Intellectuals and Anti Americanism
Intellectuals and Inti Americanism
Intellectual:
developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience - rational rather than
emotional
Intellect:
a: the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will: the capacity for
knowledge
b: the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed
c: having a high degree of understanding or intelligence; cultured
Intelligencia:
regarded collectively, especially university knowledge - rationality, reasoning; the class of
intellectuals regarded as possessing culture and political initiative
Intellectualism:
(Philos) theory that knowledge is wholly or mainly derived from pure reason
Rational:
ability to reason; reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly
rational ways
I was looking for a clear definition for the people who comprise the elite leadership of our nation –
and in the process the basis of their thinking. The best I can make of the above is that it has pretty
much to do with theoretical knowledge, particularly that gained in universities – and unemotional.
The unemotional part doesn’t fit because it appears our vaunted elite are mostly emotion – but still
mostly theoretical, or philosophical? In short I don’t think these definitions fit our “intellectual” elite.
So what does? And why are they so anti everything that is American?
Reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Shaes brought me an inkling when she went into some
detail about the thinking of the progressive utopians that embraced communism after the revolution
of Lenin and Stalin. I think they really, really believed that communal living highlighted by sincere
cooperation was the way of the future, and they refused to let it go even when they saw it didn’t work.
They WANTED it to work and were not prepared to accept that it defies human nature. In fact today
social scientists decry the very phrase human nature. Robert Caro, on the other hand, points to
attributes of Robert Moses in The Power Broker lying more on the side of arrogance. Moses knew he
was right; he was also strongly inspired by public service and the betterment of the common man; he
was ultimately successful; and he insisted it be his way. His actual story is far more interesting than
that, but the point is made.
So what do they want? They seem to want everyone to live peacefully together, without strife,
comfortably – that is, economically secure – with a minimum of competition, all working together
toward the common goal. Beautiful. But who pays the bill? What creates the vast machine that
provides the wherewithal to fuel it? Who sets the common goal, and how? And what are the
incentives all around? Over and over again it has been proven that without personal incentive most
people do the least they can and still get by, and those that make the rules somehow always expect
to be highly rewarded for their efforts. Additionally, peace does not seem to be the nature of man –
acquisitiveness does seem to be, including wielding of power one over the other. That’s not
beautiful, but it’s reality. Interestingly most of this intellectual elite fit well into the comfortable zone,
and don’t seem to shy away from competition, as long as they come out ahead of the game, and with
their background and connections most do.
Let that sink in for a second or two. How different is that that the aristocracy of yore that wants the
masses to maintain their place in society – a place that allows them to do the bidding of the
aristocracy? Think about background and connections? Why are the “elite” universities elite? Better
education? I don’t think that can be proven. Famous professors? Well, that maybe, professors who
research and publish widely, are famous, and are therefore among the acknowledged intelligencia -
and who, incidentally, are often on first name basis with the ruling elite? Connections? Can it be
that the real value of the “best” colleges and universities are the connections they yield?
Connections that allow the entry into the intellectual class? Sounds like aristocracy to me, manned
by politicians, university professors, publishers and, who else? Entertainers, of course, but that’s
different. I guess there is always room among the elite for the beautiful people, especially when they
are rich. And that seems to be the answer to who else – the rich; well, maybe just the rich who fit the
mold. Which is? Progressive and arrogant I guess, and supportive of the superiority of the “class”?
So why is this class so anti everything American? Maybe because they have made theirs, feel
themselves above the grubby infighting of competition, and want desperately to be able to bathe in
the luxury of their superiority – above it all, condescending; don’t bother me, I am sailing.
Too simple? Yes, there is other motivation that I am missing and I frankly do not know what it is.
Can it be naïve ignorance? Selfish disdain? Perhaps pretending to reach out to the poor and the
ignorant with a warm message of diversity and acceptance of all helps them feel superior. Is this
where the term ivory tower comes from? Only now the ivory towers are gated communities.
