Why must smart = elitist?

[Paula Sims]

Frankly, I've had enough of the anti-brains campaigns pushed by the right-wing nuts. They painted Kerry and Gore that way and now they're doing it to Obama. Jealous? Since I like to think I have an IQ above my shoe size, does that make me "elitist" or is it the fact that I just think (and thanks to the DU I have come to think more often)?

Any ideas?

[The Straight Story]

1. I don't think it is 'smart' I think they are referring to education

Look at bush, he has a degree and is dumb as rocks but thinks he is smart because a piece of paper tells him he is :)

[LWolf]

46. I think you are correct.

It can also be partly true, that the educated are the "elite." Not every person in our nation is going to go to college, no matter what the propaganda says.

Of those who WANT to go to college, and who are well-prepared to do so, many still won't.

Plenty of us from the working class don't have college funds when we graduate. We might be able to get a grant or a scholarship, which is unlikely to cover most of the cost of a college education. Most of us will have to work to pay living expenses while we're going to school. Those of us who take student loans to get all the way through will graduate with a mountain of debt; if our profession, like mine, requires continuous education, between the continuing education and the student loans, we never really get ahead.

Not to mention the years of any semblance of normal life sacrificed, since we are always either at work, at school, or studying when we're not sleeping.

I did it. I worked and went to school part time and raised my kids. It took me 12 years to finish an AA at the local community college, paying as I went. Then I got student loans to finish the BA + 30 for my teaching credential. I didn't finish the masters, even though I only needed 3 classes, because I didn't want to take on more debt before I'd paid the student loans I already had, and because I didn't know if I could keep up with night classes as a first year teacher, anyway. I was already spending 10 hours a day at school.

Of course, when I paid off the student loans and wanted to finish the masters, I found that my previous work had "expired," and I'd have to start a new masters from scratch. For more money than I have.

My sons both attended the community college and chose not to go any further. I didn't have the resources to put them through school. They saw what it took for me, looked at what a university degree would cost them, and chose not to go. My oldest son's best friend went. He got several scholarships, graduated from Berkeley, and then from Yale. He has enough debt in college loans to keep him paying most of his working life. And has decided that he doesn't really like practicing law.

My point is that, for so many, the people who have parents who can pay their way, or part, through college, or who get enough scholarships to make a difference ARE the elite.

[Iris]

55. I don't agree. There's been a concerted anti-intellecutalism effort afoot for many years now.

Bush and his cronies are just profiting from that. So, in a way they really are smart because they've convinced people to dumb themselves down enough for them to run off with the whole gravy train.

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Reminds me a lot of the tyranny of the jocks in HS

You know, not the all-around athlete/scholar types. But the ones who had nothing more than some athletic ability, and used it to bully those who actually worked at their studies, or were curious about the world.

[Iris]

60. Yes. I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the OP. It's really sickening when you think

about it. A whole country/society that simply refuses to grow up.

[yurbud]

70. Obama is the athlete-scholar. If he had played for the NBA, even the knuckledraggers would vote for

him.

[Prophet 451]

73. Oh yes

I remember them well. My first two years in HS, they made my life a living hell (then I learned to wrestle).

[JerseygirlCT]

75. It does help to find your niche, doesn't it?

I've never been a jock, but theater and music were my place, and eventually even most of the jocks had to respect that.

[jakem]

2. i dont think you are elitist for having small feet...

joking!

:hi:

[loveable liberal]

3. Fear requires the absence of thought and understanding.

chimpy has been a fantastic distributor of fear. With us or against us; up or down vote; flip-flop; lying; these are all means to prohibit discussion and understanding.

[DJ13]

4. They arent afraid of smart people

They're afraid of people smart enough to tell the truth.

Those get labeled elitists.

[RB TexLa]

5. They represent people who are willfully and proudly ignorant.

They are offended by people who either are smart or try to learn. Everything to them is about people trying to be better than they are. Speaking "fancy," to them is just showing off.

This is why Bush purposely mispronounces nuclear, so they can hear it and see people make fun of it. It is way past time we stop pandering to the ignorant in this country.

[bluethruandthru]

6. Anyone who thinks for him or herself

is "elitist" to the repukes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. 'Cuz bein' one of the common folks is considered to be "populist".

Rather than just dumb as a rock. Reagan and Bush capitalized on the "who'd yuh rather have a beer with?" theme.

Books are for eggheads who don't work for a living.

I always like "Effete Intellectuals" scorned by Agnew. Now it's latte guzzling "elitists" and "limousine liberals".

[Beregond2]

12. Another choice Agnewism: "Naterring Nabobs."

[Kat45]

43. ...of Negativity."

Just finishing the alliteration. :rofl:

[ColbertWatcher]

47. It's also another way to dismiss facts.

Since those "eggheads" figure them out, use them to counter beliefs and are the ones who are always trotting them out to refute what everyone knows already to be true.

[atommom]

8. Bush and his cronies can't really compete intellectually, and they know it.

Their policies don't stand up under the cold hard light of logic. So they have to discredit the people who will see this and point it out, by making intelligence and logical thought into bad things. They're giving people targets for their bitterness and resentment, and as usual, the targets don't deserve it.

[treestar]

9. It is not

It just shows they are jealous.

The "elite" is not a bad thing, where based on brains. Where based on wealth, it means * and the Kennedys (thus no respecter of party ID).

