Anti-intellectualism: what Liberals are up against

[ginnyinWI]

Has anyone else read this in The American Prospect? The title is "The Book of Liberal Values".

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10829

It talks about how Conservatives today are anti-intellectual: facts don't matter, and they deeply distrust intellectuals and education, and especially the liberal worldview. They see everything as a political stuggle where there is no real "truth"--only clashing viewpoints. Reasons for these traits include Evangelism (emotion-based) and a kind of "frontierism"--a hatred of refinement and sophistication.
(Sounds familiar so far, huh?)

The article goes on to say that there are those on the left who have some of these beliefs too. They see everything as a political fight, and scorn ideas like truth, objectivity and intellectual reasoning. These are the "libertarian leftists" who arose during the 60s, and who are suspicious of institutions and want to normalize their own fringe ideas.(Ward Churchilll is the poster-boy!) They are emotional and partisan above everything else.
(Sound like anybody you see at DU?)

Traditional Liberals are caught between these two groups. They have a respect for learning and education, and a thoughtful and realistic approach to problems. The liberal worldview is the one that is actually best for maintaining a democracy--these were the minds who wrote the Constitution. But these very values been mocked by the Right, who characterize thoughtfulness as indecisiveness. And they try to further invalidate liberals by lumping them in with the far left.
(Just think of the 2004 election!)

There is hope-- the article says that Americans still do value learning and education, when we frame it as not wanting to fall behind other countries in business and technology. We have to keep pitching it that way. I think sooner or later (and probably sooner) the right is going to show the country how bankrupt it is of ideas or solutions to, well, anything.

The Liberals have the answers because they are grounded in reality. And I think that we, as the Democratic party, should be careful not to let the current political climate pull us too far left into factless, emotional partisanship. There is a place for "passion", as the article calls it, but it needs to be balanced with "reason". When we start letting ourselves run totally on partisan emotion, we risk being just as wrong as the Right.

To me, this explains some of the Kerry-hatred here at DU. He is an intellectual Liberal, and to some, that makes him suspect. But Kerry's approach is exactly what the party and the country needs! They are the "Libertarian Left"--give them a protest, a song, an emotional rant, and a partisan attack (red meat) and they're happy as can be. Just give them a "topic du Jour!" Nobody's ideas are as good as their "gut" convictions. So many of them are the mirror image of RW freepers. But we Democrats have to be much, much more than that to be an effective governing party!

The Liberals will be back, because in the end, they are the only ones with the answers. We just have to keep at it and not cave in to the relativists on each side.

[whometense]

1. Is this from the new issue?

It just arrived yesterday, and I haven't read it yet, but I will. Sounds very interesting. Then I'll come back and comment, when I know what I'm talking about. ;-)

[ginnyinWI]

2. yup--Feb 2006, the one with Obama on the cover

[TayTay]

3. Me too!

Let me read it and get back to you. Sounds interesting. Not sure I agree, btw. Anti-intellectualism has existed since the early days of colonies on this continent. Xenophobia and the dual desire to shape a society that values wealth and a society that values the social good are also long-time American concerns. We have often been between these things and often swing from one to the other.

There are light and dark sides of 'The American Dream' and how people achieve that. Both of these are very powerful insights into the American character and into what motivates political movements. There were two revolutions in the period after WWII; one was a social movement to bring more opportunity and openness in society to groups that had been held back. There was also a movement that believed that this wasn't a good thing and that some people were being unfairly promoted at the expense of those who had 'worked hard.' There were also people who believed that a 'natural order' was being upended and that no good would come of this. We are still working those sides out.

Is America great because it is a compassionate and progressive nation? Is America great because it is favored by God because it is a moral nation?

[ginnyinWI]

4. good--I really want opinions

What I wrote is a combination of what the article says and my own take on it--so reading the article itself will be better! :)

[babylonsister]

5. Here's another article for comparison-very interesting:

I know someone will figure out what makes these people tick!

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.
more...

[ginnyinWI]

6. in this same issue of TAP

they have an article about campaigning on cultural values rather than traditional Dem economic issues. They were saying that people vote Conservative because they are reacting against the emerging "new cultural order". They mistakenly associate Democrats with "hedonism, thrill-seeking, and a ruthless, Darwinist understanding of human competition". (Hm I wonder who painted us that way?? :eyes:)
The more the GOP can paint us this way, the more they become the "traditional values" party, which they are decidedly NOT.

[jenndar]

7. I love it - and I knew it all along!!

Seriously, though, that's awesome. Please post in GD.