3 ms·

Neither Truman nor FDR were intellectuals. Truman especially: he was (in)famous for operating from the gut, making decisions swiftly and dealing with the conse

Neither Truman nor FDR were intellectuals. Truman especially: he was (in)famous for operating from the gut, making decisions swiftly and dealing with the consequences whatever they may be. FDR was blue-blooded and well educated (although he dropped out of law school) but he was ultimately a populist and charismatic leader who was said to have been guided by deep moral empathy for the poor that was instilled in him by a Christian boarding school headmaster: which would indicate that his thinking on his administration's policy was being guided by emotions and morals, rooted in an influential life figure's religious belief - as opposed to cold, plain, secular reason. The examples being listed against intellectuals would be more appropriately applied against charismatic leaders who either instigate or take advantage of populist sentiment in populations during difficult times. I'm guessing we have very different views of what an intellectual is, so let me make this clear: Being smart and well educated doesn't make you an intellectual. It just makes you smart and well educated. If that's your standard, HN is probably exclusively populated by these intellectuals. No offense, but this isn't the case ;).

anamax 17y ago
> Neither Truman nor FDR were intellectuals. The point was that leaders are responsible, not that those specific leaders were intellectuals. It's interesting that you defend intellectuals against the charges of mass murder by using your definition of intellectual, but don't mention that the folks in question, while not intellectuals according to your definition, got their ideas and justifications from folks who do satisfy your definition of intellectuals. And, that went both ways - they were also supported and praised by intellectuals. The whole point of being an intellectual is that words have consequences. I'm not saying that a leadership's intellectual advisors and supporters are as responsible for the purges as the leadership, but it's absurd to claim that they had no responsibility. That claim is especially absurd coming from someone who tried to argue that the leadership was far less responsible than the folks who carried out their bidding.

anamax 17y ago

> Neither Truman nor FDR were intellectuals. The point was that leaders are responsible, not that those specific leaders were intellectuals. It's interesting that you defend intellectuals against the charges of mass murder by using your definition of intellectual, but don't mention that the folks in question, while not intellectuals according to your definition, got their ideas and justifications from folks who do satisfy your definition of intellectuals. And, that went both ways - they were also supported and praised by intellectuals. The whole point of being an intellectual is that words have consequences. I'm not saying that a leadership's intellectual advisors and supporters are as responsible for the purges as the leadership, but it's absurd to claim that they had no responsibility. That claim is especially absurd coming from someone who tried to argue that the leadership was far less responsible than the folks who carried out their bidding.