Obama as editor of Harvard Law Review has to be part of the intellectual elite, but why is that bad? This is why the Rovian "attack their strenghts" succeeds. Tuning in to people's sense of inferiority and jealousy. Obama himself does nothing to act like he is superior, which is why the M$M keeps insisting he is "arrogant."

He is smarter than the average American. And this is a bad thing in a President? Only to the kool-aid drinkers who are so pathetic they can't take the fact that they haven't made the effort and don't have the talent and can't measure up to Obama on their own terms for "success."

[Mabus]

10. I blame the political media

It's the political media that feel intellectually inferior and dub politicians smarter than themselves "elitists" and claim that the pol is "out of touch". Here's an example of what I mean from 2002 when Dana Milbank was talking to Howie Kurtz about how the political press felt about Gore and Bush in 2000.

MILBANK: You know what it is, Howie, I—and I think that Gore is sanctimonious and that's sort of the worst thing you can be in the eyes of the press. And he has been disliked all along and it was because he gives a sense that he's better than us—he's better than everybody, for that matter, but the sense that he's better than us as reporters. Whereas President Bush probably is sure that he's better than us—he's probably right, but he does not convey that sense. He does not seem to be dripping with contempt when he looks at us, and I think that has something to do with the coverage.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010708.shtml

[Uncle Joe]

11. Because smart = critical thinking and critical thinking is a no no

to the corporate media. It becomes much more difficult for them to brain wash the American People when the people can think for them selves.

The corporate media have at least two short term motivations to dumb down the American People and they have been dumbing down the people for at least a few decades.

1. To market or sell products to the American People aka;consumers or customers for the corporate media's commercial buying corporate clients', products; many of which the people don't need or can't afford.

2. To market or sell corporate loving politicians to the American People, many of which the people don't need and can't afford.

I say short term motivations because if the corporate media seriously thought long term, smart would be a virtue for leadership as opposed to a vice and elite would never have been demonized as a word. Also the long term implications of trashing our best and brightest while enabling those with less aptitude to positions of power will surely lead to national and or environmental collapse.

This is why the corporate media slandered and libeled Al Gore by stating he claimed to have invented the Internet instead of giving him credit for his vision and dedication to empowering the American People and democracy with his legislative work in opening up the Internet to the people. The corporate media saw this as a threat to their ability in brain washing the American People as the Internet can induce critical thinking of corporate media propaganda on a massive scale all open for the world to see without the people having to go through a corporate media filter.

This is also why the corporate media enabled someone with far lesser ability to the most powerful job in the land with such criteria as "who would you rather have a beer with?" In a case of sublime irony Bush recently scolded Wall Street as having a hangover after having been drunk for too long!

The nation has been paying a heavy price ever since the selection of 2000, but unfortunately many in the corporate media still haven't learned or don't care.

Thanks for the thread, Paula Sims.

[Beregond2]

13. Stupid people are threatened by smart people,

and the only way they can think of to "cut them down to size" is to accuse them of snobbery.

[SmileyRose]

41. As someone who is slightly below average on book smarts

let me say I am not threatened by people smarter. In fact, I have to depend on them to figure out the crap I can't. Like the legalese on credit agreements and insurance policies. What is frustrating is when people who have a lot of books smarts wants to make fun of people like me as being "dumb masses" - who maybe should not be trusted to vote because we are supposedly so easily hoodwinked (and both sides say this crap) - who are really too stupid to make the "right" automotive choice - who NEED the government to make our educational, health care and retirement decisions blah blah blah.

No we don't.

We need the "smart" people who decided to deliberately make the legalese so damn complicated so they could get away with screwing people like me to be held accountable. If the "smart" people who took my insurance premiums would actually treat me fairly to begin with, if the "smart" people who make 300 times what I make running the company I gladly give my blood sweat and tears for would just keep their meager promises to pay for doctor visit once in a while and make sure I'm not eating cat food in my nieces basement when I'm too used up to work, then I wouldn't have any bad feelings toward "smart" people at all.

If the smart people we send to government would hold the crooked smart people accountable in the first place, we would not need 9 zillion taxes and government programs to help even the score. But, alas, it seems the smart people we send to government decide to kiss the butts of the crooked smart people (who slip a few bucks their way) and people like me get tossed a few government hand outs that is guaranteed to keep me even more dependent upon the "smart" people.

[MicaelS]

44. Damn that was a great post...

I wish I would have said that.

[SmileyRose]

45. Blush

Nobody has ever said that to me before. Maybe I should write mad more often. :)

Welcome fellow newbie. :)

[Scout]

88. exactly, thank you n/t

[lonestarnot]

59. You can reserve the right to blush more as that is the best post I've read all morning, and

I've been reading all! Bravo! :applause:

[LostInAnomie]

14. The people in charge don't honestly think that.

But, they know that the dim witted sheep that vote for them do. The base of the repuke party is filled with some of the dumbest, least critically thinking, backwards morons on Earth. They've spent their whole life feeling like idiots. So, instead of turning the pain they feel inwards on themselves, they turn it outwards towards those that make them feel stupid. They re-contextualize the world so that smart = bad, dumb = good.

[Prophet 451]

19. Well said

Good way of explaining it.

[femrap]

24. Many of these people are

the Born Agains who simply are FOLLOWERS. It has to be either black or white....they can't tolerate grey areas. I learned a lot about this from reading John Dean's book, 'Conservatives w/o Conscience.' Great book.

