Going Against the Grain Since 1967.
Email me Suburby
Monday, October 25, 2004
Is there such a thing
as an intellectual Republican? And, if so, how does s/he reconcile George Bush as leader? I would love to know if anyone out there could answer me. Thank you.
I thought about after seeing your comment, which, btw, dude, thanks--I am amazed anyone has even read one word of my (wincing as I anticipate typing this next word "blog"--but I was thinking about it and realized, that any republicans I have ever seen on TV talking about intellectualism or being an intellectual talk about it as though it were something negative. To a republican the word intellectual, like liberal, is a pejorative. Thanks for the comment!
You're not very bright are you? The only political movement with any intellectual basis these days is conservatism. Perhaps, you'd argue that Republicans are not all conservatives, and you'd be right, but I doubt you really make that distinction.
The fact is Liberalism is suffering from over a half century of stagnation. FDR came up with the New Deal, and that has been pretty much it. Face it, the New Deal wasn't so much about an intellectual philosophy as it was desparate attempt to get out of the depression.
Conservatism, however, has an intellectual pedigree that extends back centuries. John Locke, Edmund Burke, to Hayek in the Road to Serfdom, and Buckley's National Review. I could go on, but you get the idea.
One more thought. Why is it that there are countless examples of liberals leaving the fold for conservatism. Indeed, there is a whole movement named for these folks - NeoCons. Not much movement the other way, unless you want to count Jeffords!
Anyway, got here through BE and I really did read your blog. Do me a favor, pop over to the Pursuit of Happiness and say "hi".
Oh yes, and conservative chicks are much, much more hot - present company excluded. Then again, I'm trusting you on that one.
First, what I should do is answer the people who took the time to comment without personally insulting me, but sadly, I am doing exactly what I shouldn't and answering you first.
You have made my point; (you know, the one about the lack of intellectual republicans), by STARTING you comment with an ad hominem attack, and then rounding out the paragraph with another. To my mind, an intellectual is able to engage in an argument without resorting to such sophomoric tactics. That's one of my main complaints about Republicans -- all I ever seem to hear from them is shrill rhetoric. But, I'd be happy (well maybe) to discuss politics with you like a grown up sometime. Incidentally, I read over my post and I see it as a legitimate question that you haven't answered. You just do what Bill O'Reilly does and start yelling from your bully pulpit until people are either intimidated into submission or simply stop talking to you. That's not winning an argument; it's a temper tantrum.
As for the "hot chick" reference. At first I was puzzled by that, because I have not said anything about "who is hotter, red chicks or blue chicks" -- since I am not very bright I leave such intellectual discussions to people like you, and then I realized you may be referring to my entry re: don't hate me because I am beautiful. That entry is a joke, dude. No t much else to say about that. You either get 'em or you don't.
George W Bush, through Karl Rove, has built his success on the fact that he can count on the votes of 30% of the US electorate (people that actually vote). This core 30% is an odd mix of typical Americans who motivated by cultural grudges disguised as religion. Some of that 30% I think are jovially nihilist business barons. There is a loud anti-intellectual subculture among that 30%, and they are quite loud and increasingly visible. I think to the degree it's religious, it's tribal, a sense of "people like us against people like them (liberals)", not "let's really try to figure out how live like Jesus, loving our enemies". There's real anger in there, and a feeling they have to take back the country from iniquity (especially abortion rights), and anger isn't correlated with intellect. Sometimes I think there's an inferiority complex in there too, a weird kind of democratic anti-"elitist" (intellectual=elitist) feeling among some of them.
But that group not the only subculture among Republicans. For example, there are some Republican-oriented think tanks which give research papers as political weapons. There are also lots of highly educated people who call themselves "conservative", but that word seems to have devolved to a cafeteria-style buffet table of old conservatism, neo conservatism, and liberatianism. Power, and the thirst for more of it, seems to unhinge the limits of their purported philosophy (like old "states rights", "decentralization") , and that also feels anti-intellectual to me. It feels like they will say anything at all that helps them accomplish something on the agenda of that 30%. Finally, their power also seems to thrive on tribal, sincere, gut-level sentiments, which seem anti-intellectual to those outside the tribe, made even more hysterical by the nightmare and outrage of the 9/11 attacks.
