Anti-intellectualism in America

[Del Tachi]

I find it kind of funny that anti-intellectualism is regarded today as something that manifests itself mostly on the conservative side of the political spectrum, seeing how anti-intellectualism has always been a hallmark of American politics (see: 1844 presidential election).  However, it wasn’t until the left-of-center, populism movement of the late 19th Century that anti-intellectualism became almost essential to winning national elections.

The main reason I think that anti-intellectualism is so engrained in the American political system has a lot to do with religion.  America is, historically, the most religious of all the MDC’s and we have a strong Puritan tradition.  Anti-intellectualism, populism, and religion kind of all seem to blend together on the American political scene.  To many Americans, you can’t be both a scholar and a saint.  Americans are a simple people and thus prefer simple politicians.

When you think about it, when was the last time America elected an “intellectual”?  And don’t say Obama, cause despite being an intellectual he was able to run an anti-intellectual campaign.  I’d have to say Woodrow Wilson, as he is the only president to ever have a PhD. 

[Del Tachi]

When you think about it, when was the last time America elected an “intellectual”?  And don’t say Obama, cause despite being an intellectual he was able to run an anti-intellectual campaign.  I’d have to say Woodrow Wilson, as he is the only president to ever have a PhD. 

Well what qualifications are you using here? Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, for example.

Clinton, despite perhaps being an "intellectual" (as most presidents are), did not try to court the "educational elite" during his presidency instead focusing on the plight of working class, White people.  This makes him an "non-intellectual".