Obama the Intellectual?

Stephen Borque, in his post of March 5, wrote "Apparently, what counts is not what these men DO, but what they SAY."

I would only add that HOW they say what they say adds immensely to their perceived intellectual credentials. If George Bush had uttered the same words as does Obama now, he would have been no less ridiculed than he was.

"just trying things"

"...deliberately blindfolds him to any knowledge or principles that might inform his actions."

It looks like his "incompetence" is deliberate. He knows what he's doing. To create chaos. Why? An America in chaos delivers to Obama the way to Marshal Law, a Police State. Who knows? A dictatorship?

If America today were seen in a novel this is what I believe we would be reading.

Scary stuff.

I'd say the last real intellectual to sit in the Oval Office was Hoover. The last before him was probably Wilson. I wouldn't call either of them great presidents. Intellectualism seems to be overrated as a desirable presidential quality. Maybe the important thing is "leadership," which is not an intellectual trait.

[...] Obama - the intellectual - was getting hammered, his own party was starting to revolt from his grand spending scheme. His [...]

Broadsword, the skeptic position you are mistakenly attributing to the author is in fact the position author is attributing to Obama and *CRITICIZING* him for having. You have completely missed the point of the article: the author is NOT advocating what passes for intellectualism today but saying that instead of this faux intellectualism and skepticism we need "a new kind of intellectual—one who reaches conclusions methodically and scientifically, on the basis of acquired knowledge and expertise, and then applies those conclusions with bold certainty to his actions."

Oh, I'm sorry, does that make me part of the "growing anti-intellectual climate in America today"? How do you know it is "growing"? Is the shade of gray moving towards white, or towards black?
Here's something to think about. At the end of his life, Thomas Aquinas, author of The Summa Theologica, Summa Contra Gentiles,On the Unity of the Intellect against the Averroists.Treatise on Separate Substances,On the Eternity of the World and some fifty or so other titles, had a vision of Christ, stopped writing entirely and said everything he had written was "chaff". I am certain that the "intellectuals" reading this will assert that he had a vision of shades of gray. Hell is shades of gray. You do not want to end up there, and all this shouting about uncertainties and skepticism will not take you someplace else. Pascal's wager anyone? "IHS" Pacem Christos.

Only an intellectual could believe that this "...he subscribes to skepticism—the theory that teaches that truth, knowledge, and certainty are not possible, and that one can only answer the questions of life in approximate shades of gray" is an example of intelligence. He should ask for his subscription money back! Let us turn this "theory" onto itself. By asserting that "...truth, knowledge, and certainty are not possible" are you applying the same assertion, yes or no? Or is the assertion that " truth, knowledge, and certainty are not possible" the only example of a statement of truth it is possible to make? Beyond this I am lost, because I earn my living carefully fitting bits of wood together to measurement of 1/32" of an inch, am not an intellectual, and do not understand the great truth that "one can only answer the questions of life in approximate shades of gray." However, if you order a cabinet from me, and the door opening is three inches larger than the door,I've decided to apply the "theory" on shades of gray and use only one hinge, and it mounted at the bottom of the door, so it is more of a laundry chute, will you be satisfied if I say something about uncertainty and shades of gray?

Good article... I have to say though, its simple. Democrats always claim their guy is a brilliant intellectual and the republican is stupid. It’s the claim they've made my entire adult life... and it's usually baseless (well, unless prejudices and bias count).

"The article is just so much psycho-babble from another product of our PC universities obsessed with intellect."
Come now... did you even read the article?
The reason we are in this current precarious economic position is because our leaders have recognized how many Americans share your view of intellectualism. It’s much easier and politically convenient to pragmatically please whatever interest group is currently griping. Being principled is difficult, but also, the only means of long term success. Oh wait... did I just confuse you with all my “psycho-babble”? Alright, me speak no hard words: Head chief, he do what people want. People want dumb dumb head chief, people get dumb dumb head chief. Dumb dumb head chief bad bad. You savvy?

