Thomas Sowell has an outstanding column on intellectuals and their preoccupation with intelligence among political leaders, or perhaps more accurately about political leaders masquerading as intellectuals. Sowell cites a Nicholas Kristoff piece lamenting that they don't make politicians like Adlai Stevenson anymore. Sowell notes, "It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry." Stevenson's claim to the "intellectual" label stems from his bald egg head and his ability to monkey an academese cadence. "Adlai Stevenson was certainly regarded as an intellectual by intellectuals in the 1950s," Sowell writes. "But, half a century later, facts paint a very different picture." The truth is that Stevenson had an aversion to reading, the manifestation of intellectual curiosity that most marks an intellectual as an intellectual. "Historian Michael Beschloss, among others, has noted that Stevenson 'could go quite happily for months or years without picking up a book.' But Stevenson had the airs of an intellectual--the form, rather than the substance."

And that's really what matters to intellectuals, the form, the mannerisms, the act, isn't it? Perhaps a better example of this phenomenon than Adlai Stevenson is President Woodrow Wilson, who explained in the final year of his first term, "I haven't read a serious book through in fourteen years." The Kristoff piece, to its credit, duly separates the pendant from the intellectual. Kristoff even playfully suggests that he is pendant rather than intellectual, so the piece is probably not as deserving of censure as you might think from reading the Sowell counterpiece. The New York Times scribe concedes that intellectuals often make horrible leaders and non-intellectuals often make extraordinary leaders. He cites Nero and Washington as contrasting examples. Nevertheless, he celebrates the election of an intellectual to the Oval Office in Barack Obama.

Should I grant either premise? That Obama is an intellectual, and that elevating an intellectual to the highest office in the land is a good thing? I vote no on both. Barack Obama is a politician, not an intellectual. This is no slam on him. I don't regard Sarah Palin, or Joe Biden, or John McCain as intellectuals either. When a politician reflects an intellectual's political ideals, the intellectual returns the favor by projecting his intellectual status upon the politician. As a law professor, Obama never published a single note or article. Dreams from My Father was a fine book, and the man can deliver a speech. But what evidence suggests that he wrote his books and speeches? His campaign was not predicated on appealing to thought, but on drumming up emotions through catchy slogans, stadium rallies, and charismatic speeches that resembed revival meetings. People typically don't faint, manically chant, or cry hysterically during cerebral endeavors.

Evidence of intellectualism for intellectuals has little to do with the intellect. This is a shame because the world desperately needs more smart people and fewer poseurs. Do you wear a turtleneck underneath a tweed jacket with patched elbows? Do you subscribe to the New York Times, or better yet, the New Yorker? Do you sport German-style eyeglasses? Are you passive aggressive? Does your car have a "War Is Not the Answer" bumper sticker? Do you speak douche-bag? (A few entries under "p" in its dictionary include "paridigmatic," "pedagogy," "problematize," "progressive," and "proactive.") Is your world devoid of black-and-white and full of endless shades of gray? Do you prefer European football to American football? Yes? Congratulations, you are now a member of the cognoscenti.

On Kristoff's second contention, that the election of an intellectual to the presidency dawns a new, nice day for America, I think this is based more on hope than past performance. Smart people imagine brains as the only relevant quality because if cognitive abilities trumped everything else it would be an easier world for them. When I read The Bell Curve amidst the firestorm surrounding it, what primarily offended me was not its conclusion that different ethnic groups have varied IQs but rather the exaggerated emphasis the book placed on intelligence. Pat Buchanan later wrote a memorable column critical of the book that asked who the better American was: the uneducated but courageous Sgt. York or the gifted but traitorous Alger Hiss. I know people who are more intelligent than I am who struggle mightily in life because they are moral degenerates, lazy, socially awkward, imprudent, indecisive, or all of the above. Intelligence is certainly a desired quality, but it's not the only quality. This is especially true among leaders. Would you follow an MIT chemistry professor into battle? Should artists run Fortune 500 companies? Would you elect a snarky MENSA member to govern you? The Simpsons answered these questions in the episode in which Lisa and her brainiac friends take over Springfield--with disastrous results.