Holding on to their righteousness makes them feel superior...they're God's children and hold that over the 'elites.' I told one of them that God gave them a brain and she wanted them to use it!

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. Also, why is the smart son always the gay son? n/m

[Cleita]

16. It doesn't because the lame brains have no idea what either of those

words mean.

[MicaelS]

17. Lots of reasons, here's a few...

First, too many educated, (and by the term educated and education I mean a college degree or degrees) people look down on people who do not have an education. You doubt this? Just look at the comments about middle America during the last eight years. Either people are equal, or they aren't. If the fact that you have an education makes you think you are a better human being than someone who does not, then you are an elitist, period. At the same time educated people claim they are for the "common people". They can't have it both ways, since most common people don't have an education.

Next, there has been a almost complete devaluing of the blue-collar American lifestyle. Unions are in retreat everywhere. This attitude sure as hell didn't start with union members, it started with the educated managerial class. These days, if you earn a living with your hands, no matter how skilled you are, you are looked down upon as an inferior, despite the fact many "skilled" people make more than those with a degree. I've seen plenty of posts here by people who have a degree and complain they can't find a job, or one that pays an adequate salary, as if simply having a degree entitles one to a higher standard of living. (Of course that's because Americans really have swallowed the kool-aid of "getting an education to make more money.")

American high schools have long had a history of having a two-track educational system, college-bound and non-college-bound. In other words, if you aren't going to college, you do not deserve the same level of schooling. That's a message reinforced through four years of high school.

And lest you think this is a recent phenomenon, it's not. It's part and parcel of American history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life

Anti-intellectualism in American Life is a 1963 Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Richard Hofstadter.

....In many ways, Anti-intellectualism in American Life was a commentary on the increasing influence of Protestant evangelicalism, political egalitarianism, and the rising cult of practicality as the new criteria for assessing the private and public worlds. Hofstadter accused religion, politics, and the public schools of fostering in common people a resentment and suspicion of intellect, of the life of the mind, and of those who devote their lives to it. He charged that local evangelical preachers and small town lawyers and businessmen masked their bias against intellect with the rhetoric of morality, democracy, utility, and practicality. Thus, as the twentieth century chipped away at village culture, it was regrettable though not surprising that common folk, made suspicious of urbanity and learning by community leaders, reacted with a "righteous" vengeance to change and those who celebrated it. However, though Hofstadter deplored the anti-intellectualism of village life, he sympathized with those whose way of life was being swept away by the rush of events in the latter half of the twentieth century. He noted the "patience and generosity" of the common American in the face of monumental change. He suggested that the animosity between intellectuals and the common people was not solely the fault of the commoner. He recognized that the life of the villager was at odds with the life of the mind. Where common folk lead hard, belabored lives, intellectuals lead more leisured ones — lives that involved extensive education and time to read, think, and write. Hofstadter also noted that intellectuals were often at odds with their fellow Americans, but perhaps more so with their democratic beliefs.

It has quite a bit to do with the Jeffersonian vs. Jacksonian conflict in America. http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html I really suggest you read this entire article, it explains quite a bit about America.

The School of Andrew Jackson

His political movement—or, more accurately, the community of political feeling that he wielded into an instrument of power—remains in many ways the most important in American politics. Solidly Democratic through the Truman administration .... Jacksonian America shifted toward the Republican Party under Richard Nixon—the most important political change in American life since the Second World War. The future of Jacksonian political allegiance will be one of the keys to the politics of the twenty-first century.

Suspicious of untrammeled federal power (Waco), skeptical about the prospects for domestic and foreign do-gooding (welfare at home, foreign aid abroad), opposed to federal taxes but obstinately fond of federal programs seen as primarily helping the middle class (Social Security and Medicare, mortgage interest subsidies), Jacksonians constitute a large political interest.

Jacksonians are profoundly suspicious of elites. They generally prefer a loose federal structure with as much power as possible retained by states and local governments.

[Prophet 451]

18. "Either people are equal, or they aren't"

They aren't. Fact is, some people are bright and some are dumb. Education doesn't necessarily change that and yeah, a lot of seriously dumb people somehow manage to pick up a degree. Sure, there's been a lot of nasty comments about Middle America from the "elites", that's true but it's also true that there have been many, many times that number of nasty remarks made by Middle America. In fact, if you want to see genuine elitism, the belief that those who are morally, financially or intellectually superior should be given preferential treatment, you are many times more likely to see that attitude coming from Middle America. I'm British so I'm seeing it from the outside maybe but a goodly portion of the Middle Americans I've met or talked to have the attitude "we're humbler, more moral and just all around more American". That is the very definition of elitism. In addition to that, many have not just a suspician but an outright hostility to education and the educated. While they decry "elitism" loud and long, they use "elitism" to mean "people who actually are smarter than me". Sure, there's some jokes about hicks but if you ever want to see a really elitist attitude, chances are you'll find it coming from Middle America.

"If the fact that you have an education makes you think you are a better human being than someone who does not, then you are an elitist, period. At the same time educated people claim they are for the "common people". They can't have it both ways, since most common people don't have an education."

Bullshit. One doesn't have to belong to a particular class of people to be concerned about their welfare. If that were the case, John Edwards wouldn't have any grounds to discuss poverty.