This was a very important piece. The most important since the Age of Obama began. Understanding the difference between Pragmatism and some sort of rational philosophy will explain much of this presidential term.
Thank you,
Velvetbob

Topher asked who was the last intellectual president. Probably that twit Wilson.

In general leaders are ~1-2 standard deviations smarter than the people they lead. This seems to be true in most walks of life, including our presidents. When only landowners could vote, our leaders were brilliant because the wealthy were already 1-2 standard deviations smarter than the average person, so presidents were 2-4 standard deviations above average (145-160 IQ as opposed to Bush's 122 IQ).

Everyone voting is silly. Everyone should have there # of votes equal to the natural log of the taxes they pay.

[...] Obama - the intellectual - was getting hammered, his own party was starting to revolt from his grand spending scheme. His [...]

Interesting article that raises two separate issues. First, what does it mean to be an intellectual politician; second, is Obama one of them? I don't think that I'm sold on the notion that pragmatism is the opposite of intellectual decision making or that intellectualism requires "unbending" adherence to a core set of well studied beliefs. This ties into the fact that what it means to be an intellectual is not well defined (Richard Posner wrote a book attempting to define it and evaluate the quality of current intellectuals; he was roundly criticized for his efforts). Intellectualism me be more of a "know it when we see it" phenomenon, because we certainly know that many of the politicians lauded as intellectuals - Al Gore and John Kerry being two recent purportedly "intellectual" candidates - were not. Neither is Obama. Despite having Ivy League credentials, he has shown know evidence of having even a basic education in economics, history, world affairs, political theory or any other field you would hope a President would understand. He has never written anything - which is amazing considering that he spent several years on the University of Chicago law faculty - and has not espoused any cohesive philosophy to governing. Kristoff claims that Obama is an intellectual because he embraces skepticism, but why would that make one intellectual? Anybody want to venture how Kristoff would label those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming or evolution?

With the state of higher ed today, I'm not sure what qualifies one to be an intellectual. I'll take an MBA with management experience like a governorship any day.

Obama wants to enact a radical socialist agenda. He lied to get there. He is using the financial downturn to make real lasting changes in the lives of every American. Changes which will not improve the life of non politicians. The complaints about Bush's power grabs after 9/11 hardly affected each American. I don't remember lying awake worrying about having my phones wiretapped or being waterboarded, but I do lie awake worrying about socialized, forced health plans with rationed care, huge energy and tax bills and generally anti-business and reckless entitlement policies which will drive up unemployment, cost of living and inflation. I lie awake worrying about the huge burden of debt my children will inherit.

If the (more or less) implied of 'intellectual' is to be accepted, why in the world would anyone expect a politician to be elected President?

Maybe Daniel Patrick Moynihan was an 'intellectual' politician, but I'd be hard-pressed to put any other in that category.

Far too many of them are charlatans at best (Schumer, Dodd, et al) or poltroons (Murtha) or just not too bright (Bunning, Murray, Boxer).

TRD is exactly right. So far, there is no evidence
whatever that Obama is particularly intelligent, much less an intellectual, no matter how its defined. His SAT, LSAT, undergrad grades and law school grades are all state secrets, and when he's not reading from a teleprompter, he sounds more often like a run-of-the-mill politician than a great thinker. Why did the liberals and their camp followers fall all over themselves with actual verifiable facts about the test scores and grades of Clinton, Gore and Bush while hiding that info for Kerry and Obama. It soon became obvious that Kerry was a dunce and the odds are that the same fate awaits Obama.

Great comments.
The article is just so much psycho-babble from another product of our PC universities obsessed with intellect. I suppose being able analyze someone else's intellect make you more intellectual and higher in the food chain.
Bottom line is we already knew Obama was a Marxist -- bred, born, raised and mentored. As with all totalitarians, charisma and acting/lying are the talents and tools that he uses to fool the media and, thereby, the masses. The most intellect comes into play for Obama is how he can best fool most of the people all of the time. So far, he's doing a great job.