One day removed from the 91st Armistice Day, and two days removed from the 233rd birthday of the United States Marine Corps, it's worth remembering that elite military organization's fourteen leadership traits: Justice, Judgement, Dependability, Initiative, Decisiveness, Tact, Integrity, Enthusiam, Bearing, Unselfishness, Courage, Knowledge, Loyalty, and Endurance. Notice something? The word intelligence isn't there. But what would Marines know of leadership?

"Do you speak douche-bag?" That says it all.

Excellent offering Dan. Right on the money. Conclusions written here could be demonstated in spades by previous posts and responses.

I especially like the military's fourteen leadership traits.

There are obviously many IQ snobs who think that only the intellectually gifted can offer the components of leadership necessary to be successful.

That brings about concern over Biden, who makes IQ and higher thinking his hallmark when he is actually average to below average.

“When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school, Biden had replied "I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect," and then inaccurately recollected graduating in the "top half" of his class when he actually graduated 76th from 85, that he had attended law school on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees in college. In fact, he had earned a single B.A. with a double major in history and political science, and had received a half scholarship to law school based on financial need with some additional assistance based in part upon academics. During this time, Biden also released his undergraduate grades, which were unexceptional.”

And apparently, he is mathematically challenged and doesn’t understand when there are four letters in what he counts and describes as a three letter word.

The old Twain saw applies: “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Great observations.

I have been reading your blog since having read your wonderful and very informative book, "A Conservative History of the American Left" -- a primer I recommend to anyone interested in buttressing their understanding of the 'why' and 'how' of our current congress soon-to-be president and future political morass.

Keep up this wonderful writing...and thinking. It is always appreciated.

BRAVO!

Just a couple notes in passing: IQ often does not correlate with school grades. And -- I can't remember where I saw this recently -- but it turns out that Einstein was poor at math. Yes, Einstein, of all people!

On the subject of having an artist run a Fortune 500 company: While I get your point and generally agree with it, most people do not really understand or appreciate that those who excel in the business world (and I've been lucky enought to meet a few) are really artists at heart.

I'm a bit annoyed that "art" and "artists" are usually associated with these tiresome poseurs you describe. Art has no actual definition, really, but it seems that you don't earn consideration as a "creative" person (and therefore an arr-teest), unless you're one of the douche-bag crowd or at least kiss their asses. The truly gifted executives and CEOs of the world are incredibly creative and driven in the exact same way as some manic performance artist. The difference is, they don't take a $hit on stage and call it art. They invent, innovate, create jobs and careers, feed families and keep the world moving forward.

Again, I get your meaning, but just wanted to throw out some props for the stuffed shirt crowd.

And don't forget those gifted CEO's who outsource and offshore our jobs in the pursuit of greater compensation.

I digress.

I hate to bring this up, but I believe that this is the 233 birthday of our Marine Corps

Indeed, Clayton. My bad. Will correct in original. And a belated happy birthday to you.

Outstanding piece, Dan. As one in possession of an IQ score in the buck seventy ballpark, I can attest that cognitive ability alone and $4.50 will get you the proverbial douche-bag latte.

I've read work that, based on personal experience, I tend to agree with which says it's possible to be TOO smart to be an effective executive. The reason being that, for those of us with overactive gray matter, our Achillies' heel is indecisiveness. We can see all the flaws with every idea and search in vain for a perfect plan -- often until the window of opportunity closes -- rather than just picking "good enough" and implementing it.

A couple of great illustrations were a series of TV ads -- I don't recall if it was AIG, or who -- but if you remember, one is a wedding where the groom at the altar goes on a legalistic riff on all the permutations of commitment and the AIG(?) guy finally gets up and says, "I do". In another, people sitting around a restaurant table watch a member of their party choking and dissect what's happening and hypothesize about what unforeseen consequences might result from different courses of action, so the (same AIG) guy at the next table gets fed up and does the Heimlich maneuver and saves the choking man. While for a different purpose, they make the same point brilliantly.

JOLLY ROGER - I think the ads were for Royal Bank of Scotland, not AIG.

Mr. Flynn - Thank you. I think Obama is a screen upon which a great many intellectuals project their narcissism and hatred for George Bush (primarily because they only want to be seen as led by another intellectual; damn the cost to everything else).

