#officiallysenior

[mannymartinskarman]

Started my day off kinda kinky 😆 #cakeforbreakfast #birthdaypost #officiallysenior https://www.instagram.com/p/BsD4rEDAL-G/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=ve14a6fn09ly

[graymalking]

This is the year he turns ten #officiallysenior 🐶

[crownjule-blog]

FINISHED MY THESIS. That is all.

Anti-Intellectualism in Contemporary American Politics:

An Analysis of Rhetoric in the 21st Century

 by

Juliana Colangelo

  A senior thesis submitted to Professor Scott Minkoff, Department of Political Science, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Barnard College, Columbia University

12 December 2011

Part I: Introduction

            The connection between politics and education has existed in flux throughout the history of American politics. One of the foremost scholars in the literature on anti-intellectualism in the United States, Richard Hofstadter, believed in a natural connection between power and knowledge, emphasizing the ability of intellectuals to harness their skills for the public good.[1] However, it has been difficult to create the correct balance between the world of academia and public service. Sentiments of anti-intellectualism have created a deeper and more pervasive divide between the average United States citizen, the politician and the scholar. In response to several factors including the self-containment of intellectuals, distrust of science combined with fundamentalist religion, and a desire for instant gratification, presidential anti-intellectual rhetoric has become pervasive in the world of American politics. I chose these factors as sources of anti-intellectual sentiment based upon historical significance and the implications for intellectuals.

            The question that now exists is whether the American political atmosphere can incorporate the leadership of both intellectuals and politicians, where scholarship and intellect is valued as practical, rather than superfluous. Echoing this idea, anthropologist Jonathan Chernoff quotes Nietzsche in the introduction of an article on scholarship and participation: "Nietzsche hoped that scholarly investigation might be seen as a process of opening our ways of thinking and talking to bring them closer to the vitality of life, and that the pursuit of knowledge might be seen not as something withdrawn from the world but as a style of discovery and involvement."[2] Nietzsche’s hopes may seem ideal and unrealistic in the current political atmosphere, which has recently been characterized by more overt forms of anti-intellectual rhetoric from candidates and political pundits.

            For the purposes of this paper, I will be looking at the most recent proliferation of anti-intellectualism specific to political rhetoric in speeches, debates and public appearances. I will argue that the Republican Party specifically has utilized anti-intellectual rhetoric since 2000, as a way to appeal to a new constituency of voters that had previously been left out of politics. I am going to argue this by looking at the text of presidential speeches and presidential debates since 2000, looking specifically for traces of speech that imply the three categories I have identified as root causes of anti-intellectual thought: self-containment of intellectuals, a distrust of science combined with fundamentalist religion and a desire for instant-gratification. I will also seek to explain the rift within the Republican Party concerning the use of the tactic of anti-intellectual rhetoric.

            Ultimately, this paper seeks to offer a contemporary analysis of anti-intellectual rhetoric as a political tactic responding to popular American sentiment. Using rhetorical analysis, I hope to show how anti-intellectual rhetoric has been used to appeal to a segment of the American population that has felt excluded by the intellectual worlds of academia and science.

  [1] Bromwich, 1996.

[2] Chernoff, 1981.

Conclusion             Ultimately, the populist ideals of appealing to ‘every man’ reign true in current strands of anti-intellectualism. The main difference is that today’s trends are more geared towards the population that has been left out of politics, the white working class, high-school educated American as exemplified by Joe the Plumber. To quote Lilla, “Anti-intellectualism is a form of reaction to a political system that appeared elitist and unreachable. It is also a form of reaction to the idea that elites and intellectuals are controlling the lives of the everyday American.”[1] Proponents of anti-intellectualism offer the possibility of returning political power to the everyday man and thus capturing an audience of citizens who for too long have felt not only left out, but powerless in the world of American politics.

            Despite an emphasis on a more inclusive political atmosphere, the dangers of anti-intellectualism remain. Initially, politicians deliberately espoused anti-intellectualism within their rhetoric and action. The deeply embedded forms of anti-intellectualism that are being witnessed in the contemporary political landscape appear to be more natural than deliberate. The values of progressive thought, fervent debate and multiple opinions, which are all components of a liberal democracy, are being ignored within the framework of anti-intellectualism. Rather than serving as role models for American citizens to think, research and question, anti-intellectual politicians are enabling the American mind to lay complacent, putting our brains in a stagnant state of appeasement. The challenge for our next president is to encourage debate, stimulate conversation and reinstitute the value of intellectual thought.

            One could argue that the writing of this thesis is an example of how anti-intellectual rhetoric has spurred intellectual thought. While I would not argue against this, the purpose of this paper has been to show how anti-intellectual thought is discouraging curiosity, mindfulness and thought in the realm of politics and contemporary issues. I hoped to emphasize the dangers of anti-intellectual thought that is not only readily accepted, but celebrated by a large portion of the American population. It would be unrealistic to expect the average citizen to be a profound scholar; this is not what I have meant to infer in this paper. Instead, I would suggest a stronger emphasis on civic education, encouraging students to become politically active and aware. Ultimately, I am suggesting that as Americans we do not remain complacent in the face of popular opinions and trends but rather pursue the democratic ideals of debate, thought and curiosity.

[1] Lilla, 2010.