I am constantly amazed by people who define "intellectual" within the confines of "agrees with my liberal perspective." You want to impress me with your intellect? Spend time researching oposing points of view. Not "read the blogs of the non-elite", but actaully assume for a moment you might be wrong about something and dig into it. Ahhh! Breath the fresh air of information and enlightenment. What was that? You were wrong? Wow. Welcome to conservatism. You can't get here by pretending to be smarter, only by actually taking the time to research and think things through. You know: be an intellectual.

[...] Glenn Reynolds, it appears that someone is questioning the crammed-down concept of “Obama the intellectual.”  Indeed, that’s one of the [...]

I am sorry, but I have not seen ONE piece of evidence that Obama has above average intelligence. Reading from a teleprompter does not take much, and I have not seen him talk without one. He comes across as a very ordinary person intellectually.

This how it works. You get investors to back you for president. Your advisors tell you what to say and when. You get elected. Your investors tell your advisors what you will say and do. For this whole thing to work, you have to be souless or a amoral person who rather think you are more important than you are. Of one more thing, never bring in too much baggage to the White House. It makes moving out that much faster.

Unless one moves in very elite circles, all one's impressions of presidents are filtered through the media. The script since the 70's calls for brilliant, intellectual Democrats with occasional character flaws (Clinton) vs. bumbling (Ford, Bush 41), senile (Reagan, McCain-if he had won), buffoonish (W, Ford), evil (Nixon, W, Reagan) Republicans.

Obama is an actor, an empty suit. Take away his teleprompter and he's a tall, skinny guy with big ears who says "uhh" more than anything else.

He tries to appear nuanced, but after considering both sides of an issue, he inevitably sides with the Left. He's a typical Socialist hack, playing class warfare games to achieve his dream of a Socialist oligarchy- like that's worked out so well in the past.

Obama "acts" like he's an intellectual, but he doesn't act like he has a clue.

By what criteria (and by whom) has it been established that Obama is "well-read"? If it is on the basis of his degrees, Bush has post-graduate degrees too. Does a Law student read more profoundly than an MBA?

If it is undergrad reading, I wonder who is better read, a graduate of Occidental College, or Yale?

And as for what literature courses were taken and passed.... well, we only have the transcirpts of one of the people we are comparing, don't we?

Facts and data, please?

The difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama knew exactly what he wanted, but had to lie about it to get elected.

He is doing what he said he would do in terms of damaging America: Health care nationalization, card check, cap and trade and tax increases, for example.

He is failing to do the things he said he would do that would have helped America: Banning lobbyists from the Cabinet, stopping earmarks and "restoring" our international reputation, for example.

I don't know if this is properly labeled "pragmatism." It seems like something else.

He seems rigidly intoxicated by scientific socialism. I think that is the kind of intellectual the NYT likes.

As to intellectual approach: Let's compare Bush's explanation for his embryonic stem cell decision with Obama's. One was measured and considerate, the other one was pragmatic at most.

Put two different men into the same place with the same information and the same, well everything (let's call it that, at least) ...and they both exhibit the same performance characteristics.

And this is a surprise, why?

Perhaps it is simply an example of constraints driving actions/conclusions? Perhaps the actions of the president of the USA is uniquely constrained by the unknown (to the rest of us) environmental (if you will) realities of the position itself?

Or to paraphrase Louis Wu, "If I see the right answer every time, there are no choices" (with apologies to Larry Niven).

Which follows the observation quite nicely.

"What we need, if we want to rekindle a respect for the intellect as a practical tool, are not “intellectual” role models who act out of blind, spur-of-the-moment pragmatism, but a new kind of intellectual—one who reaches conclusions methodically and scientifically, on the basis of acquired knowledge and expertise, and then applies those conclusions with bold certainty to his actions."

In other words, we need Ronald Reagan.

i really don't care if somone is an intellectual. give me someone who is intellectually honest. A case can be made that the three most influential figures in the last forty years were margret thatcher, pope john paul II and ronald reagan. only the pope would qualify as an intellectual. Thatcher and reagan knew who they were and they were guided by a conservative philosophy that both strongly believed in.

