages aimed at manipulating the political debate. Karl Rove is a lot of things, but he's no idiot.
I never claimed to be a bearer of all-new news, it's my opinion.
Fair enough; I just think it's an extreme view.
In place of intellectualism, then, must be other values that matter: good looks and physical brawn are other human qualities that are often valued in our society. I'm conjecturing that these values are replacing intellectualism as a judge of character and worthiness to lead. I think that's a rational theory.
My point is that intellectualism has never been front and centre, so its decline is somewhat overstated.
What I'm saying is that a certain amount of scoffing at academics and intellectualism may be because in recent years we haven't needed to excel in those things. And, frankly, they are hard, so if we don't need to study hard why would we? But the world is changing and other countries are passing us in terms of education and a desire to work hard to get ahead. Again, not my original observation, others have spoken about this before. I agree with that sentiment. I would also argue that Europe is at risk of the same economic and power decline as the US, although admittedly there seems to be more of a respect for intellectualism there than in the US, so obviously there are other factors at play.
Not to sound like a broken record, but scoffing at academics and intellectuals is nothing new. As for
questioning academics and intellectuals (because the presumption is that they know better) this
should be encouraged in a reasonable manner. To bow to an intellect purely on the basis of such a label is to achieve the ultimate installation of the
argument from authority.
You point out that the world is changing, and that if we don't study hard others will get ahead. But study what and get ahead of what? Is their a race on? What's the finish line? As for the supposed economic and power decline of the United States and Europe, I would see it otherwise. Other countries are developing their own economies and creating their own economic and educational opportunities because such an approach has been successful in countries like the United States. Governments in these countries are pursuing the relative stability and higher standard of living that is found in those places. I'm sure that these countries already field their own anti-intellectuals as well, and will continue to do so in the future.
But again, the topic of this thread is anti-intellectualism in the US, which is the context in which my point was made. And your comment about theocracies is perfect: anti-science thinking is more fitting of a third-world theocracy than a nation like the US that became a superpower partly on the basis of scientific innovation.
People can be very accommodating when it comes to science. For example, the Vatican sponsors scientific research, and there is a drive for greater scientific education in Iran. Pursuit of science was emphasized in the Soviet Union as well, and it hardly was a democracy or known for free expression of dissenting political sentiments. Today, you can find great emphasis on developing scientific and technological infrastructure - not because it translates into political intellectualism - but because it is seen as being beneficial to economic development and security. Not everyone will become a scientist, though.
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just throwing out ideas, and I'm open to others. But I think many of my thoughts above have merit and are hardly as irrational as you imply they are. You can disagree with my ideas if you see things differently, but that doesn't make them irrational.
My comment was not intended as an insult to you, but a comment on your analysis. Also, I did not say you were speaking irrationally. Questioning opinions is certainly a part of the
intellectualism that I think you are commenting on. I would suggest that clarifying one's own opinions is always a first step to further understanding, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.