At first I wanted to print your post along with Dr. Sowell's and pass it along to a few friends who supported Obama solely because they view him an intellectual. In their dreamlike admiration, they had no concern for his lack of record, radical social-liberalism and his troubling associations with bigots and radical agitators masquerading as educators. They were simply thrilled that he was one of them.

Instead, I will put the copies aside and just enjoy them myself from time to time. These people listen to nothing but the mirror, so I will leave them to the rough lessons of personal experience and their conversations with their reflection. I don't expect them to learn much. In the world of tenure, whether it is in the stale halls of the university or in the equally stale corridors of the closed mind, not much new is ever learned.

Excellent post. It remind me of how there was this annoying clique of intellectuals back at the University of Chicago -- I thought they conformed more to the social expectations of intellectualism (a love of Bertolt Brecht, constantly going on about the Weimar Republic), than to their own independent ideas. Not one of them managed to produce a stirring work of art or original thesis. Instead they enjoyed standing on the shoulders of their professors. I think they are all restaurant critics now.

On a historical note, I think Abraham Lincoln typifies the ideal intellectual. His mental acuity was sharp, his reasoning nuanced, but he balanced his theoretical deliberation with a working man's ethic. He had that rare political skill for bringing abstract ideas back down to earth where they can be put to work.

...and we've been paying for it every since. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

More important matter: Dan it appears (by my calculation) that you tied with Ben with a 7-6 record.

Dan, aren't you just pointing your finger in the mirror? Do you have ONE friend that did not graduate College, or highschool for that matter? Do you surround yourself with suits all day? Stop the witch hunt, you are just like them, just as they are like you. You just have your own flavor of righteousness.

You seem like you like history and studying, and like to use that material in an intellectual way to push your agenda. I'm sorry you think war IS the answer.

How do you feel about that Mike? Do you feel that war is the answer to all our problems?

and for the chode,
"And don't forget those gifted CEO's who outsource and offshore our jobs in the pursuit of greater compensation."

You mean those gifted CEOs that all vote republican, and ushered in the greatest failure of a President EVER?

Horse: "Do you have ONE friend that did not graduate College, or highschool for that matter?"

If you knew anything about Republicans, you would know that we don't have any friends.

Hey, I wore a turtleneck under a tweed jacket with leather patches on the sleaves just yesteday -- seriously. And "paridigmatic," "pedagogy," and "problematize," are part of my regular vocab (though I never use "progressive," or "proactive" unless I am making fun somebody).

al, hello al, or is it horsehead?
Dan you hit it right on the head, i will take plain teenager speak over glossy lawyer,egghead talk any day.

Hey whao Eric! The new mind police will be taking you away for that stuff. ;-(

Well, we are all now sure that Sarah Palin is as dumb as a rock. But I'd really like to know what qualifies The O as an intellectual. He's smooth? Looks good in a suit? Is a great orator? By those standards, you could say that Adolf Schickelgruber was an intellecutal. We all know how that worked out and it might demonstrate how ego is sometimes mistaken for intellect.

By all accounts, the Fuhrer was better qualified and was richer in real life experiences. It is still unclear what The O has ever accomplished other than running for office. There is little record of documented accomplishments. Couple of books about his favorite subject: him.

But the elites love to elevate each other to pinnacles that allow them to appear special and above the unwashed fray of the common man. So naturally, their chosen on HAS TO BE more superior in every way.

I just listened to Sarah Palin address the Republican Governors Conference and have to say that if instead of having to be in line with every nutty proposal McCain had ever espoused, she had been unmuzzled and allowed free rein, we would have probably won the election.

Obviously, her handlers thought themselves more sophisticated and hence more intelligent than the country's most popular governor. Another black eye for the beltway insiders.

I AM a lifelong intellectual, but rapidly becoming more and more of a populist. I want nothing to do with the facade-worshipping left. From the beginning, I saw Obama as the type of phoney you could always find in Greenwich Village, impressive for an hour and then you'd learn they'd exhausted their repertoire.

I am going to have to write to the White House often (president@whitehouse.gov) to try to keep their nutty ideas from being implemented -- everything from bringing back the "fairness doctrine" which would shut down a major conveyor of ideas, talk radio to the "civilian security corps" which has frightening overtones of what is done in dictatorships to ending the secret ballot for workers, also known as "card check".