Oh man, I hate these profiles. But since you asked, by accidentally averting your eyes towards the profile area, lemme tell you this: I am a mom; I have a husband; and we have a dog. We live in a suburb. All the moms on our block (except for me) keep their houses picture perfect, are always perfectly groomed (except for me), and all the children are over achievers (except for mine). I think I am also the only mom who is not currently on an anti-depressant.
4 comments:
I thought about after seeing your comment, which, btw, dude, thanks--I am amazed anyone has even read one word of my (wincing as I anticipate typing this next word "blog"--but I was thinking about it and realized, that any republicans I have ever seen on TV talking about intellectualism or being an intellectual talk about it as though it were something negative. To a republican the word intellectual, like liberal, is a pejorative. Thanks for the comment!
Gee,
You're not very bright are you? The only political movement with any intellectual basis these days is conservatism. Perhaps, you'd argue that Republicans are not all conservatives, and you'd be right, but I doubt you really make that distinction.
The fact is Liberalism is suffering from over a half century of stagnation. FDR came up with the New Deal, and that has been pretty much it. Face it, the New Deal wasn't so much about an intellectual philosophy as it was desparate attempt to get out of the depression.
Conservatism, however, has an intellectual pedigree that extends back centuries. John Locke, Edmund Burke, to Hayek in the Road to Serfdom, and Buckley's National Review. I could go on, but you get the idea.
One more thought. Why is it that there are countless examples of liberals leaving the fold for conservatism. Indeed, there is a whole movement named for these folks - NeoCons. Not much movement the other way, unless you want to count Jeffords!
Anyway, got here through BE and I really did read your blog. Do me a favor, pop over to the Pursuit of Happiness and say "hi".
Oh yes, and conservative chicks are much, much more hot - present company excluded. Then again, I'm trusting you on that one.
Dear Pursuit,
First, what I should do is answer the people who took the time to comment without personally insulting me, but sadly, I am doing exactly what I shouldn't and answering you first.
You have made my point; (you know, the one about the lack of intellectual republicans), by STARTING you comment with an ad hominem attack, and then rounding out the paragraph with another. To my mind, an intellectual is able to engage in an argument without resorting to such sophomoric tactics. That's one of my main complaints about Republicans -- all I ever seem to hear from them is shrill rhetoric. But, I'd be happy (well maybe) to discuss politics with you like a grown up sometime. Incidentally, I read over my post and I see it as a legitimate question that you haven't answered. You just do what Bill O'Reilly does and start yelling from your bully pulpit until people are either intimidated into submission or simply stop talking to you. That's not winning an argument; it's a temper tantrum.
As for the "hot chick" reference. At first I was puzzled by that, because I have not said anything about "who is hotter, red chicks or blue chicks" -- since I am not very bright I leave such intellectual discussions to people like you, and then I realized you may be referring to my entry re: don't hate me because I am beautiful. That entry is a joke, dude. No t much else to say about that. You either get 'em or you don't.
But thanks for coming out. And happy New Year.
George W Bush, through Karl Rove, has built his success on the fact that he can count on the votes of 30% of the US electorate (people that actually vote). This core 30% is an odd mix of typical Americans who motivated by cultural grudges disguised as religion. Some of that 30% I think are jovially nihilist business barons. There is a loud anti-intellectual subculture among that 30%, and they are quite loud and increasingly visible. I think to the degree it's religious, it's tribal, a sense of "people like us against people like them (liberals)", not "let's really try to figure out how live like Jesus, loving our enemies". There's real anger in there, and a feeling they have to take back the country from iniquity (especially abortion rights), and anger isn't correlated with intellect. Sometimes I think there's an inferiority complex in there too, a weird kind of democratic anti-"elitist" (intellectual=elitist) feeling among some of them.
But that group not the only subculture among Republicans. For example, there are some Republican-oriented think tanks which give research papers as political weapons. There are also lots of highly educated people who call themselves "conservative", but that word seems to have devolved to a cafeteria-style buffet table of old conservatism, neo conservatism, and liberatianism. Power, and the thirst for more of it, seems to unhinge the limits of their purported philosophy (like old "states rights", "decentralization") , and that also feels anti-intellectual to me. It feels like they will say anything at all that helps them accomplish something on the agenda of that 30%. Finally, their power also seems to thrive on tribal, sincere, gut-level sentiments, which seem anti-intellectual to those outside the tribe, made even more hysterical by the nightmare and outrage of the 9/11 attacks.
Post a Comment