On February 26 2012 03:59 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a bit sad how small the crowds the Republican candidates draw are. Nothing showed it worse than the Mitt Romney speech, where he talked to 1200 people on the field of a stadium that could seat 65000.
It's a politician speaking... it's not like entertainment. How many people do you want to show up? 30k? That would be pretty outrageous. Didn't Newt get like 30 people in a place that could hold 500? 1200 is pretty good turnout for Zzzz..
They're up against Obama, who does sell out stadiums.
I love how Lincoln, the father of American income tax (to pay for a war, mind you), gets to be a Republican hero now. Guess people won't know how incredibly liberal he was if you don't educate them about it.
On February 26 2012 16:09 synapse wrote: ROFL @ santorum with his college comment. Are his advisors really stupid enough to think that that kind of position will win vs Obama?
HAHAHAHA.
You don't know Amurica.
I live in the USA and I understand that there is a good portion of the population that sees liberal as == evil. Santorum's strategy seems like something that will be good for winning the nomination, but he will get SO MUCH shit for it in a competition with Obama. Even with the staggering amounts of social conservatives, promoting less higher education just will not fly.
Not necessary. There's a lot of low wage labourers out there who would otherwise be Democrat voters, but for the fact that they are fundamentalist Christians who attend evangelical Churches. These people look down to the intellectual elite, which is made up of mostly college educated liberal students who attend occupy protests. Just go to any town outside of a CBD and you'll see no shortage of rednecks who will be outraged if you dare call yourself an atheist. They think Jesus (AKA Rick Warren) is a megastar and that their anger is righteous.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
I have no idea what you're talking about. Intellectuals criticize the state all the time. What magical world do you live in?
Yes, intellectuals criticize the state. But they also justify it. They preach statism. And in exchange they share in the plunder. The reality is the state is nothing more than a vast criminal conspiracy. It is at war with society. And in return for promoting statism ivory tower intellectuals enjoy a very luxurious existence. How many hours a week does your typical university professor teach for? How much money does the government give universities every year? To say nothing of the fact that the entire system of college subsidies is just another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Really I don't see how anyone can suggest that the system of wealth redistribution is moral... it's nothing short of theft, we are all constantly robbing each other imaging that we can get everyone else to pay for everything. But there's no free lunch and the result of such a system is economic chaos.
Have fun on Peter Thiels libertarian island-ship or whatever.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
Say what you want but at least stick to your point - you say the Republican party is anti-intellectual and then you go on to mention Mitt Romney who has two degrees from Harvard and has become one of the most successful people in America, and then Newt Gingrich where you don't talk about him being anti-intellectual.
It's not that I have a problem with your viewpoint but you certainly don't connect the dots for us.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
Say what you want but at least stick to your point - you say the Republican party is anti-intellectual and then you go on to mention Mitt Romney who has two degrees from Harvard and has become one of the most successful people in America, and then Newt Gingrich where you don't talk about him being anti-intellectual.
It's not that I have a problem with your viewpoint but you certainly don't connect the dots for us.
I am pretty sure Mitt Romney got amazing grade when he was at Harvard. It has been mentioned that he made a huge impression on everyone at Harvard as a hard-working student (I have no reason to not believe it; the guy is pretty smart). I am pretty sure he is not an anti-intellectual.
He just happened to have flip-flopped on too many issues; he would have been at a better position if he tried to get elected as a governor in a more conservative state instead of at MA.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
None of that seems to really indicate any serious anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a bit more extreme than just throwing some off-hand remarks about your opponent being an elitist. Considering the US population has one of the highest degree-per-person ratio; I think it's safe to say any serious anti-intellectual accusations are pretty hollow.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
None of that seems to really indicate any serious anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a bit more extreme than just throwing some off-hand remarks about your opponent being an elitist. Considering the US population has one of the highest degree-per-person ratio; I think it's safe to say any serious anti-intellectual accusations are pretty hollow.
I don't know what is true but I do know that many people make the mistake of judging a country on the number of idiots and not the number per capita. A large country obviously have more idiots in total which often scew ones perception.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
Say what you want but at least stick to your point - you say the Republican party is anti-intellectual and then you go on to mention Mitt Romney who has two degrees from Harvard and has become one of the most successful people in America, and then Newt Gingrich where you don't talk about him being anti-intellectual.
It's not that I have a problem with your viewpoint but you certainly don't connect the dots for us.
I also do not agree that the Rep. Candidates are per se anti-intellectual (apart from Santorum - some of his statements are so horrendous that I have my doubts about the effect academia had on him, if any...) Well done demagoguery requires a lot of intellect to be effective in the long term. Both Reps and Dems are doing it, but the way I see it Reps are doing a way better job at it and are pretty effective. Many factors( state of the "lamestream media" vs the "fair and balanced" guys) are playing into that as well.
