Since when did being an "intellectual" become such a negative aspect of our leaders? When I have surgery done, I want the best and the brightest--not just some guy or gal who is likable. The same should go for running the country, right? But John Kerry was lambasted for being too much of a "liberal" intellectual, and the cowboy ended up winning that one. In David Brooks' NYT Op-ed, he explains that:
The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.Yes, the smart people are now with the Democrats, but only because the Republican party alienated their intellectuals. Republicans have sought out to capture the "average Joe" voter by nominating very "average" people. Social-conservatism is not progressive or forward thinking, but it is what many people cling to. Obama was correct when he said
that people turn to "guns and religion" largely due to economic woes--after all, religion is the "opiate of the masses." But Obama was slammed for the remark, and was portrayed as someone who worships his own superiority and wisdom, and looks down on the common man.It's really too bad that intellectualism has been given the cold shoulder because there are many brilliant conservatives--I know some myself. But they have been abandoned by their base, and now grudgingly trot along behind their mediocre ticket.
If you look back
at some of the greatest American statesmen, you will find that they were men who were well informed, well educated, and well versed in literature. They were philosophers and visionaries. From the Founding Fathers to Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. They were masters of policy and diplomacy. Their wisdom celebrated the dynamism of knowledge, and was their source of strength.
Now we have Sarah Palin.
