Barack Obama, anti-intellectualism, and the way forward

By R.K. Barry

An idea has been rattling around inside my head since the midterm elections, which I have been leaning on to help me make sense of the Democrats' meltdown. It's Richard Hofstadter's notion of "anti-intellectualism in America," about which he writes:

The common strain that binds together the attitudes and ideas, which I call anti-intellectualism, is a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition to minimize constantly the value of that life.

He continues, in explaining the attitude of those who hold the view:

The plain sense of the common man, especially if tested by success in some demanding line of practical work, is an altogether adequate substitute for, if not actually much superior to, formal knowledge and expertise acquired in schools.

I don't want to discuss the reality of this bias at great length, though I encourage you to consider the number of presidential candidates who, over the years, have felt the need to don jeans and a plaid shirt in campaign ads to prove their connection to the American people, despite the fact that they would never otherwise be caught dead in such an outfit.

In this last campaign, the right made great use of the concept of "elitism," which is the other side of anti-intellectualism, to denigrate liberals as being out of touch with the average American. It was argued that Democrats had pursued policies that were "tone deaf" to the lives Americans lead and the troubles they face.

For a while now, conservatives everywhere have been making great use of the idea of "common sense" to describe their approach to politics. By extension, this is offered to voters as a bond to suggest that both conservative politicians and those who might support them have a better grasp of what needs to be done to move the country in a more positive direction.

Liberals, frequently Ivy League-educated liberals, may have a great deal of formal education, but, it is argued, they just don't seem to grasp how things work in the real world in the rough and tumble required to get things done.

Parenthetically, the term "egg-head" was first used in 1952 and 1956 in American politics to ridicule the Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stephenson, who was running against Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. Stephenson was clearly a very smart man and Eisenhower was clearly at least perceived as a very practical man who knew how to get things done, like saving the world for democracy.

It is, however, very important to grasp a distinction that Hofstadter makes about "anti-intellectualism," a distinction that is sometimes lost by those who criticize the right. As Hofstadter writes:

Hardly anyone believes himself to be against thought and culture. Men do not rise in the morning, grin at themselves and say, "Ah, today I shall torment an intellectual and strangle an idea."

The point is that as much as the election just passed was about anti-incumbency and the state of the economy, it was also about a strain of anti-intellectualism that wants to believe the world is not all that complicated, and that America's best days are ahead of her and that if we only use common sense and the work ethic of our fathers, everything will be okay. Anti-intellectualism / elitism is in part about people being forced to listen to things they don't want to hear from people who think themselves so immensely clever.

It is also about the confidence people have in their own common sense view and their interest in political communication that respects that self-image.

I am not suggesting that Obama tell convenient lies to the American people to get them on side, but I do think that there are lessons to be learned.

One of the smartest things I ever heard said about politics is that "if you are explaining, you are losing." To the extent that Obama is an intellectual, and he is a pretty smart guy, he too often comes across as the "Explainer-in-Chief," and that just doesn't work that well in politics.

Strange thing, but people don't like having things explained to them, especially bad news. They like to have pictures drawn for them, powerful mental imagery that comports with a new reality they hope the country can achieve. Reagan's "Morning in America" motif or Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech come to mind. To put a fine point on it: Tell them where you will take them; don't get too caught up in describing the roads you intend to use.

Politics is an emotional game, as someone as smart as Bill Clinton knew. At its worst, it is about manipulating people's emotions with half truths and lies in order to pander for votes. At its best it, is about finding a language that relates to the lives that people are living and the challenges they are experiencing. At its very best, it is about making people see a way forward that addresses their problems and improves their lives.

There is a fine line between pandering and inspiring, and this is what makes politics so difficult. Whatever else President Obama has done over the past two years, he has failed to make that common-sense connection with enough American voters. And, much to his detriment, the Republicans sensed the void and filled the vacuum.

Somewhere along the line I think I heard Sarah Palin criticize the president for being like a university professor at a lectern. She hasn't been right about much, but she is right about this.

The bias in America is to distrust politicians who seem to be mostly about ideas and not enough about execution. It may be unfair; it is almost certainly an unfair dichotomy in Obama's case, though that is the perception, which he needs to change.

Despite the fact that Republicans have argued that Obama has done too much and in the wrong direction, I would argue that a lot of Americans are mostly unimpressed with his record to date, seeing him as too timid and perhaps too cerebral. And before anyone decides to list his significant legislative accomplishments, it is the lack of overarching narrative that concerns.

Who would have believed that the mightily gifted campaigner Barack Obama would have so much difficulty as president connecting with the American people and getting them to believe that he has the kind of passion, plan, and vision to get things done in a world where so much needs to happen right now?