I think Romney would've been a lot more successful if he had just presented himself as he is - a rich, well educated moderate elitist. He's acting as if being an excellent student in two Harvard graduate programs is a weakness because he's pandering to what he thinks people want. I'm quite positive that even among those who didn't go to college, they'd both respect and prefer someone with those credentials.
The public wants relateability when it comes to hobbies and family life but it's not an issue for credentials and education.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
Say what you want but at least stick to your point - you say the Republican party is anti-intellectual and then you go on to mention Mitt Romney who has two degrees from Harvard and has become one of the most successful people in America, and then Newt Gingrich where you don't talk about him being anti-intellectual.
It's not that I have a problem with your viewpoint but you certainly don't connect the dots for us.
Yes you are right, I was unclear. Romney was attacking Obama recently for having gone to Harvard and it stuck.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
None of that seems to really indicate any serious anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a bit more extreme than just throwing some off-hand remarks about your opponent being an elitist. Considering the US population has one of the highest degree-per-person ratio; I think it's safe to say any serious anti-intellectual accusations are pretty hollow.
So your definition of anti-intellectualism revolves around the number of degree holders per capita?
I guess I have a different one, mine looks at the emphasis on populism and the need, for the Republicans, to find 'common man' like Sarah Palin or Santorum and cheered on by guys on Fox News who think attacks on Palin/Santorum for the crazy things they say are just "elitist lamestream media" trying to muzzle a "genuine person" from "real America"
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
Say what you want but at least stick to your point - you say the Republican party is anti-intellectual and then you go on to mention Mitt Romney who has two degrees from Harvard and has become one of the most successful people in America, and then Newt Gingrich where you don't talk about him being anti-intellectual.
It's not that I have a problem with your viewpoint but you certainly don't connect the dots for us.
I also do not agree that the Rep. Candidates are per se anti-intellectual (apart from Santorum - some of his statements are so horrendous that I have my doubts about the effect academia had on him, if any...) Well done demagoguery requires a lot of intellect to be effective in the long term. Both Reps and Dems are doing it, but the way I see it Reps are doing a way better job at it and are pretty effective. Many factors( state of the "lamestream media" vs the "fair and balanced" guys) are playing into that as well.
Of course you have to have some sort of intelligence to be a successful demagogue, Glenn Beck was paid 30 million his last year on Fox News because he was the most popular show runner on there. But how much intelligence does it require to rile up angry people? A couple of weeks ago Romney attacked Obama for (a) failing to cut the spiraling costs of medicare and (b) for being the first president in American history to cut medicare. In the same sentence.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
None of that seems to really indicate any serious anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a bit more extreme than just throwing some off-hand remarks about your opponent being an elitist. Considering the US population has one of the highest degree-per-person ratio; I think it's safe to say any serious anti-intellectual accusations are pretty hollow.
So your definition of anti-intellectualism revolves around the number of degree holders per capita?
I guess I have a different one, mine looks at the emphasis on populism and the need, for the Republicans, to find 'common man' like Sarah Palin or Santorum and cheered on by guys on Fox News who think attacks on Palin/Santorum for the crazy things they say are just "elitist lamestream media" trying to muzzle a "genuine person" from "real America"
So, a standard that is so vague that it allows you to never change your position, regardless of any statistical or factual evidence.
You aren't subscribing to some critical-analysis point of view. You simply want to keep calling America anti-intellectual, so you conjure up this vague standard that can never be tested, proven or refuted.
You made up your mind (America = anti-intellectual) and now you are simply looking for excuses to maintain that point of view, retro-actively seeking poor arguments, and making them up on the spot if they prove to be utterly absent.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
Say what you want but at least stick to your point - you say the Republican party is anti-intellectual and then you go on to mention Mitt Romney who has two degrees from Harvard and has become one of the most successful people in America, and then Newt Gingrich where you don't talk about him being anti-intellectual.
It's not that I have a problem with your viewpoint but you certainly don't connect the dots for us.
I also do not agree that the Rep. Candidates are per se anti-intellectual (apart from Santorum - some of his statements are so horrendous that I have my doubts about the effect academia had on him, if any...) Well done demagoguery requires a lot of intellect to be effective in the long term. Both Reps and Dems are doing it, but the way I see it Reps are doing a way better job at it and are pretty effective. Many factors( state of the "lamestream media" vs the "fair and balanced" guys) are playing into that as well.
Of course you have to have some sort of intelligence to be a successful demagogue, Glenn Beck was paid 30 million his last year on Fox News because he was the most popular show runner on there. But how much intelligence does it require to rile up angry people? A couple of weeks ago Romney attacked Obama for (a) failing to cut the spiraling costs of medicare and (b) for being the first president in American history to cut medicare. In the same sentence.