"Next, there has been a almost complete devaluing of the blue-collar American lifestyle. Unions are in retreat everywhere."

Agreed and that is a big problem.

"This attitude sure as hell didn't start with union members, it started with the educated managerial class."

I think you'll find that actually it started with rich people who wanted to pay their employees less. So they fed their workers a load of crap about how bad unions were and the workers swallowed it.

Let the word go throughout the land: All men are NOT created equal. The majority of humanity are too fucking dumb to come in out of the rain and far too stupid to be allowed to run the world. The average voter is not a rational person. There's this polite fiction that voters calmly weigh the pro's and con's before casting their vote for the candidate whose views most closely match their own. It's complete bullshit. The average voter is dumb, panicky, spiteful and picks their candidate for purely emotional reasons. Oh, no-one will admit that. They'll dress it up in fancy phrases, try and put an unemotional cover on it (and conservatives are slightly more guilty of that) but they pick their choice for purely emotional reasons.

I swear this is part of the problem. My own nation has become infected with this fucking insane idea that everyone's opinion is equally worthwhile. They aren't. This bullshit idea of "you might be an expert but my opinion is just as good as yours" is just that, bullshit and offensive bullshit at that. It happens in law all the time, everyone believes their inane half-formed brainfart is superior to the considered opinions of those who've devoted years of their life to studying the subject. One of their favourite phrases is "despite professional opinion" which translates as "I know better than the experts because I think I do". Another of their favourites is "elitist". In the real world, "elitist" means someone who thinks that those who are percieved as intellectually, financially or morally superior should rule. I actually am an elitist because I think the world should be run by the best and brightest, not dumb and dumber but they use the word to mean "someone better than me" and there's this powerfully anti-intellectual mentality that refuses to acknowledge that someone could know better than them about anything at all. Half the frigging world seems to suffer from this delusion that either there is no such thing as an expert or they are an expert in everything. Yes, the actual experts can be wrong and sometimes are but they're a damn sight more likely to be right than Joe Bloggs off the street but Joe Bloggs is so fucking arrogant that he's convinced that he's right on everything.

"Elitist", I fucking hate that word. It's this contemptable, homicide inducing excuse for catering to the lowest common denominator. Heavens forfend anyone should be bright or enjoy culture. Heaven forbid anyone should actually know better than anyone else or be unashamed to say so, that would be "elitist". Using big words is elitist, having an education is elitist, disliking something the common herd likes is elitist.

Now, I'm categorially not saying that education and intelligence are necessarily linked. I know there's far too many variables for that to be true but I also know that there is an attitude in the US, coming mainly out of Middle America that the intelligent should bow down to the earthy wisdom of the common man, that bright people should be ashamed of their intelligence, that they should hide it. Education's got nothing to do with it but I can't see a problem with the intelligent feeling superior to the wilfully stupid because they are superior. The ignorant can be taught, the well-meaning but stupid can be accomodated but the wilfully stupid will always resent anyone brighter than themselves and both of our countries have far too many of these wilfully stupid people deciding who should govern the rest of us, making that decision on trivialities.

[femrap]

26. Enjoyed the rant. Thx. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. I know that education and intelligence aren't linked: I used to teach on the college level

As I watched three or four cohorts of students pass through the system, I came to the conclusion that what separates the smart from the stupid is their attitude toward complexity and the unfamiliar. The bright students enjoyed and were challenged by complex and unfamiliar concepts, while the dull students adopted a hostile or fearful attitude toward them.

I see today's pop culture as reinforcing hostility toward complexity, whether through movies that consist mostly of special effects, through TV channels that gradually discontinue all their intelligent programming and replace it with mindless, sensationalist trash, and a pop music industry that seems dedicated to finding people who would sound terrible without a lot of electronic tweaking.

Among the dull-witted, it is socially acceptable to dismiss the complex and unfamiliar as "boring." The speaker may never have attended live theater, a foreign film, or a classical or jazz concert, but he or she is convinced that it would be "boring."

I think that this is partly a rationalization of fear of complexity and partly a result of brainwashing by the pop culture, which has trained the mass audience to expect simplicity and sensationalism. It's interesting to note that elitism is acceptable in athletics, perhaps because athletic contests are ultimately reduceable to "I win, and you lose."

Certainly everyone likes a little brain candy now and then, but I fear that what today's entertainment industry is doing to the American mind is just a subtle version of what was done to the Epsilon children in Brave New World. (For those of you who haven't read the book, the Epsilons, who are supposed to be the lowest class of workers, are given aversion therapy against books and flowers.)

[Odin2005]

36. I must disagree with you somewhat.

I don't think that "intelligence," is a unitary thing, but is in actuality 6 or so many "intelligences." The problem is that the more "academic" or "book-smart" forms of intelligence are considered far more to be "intelligence par excellence" then things like, say, having the visual-spatial skills to repair many different types of cars with ease, or having the people-smarts to be an excellent kindergarten teacher. This is not to say that people will have more or less mental ability then average, but IMO too many "book-smart" people look down on others as dumb just because book smarts is considered the be-all and end-all of intelligence.

[Care]

49. I Don't Understand What You Said

But I like the way it sounds. So I guess that means I agree. Thank you.

[MicaelS]

51. All excellent points

I've known several people who have terrific intelligence and education, but at their people skills they were total failures.

