From time to time an article in one of the leading journals of Political Science catches my attention, and I often wish there was a "letter to the editor" option that would allow me to comment directly ("please include more articles like this one" or "which peer-reviewers didn't read the most recent article you published?"). The most recent edition of Perspectives in Politics has an article of the second category.
The article, "Anti-Intellectualism in the Modern Presidency: A Republican Populism,(read the abstract here)" and written by Colleen J. Shogan, makes the argument that some recent Republican Presidents--emblematic of the modern Republican Party--have embraced anti-intellectualism as a governing strategy. And because these Presidents come to office with limited curiosity and a predisposition to distrust intellectuals, there may be profound consequences for all of us living under a Republican administration. In fact, this article made me squeamish because it is the sort of thing that gives Howlers like David Horowitz ammunition that academia is lined up against conservatives and Republicans.
Anti-intellectualism is defined as "the attainment of knowledge through instincts, character, moral sensibilities, and emotions (295)" and someone whose approach to life is anti-intellectual "disparages the rational complexity associated with intellectual pursuits,...[as well as exhibiting a] distaste for the smugness and superiority they believe accompanies intellectual life. (295-96)" She places her presidents on a continuum with anti-intellectual at one end and intellectual at the other. Where you place a president depends upon whether the president finds intellectuals useful in governing and whether the president actually embraces intellectuals publicly. She argues that most modern presidents have gravitated toward the anti-intellectual position, and out of all these presidents, more Republicans have come to embrace this attitude (although she does not tell us what time period she is investigating, just that "as the presidency has developed over time." She does state that in the "post-New Deal period," there has not been an explicitly "pro-intellectual" president.
To highlight her argument, she uses mini-case studies, selecting three Republican presidents--Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush 43. Why these three is not clear. Why, for instance, not Johnson or Carter? Why not Nixon, whose administration disdained intellectuals (nattering nabobs)?
She describes the anti-intellectual underpinning of these three administrations came from their "attitude about intellectual life and their public posturing." Further, anti-intellectualism is a "strategic tool used by [these three] to enhance their political authority. (296)" She also claims that the tendency of modern presidencies to "go alone" in governing--rather than working with the Congress or the courts, is hallmark anti-intellectual--that is, anti-intellectuals are confident in their way as right without the need for deliberation with outsiders. She then examines each case by looking at public comments, biographies, and interviews with those close to the president to demonstrate how each was decidedly anti-intellectual. She concludes that "George W. Bush is perhaps the most skilled operator of anti-intellectualism (301)" because of his success as disarming his opposition by forcing his those critics to grossly underestimate his abilities. Either way, this trend (which has accelerated with the plebiscitary nature of the modern presidency) isn't a good thing: "The political benefit of anti-intellectualism is the pseudo-egalitarian connections it forges between presidents and the public. The danger is that the political importance of this supposed populist connection has supplanted the more intricate, policy-oriented debate that should serve as the hallmark of deliberation in an extended democratic republic. (301)"
I had a number of problems with the piece, and I will list them as follows, with some discussion.
First, throwing in the unilateralism as a sign of anti-intellectualism was probably the comment of one of the anonymous reviewers, or it just seemed an easy explanation for the trend of presidents since Nixon to take a unilateral approach to governing. But unilateralism is not something that a single president brought to the presidency, but rather is something forced upon recent presidents by external circumstances. A vigorous Congress (or a "resurgent Congress" as described by some scholars) that was more interested in boxing in an "imperial presidency" made working with Congress to pass his agenda impossible. We may forget that most recent presidents did not have such an easy time dealing with Congress as the current President had during his first six years in office. To compound, a hostile media and cynical public made the kind of governing that she envisions impossible--for Republicans and Democrats alike. Thus her suggestion that unilateralism is asymptomatic to the individual president belies the reality that unilateralism has become institutionalized despite the president. Given that we judge our presidents as successes or failures in their first 100 days in office, there is no other choice for the president but a strategy of going solo.
Second, and I think the more significant, is the fact that this approach to governing is more a response to the critical external environment rather than deeply held beliefs of the occupant. Why did Bush 43 openly embrace the fact that he was a C student, or that he doesn't read newspapers and relies upon the news from his advisers? Because they are disarming to the opposition. Tell everyone you are an underachiever and they will underestimate your ability to succeed. Thus Bush won his debates with Al Gore simply because a win for him was just showing up, where he bar for Gore had been set impossibly high. Thus again this has more to do with how the officeholder plots his path to success. Thus it may be incorrect to claim you are from humble backgrounds, that you understand the needs of the common person, and then brag that you were also a Rhodes Scholar or hold weekend long "get togethers" with the leading minds in politics, the arts, culture, economics, etc., as Clinton did when he ran for office his first term. This only invites the opposition (and particularly the press) to write stories that you are a phony, or a sell-out, or both. In fact, she admits herself that the reasons these presidents adopt this strategy is become it works, not because it is an important part of their genetic wiring. For instance, she notes that "Reagan liked playing the underdog, and understood the value of being underestimated in politics. (299)" It just seems to me that this is part of politics, and as long as it works, why stop?
Which brings me to my third and final point--why does this work? I think there are a couple of things that answer this question, though the question itself was not addressed in her essay. First, I think part of the answer is cultural. How often do we hear the phrase, or some form of it, that there is a difference between book smarts and street smarts, and in most cases, the latter is to be preferred. Why is it that our universities are referred to as ivory towers? There is a profound belief among many Americans that intellectuals are divorced from reality (and that they wear black rimmed glasses with white tape holding the two halves together). Thus it is only natural that politicians tap into that element in order to win elections. Second, the press allows these politicians to get by with it. For instance, the portrayal of Bush 43 as folksy and cattle rancher first and foremost is divorced from reality. The Crawford Ranch, dubbed the "Western White House" only came into the hands of President Bush months before he ran for the presidency. Furthermore, the press allowed creative license with reality because they were charmed by the man. Furthermore, the press is hobbled by their sensitivity to the bias claim. If they take these Republicans to task for portraying themselves differently from how they really are, then they are engaging in liberal bias. Best to leave well enough alone. Leave it to the people. They will sort it out!
So in sum, I simply reject the whole premise of the essay. I don't think creating a connection with the "common man" is especially new, but if it is, I am not sure why it is a Republican trait. I don't recall LBJ sitting with legs crossed, meditating on the problems of the day. In fact, it was "Jimmy" Carter who gave us the People's Presidency. And I think the choice of the cases was designed to make square pegs fit round holes.
