Thursday, October 06, 2005

Overt anti-intellectualism? Well, that would explain CM Price's votes against the interests of his own district.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, comes this quote from a long-forgotten 19th-century writer and pedagogue, Bayard R. Hall:

In 1843, Hall wrote of frontier Indiana that "(w)e always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily, smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness."

162 years prior to New Albany’s summer of infantile troglobyte discontent, and even long before that time in 1980 when future councilman Steve Price strummed himself to sleep at night to the pleasing chords of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” (“We don’t need no education” … sang Roger Waters, and murmered CM Price -- in the dark, as always), Hall accurately glimpsed and correctly diagnosed a cankerous sore on the American body politic, which Wikipedia proceeds to describe:

Anti-intellectualism is a term that in one sense describes a hostility towards, or mistrust of, those who call themselves intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as an attack on the merits of science, education or literature.

Those progressing beyond the literary realm of Bazooka Joe comics and the dubious merits of reality television will at some point come into contact with the ideas of historian Richard Hofstadter's, whose 1964 book, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” surveyed America’s past and identified the malign influence referred to in the title.

The common strain that binds together the attitudes and ideas which I call anti-intellectual is a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life.

Eric L. McKitrick writes:

If any one theme could be said to unite all (Hofstadter's) his writings, it was the importance of ideas in history; more precisely, it was the relation between the way people behaved, in politics and other realms of effort, and the use they made of their minds.

Further elaboration is provided by writer Ariel Dorfman, who paraphrases Hofstadter’s findings.

Anti-intellectualism had its origins … in American traits that anteceded the nation's founding: the mistrust of secular modernization, the preference for practical and commercial solutions to problems and, above all, to the devastating influence of Protestant evangelism in everyday lives. Anybody who cares to read (Hofstadter’s) masterful book today may be astonished to see how it anticipates and even predicts the rise of the neo-conservatives and Christian fundamentalism in contemporary Washington.

Anti-intellectualism in American life is a sufficiently common phenomenon that it need not be discussed exclusively within Dorfman’s neo-conservative, fundamentalist context, although the connection is a point well taken.

In political terms, New Albany’s most renowned practitioners of the anti-intellectual craft are registered as Democrats, although it remains difficult to imagine most of them voting for John Kerry in 2004 – or, more accurately, it is difficult to imagine them voting against George W. Bush’s convoluted grammar, Karl Rove’s simplistic, kindergarten slogans, and the GOP’s Orwellian fables of the deconstruction.

Beyond the collateral damage incurred by other Democrats, why does this matter?

To paraphrase McKitrick’s reading of Hofstadter, “the relation between the way politicians like Dan Coffey and Steve Price behave, in politics and other realms of effort, and the use they make of their minds,” is of central importance for the future of New Albany.

Speaking only for myself, CM Coffey can remain the ward-heeling emperor of his tiny West End electoral district – one ripe for immediate and unforgiving redistricting if not for the desire of most involved with local politics to see him remain in relative isolation – for as long as his supporters are content to endure their ongoing impoverishment, but the 3rd District is a different story entirely, if for no other reason than it being my district of residence.

The only plausible explanation for 3rd District CM Price’s abysmal voting record, one that grows more bizarrely predictable each month, is a strident and growing anti-intellectualism.

A permanent state of distemper and incomprehension seems to have spiked CM Price’s landing gear, leaving a steady stream of knee-jerk “no” votes as the only way of him coping with a future direction for this and other cities of its size that he is ill equipped to understand, and detests all the more for his confusion.

Neither for CM Price nor for his conjoined counterpart is there sentiment for the idea that life’s difficulties are best confronted “with an intelligence of which no human should ever be ashamed,” as Dorfman puts it.

Rather, they warn us to be ashamed, but even more so, to be afraid, always afraid – afraid of a pantheon of imaginary enemies, of shifty, phantom withholders of vital information, of the smarty-pants engineers, of those who read, of those who write … afraid of those who can “do,” and not merely posture for the benefit of the congenitally incapable in order to gain re-election.

My councilman, Steve Price, relishes his role as poster child for anti-intellectualism – and for class warfare, mistrust and plain envy. By doing so, he sends a loud, clear and tragically, utterly mistaken message to the community that he is perfectly willing to condemn our children to an uncertain future -- to the same atmosphere of unaccountability and low common denominators that brought us to the state we’re in (and CM Price accidentally to office) -- rather than to learn, to improve and to succeed.

Anti-intellectualism in this context is little more than the enraged epithet of the slumlord, cynical and exploitative, fearing a change in the “natural” order of things – when a change in this unacceptable order constitutes this city’s best, and perhaps only, hope for enrichment and progress in a competitive, changing world.

It is sadly likely that CM Price consistently and brazenly votes against the interests of his own 3rd District out of sheer spite, because he loathes the very ideas, the very strategies – the very people – who are best placed to lift it up beyond his own abilities to achieve.

He refuses to undertake the necessary process of reform and renewal within the narrow capabilities of his own stunted political worldview, and as long as this remains the case, he cannot be expected to do so outside the boundaries of these self-imposed, damning limitations.

