|
Reversing the Intellectual
Decline
Huffington Post
Kathleen Reardon
October 14, 2005
Historians will write of this time that the U.S. was in a period of
intellectual decline, a kind of anti-renaissance of thought. Simplicity, and
brevity displaced thoughtful dialogue. Repetition passed as true conviction,
cult-like adherence to shallow philosophies unseated consideration of creative
alternatives and honesty gave way to spin.
This is not an era when thinking about anything for long is valued. We draw
conclusions on very little information. And in this way we elect our leaders as
well. They debate before elections, but those are merely prepared speeches
punctuated by questions. Unlike the questioning that Supreme Court Justice
nominees undergo, presidential and vice presidential candidates get away with
sound bites. Why else would mantra-like repetition be so effective? If they
actually had to speak with us, not only in contrived, cutesy town meetings,
wearing plaid flannel, but undergo questioning from Senators and Congressmen
and some of us, we might get more than a glimpse of these people.
Yet, serious analysis has undergone cultural rejection in America. I was
sitting a New York television studio prior to an interview for my book
It's All Politics. The host, in way of pre-interview chat, said to me,
along these lines, "Your book is heavy.' At first, I thought he
meant that the publishers had bound it in some unusually dense material.
Sensing my confusion, he said, "It's intense.' Again I looked
puzzled. After all, it's a trade book! "For an academic,' I
said, "it's really rather light and accessible.' He laughed
appreciatively and complimented the educational content, but added that most
books he sees now days are lists or one page per concept. He pointed to one
beside me awaiting its author for an interview. I picked it up. He was right.
What had I been thinking? Ah, lists -- of course. I told my agent, but he
thinks people don't want lists from me. I put that on a list.
I don't know about you, but I want more than lists and repetitive
sound bites before casting my next vote for any politician. I learned more
about John Edwards on the Daily Show recently than in the many months before
the presidential election. The man strikes me as of the earth, so to speak,
caring and quite funny. He's intelligent and passionate about less
fortunate people. John Kerry faced anti-intellectualism and came up wanting
because he just couldn't get in touch with "the folks' (Who
are they, anyway?). His thoughts and those of Edwards were
"intense,' but only by comparison to prattling duplicity. Al Gore
actually revealed himself as funny and endearing after a failed bid because we
got to see him as a person. Jimmy Carter, a gifted man, has influenced the
world more since he left the presidency behind. Why? He was simply not simple
or dishonest enough for the job.
John Stewart Mill wrote in his book On Liberty that humans "owe to
each other help to distinguish the better from the worst and encouragement to
choose the former and avoid the latter.' And more to the point, he wrote,
"They should forever be stimulating each other to increased exercise of
their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims
towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and
contemplations.'
So where does this leave us? At the very least, it leaves us obligated to
raise our standards. Should we suddenly take on the mantle of erudite
intellectuals, expecting the same of presidential candidates? Culture
doesn't turn on a dime. And, besides, there's much to be said for
balance. We don't need a phalanx of Einstein clones on Capitol Hill. As a
start, I decided to ignore advice to the contrary and to make a list:
Let's expect our leaders to be able to use intelligent phrases without
benefit of cue cards.
A step up, we can expect them to educate us rather than berate us with
nonverbal condescension.
We could pressure the media to deliver to us real interviews of some
length.
Let's expect candidates to volunteer for conversations, not just
speeches, with people in every state, during which we detect whether they
are:
(a) intelligent enough to run this country,
(b) "intense' enough to know a good idea, to appreciate and
entertain it,
(c) confident enough to listen to advisors on all sides and to us,
(d) capable of understanding the world beyond the U.S. borders,
(e) real people who truly care about the future of this country and its people,
young and old, male and female, diverse in race and religion
We can expect honesty and constructive politics.
We can insist on leadership and the courage to deliver it.
|
|