[Prophet 451]

71. I have a theory on that one

My very rough theory is that the human brain tends to adapt itself for certain functions but, while excelling at those functions, it neglects the others. So you end up with incredibly bright persons with no people skills whatsoever because their brains are adapted for logic rather than the vagaries of humanity.

Just an idea.

[Odin2005]

81. That sounds like me, LOL!

My "people-smarts" are horrible.

[MedleyMisty]

53. About "disliking something the common herd likes"

It depends on your motivation. For instance, I have been called an elitist just for simply stating that I don't watch TV.

However, when someone is going on and on about how they won't go see The Dark Knight just because it's popular, then they are being prejudiced and elitist. And missing out on a very intellectually engaging movie.

Something's popularity very rarely correlates with its quality. If you don't enjoy something that's popular just because you don't enjoy it, then cool. But when you preen and stroke your ego about it and make it clear that you don't have an open mind about it and are just rejecting it because "the common herd" likes it, then yeah, you're elitist.

It's a fine line. I'm sure it's one I've crossed when talking about American Idol.

[Prophet 451]

69. OK, point taken on that one

I don't watch TV either. Used to watch the various Discovery channels (I enjoy history) but then they went subscription-only here. In that instance, I was thinking mainly of the very lowbrow Jackass kind of thing.

I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet. I quite definately will because I thought the first movie was great (and had some interesting things to say about fear).

And as a Brit, we're sorry for inventing Idol.

[Radical Activist]

77. I think that explains some of the progressive primary opposition to Obama.

There are people so accustomed to not being part of the majority that they think any candidate who is popular and gets good media coverage must be bad, and most certainly must not be a progressive like them. They're more comfortable supporting a counter-culture candidate like Kucinich or Ron Paul. I think it explains why many who liked Kucinich switched to the underdog Edwards instead of Obama, despite the fact that Obama has a progressive career record far more similar to Kucinich's than Edwards does. Its a personal identity issue. The herd is bad so the popular candidate MUST be a no good centrist sell-out.

[Malikshah]

29. Define "Middle America" first. There is a red herring along the lines of

the "heartland" of America.

It doesn't take an education, merely common sense, to realize the fallacy of both of those terms.

[MicaelS]

91. Not at all

Middle America consists of people who do not live in the large cities in the Northeast, Great Lakes, and the West Coast. Even in they might live in a large city in the South, Southwest or West, they do not share the same values (like gun control or opposition to the death penalty) as people in the other three areas.

Another somewhat derogatory word for Middle America or the Heartland is "flyover country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyover_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_America_(United_States)

[Malikshah]

99. A little too stereotypical. That definition just doesn't work; it does underscore my

point, however.

What's all this rigmarole about sharing values?

Talk about building walls.

Were Middle America to refer to a geographic locale alone, that would be one thing...

Even in they might live in a large city in the South, Southwest or West, they do not share the same values (like gun control or opposition to the death penalty) as people in the other three areas.

[Radical Activist]

76. Good points.

A simpler but very important part of that is that someone won't vote for a person if they know the candidate thinks they're better than they are. If a candidate think they're smarter and better than rural voters in middle American then people are going to sense that. Its not an attitude that you can hide forever.

Fair or not, the GOP did a good job of making people believe that Gore and Kerry were talking down to them. That's very easy to do with any candidate from New England. Its one reason why Kerry was such a horrible candidate for the South.

[DailyGrind51]

20. Inherited wealth used to used to be the criteria for "elitism",

when elitism was a desired label, before 1930. Having to actually "work" for one's living was considered vulgar. The Great Depression and WWII changed all that, until the advent of neo-conservatism, which defined "elitism" as the undesirable label for intellectualism.

[femrap]

30. I grew up with the word

meanly WEALTH, not intellectual. So from now on, I will always say the Wealthy Elite...cuz after W and his inherited wealth, people will know that doesn't mean intelligent.

As an aside, I don't think W is that stupid...he's pure evil and look at what he has set out to accomplish and did. No, he's not stupid, just a sociopath who loves to inflict pain.

It's so amazing what power there is in controlling the media...up is now down.

[DailyGrind51]

52. The surprising thing about Bush is that he comes off more like

the guy running the filling station outside Crawford than the scion of a wealthy political dynasty.

When you read about the "landed gentry" both in Europe and America, intellect was not something for which they were known. Scholars and scientists came largely from the bourgeoisie. The "Elites" attended universities based on the English model, learning to be proper gentlemen. The bourgeoisie attended universities based on the German model, learning a career. America's Ivy League colleges were structured on the English model, while our State, "A & M", and "Tech" universities resembled the German.

[Prophet 451]

21. Why does "elitist" = "bad"

And, more to the point, why is it that the people most guilty of elitism are the people who complain about it most?

According to my dictionary, "elitism" is the belief that those percieved as intellectually, morally or financially superior should be given preferential treatment. Now, remove the part about intelligence - "the belief that those percieved as morally or financially superior should be given preferential treatment". Where do you see that attitude stated constantly? From conservatives. They resent elitism when it's to do with brains but when it's to do with morality (i.e. religion) or money, they spout elitist views non-stop and constantly (I know those mean the same thing, I'm emphasising the point). They mis-use the term "elitist" not as the actual definition given above but as short-hand for "this person is brighter than me and I'm treatened by that".

