Forest v. Trees

by Don Wheeler

The occasion of April Lidinsky's conference and resulting post opens the door to a discussion we on the left need to have if we are serious about winning the confidence of the mostly moderate populace. And given the weakened state of conservatism, no better time than now.

I am not an academic, but most people probably consider me an intellectual. I'm married to someone who is an academic and most certainly an intellectual. I've done a lot of different kinds of work and have met intellectual contractors, body shop owners, interior painters, etc. One of these was even illiterate, yet had no problem thinking deeply about things. Still, academics seem to be the face of intellectualism - for good or evil.

As you can imagine, I tend to be invited to social gatherings loaded with academics. Often, I find them a bit unpleasant. If there were a meter for detecting passive aggression - I'd have to set the thing to vibrate.

These folks may not be aware of it, but nearly all their "jokes" are at someone's expense - persons normally unnamed and certainly not present. Then of course there are scenes like Tom Sullivan describes in today's Truthout roundup:

Inevitably, as usually happens, some complain about how hopelessly ignorant Americans are, exhibiting little awareness of the incongruity of thinking people are stupid and expecting them to vote with you. The undercurrent of frustration is palpable - like Marian the librarian complaining about the unintelligencia of River City for ignoring all her counsel and advice, even though she can quote "Balzac and Shakespeare and all them other high-falutin' Greeks." Frustrated activists armed to the teeth with data assume stupidity is the reason more Americans don't vote with them.

Despite their efforts, this attitude leaks out in other settings, and others sense it.

I kind of get where this comes from. If you're the person who, from the early days of school on, knew the answer, finished the test early, often praised by your teacher, didn't have to study all that hard...it is easy for a certain smugness to set in. I've had this tendency myself, and I try hard to fight it. Then add to it a 5 - 10 year Hell Week (tenure seeking) and I suppose there must be an impact.

So these trees are the forest many people see.

Another problem is that many of these folks are experts in their field, but have difficulties accomplishing basic practical tasks without outside help. When others note this they wonder just how smart these folks actually are. I'll concede that these folks are not typical, but they're the ones you notice.

Another forest v. trees problem (in my view) was suggested by Ms. Lidinsky's most recent post:

Much has been written about the anti-intellectual bent in contemporary American culture. How has it come to be that while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are Harvard and Yale-educated, they seem to have to pander for our votes by proving themselves to be “average Joes (and Janes),” by bowling and tossing back Crown whiskey? Don’t we want our leaders to be smart?

And: don’t we have faith that our citizenry could come to value our own smarts, once again?

I think this is a misreading. While I agree that anti-intellectualism exists, I think people confuse that with anti-intellect ism. In my experience, intellect is highly valued. I'll come back to that.

The scenes of bowling (was the gutter-ball a symbol?), drinking and (as The Colbert Report added for John McCain) napping are, of course, media creations. It's been a long campaign, after all. But the idea that lots of people vote for the candidate whom they'd "like to have a beer with" means voters want to feel some kind of connection to and with a candidate. I don't find it weird at all that voters want some assurance that the candidate has some idea what their lives are like. And when I think about who I'd like to have a beer with, it's mostly people who have led interesting lives and/or done important work.

Which brings me back to the intellectual versus intellect question.

In social settings with groups of folks from varied backgrounds and occupations, I've noticed that knots of people tend to gather around those who are working on projects or problems - pretty much any kind. They are interested and engaged and free in their praise of efforts like these. Intellect is valued when it is applied to problems, but not when it sits in judgement.

Conservatives had this exact problem when I was growing up. They were the "intellectual elite" and Democrats had sustained Congressional majorities. Eventually, Conservatives learned to connect better. We need to do the same.