Reader Response to "Blue Anti-Intellectualism"

back40 certainly helped with the apparent contradiction.

"Think tanks aren't educational institutions, they don't affect young minds in need of initial training in critical thinking. Apples and oranges."

This got me thinking about the target audience of the work. The target for academic work in predominantly 18-23 year olds. Even if fully indoctrinated in one way of thinking, what impact can the graduates have on society? Employment immediately following college is rarely, if ever, in a key decision making role and I doubt any district would vote in a young college grad to any state or federal legislative office (constitutional restrictions aside).

This places the student in the work force. Few employers are willing to pay for intellectual pursuits (grads going to advocacy groups could be an exception). Most employers are interested in an immediate return on their investment.

Even if the student received and accepted the full slate of thoughts from the professors, the graduate faces a world less interested in those ideas and more interested in Microsoft Access competancy.

Another point back40 touched on was the makeup of those institutions. How many think tanks are populated with career intellectuals? That's not to say a CEO of MegaCorp can't be an intellectual, but he earned his money in a world of the practical. Results matter and results must be measured to be considered. If your finished products reference actual measured results, they would more likely resonate in the non-intellectual (not neccessarily anti-intellectual) culture.

So why don't Liberal think tanks resonate? back40 contends, in essence, that academia did not challenge them vigorously enough. Gaps were not exposed, theories were not pushed to logical ends, and their arguments were incomplete.

Well, that's a judgement call. Twain's thought to have said, "My opinions may change, but the fact I am always right never will." That is, what we've held as a firm and bullet-proof idea one time in our lives may seem flawed a decade or so later. Point is, and I feel fairly certain back40 would agree, conservatives can also fall into that trap.

I wonder if it's a matter of think tank composition. If the tanks are comprised of people with near identical backgrounds (academia, longtime political operatives, etc.) and they more often professionally associate with people of similar mindset, they can fall into that trap. If the tank is made of people with similar opinions, but whose professional experience has been apolitical or in an intellectually hostile environment (conservative on the NY Times editorial board), they should be less likely to let their rhetorical skill atrophy.

So, to sum up, I think the audience and what role the audience will play makes a difference. I also wonder if certain think tanks are ineffective because they draw from the same pool. A linguistics professor who becomes a staffer for a liberal senator and takes a position at a progressive think tank really only changed seats in the same auditorium. A liberal joining an environmental think tank after 25 years working for 3M may likely bring more to the conversation and may make the message resonate.

Is American anti-intellectual, or are the people who claim the title "Intellectual" just awful at getting their point across? When the message is ignored, do the chattering classes dismiss the masses, rather than asking for tougher introspection?