I doubt they'll be interested in my arguments, but politicians ALWAYS pay attention to numbers: how many people for this idea, how many for that one, because paramount is getting re-elected.

“If you knew anything about Republicans, you would know that we don't have any friends.”

Good one Dan. You’re right. In my case at least. Especially since most of my “friends” here in the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts are cool-aid drinking lefists and until this last election cycle they were tolerable. But, there is only so much a Conservative can take when trying to converse with radicalized zombies.

enjoy your xenophobia and voluntary ignorance. I am sure it feels good to call other people idiots, but that is just low and classless. There are a lot of smart people on the right, there are a lot of academics on the right, and there are a lot of 'radicalized zombies' on the right as well.

You are feeding a community of fear by stigmatizing learning, yet you freely use Latin phrases. It is not a question of cognitive ability (we are all pretty even on that scale), but how you exercise it. You exercise it in the name of oppression... under the guise of 'maybe if we make learning uncool, then the poor people will always work under us'

And I think using the word 'cognoscenti' is more douche and elitist than 'proactive'. Proactive has an antonym, reactive, and is a useful word in preventative medicine, a field dominated by Republicans. LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Stop the fear.

Flynn your top notch as always, only thing better is knowing Kristoff read this and needed a bottle of Mylanta

I am unaware of any great men in history who were intellectuals. Leaders cannot sit around gazing at their navels. Men who create new industries, lead humanity forward do not reside within academic halls or faculty lounges.

Creative men are seldom "intellectual." How could they be they focus on their fields and achieve excellence. Show me an intellectual and I'll show you someone who believes the NY Times.

Excellent TJ. And along those lines.....Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Thomas Jackson,
You sound like a big Ayn Rand follower, a women who proposes a pretty intellectual philosophy that puts emphasis on reason above feeling. You should try backing up your argument with some examples to "Men who create new industries, lead humanity forward do not reside within academic halls or faculty lounges."
Who do you mean? Alexander the Great? Hannibal?

Do the names St. Aquinas, Martin Luther, William James, Constantine I, Abraham Lincoln, Ali Ben Isa, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Ghandi, Ferdinand Magellan, Steven Hawking, Thomas Malthus, Kurt Vonnegut, Thomas Jefferson, etc. ring a bell? Did they sit and stare at their belly buttons in an ivory tower? No, they changed the world they live in with intellectual means.

As far as not creating new industry, what about the various domains of engineering, medicine, law, arts, business, and so many more... Were these created by 'Joe six-packs'? NO. You wouldn't be typing on your computer had it not been for an intellectual at Xerox that got it started.

THOMAS, you can't even read can you? I already said that preventative medicine (like all medicine) is dominated by intellectuals, who are also conservative republicans. Get a grip man.

Here's a douchy word for you, "Pro-life". It is meaningless.

DANIEL, how can you quote a Thomas Sowell article that condemns intellectuals when Thomas Sowell is a fellow at STANFORD with a B.A. from HARVARD and a Ph.D. from U. of CHICAGO! Where do you get the nerve?

He says," It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century — far more so than ordinary people."

Like ordinary peoples belief that meat can turn into flies, or that spirits control our health? Intellectuals have a method of self-correction that 'ordinary people' don't care about because they are happy with their ignorance, guns, and religion. What about the belief the the black from African Americans would rub off on others?

Ahem, PEDANT.

Dave, please, say what you mean. Am I blathering on, or are there people on here that actually think that empiricism is obsolete, and that intellectuals have made more reasoning errors than peons?

Dan,

This is one of your best posts. It is easily in my top five.

Hey Horse- since you have the blighted view that there is no god, do you worship trees,like Al Gore, Teddy "Death Merchant" Kennedy, air-head Pelosi,and the rest of those sharp tools?

BTW, why do you and the rest of the ACLU misfits always come out of the woodwork around Christmas,to denounce Christianity?
Why don't you come out and denounce religion during Ramadam?

The Marxist also refused to believe in god or as Lenin put it, "relgion is the opiate for the masses", then they used the terms "social justice" and " utopia on earth", just before they started murdering over 150 million people.

