It finally hit me today. I was taking a long walk, from North Cambridge down to Lechmere Square, thinking about nothing in particular, when I realized why I have a visceral dislike of the current president of the United States. It’s not because he’s an evangelical Christian, because I get along quite well with other evangelicals. It’s not because I’m a fiscal conservative, because you can make the case that wartime calls for deficits and besides I can understand that the temptation for deficit spending is more than most politicians can resist. It’s not because I’m a pacifist, because I know full well that most politicians do not follow the non-violence teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, my spiritual leader. These are areas where I simply happen to disagree with policies that can be justified.
No, the reason I have a visceral dislike of Mr. Bush is that he is an anti-intellectual. I know, it’s ironic that he’s an anti-intellectual given that he is the product of an elite university that practically oozes intellectualism. Even so, he affects that down-home I’m-really-not-that-smart attitude, and he makes his affectation implicitly condemn anyone who claims to be smart. Not that I blame him for affecting an anti-intellectual attitude. Anti-intellectualism has always been a minor part of the United States mythos, and in the past couple of decades it has become a dominant element in the political life of this country. Mr. Bush is just one of many United States politicians who have decided to affect anti-intellectualism in order to win votes.
This prevalent anti-intellectual attitude has even managed to influence me — I’ve become more and more cautious about claiming to be an intellectual. So I’ve changed the tag-line for this blog to “Adventures of a post-Christian heretic and unashamed intellectual.”
Let’s all go out and remember to be openly smart, OK? No matter what the president says, smart is good.
I’m not defending Bush as a good President, because he’s not- but I am curious. What, other than his thick accent, makes you think he’s anti-intellectual? Jimmy Carter had a thick accent, too, and people didn’t say he was anti-intellectual. What has he actually said that makes him anti-intellectual?
I voted against Bush and for Gore-Lieberman because I shuttered at how Bush’s self-deprecating humor would translate into Arabic among other languages. Bosnia and Rwanda had really turned me into a unilateral interventionist and Bush’s jokes and bashing of Clinton’s feeble attempts at Nation building put me off.
It was Bush’s AEI speech from 2003 really turned me towards him. I remember defending him as Democratic Jacobin on the Grinnell College Alum Listserv against those who thought he was going to invade Iraq because it was popular war. I said it wouldn’t be popular over time, that it would require a long commitment, and that Bush was going into because he had become a Wilsonian of sorts.
I still can’t listen to Bush to easily but turn to Tony Blair instead. You should try Blair too Dan.
Joel — I have a pretty thick accent at times myself, so I’ve got nothing against regional accents per se. But I am able to speak American standard (hard “r”s and all) when I need to. When Mr. Bush mispronounces “nuclear,” it sounds affected to me. Beyond that, he affects “just-plain-folks” mannerisms when it’s quite clear that he’s not plain folks, but a well-educated wealthy man.
Bill — Yeah, I kinda dig Tony Blair. I love watching him during the prime minister’s questions (is that what it’s called?), when he uses his rapier wit against the MPs. I’m envious of the Brits.