While this essay was percolating – awaiting more editing – I ran across a report by the Cato
Institute (Jan/Feb 1998), written by Robert Nozick, entitled “Why Do Intellectuals Oppose
Capitalism?” The conclusions were interesting and fit, I believe, into the problem with which I was
wrestling. First Nozick defines his intellectuals as people whose vocation deals with “shaping the
word flow others receive...poets, novelists, literary critics, newspaper and magazine journalists, and
many professors.” They are found, he writes mostly in academia, the media and government
bureacracies. Their motivation, he hypothesizes, is superiority, their own, and they believe in a
capitalistic society it is not adequately appreciated in comparison with others, particularly successful
capitalists. The intellectuals expect their views and their superior merit to be highly valued and the
feel entitled to be heard above others; capitalism does not so honor them, and they resent it.
So why does this result in anti-American sentiment? Nozick attributes this mostly to the
controlled environment of academia and the “distribution of goods and rewards via a centrally
controlled mechanism…that strikes intellectuals as more appropriate than the ‘anarchy and chaos’
of the marketplace” that is America. “A centrally planned socialist society fits better with their elite
experience. He goes on to suggest that people thus disappointed carry that disappointment to their
students, or in the case of writers to their readers. If the weight placed on merit seems inconsistent
with opposition to capitalism perhaps it is because their merit is not rewarded and that of lesser
people are, so throw the baby out with the bathwater?
If that begins to explain elite it doesn’t explain why those not of the elite accept it;
Even eat it up. Can it be something to do with throwing a bone? Utopian promises? As those of
Lenin and Stalin perhaps? But Hitler and Mussolini also. None of whom were intellectuals, but they
perhaps rewarded intellectuals more highly in comparison to mere capitalists than does the United
States. Socialism? Populism? We seem to be approaching dangerous ground. At what point does
satisfying the needs of the many begin to throttle the ability of the producers to produce? At what
point does feel good of many start to impact incentive to do for those that can. We need to keep in
mind that government controlled planning has not worked in the past because it became
unbalanced. Has the United States become unbalanced in the other direction? The pendulum
swings; let us hope its period is short enough to keep imbalance within reasonable limits, for clearly
the star of intellectual influence is once again rising.
Intellectual:
developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience - rational rather than
emotional
Intellect:
a: the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will: the capacity for
knowledge
b: the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed
c: having a high degree of understanding or intelligence; cultured
Intelligencia:
regarded collectively, especially university knowledge - rationality, reasoning; the class of
intellectuals regarded as possessing culture and political initiative
Intellectualism:
(Philos) theory that knowledge is wholly or mainly derived from pure reason
Rational:
ability to reason; reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly
rational ways
I was looking for a clear definition for the people who comprise the elite leadership of our nation –
and in the process the basis of their thinking. The best I can make of the above is that it has pretty
much to do with theoretical knowledge, particularly that gained in universities – and unemotional.
The unemotional part doesn’t fit because it appears our vaunted elite are mostly emotion – but still
mostly theoretical, or philosophical? In short I don’t think these definitions fit our “intellectual” elite.
So what does? And why are they so anti everything that is American?
Reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Shaes brought me an inkling when she went into some
detail about the thinking of the progressive utopians that embraced communism after the revolution
of Lenin and Stalin. I think they really, really believed that communal living highlighted by sincere
cooperation was the way of the future, and they refused to let it go even when they saw it didn’t work.
They WANTED it to work and were not prepared to accept that it defies human nature. In fact today
social scientists decry the very phrase human nature. Robert Caro, on the other hand, points to
attributes of Robert Moses in The Power Broker lying more on the side of arrogance. Moses knew he
was right; he was also strongly inspired by public service and the betterment of the common man; he
was ultimately successful; and he insisted it be his way. His actual story is far more interesting than
that, but the point is made.