The nut jobs who are murdering medical personal who do research on animals and burning down buildings, don't believe in religion either,which in their own mind justifies their barbariac actions.

The local University Medical Center, in my home city, has a large medical research center and they have placed armed federal law enforcement agents on the grounds,which is possible due to their sharing common property with a VA Medical Center.
If any of those nuts jobs, attempt to visit violence or death on medical researchers, they won't live to tell about it.

I bet all of those nut jobs have really high IQ's and they choose to worship trees and animals,in which they love more than humans.

As I have posted, in which Biden is a textbook example, just because you are educated doesn't make you wise.

can you read? do you know what agnostic means?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I am not an Athiest by default. Nor do I 'denounce' any other religions. That is a subject I respect deeply. I am WISE enough to know that I don't know everything, which is why I questioned myself out of all of the other religions I have encountered. They could not put all the pieces together for me. There may be one out there that suits me, but until I 'find it' I am an independent on this subject.

As for the "...guns and religion..." type of quotes; It does not denounce the religion, it probes the religious to question their own biased perspective that they have lived for however long. It means, wait and relax, open your mind instead of the traditional fall back default reasoning because you may be wrong and I also may be wrong, and we are most likely both wrong together. This is why I prefer A-gnosis (without-knowledge).

"which in their own mind justifies their barbariac actions."

Great, like abortion clinic bombers are doing the work of God. None of the violence is justifiable and I never endorsed it. I am not a pacifist nor do I think killing people is the best problem solving tool. So really, who are you really attacking? I am not a socialist, but I am not a Laissez-faire spineless person either. If not for Government, Laissez-faire would still have plantations and slaves because 'that's what the market encourages'.

"If any of those nuts jobs, attempt to visit violence or death on medical researchers, they won't live to tell about it."

Like I say, I don't endorse criminals, so let em' have it.

Is this board so scared that the left is out to get them that they don't believe that a thoughtful person could actually dedicate his life to serving other people, and that he isn't some extreme left wing nut job who just thinks about daffodil conservation. Crawl out of the fear cave and into the world of amiable relationships.

Very good, Mr. Flynn.

There are a lot of poseurs in the world. Lets get rid of the intellectuals, and replace them with seekers of wisdom. We do need to reform the Republican mind.

Tennwriter,

Do you know what empiricism is? Peer reviewed experimental research? Statistics?

Academia is concerned with observation, validity, and reliability, not emotion (unless you talk about psychlogy), nor are we driven by comfort. It is standing on the shoulders of giants to take one more step forward in the name of human kind in the hopes that someone will prosper based on our research, not to sip 40 year old scotch. We are not conservatives, bent on laissez faire oppression.

I love this Kissenger quote:

"Competition in academia is so vicious because the stakes are so small."

Classically relevant.

Seems that the liberals on this thread aren't as "comfortable with complexity" as described in Kristof's ironically titled "War on Brains". But that makes sense, they are the party of the emensely subtle "die-ins" used to protest nuclear plants in the 80s.

One criticizes Sowell for having a PhD, and the other blathers about something "stigmatizing learning". And I don't see either of those things in Sowell's article, or Dan's recommendation. I don't know if Kristof's characterization is the one I'm happiest with, but it's at least passable. And despite that Kristof flits from one tangental broad characterization to another, the sentence "Bush is smart in the sense of remembering facts and faces, yet I can't think of anybody I've ever interviewed who appeared so uninterested in ideas," is a little more comfortable with a tension between facts and intellect. It's for the lack of ideas that Bush is barred from the halls of the intellectual, and not for absence of facts.

I'm not sure what concept can be "above my paygrade" for an intellectual, though? Does it make it "intellectual" because you are willing to pass off the decision to judges and professors? There, Obama was not as interested in hashing out ideas about life and death and rights. A man who talks about women being "punished with a baby" hardly stands up as a bastion of subtlety or appreciation of the most complex and dearest value on this earth.

