There’s this movie I watched not too long ago called Idiocracy. It’s not a great, or even good, movie. But taken as a cautionary tale, there is much to chew on, particularly given this year's crop of Republican presidential candidates as seen in the several debates already taken place.
The movie places its protagonists, two not very bright young men 500 years into their future, and into an America where anti-intellectualism is vaunted above pretty much everything else, and opinions, ideas and even thoughts are boiled up from the cauldron of television advertising slogans. (And I don’t mean political sound bites; I mean advertising, as in food chains!)
There has been more than a whisper of anti-intellectualism in this country for a while now; it’s nothing new. And yet, as we approach the 2012 presidential election we face a slate of Republican hopefuls who hold it up as a proud banner. It’s more than mispronouncing Uzbekistan, or mis-remembering Paul Revere’s ride, or misquoting the Constitution (or was it the Declaration of Independence?) It’s more than stumbling on words for which most high school debaters would lose points, and it’s more than reveling in being voted most anti-science person in the room.
It doesn’t take a genius to be president, and we’ve had many perfectly good — even great — presidents who were far from it. And we’ve had brilliant men who’ve been unsuccessful presidents (Jimmy Carter comes immediately to mind). But it’s a recent phenomenon, I think, in which being blatantly uninformed and unschooled in the basics of science, world history, and even American history, is a plus.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” wrote philosopher George Santayana more than a century ago. I learned that lesson when I was a junior in high school taking the obligatory American history course. “What’s the point of studying history?” we would ask our patient teacher. Part of his answer came from Santayana; the other part was his steadfast insistence on American exceptionalism and what we can learn from it. Our country, he would tell us, is special — unique. But not in the way our 2012 Republican candidate field might have us believe.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jamminsue
Barbara, well-said
2 - roger nowosielski
I'm not really surprised, Barbara, your clever collage of nonpersons fails to include a mug shot of our Chief Executive. I know, I know, he's a Harvard graduate and thought law before venturing into politics, so his academic credentials are presumed to be impeccable.
A rather odd criterion, I may well add, when it comes to one's qualification for office (hardly a guarantee against ineptness or deficiency in character, BTW) and a safe topic to boot. But I understand, of course. It's a favorite, fail-safe strategy on the part of the liberal mindset to be blaming Republicans for being dumb while Democrats, the party in power, are not smarter by any stretch of the term and the country goes down the drain.
As I commented on the Housethread, TV is a diversion from the important issues of the day. And while you responded by saying we need diversion in order not to succumb to doom and gloom, here you go again offering us another diversion, this time masquerading under the guise of cogent political analysis.
Forgive these harsh words, it's not personal, but I feel compelled to place this article in a larger context.
3 - Arch Conservative
Anti-intellectual? That's a eupehmism for "not our kind" with our kind being a leftist right Barbara?
The GOP field with the exception of one, is a pretty pathetic collection of individuals but for reasons Barbara did not even come close to in her post.
Did you purposely not bring up "the one we have been waiting for" Barbara? Are we to infer that this is a tacit approval of the job he's done?
He latest and greatest accomplishment was the political postruing of announcing a near full troop withdrawal from Iraq. Despite the fact that on the campaign trail in 2008 Barry S. claimed the troop withdrawal would a be a top priority and one of the first things done during his administration he now most likely will expect us all to wonder at the awe that is he. It's not like many more lives were lost on his watch in Iraq yet the same people who demonized Bush are giving him a pass for doing the exact same thing.
They all suck except for Ron Paul.
4 - Barbara Barnett
Roger--Never mentioned anything about academic credentials. And the verdict on President Obama is yet to be written.
5 - roger nowosielski
Apropos of Mike Judge, to change the topic however slightly, wasn't he also the "creator" of Office Space?
A rather clever comedy considering America's taste, but then again, the Germans put us all to shame when it comes to intellectual seriousness.
The "no child left behind" program may well satisfy the deepest urges of a technocrat or a statistician, enamored as they are with numbers, but it's got nothing to do with teaching us how to think.
It serves a purpose, of course, to keep the majority of the population dumb and uncritical, and the Democrats bear equal responsibility and the blame. Which isn't surprising, come to think of it, because they, too, are the guardians of the gate.
6 - marykir
One interesting thing I've noticed while reading early US history is that anti-intellectualism seems to go back almost to the first British settlers and certainly back to the post-revolutionary period. My theory is this is because Americans don't like being told what to do :) The irony is that we are often taught to distrust one authority by another authority.
Whether or not a person has the gift of faith, it's a shame when his or her abilities to question and reason are not exercised or when the use of these abilities by others is disparaged.
7 - handyguy
Barbara does have a valid point:
The loudest applause lines in the GOP debates come for the dumbest/most outlandish assertions. And such figures as [teasing non-candidate] Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain revel in their anti-intellectual image and use it to play transparently to the lowest common denominator in the crowd.