What is "intellectual," "pragmatic," and "strategic?" In the science of strategy, we teach that all good strategies must have a clear mission, which depends on a philosophy about how the world works and what our values and goals should be in that context. A pragmatic move is any move that uses conditions to advance our mission. Obama clearly understands this, trying to use the economic crisis to further his mission of "reforming" society, starting with "affordable" health care, "affordable" education, and "affordable" clean energy. This will work exactly as well as government efforts to create "affordable" housing. His weakness is in his defective view about how the economy works and the limits of government control. The more he tries to control the economy, the more it will spin out of control. Not being God, we cannot enforce our will on nature. We can only make progress working within its rules, which Obama does not want to understand.

You've just done an excellent job of describing Ronald Regan, the last "intellectual" President.

I've never considered "intellectualism" and "competence" to be necessarily synonymous. As I watch this administration in action, I am frequently moved to exclaim "brilliant!"...but mostly in a sarcastic tone.

Other people here are seeing "flipflops" and "on the fly decisions" or "pragmatism"; I see promises that were obviously (to me) not serious in the first place, promises he never intended to keep.

One school of thought is surprised and seeking explanations, while the other is not surprised at all. By itself, this means nothing, but what if the latter continues to call his moves correctly?

I disagree that "pragmatism" is the opposite of "intellectualism." Do you have a particular definition of "intellectual" you're using? The ones I've found as well as my own working definition are along the lines of, "Using the intellect [or mind] analytically/creatively/all or most of the time to solve problems/in the regular course of life." Like that. I'd oppose it to "non-thinker," or "ignoramus."

Neither of these men, clearly, is an ignoramus, and despite Bush's self-deprecating comment about being a "gut" person, neither is a non-thinker. It seems to me that both use a suite of strategies, not necessarily obvious to the observer, in attacking a problem - none of which includes throwing darts at it or ignoring it, which would be approaches a real non-thinker might use. The contents and depth of each man's suite of strategies are determined by his training and experience, and if sufficiently internalized, can seem reflexive.

My boss while my husband was in business school was a former banker. She could look at a company's financial statement and, seemingly instantly, draw accurate conclusions about the company's condition. My husband, just learning these skills, was amazed at her acumen. Now, just seven years later, he can do the same thing - better. Training, practice, the familiarity that comes from day-to-day use: these are powerful tools - and this is why I try very hard ONLY to vote for governors or others with executive experience for President.

Well when people say how Clinton or Obama are brilliant ,I always ask "what have they ever said that would lead one to conclude that?" Reagan was the last intellectual and the last principled president. Without this kind of leadership this country will end up like Brazil or Argentina.

What are the consequences of Obama's anti-intellectual practices? What are the effects of pragmatism?

Dr. Tara Smith addresses the "menace of pragmatism" and how it is destroying our nation. The lecture can be found here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_pragmatism

Which is the most recent president that would qualify as an intellectual?

A student asks his philosophy professor, “Should we rob a local gas station?” The professor smiles slyly, “Well that depends, which gas station?”
Meanwhile, Obama’s economic advisors tell him that they need to nationalize another bank. Obama responds, “Well, which bank?”
Is this to be the means of running the country of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? I certainly hope not!

Excellent post.

Actually, your presentation led me to think of something about modern intellectuals I had never thought of in quite this way. As you point out, the actions of Presidents Bush and Obama share the same "seat of the pants" pragmatism. So why is Mr. Bush a villain and Mr. Obama the intellectuals' darling? Apparently, what counts is not what these men DO, but what they SAY.

After all, if actions are what mattered, the left could hardly have asked for more than Mr. Bush's sacrificial policies and expansion of government. It was his (ultimately empty) rhetoric showing moral clarity that was unforgivable.

Appreciate your sending this to the carnival!

Thank you for this article. It has the calm, measured approach a reader should expect from a scientist immersed in his work. The article relentlessly dissects the subject, exposes its nature, and offers a corrective.

Though it would be outside the author's own central purpose in life to do so, the article makes me hope that a history student will choose to specialize in the coming history of this administration. It will be a rich vein of "ore" showing this president's anti-intellectualism--and, sadly, the destructive consequences.