Whatever one's political affiliation, anti-intellectualism is unacceptable. Those in politics who espouse it are making the most fallacious promise of all – that somehow we "the people" can make things better by attacking the possibilities of the human intellect rather than bolstering, furthering and trusting them.

It’s easier to be mad as hell than it is to think … but only the latter can lead to a better tomorrow.

12 comments:

All4Word said...

A. I commit the sin of covetousness that I do not (yet) have the luxury of an established business, and can look forward to "time off" to devote the time necessary to making such an eloquent posting and contribution to the public discussion.

B. It is with raw envy that I read this. It is so on-point, so relevant, so necessary, and so well-written that it is, indeed, intimidating. Not entirely tongue-in-cheek, I must say "Praise Roger."

edward parish said...

You have to just keep teaching and educating. It is a shame that it has to be to elected officials that should have a little more than social skills with the masses to get where they are, but look at who is leading this country. Trickle down.

Anonymous said...

There are probably fewer than 5% of the population who could have written such an eloquent posting and therefore most of us, even the educated ones, cannot compare.

Be that aside, just because some of the current leaders are not as articulate and gifted with the English language as you are, categorizing Republicans and/or Christians as anti-intellectual is wrong.

The problems with our city and county leaders is not democratic vs. republican, Christian vs. non-Christian. The problem is their willingness to accept the status-quo and preserve the good-ol-boy network that perpetuates in our local govenment.

All4Word said...

While Roger is no great fan of organized religion, I think his use of the word "fundamentalist" is both less and more than a slam at religion or Christianity.

It's more like the old joke about the Latin roots - "He has his mentis in his fundum."

The New Albanian said...

I appreciate the kind words, everyone.

Healthblogger, the point is not to be articulate for the sake of it, but to introduce the notion that the life (or death) of the mind is not to be considered in a vacuum when it comes to the public positions taken by certain politicians.

Fundamentalists of many stripes, ranging from Muslim to Christian to Communist and Coffeyist and beyond, seek the subordination of human reason to their own dogma. So long as they do so in their own temple, I'f fine with it. When it has a corrosive effect on me, I'm against it.

edward parish said...

Perhaps our local bookseller could make a donation of copies of Collapse by Jared Diamond to local law makers to help them better see.
Or better yet, sponsor a New Albany reads program to further educate the misinformed and uneducated. That might be a real good winter time project for our changing community to read the same book. What say Randy?

Jeff Gillenwater said...

"Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims: 'What is good for them and what is not.' And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that this is the road to paradise, though he never offers to go along for the ride," Bush said.

In this statement from the President today, the words Muslim and Christian are interchangeable, as are the names Bin Laden and Bush.

If ever there was an argument against unquestioning faith...

All4Word said...

Edward: Two options present themselves.

IUS Library is sponsoring a community book discussion group called "Open Books," starting with "Reading Lolita in Tehran," by Azar Nafisi, on Thursday, Oct. 20 at 7 p.m and again on Friday at noon. The meetings are in the new IUS library.

The November 10-11 book is "Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood," by Marjane Satrapi.

Destinations Booksellers is offering a 20% discount to all Open Books Discussion Group attendees.

In addition, we're recruiting for our political book club, which C-SPAN wants to visit in the Spring, and "Collapse," by Jared Diamond, will certainly be a candidate for the early months for that group.

The Political Book Discussion Group will start with Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here."

All4Word said...

And as for donations, I've done my part (Rise of the Creative Class) and I reserve my charity for the needy.

HOWEVER, Edward, if you'd like to collect the money, I'll waive my margin if you'll cover my direct costs.

edward parish said...

Jeff, if posted something like what you posted, I would be eaten alive by the C-right just because I am a none believer. That said, you hit the nail on the head. This is the same President that made the statement after 9-11:" if you are not a Christian, you are not an American". That is when the White House started putting the muzzle on W and restricting what he said and where.

There is absolutely no difference as you stated. How dare he say that for all of us patriotic Americans. His views are his views and not mine.

Randy, we will chat this weekend about your proposal.

Cheers all!

Anonymous said...

I find it disappointing that the intellectual minds that post comments on this blog can justify, in their own minds, how Bush could be compared with Bin Laden.

I understand disliking the man, disagreeing with policies, distrusting him, or just having a total lack of respect for him, his principles or his beliefs.

But I find it hard to believe that anyone can justify this comparison if they truly know what the two men have actually done and what they stand for.

I am proud my son is a Marine and that he and his fellow service men and women are willing to stand up and fight for the freedom that allows people to voice such ill-will and discontent towards our president, who was elected by the majority, in this greatest nation on earth.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

HB, while jbarthold interpreted my intentions correctly, I find it hard to believe that anyone claiming to be a Christian could, in good conscience, support President Bush and his policies, which often stand in direct opposition to what I consider to be the major tenants of Christian philosophy.

Perhaps you could shed some light on that topic as I've struggled with it for years now.