Well I actually enjoyed the Glenn Beck Program a lot, watched it pretty often on youtube, when it was still on - if it was satire I think Colbert/Stewart would have had problems^^. He is truly a good entertainer, but if you look behind his facade there is NOT a lot substance to back up his bullshit. Great influence in the creation of Glenn Beck or whatever big figure, has in my opinion the free market that entered quite a while ago the world of news/information - infotainment is what they call it nowadays. The one with many viewers is king. Period. How he gets there or if he is trustworthy,serious,... does not matter. Thankfully even Fox got standards and they kicked his ass. And well it is a nuisance - but I would not intepret that much into Romney making an obvious mistake, I don´t know the context, but I guess he just wanted to keep the appearance of professionalism and seriousness. It just does not look good if u are raging about Obama and suddenly you lose momentum because you have to correct yourself.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
None of that seems to really indicate any serious anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a bit more extreme than just throwing some off-hand remarks about your opponent being an elitist. Considering the US population has one of the highest degree-per-person ratio; I think it's safe to say any serious anti-intellectual accusations are pretty hollow.
So your definition of anti-intellectualism revolves around the number of degree holders per capita?
I guess I have a different one, mine looks at the emphasis on populism and the need, for the Republicans, to find 'common man' like Sarah Palin or Santorum and cheered on by guys on Fox News who think attacks on Palin/Santorum for the crazy things they say are just "elitist lamestream media" trying to muzzle a "genuine person" from "real America"
So, a standard that is so vague that it allows you to never change your position, regardless of any statistical or factual evidence.
You aren't subscribing to some critical-analysis point of view. You simply want to keep calling America anti-intellectual, so you conjure up this vague standard that can never be tested, proven or refuted.
You made up your mind (America = anti-intellectual) and now you are simply looking for excuses to maintain that point of view, retro-actively seeking poor arguments, and making them up on the spot if they prove to be utterly absent.
Well, if that was the case he would definately be proof of his own theory. Assuming you are right he would stubbornly refuse scientific data, which is kind of the definition of anti-intellectualism. You would prove his point!
However, you are strawmanning him bigtime. There is also other ways to look at it, like the percentage leaving public school without reaching high school and a most likely less correlated .low income-group and/or some faith-based numbers. If those percentages are high too, you are kinda proving that there are significant divides in the US society and he would be able to conclude that is part of the problem.
Just because he made a bad argument earlier doesn't mean that his way of thinking is wrong.
On February 26 2012 12:38 ultimatenewb wrote: I am not sure why... but even Santorum has managed to shoot himself in the foot... "'President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,' he said. 'There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.'"
I can agree that a lot of skills necessary for a successful life are not taught in college or school in general, but saying that colleges are, essentially, platforms for "liberal college professor[s]" to "indoctrinate" people is way past the point and definitely going to cost him votes. Frankly, Obama just has to stay quiet and the Republicans might just lose the election without him lifting a finger.
America in general is relatively anti-intellectual. But the Republican Party takes anti-intellectualism and makes an art out of it.
Santorum: unemployed former lawyer, former Senator who cut deals on every which issue ever = hero of the working class because his great grand father was a coal miner.
Mitt Romney: son of rich guy politician, also rich guy with two degrees from Harvard, 100+ millionaire = "job creator, understands economy"
Gingrich: guy so corrupt that his own party had him removed, had one success in the early 90s by converting all the Southern democrats whose electorate was full of racist religious types into Republicans and does nothing except take money from various special interests = outside populist.
Obama: chooses not to work as a big law leech, instead practices civil rights law while teaching at one of the best law schools in the world = out of touch, elitist, college professor.
Quite frankly, America and all the issues of poverty it is dealing right now deserves the kind of populist jokers that are in charge of the Republican party. "Get the government of my Medicare" and "I will cut government spending to the bone, but not for our mighty military! And not for medicare!"
None of that seems to really indicate any serious anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a bit more extreme than just throwing some off-hand remarks about your opponent being an elitist. Considering the US population has one of the highest degree-per-person ratio; I think it's safe to say any serious anti-intellectual accusations are pretty hollow.
Going to need a source for that, considering that ~33% of all Americans don't even finish high school. In many inner city schools, graduation rates are less than 50%.
America is a country of two dichotomys. We have a terrible and substantial underclass of uneducated, backwards, downright ignorant people. We also have an upperclass consisting of learned individuals with a classic liberal arts education (eg humanities, philosophy, mathematics, science, social sciences etc etc). Unfortunately, the underclass has the same voting privileges of the upperclass and there are far more of them.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/public-acceptance-of-evolution.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1427-1.gif)