I actually am an elitist. I make no apologies for that. I believe that nations should be run by the best and brightest of their citzens (or better yet, a group of them), not just the most typical. I tend to think that the average person is dumber than a box of rocks (I present as proof, the fact that nearly half the US voted for Bush). These people don't need to be deferred to, they need educating to the best of their abilities.

[Uncle Joe]

27. I partially agree with you,

I do believe our nation should be run by our best and brightest most qualified for the top jobs. I believe the same principle holds true for any job whether it being intellectual or mechanical etc. I would want the most knowledgeable mechanic to work on my car.

But I also agree with John Dewey's philosophy that if a free press puts the facts in an honest manner in front of the American People. The people will in general make wise decisions, with the result being the best and brightest will serve in the most powerful jobs of the nation.

I see the fundamental problem as being when the oligarchs or mega corporations corrupt the press with too much concentration and focus on dumbing the people down instead of enlightening or lifting them up. The corporate media then play on the people's natural primitive emotions of distrusting those unlike themselves instead of promoting a larger public or community good. This is done not for the intellectuals or the average person, but solely for the agenda of the mega wealthy controlling the nation's voice and their clients.

[Prophet 451]

74. You have a good point here

You also have a far kinder view of humanity in general than I do :) The problem is that humans tend to distrust those who are unlike themselves and as far as we can tell, that seems to be a universal human trait.

Essentially, I think the dim can be divided into three broad groups: The ignorant can be educated and yes, that is partly the media's responsibility. The simple (i.e. those genuinely slightly sub-normal) can be taught to the best of their ability and can make a good life for themselves but the wilfully stupid can't be taught because they resent the idea that they should have to learn. They are not looking to be informed by their media, they are looking for their media to rationalise what they already feel (most of Coulter's stuff falls into this group).

[RNdaSilva]

40. Agree with 21.

[DailyGrind51]

66. What is moral superiority?

To a conservative or libertarian, it is "immoral" to tax Paris Hilton to pay for the chemotherapy of a cancer patient without insurance.

To a liberal or progressive, it would be "immoral" not to.

Morality depends on one's political perspective.

[Prophet 451]

72. Of course

With the exception of a very few points (for example, something akin to the Golden Rule appears in every known faith or philosophy), morality is dictated by one's personal experiances. My point though was that small-town America (and Britain, not sure about anywhere else) tends to define themselves as more moral and therefore, should be deferred to. Where their morality comes from is partly Christianity but far more, this peculiar variant of Christianity that I've dubbed Christopublicanism.

Christopublicanism is only partly drawn from Christianity but it's Christianity as viewed through Jerry Falwell. It exists as a symbiosis of fundementalist Christianity and extreme-right politics. Have you read the Bible or are familiar with it's contents? Don't worry, I'm not Christian and not trying to convert you but anyone who's familiar with it can see that Jesus's main teaching was about compassion. Even if you don't think Jesus existed, it's a worthwhile philosophy but over time, that has mutated and been subsumed by things like Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh and Ayn Rand.

To us, our choice of politics is the result of our morality. To the Christopublican, it's the other way around: Your choice of politics dictates your moral worth. For example, I believe poverty is a moral issue (in the sense that it is our moral duty to alleviate poverty as much as possible). Jesus had much to say about alleviating poverty as well. But the Christopublican movement holds that one is poor because one is immoral, an attitude much closer to the Shinto belief in joss than to anything in Christianity.

[DailyGrind51]

83. True! Christian Fundamentalists follow a skewed interpretation of Calvinism

that views poverty and illness as signs of sinfulness and prosperity and health as evidence of salvation. If you quote scripture slamming "the rich", they will nuance the Hell out of it. However, everything that seems to back their views on creation, homosexuality, masturbation, etc. are to be taken "un errantly".

[MicaelS]

92. And It's reflective

Of the still prevalent influence of Puritanism and Calvinism in our society.

[femrap]

22. Hopefully some of the

folks who wanted to elect their prez based on who they'd prefer to drink beer with have learned something...like, gee whiz, let's have a prez with some brains!

I notice this 'dumb is good' or 'who do you think you are?' mentality on a daily basis. Having a conversation about something other than the weather usually leads to somehow me insulting others because I READ a lot and have researched topics because I'm interested, curious, and enjoy learning.

So many people will respond, 'But on the TV news, THEY said....blah, blah, blah.' And I try to point out that Walter Cronkite is gone and today's journalism is not what it used to be. And then I get more crap. Then I usually end up saying that, 'Well, there's no law against being stupid or brainwashed.'

Where did all the smart people go? I rarely get to have a good discussion with someone thoughtful...guess what 'they' say about the Brain Drain in Ohio is true.

[bluestateguy]

23. Bush made stupid people feel secure in their stupidity

We often diss his speaking abilities, but he truth is that he actually speaks quite well to people who are misinformed and proud of their ignorance. He makes them feel good about being uneducated, misinformed and ignorant; that Saddam did 9/11, that Obama is a Muslim, that the world was created in seven days a few thousand years ago, that the US military can do wrong.

[Odin2005]

25. It's because people percieve that they are looked down upon by those smarter then them.

Whether thier perceptions are correct is a whole 'nother matter. IMO the perceptions are in large part a manufactured stereotype of "elitist, murica-hatin librul pinko intellectshuals" created by the Pukes. Another element is that many fundies view intellectual people as "satanic Godless secularists."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Is that perception correct, though?

How many bright teenagers are beaten up by the school bullies?

