I'm not going to say too much about John Dean's essay, Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To Be Too Intellectual To Be President?, other than: go read it.
Well, okay, maybe I am. I will freely confess that I value intelligence above all other human characteristics, and that I think I can concoct at least a semblance of an argument that it is our intelligence which distinguishes us from primates -- who have been observed demonstrating the same compassion, jealousy, tenderness, anger, etc. that all of us do. So I suppose I find this essay particularly striking because it aligns with many of my own views -- like everyone, I have my biases and I'm not immune to influence from them.
Still...
...I think Dean's right when he talks about the Republicans establishing themselves as the party of anti-intellectualism. He writes:
This is not a cynical observation, but rather a factual one. Republicans have spent the past half century dumbing-down the American presidency, for it has helped them win the White House. Colleen Shogan, wearing her political scientist hat, has assembled epigrammatic case studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-intellectualism of Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
[...]
Increasingly, conservatives seek to characterize liberals as latte-drinking, white-wine sipping, Volvo-driving, intellectual elitists with whom no real American would want to spend time, for they are too smug and superior to truly understand others outside their circle. Conservatives may appreciate intelligence but not intellectuals and their kind, and as the Republican Party has become more conservative, its anti-intellectualism has become more pronounced. The reason: It wins elections.
And (predictably, I'm sure) I believe he's nailed it. But let me tip-toe out on a limb and suggest something else: If your electoral strategy is based on anti-intellectualism, then your best ally is a dumb electorate.
Which means that it's in your political interest, as a party, to denigrate science, promote superstition, and hobble the educational system. Which pretty much matches observed behavior throughout the last several Republican administrations. (I give you NCLB as one of the canonical examples of astoundingly inept educational policy.)
This is great is your goal is to perpetuate your grip on power, but it's a lousy strategy if your goal is to have a population capable of competing (on many levels) with the rest of the world. So as much as I resent the Republican War on Smarts (hey, everything else is a "War on X", why not this?) for how it has influenced the political landscape, I'm far more angry about what it's done to the intellectual health of the American population.
Barack Obama is just one candidate in just one election. But -- and not just with one speech -- he's set the bar far higher than many others. It's our responsibility, as citizens, to demand that all our candidates, no matter what their political colors, strive for and clear that bar. It's the only way we'll elevate political discourse to where it should be. Those who can't -- or won't -- are unworthy of our attention.