3 ms·

ok, perhaps I misunderstood your point. Are you arguing that conservative politics is imploding because of anti-intellectualism, and that a wide study of histor

ok, perhaps I misunderstood your point. Are you arguing that conservative politics is imploding because of anti-intellectualism, and that a wide study of history is the solution? What historical examples can be drawn upon to salvage it? Is there even an intellectual basis for conservative thought?

shigawire 4y ago
Probably knowledge of history => maintain status quo to avoid past mistakes.
ggm 4y ago
Can't speak to the OPs motivations but ant-intellectualism does appear to be a strong element or modern day conservatism in many economies. Arguably an over dependence on intellectual arguments c/f "the deplorables" is the other side's bugbear. Hilary made a target on her own back with that. Current conservative movements in the US, UK, Australia. Hungary, Poland appear to commonly rely on an appeal to the masses against intellectuals, other people, and against anything which smacks of imposed costs and taxes for the wider public benefit (ie AGW mitigation)
- texaslonghorn5 4y ago
  so what's the solution? simplify the message to avoid being labeled as intellectual? pander to anti intellectuals?
  - ggm 4y ago
    I can't see pandering working TBH. Chess-Boxing and philosophy down the pub seem like good ideas. Bernie mixes with his voters and doesn't look down on them. Liz Cheney lost touch with her local base, I don't like her or her in-party opposition I just observe she might be what you'd call an intellectual republican. Simplifying the message is equally dangerous. We are not at war with China, trade or otherwise. Not every opposing view is a lie, and not every opposing person is a traitor or paedophile. Maybe what we need is some truth in the debate? Can't see MTG or Cruz or Boebert doing much truthing and I cannot say I find Pelosi's positions on the DNC and her share trading very truthy either. Bit of "both sides" going on. Not a US citizen, resident or voter. Just an outsiders view. US exceptionalism, religious fundamentalism, Right wing models of political debate leaked into my country (australia) and we're politically empoverished because of it.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    The problem isn’t anti intellectualism. That’s what the people who like to think of themselves as intellectuals call it. Their opponents would say the “intellectuals” are pseudo intellectuals saying nonsense that they themselves have not been convinced is true. Of course, the intellectuals say that just means they’re stupid. But often it’s simply a different interpretation of the evidence. Of course, the “intellectuals” only accept one interpretation and disregard the dispute. For example, are Victor Davis Hansen of Stanford, multi book author Douglas Murray, etc “anti intellectuals”?
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    It might be possible to engineer a type of democracy that solves this problem, partly by combining two seemingly opposite ideas. For instance, imagine a society that has frequent elections, but for long terms. An example would be a society which elects 9 people a year, for terms of 11 years, thus establishing a legislature of 99 people. The frequent elections would be a vent for all of the populist rage that we see, but the long terms would mean that, once people are elected, they have plenty of time to get real work done, without having to worry about re-election. The system would work even better if the legislature was stripped of all power save the power to appoint people to committees, and then "the intellectuals" (people with a lot of training) could work to either control or advise those committees. Those committees should be far enough removed from the populist rage that the committee members should be free to focus on delivering good government. I wrote about this here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-correct-way-5ad https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre... On this topic, I also wrote: "In our highly specialized and complex world, all real political power needs to move to specialized committees" https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-usa-become https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
    - JJMcJ 4y ago
      > specialized committees Or permanent civil service, or to lobbying organizations that these days often write the bills and regulations.
      - lkrubner 4y ago
        Yes, that's what I meant. The committees would have oversight of the permanent civil service, and could, in a sense, be considered part of that service.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  Anti-intellectualism has been in the US for a while. A 1963 book on its history: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_Americ... More wide-ranging coverage: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism
jmeister 4y ago
> Is there even an intellectual basis for conservative thought? This comment belongs in the HN hall-of-fame.

shigawire 4y ago

Probably knowledge of history => maintain status quo to avoid past mistakes.

ggm 4y ago

Can't speak to the OPs motivations but ant-intellectualism does appear to be a strong element or modern day conservatism in many economies. Arguably an over dependence on intellectual arguments c/f "the deplorables" is the other side's bugbear. Hilary made a target on her own back with that. Current conservative movements in the US, UK, Australia. Hungary, Poland appear to commonly rely on an appeal to the masses against intellectuals, other people, and against anything which smacks of imposed costs and taxes for the wider public benefit (ie AGW mitigation)

texaslonghorn5 4y ago
so what's the solution? simplify the message to avoid being labeled as intellectual? pander to anti intellectuals?
- ggm 4y ago
  I can't see pandering working TBH. Chess-Boxing and philosophy down the pub seem like good ideas. Bernie mixes with his voters and doesn't look down on them. Liz Cheney lost touch with her local base, I don't like her or her in-party opposition I just observe she might be what you'd call an intellectual republican. Simplifying the message is equally dangerous. We are not at war with China, trade or otherwise. Not every opposing view is a lie, and not every opposing person is a traitor or paedophile. Maybe what we need is some truth in the debate? Can't see MTG or Cruz or Boebert doing much truthing and I cannot say I find Pelosi's positions on the DNC and her share trading very truthy either. Bit of "both sides" going on. Not a US citizen, resident or voter. Just an outsiders view. US exceptionalism, religious fundamentalism, Right wing models of political debate leaked into my country (australia) and we're politically empoverished because of it.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  The problem isn’t anti intellectualism. That’s what the people who like to think of themselves as intellectuals call it. Their opponents would say the “intellectuals” are pseudo intellectuals saying nonsense that they themselves have not been convinced is true. Of course, the intellectuals say that just means they’re stupid. But often it’s simply a different interpretation of the evidence. Of course, the “intellectuals” only accept one interpretation and disregard the dispute. For example, are Victor Davis Hansen of Stanford, multi book author Douglas Murray, etc “anti intellectuals”?
- lkrubner 4y ago
  It might be possible to engineer a type of democracy that solves this problem, partly by combining two seemingly opposite ideas. For instance, imagine a society that has frequent elections, but for long terms. An example would be a society which elects 9 people a year, for terms of 11 years, thus establishing a legislature of 99 people. The frequent elections would be a vent for all of the populist rage that we see, but the long terms would mean that, once people are elected, they have plenty of time to get real work done, without having to worry about re-election. The system would work even better if the legislature was stripped of all power save the power to appoint people to committees, and then "the intellectuals" (people with a lot of training) could work to either control or advise those committees. Those committees should be far enough removed from the populist rage that the committee members should be free to focus on delivering good government. I wrote about this here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-correct-way-5ad https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre... On this topic, I also wrote: "In our highly specialized and complex world, all real political power needs to move to specialized committees" https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-usa-become https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
  - JJMcJ 4y ago
    > specialized committees Or permanent civil service, or to lobbying organizations that these days often write the bills and regulations.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      Yes, that's what I meant. The committees would have oversight of the permanent civil service, and could, in a sense, be considered part of that service.
throw0101c 4y ago
Anti-intellectualism has been in the US for a while. A 1963 book on its history: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_Americ... More wide-ranging coverage: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

jmeister 4y ago

> Is there even an intellectual basis for conservative thought? This comment belongs in the HN hall-of-fame.