So what do they want? They seem to want everyone to live peacefully together, without strife,
comfortably – that is, economically secure – with a minimum of competition, all working together
toward the common goal. Beautiful. But who pays the bill? What creates the vast machine that
provides the wherewithal to fuel it? Who sets the common goal, and how? And what are the
incentives all around? Over and over again it has been proven that without personal incentive most
people do the least they can and still get by, and those that make the rules somehow always expect
to be highly rewarded for their efforts. Additionally, peace does not seem to be the nature of man –
acquisitiveness does seem to be, including wielding of power one over the other. That’s not
beautiful, but it’s reality. Interestingly most of this intellectual elite fit well into the comfortable zone,
and don’t seem to shy away from competition, as long as they come out ahead of the game, and with
their background and connections most do.
Let that sink in for a second or two. How different is that that the aristocracy of yore that wants the
masses to maintain their place in society – a place that allows them to do the bidding of the
aristocracy? Think about background and connections? Why are the “elite” universities elite? Better
education? I don’t think that can be proven. Famous professors? Well, that maybe, professors who
research and publish widely, are famous, and are therefore among the acknowledged intelligencia -
and who, incidentally, are often on first name basis with the ruling elite? Connections? Can it be
that the real value of the “best” colleges and universities are the connections they yield?
Connections that allow the entry into the intellectual class? Sounds like aristocracy to me, manned
by politicians, university professors, publishers and, who else? Entertainers, of course, but that’s
different. I guess there is always room among the elite for the beautiful people, especially when they
are rich. And that seems to be the answer to who else – the rich; well, maybe just the rich who fit the
mold. Which is? Progressive and arrogant I guess, and supportive of the superiority of the “class”?
So why is this class so anti everything American? Maybe because they have made theirs, feel
themselves above the grubby infighting of competition, and want desperately to be able to bathe in
the luxury of their superiority – above it all, condescending; don’t bother me, I am sailing.
Too simple? Yes, there is other motivation that I am missing and I frankly do not know what it is.
Can it be naïve ignorance? Selfish disdain? Perhaps pretending to reach out to the poor and the
ignorant with a warm message of diversity and acceptance of all helps them feel superior. Is this
where the term ivory tower comes from? Only now the ivory towers are gated communities.
While this essay was percolating – awaiting more editing – I ran across a report by the Cato
Institute (Jan/Feb 1998), written by Robert Nozick, entitled “Why Do Intellectuals Oppose
Capitalism?” The conclusions were interesting and fit, I believe, into the problem with which I was
wrestling. First Nozick defines his intellectuals as people whose vocation deals with “shaping the
word flow others receive...poets, novelists, literary critics, newspaper and magazine journalists, and
many professors.” They are found, he writes mostly in academia, the media and government
bureacracies. Their motivation, he hypothesizes, is superiority, their own, and they believe in a
capitalistic society it is not adequately appreciated in comparison with others, particularly successful
capitalists. The intellectuals expect their views and their superior merit to be highly valued and the
feel entitled to be heard above others; capitalism does not so honor them, and they resent it.
So why does this result in anti-American sentiment? Nozick attributes this mostly to the
controlled environment of academia and the “distribution of goods and rewards via a centrally
controlled mechanism…that strikes intellectuals as more appropriate than the ‘anarchy and chaos’
of the marketplace” that is America. “A centrally planned socialist society fits better with their elite
experience. He goes on to suggest that people thus disappointed carry that disappointment to their
students, or in the case of writers to their readers. If the weight placed on merit seems inconsistent
with opposition to capitalism perhaps it is because their merit is not rewarded and that of lesser
people are, so throw the baby out with the bathwater?
If that begins to explain elite it doesn’t explain why those not of the elite accept it;
Even eat it up. Can it be something to do with throwing a bone? Utopian promises? As those of
Lenin and Stalin perhaps? But Hitler and Mussolini also. None of whom were intellectuals, but they
perhaps rewarded intellectuals more highly in comparison to mere capitalists than does the United
States. Socialism? Populism? We seem to be approaching dangerous ground. At what point does
satisfying the needs of the many begin to throttle the ability of the producers to produce? At what
point does feel good of many start to impact incentive to do for those that can. We need to keep in
mind that government controlled planning has not worked in the past because it became
unbalanced. Has the United States become unbalanced in the other direction? The pendulum
swings; let us hope its period is short enough to keep imbalance within reasonable limits, for clearly
the star of intellectual influence is once again rising.