Barack Obama's academic credentials and tendency to speak in grammatically correct complete sentences are seen as negatives, signs of elitist condescension, by the same GOP primary crowd that cheers for obnoxiousness and fake populism [and, more than once in the lowest points of these very low debates, for death].
8 - zingzing
archie: "Anti-intellectual? That's a eupehmism for "not our kind" with our kind being a leftist right Barbara?"
no, it means hostility towards intellectuals and intellectual pursuits like science, education, learning the proper use of commas, how to spell "euphemism," etc.
roger: "Apropos of Mike Judge, to change the topic however slightly, wasn't he also the "creator" of Office Space?"
and beavis and butthead. which is absolutely brilliant.
9 - handyguy
And don't forget "King of the Hill," which may actually be closest to Judge's Texas roots.
10 - zingzing
there was a time when king of the hill was the best animated show on television (by most objective standards at any rate).
11 - roger nowosielski
@7 No she doesn't, Handy, and I don't mean it with disrespect.
Being articulate and knowing your syntax has got nothing to do with leadership qualities (though no one would argue it's unimportant). At best, you're addressing a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
So yes, focusing on GOP's faults is a distraction, a subterfuge, because it diverts our attention from all-important issues, the least of which being our steady decline.
12 - Barbara Barnett
I'm not talking about syntax and being articulate. I'm talking about dismissing reason and science as policy. And that attitude, Roger is the problem. Genius isn't a prerequisite to being a leader (I said that rather certainly in the article). But when consensus among the Republican field is that climate change is a myth and history doesn't matter, then there is, indeed, a problem.
13 - roger nowosielski
The problem goes well beyond, Barbara, and you know it. Environmental issues are small potatoes compared with the political crisis and impasse we're facing, the system ain't working, and no one is interested in fixing it.
So yes, pointing fingers at one party or another doesn't cut it for me. Doing so brings us no closer to a solution than saying 100 Hail Marys till your tongue gets numb.
And how exactly do the attitudes you speak of, namely, of unreason, figure in the present policies? I fail to see the connection.
14 - Barbara Barnett
Thing is Roger, yes, you're right. We are at a huge political crisis. What does reason have to do with it? Put an anti-intellectual, anti-science (way beyond anything GWB might have felt), and policy will be made with no reason other than the desire to retrofit this country back to some 1950s image of what America should be.
15 - El Bicho
"I'm not really surprised, Barbara, your clever collage of nonpersons fails to include a mug shot of our Chief Executive."
Me either since she's writing about Republican Presidential candidates.
16 - roger nowosielski
Is there a distinction I should be aware of?
17 - Dr Dreadful
This article would have been more punchy if it had mentioned some concrete examples of anti-intellectualism among the GOP field, of which there have been many.
While Handy is correct that some of the loudest cheers at the debates have been reserved for the most egregiously idiotic posturing, it's not quite that clear-cut. It's also true that one or two of the most noxious mouthdumps, particularly those exuded by Perry, have elicited some of the loudest boos.
Which suggests to me that there may be one or two brain cells still twitching inside the skulls of the Republican base.
Although maybe not. In researching this comment, I discovered that in conservative circles, this apparently is what passes for debunking the claim that Republicans are anti-intellectual. I mean, seriously... come on.
18 - Clavos
...there was a time when king of the hill was the best animated show on television...
"On television" lowers the bar considerably.
19 - roger nowosielski
Never argued against reason, Barbara. Just fail to see how the presence or absence of reason impact the present
For one thing, I wasn't exactly aware of the fact that either Geithner or Bernanke or Eric Holder were the practitioners of unreason. So I still have to ask the rather stupid question -- how are we better off?
20 - Barbara Barnett
Dr. D--this was strictly a rant. As you said, examples are many, but I had only about 10 minutes to write this before having to leave the house.
21 - roger nowosielski
Disagree. Arch made some valid points, his critique of the present is on target, Dreadful admitted that much in so many words.
Arch's fault, he hadn't connected the dots (yet). But neither have the liberals who think we can find the way out of this crisis.
To Arch, government is the problem. To liberals, it's Big Business. And until the twaine shall meet, they'll be talking at cross-purposes.
22 - Zingzing
Clavos: "On television" lowers the bar considerably.
True. But animated series don't show anywhere else.
23 - El Bicho
sounds more like he doesn't watch animated shows as the bar is pretty high currently
24 - Zingzing
Archer!
25 - Clavos
sounds more like he doesn't watch animated shows as the bar is pretty high currently
Didn't even watch 'em when I was a kid and they were called cartoons...
But my reference to the bar was of TV in general.
That bar is the lowest in the entertainment world, generally.