How many average teenagers are beaten up by the math club?

[Malikshah]

28. Fear dulls the mind, and many who are fearful resent those who refuse to have their minds

dulled.

[femrap]

32. Good one. nt

[anonymous171]

34. Because republicans aren't smart.

[Greyhound]

35. Not just the right wing, look this thread over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1641211#1644374

'Murakens in general, are threatened by the fact that some are smarter than others.

[nashville_brook]

38. wow -- thanks for that link.

the bf and i were both labeled "gifted" early in school, and dealt with it in vastly different ways. the bottom line is you couldn't invent a worse curse for a kid in public school.

there's an irony about the way americans view intelligence. on the one hand, it's supposed to be desirable to be smart. but, you don't want to go around broadcasting smartness, b/c that will make you a hated outsider. so, ironically intelligence isn't tolerated very well. wouldn't it be cool if smart people were revered the way football players or other people with "athletic intelligence."

it's a classic bully's swagger, to hate the smart kid.

[Greyhound]

54. It would be so cool that I might develop a sense of hope regarding this nation's future.

Alas, we are far to few, too afraid, and too isolated. OTOH, I am convinced that other parts of the world are not so afflicted, so we can leave the "New and Improved Amerika, version 2.0" and work from the outside to help the resistance/survivors.

[unblock]

37. smart has a liberal bias

[Prophet 451]

39. "Reality has a liberal bias"

I think that line alone will put Stephen Colbert down in history. Seriously, I can honestly see that line being included in books of quotations beside Wilde.

[unblock]

50. greed, fear, and hatred have a republican bias

i think just about everything else has a liberal bias

and yes, colbert is a genius!

[1]

42. it's the difference between being "smart" and "thinking you are the smartest person in the room"...

and always trying to prove it.

the truly smart people i know most times say very little. they smile a lot, allowing that smartest in the room to go on and on, and then with a word or two completely eviscerate.

now that's smart...

[JerseygirlCT]

58. With some very, very few exceptions

If you think you're the smartest person in the room, chances are you are not.

[Kablooie]

48. Them real smart folks is aways treat'n me elitist, I'll tell ya good. Um.. Whadda elitist mean?

[JerseygirlCT]

56. No idea. I'm with you. If anything, I want leaders who I think

are smarter than I am. (And I don't disparage my own abilities when I say that). In Obama, I think I've got that. I know I don't have half his strategic mind, for instance. I just sort of watch him, and think "oh. wow. Hadn't thought of that!".

Needless to say, Bush never appeared to me as someone to look up to, intellectually or morally. A spoiled rotten, incurious, failure of a man, propped up by Daddy's connections. Yeah, I'll pass

And I never wanted to have a beer with him, either.

[gulliver]

61. Paula Sims, eh?

I'm assuming you are not "the" Paula Sims.

Anyway, I think you are just talking about the divide and conquer strategy. People feel first, then think. You can't conquer people who keep their heads. The level of intelligence needed to see through GOP-level deception is not very high. But if you are angry or afraid, you won't see it.

Criminals are nearly always dumb. Their victims are usually smarter than they are. That's as true of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as of a common mugger.

[MattSh]

62. Why must smart = elitist?

Why must stupid = Republican? Just asking...

[BlooInBloo]

63. Because it makes dumbshits feel better. And they're the vast majority....

so they can dictate usage.

[Overseas]

64. Because REPUBLICONS ARE ELITE AND DUMB.

So they need to pretend that ELITE IS SMART so they can pretend that they and John SIdney McCain III with his heiress wife and seven homes are not elite.

[MedleyMisty]

65. Why do people only have a problem with intelligence?

They can accept someone being better at football or basketball than they are. Michael Jordan isn't called an elitist and insulted and told that he should have kept his talent for basketball to himself and never shown it off or talked about it in public.

I should find a board for parents of athletically gifted kids and see if they worry about telling their kids how good they are at sports because "it might make them think they're better than other people".

When did someone's intelligence become a way to make a value judgement about that person? No, not all humans are clones of each other. We all have different talents and skills and abilities. But we all also have equal value.

I tested as profoundly gifted in fifth grade. I used to read the summary of the results of the test over and over in middle school, as a way to keep my self-esteem up through the most awkward years of life. It said that I was "working at college level and above", that I had "the abilities and the temperament to go far with my life."

How does that make my life of more value than anyone else's? All it means is that my particular DNA and nurturing resulted in high intelligence. I won the genetic lottery. Winning a lottery does not make you a more valuable person than anyone else.

Oh, and I lost the financial birth lottery. So I didn't have the opportunities to do what the person who gave me the test probably had in mind. But I am quite happy and satisfied with my life and think that I have gone far with it by my own philosophy.

All living beings are equally sublime. All are of infinite value. Our different abilities and skills just make us unique individuals. They don't determine our worth.

I admit I don't hold to that philosophy perfectly myself - I've noticed that I tend to dehumanize people who dehumanize others and I don't always see the value of prejudiced people. Which leads to misanthropy, as most humans seem to have boxes in their minds that they put living beings in and arrange in a hierarchy, with themselves on top.

And I think that's part of it - they're always trying to put themselves on top of some hierarchy of value and being human, they think that everyone else thinks the same way they do. So they interpret everything through the prism of the hierarchy and think that everyone else is trying to put themselves on top too.