It's funny because Kristof's article cites the kids of today as a case for America's long history of anti-intellectualism--except he doesn't say that. He says anti-intellectualism has "long been a strain in American life". His own weasel words aren't quite enough to come up with Anti-intellectualism. A strain does not a tendency make. Isn't one strain, among many, a natural complexity? So how does Kristof demonstrate any "comfort with complexity" here? All he can site is a strain. The complexity of the American opinion would have more to do with a mixture of strains not the simple motif of one of the strains.

And regardless, Kristoff expresses hope that we can "step away" from it, inviting the simple implication that the existence of one part among many means a deficit in a countervailing strain. He resolves Nixon as part of it, not as totally unintellectual, but as a "self-loathing" intellectual. So he's a disqualified intellectual, despite that the many strains that went into Nixon was not explored.

Kristoff skips around making summary judgment after summary judgment, to spring on us the idea that because John McCain has a 7th-grade speaking level and Barack Obama has a 9th-grade one, we've ushered in a greater tendency to intellectualism. I'm guessing that it's anything that's not above Obama's "pay grade" though.

Sowell's piece cites a number of cases in which public/private persona conflicted, starting with the case for Stevensons seeming intellectualism, and finishing with Truman and Coolidge's private erudition contrasting their public persona. In that Kristof states that "Intellectuals read the classics, even when no one is looking", Truman and Coolidge weren't mistaken for them--despite that they read erudite material, but Stevenson was simply because he sounded academic and appeared to be.

Kristoff says, "Yet times may be changing. How else do we explain the election in 2008 of an Ivy League-educated law professor who has favorite philosophers and poets?" How complex is a "how else do we explain" argument? NFL football fans can do about as well.

It speaks to obviousness and not nuance and subtlety or complexity. I don't remember one time in this election that he ran as such (though perhaps at certain dinners). Can we not "afford four more years" (which was a gross simplification) because we absolutely need to have a Ivy League professor in there? Was the slogan "Yes we can...with the brains of an Ivy league professor!"

I want to bring back that Kristof cited the ignorance of fact of the youth of today, in the face of a number of countervailing factors. 1) The youth of today are about Obama's second most consistent voting block. 2) They don't extend very far back into history. 3) Their parents ranked higher, and their parents before them, higher still. 4) The older and statistically better generations didn't break for Obama as much and 5) He already divorced fact from intellect. Not to mention that Obama's biggest block of opposition, conservatives, already decry the decline of schools captive to liberal administrations and unions, in response to which the libs say we're just not shoveling enough money despite that there has been an inverse correlation between money and results for a long time now.

Kristoff doesn't present a solid case at all. He skips all over the map, but one thing he does do fit the profile that Sowell builds of "intellectuals" recommending presidents as intellectuals. He just shows that the history shows they get it wrong. And then wraps it up by mentioning that intellectuals were the least concerned about Hitler rise. And then they think prowess in a narrow field gives them a special insight beyond the people.

The relationship is that people with PhDs and un-stigmatized in their learning got a number of things wrong. Not that it is totally useless, or learning is to be abandoned--but that it doesn't extend to all the things hoped or hyped for. It's funny that Kristof's article is very noncommittal about the realized value of having an "intellectual" in office, it's only clear that he likes it better. And ends it off with flash of bombast: "Maybe someday soon our leaders no longer will have to shuffle in shame when they're caught with brains in their heads."

All complexity is lost in the "War on Brains".

Keep in mind that the same people who have consistently accused Bush of being stupid are the same ones who have accused him of "Masterminding" the 9/11 attacks.

Their arguments are specious either way and although they try, they can't create facts when convenient to meet their ends.

Horse,

Perhaps you can help me as a way to see that someone benefits from your vast knowledge.

Empiricism...that has something to do with the witticisms that Emperor's make, right? Like Emperor Napoleon's famed jokebook?

Peer Review--Like in the House of Lords when someone stands up and says "My opponent is a blithering idiot, on his good days, and he hasn't had a good day in over a decade!" Is that it?

Statistics--Lies, stinking lies, and statistics?

Sorry, Horse, old boy, you've just put forth another version of the discredited "I'm smarter than thou" 'arguement' preferred by fourth-graders. Now go run off to your herd of independent thinkers, and chew that cud some more.

Academia is like a gaybath house. A great deal of huffing and puffing about little or nothing.

No wonder academia produces zero.