I don't know - if I had to rescue living beings from a burning building, I'd go in and get the ones that I could get without reference to their intelligence. Or nationality or skin color or religion or gender preference or species. But hey, that's just me being my unique precious little snowflake self. ;)

Notice the anti-intellectualism currently showing its head on DU - the posts about how The Dark Knight is just a movie and there's something wrong with you if you think about it.

I've seen it four times now and the Joker is on my desktop background and I've spent all my free time in the last week researching the movie and the Trickster archetype.

I think that one reason it holds such a fascination for me is that the Joker is my shadow. I share his misanthropy, his desire to upset the established order, to show people that their mental boxes are wrong. There, but for the empathy that is the greatest gift of high intelligence, go I.

And maybe that's part of it, too. Intelligent people do tend to upset the established order, and that frightens people. And we all know how humans react to things that frighten them.

[KingFish019]

80. ...

"There, but for the empathy that is the greatest gift of high intelligence, go I."

Please tell me this is satire.

[alarimer]

67. We have this false idea in this country that everybody is equal to everyone else.

Well they are in theory, at least under the law.

But in terms of education and abilities, some people are "better" than others. I don't mean that they are better people necessarily; I mean more suited to certain tasks. Frankly, I want a President who is a little smarter, a little more well-read, knows a few more languages than average.

This false egalitarianism is a real problem in this country. This idea that everyone is special is just American exceptionalism run amok, from parents complaining to the teachers that their kid could not have possibly earned that C to the idea that rules someone do not apply to them. Everyone is "special". But if everyone is special, then no one is.

Not everyone is a rock star or an Einstein.

[MedleyMisty]

68. Have you watched The Incredibles?

Your post is pretty much the movie in a nutshell.

[Sparkly]

78. Isn't that one of the traits of fascism?

What they hate is education that encourages free thinking. Makes it harder to propagate group-think.

[Prophet 451]

86. Depends which version of fascism

There are several different versions. The one most people think of is "classical fascism" and yes, one of the hallmarks of that is fierce and continued disdain for education, intellectuals and the arts.

[michreject]

79. My wife is a mensa member

and she is humble as well as frugal to a point that it drives me mad.

[BlooInBloo]

82. "Progressives" aren't any more supportive of intellect - it's an *American* thing.

[treestar]

84. Anybody have similar memories to this?

In elementary school, I got way ahead of the rest of the class on spelling tests. They had a series of tests you could take on your own. If you passed, you could move forward.

At one point, the teacher refused to give me a new test, saying I should let another student catch up to me and have her turn to be ahead for a while.

What was the point of that?

Something about not getting ahead of the herd and not making other people feel bad because they weren't as motivated.

[Trillo]

85. Smart is as smart does?

Or so says my former-mensa partner.

smart ≠ elitist

smart arrogance = elitist
Unfortunately, there are plenty of high IQ people with an arrogance to exceed or match.

smart deception = elitist
Therre are plenty of smart people decieving others for money, it's apparently their job, but one wonders if they really must do it.

Smart humble ≠ elitist
nor does it necessarily equate to quietness.

smart = elitist
is an interesting, if false frame, due to its apparent seduction amongst some.

"Smart helps people" may be an answer, but it will always be screwed up by the smart arrogant and deceptive opportunistically taking advantage, therefore the seductiveness of the false frame.

Smart is as smart does.

[Scout]

87. some "smart" people ARE elitists

some aren't.

:shrug:

If you don't think you are, don't let it bother you. People are going to think what they want anyway.

[The Gunslinger]

89. Because republican = Dumb

[Romulox]

90. I think this thread is stumbling over the issue of CLASS...

It's not that "smart"=elitist. It's that education is strictly rationed in this country on the basis of class.

Elitist = someone who advances the interests of the upper classes. In general, US institutions of higher learning are nothing much more than class-replicating machines. This is, incidentally, why lower-class whites resent affirmative action to such a degree; affirmative action, by its very design, takes pressure off the upper classes to make any class based reforms (as minorities are disproportionately over-represented in the lower classes, though the absolute number of lower-class white Americans is much higher,) and indeed, helps maintain the class-based stratification that has come to define American society.

[MicaelS]

93. Damn, never thought of that

I think you may be right (pun intended). :bounce:

[Romulox]

94. LOL. Now mentioning class is "right", huh?

I'm not sure when the inmates took over this asylum, but there is a cadre of posters who do not want economics or social justice discussed here on DU.

Looks like MicaelS would prefer that class based stratification not be discussed. :hi:

[MicaelS]

95. No, no, no,

Sorry, it came out wrong. I was in hurry, and now it's too late to edit my post. I meant I think you are right as in you are CORRECT. In fact I think you are dead-on 100% correct in your assessment, and I agree with your original post 100%.

It's pretty evident how many minorities are represented in America's upper class, not too damn many.

[Romulox]

96. Sorry for jumping the gun. The "I've got mine; screw you" brigade is in full force on DU today

I apologize for lumping you in with the "socialist paradise through corporatism" crowd that has infected DU of late... :blush:

[MicaelS]

97. No problem

I was trying to be too cute, and it bit me in the behind. :beer: :rofl:

[bamacrat]

98. Because stupid people do not understand the big words we use.

Therefore we must view ourselves as above them, they obviously think educated people are better. If they didnt they wouldnt get in such a hissy fit when someone appeared to be smart.