The leftist intellectual elite has been suffering a lot of pushback recently and it has developed an explanation which really comes as no surprise . . . the masses, you see, just ain’t very smart. In an effort to put this somewhat more politely, many of these elitists often speak in terms of an “anti-intellectual” attitude that is pandemic among the tea partiers and other rabble-rousers. Of course, a backhanded insult is just as bad as an explicit one and calling people stupid isn’t exactly the best way of getting their votes. To overcome this obstacle, the theory is usually further refined by noting that this “anti-intellectual” mindset really isn’t the fault of the peasants themselves. Rather, manipulative charlatans (i.e. conservatives) have planted and nurtured this mindset so as to facilitate a more efficient exploitation of the masses and their fears.

The sad news for the left is that this theory is simply not true, either in its rudest and most explicit form or its politest and most forgiving version. The really horrifying thing for the leftist intelligentsia is that these ignorant and misguided peasants are precisely the exact opposite of stupid. They are perfectly intelligent and, even worse, they are becoming more and more informed by the moment. This is revealed by the audacious and abominable things that these people are doing . . . things like reading the Constitution for themselves.

But simply dismissing the charge of anti-intellectualism may not be the best response, even though it is a wholly accurate one. The danger of mere dismissal stems from the fact that the left’s domination of the educational system, along with the popular media and culture, has allowed its agents to write their own definition of what constitutes “intelligence”. This definition, in turn, has been widely used as the standard for assigning merit in the form of everything from grades to social status to political power to bureaucratic authority. In this context, the uprising that is now occurring can be viewed as a very appropriate reaction to this self-anointed authority. People who think in terms of “common sense” or “classical reasoning” are objecting to both the validity of the left’s definition of intelligence and its authority to impose the definition on others. The left, for its part, is obviously rather offended by this infringement of the commoners into what is supposed to be its exclusive domain.

To get a grip on the details of this conflict and to further explore the leftist definition of “intelligence”, it is helpful to consider the means by which human beings come to believe ideas. For the sake of simplicity, we can summarize this as a three-step process. First, the idea is received by the audience. Second, it is scrutinized via reasoning. Third, if reasoning shows the idea to be valid, then it is accepted as true. However, if the idea is in conflict with reasoning, then some sort of reconciliation must occur between the idea and reasoning before the idea can be accepted.

Now this brings us immediately to the stark difference between the classical, or “common sense”, definition of intelligence (as embraced by the masses) and the more enlightened or sophisticated definition (as embraced by the leftist intelligentsia). In the event of a conflict between reasoning and the idea at hand, classical thinking demands that the idea must be reconciled so as to conform to reasoning. The leftist intelligentsia, on the other hand, clearly believes that it is reasoning which must yield to an Approved Idea in the case of a conflict.

At first, this may sound like ideological rhetoric or a badly exaggerated smear which is aimed at people with whom I disagree. But the reality is that this is simply an objective statement of fact that is overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence. When the left applies its ideas in the form of real world policies, it can be shown time and time again that they do not work. Keynesian economics has failed time and time again, yet the solution to economic problems is more Keynesian economics. There is a clear inverse correlation between violence and legal gun ownership, yet the leftist response to violence remains an insistence that we need to more sharply restrict legal gun ownership. The downtrodden are flooded with handouts by the bucketful and this serves to mire the majority of them in a permanent position of multi-generational squalor while drowning a few in addiction, crime or mental illness. In response, the liberal screams for more and bigger buckets. More spending and more technology do not correlate with improved education, yet the ongoing leftist solution to the embarrassing performance of American students as a whole is to pour more money and more computers into the educational system. Reason shouts “these ideas do not work!” Yet the left returns to them time and time again.

If Sir Isaac Newton had an idea of gravitation which consistently failed to correctly account for the motion of bodies, he would surely have abandoned his idea and retained his reasoning. Albert Einstein refused to do this once and threw in a fudge factor to make his reasoning fit to his idea. When hindsight revealed this for the folly that it was, he called it the biggest blunder of his career. If a particularly slow-witted fellow had the idea that it was safe to smoke cigarettes while using gasoline to clean paint brushes, even he would probably concede, after having started himself on fire for the second or third time, that reasoning should trump the idea. The left, in contrast, clearly takes the opposite view and holds its ideas as inherently superior to reasoning itself. Time and time again, the ideas fail and reason bellows “this does not work!” But, time and time again, reason is met with a deaf ear and the idea is embraced even more firmly than before. More Keynesian economics, more gun control, more buckets of handouts and more deluges of money and computers are proposed as the only solutions to the ongoing (and usually worsening) problems.

Unfortunately, the arrogant peasants are now seeing this for what it is. So far as the leftist elite is concerned, “intelligence” is defined in terms of a person’s ability to ingest an approved set of ideas, accept them immediately and then spew them back reflexively to the satisfaction of The Official Leftist Review Panel. The person who is able to do this with particularly noteworthy eloquence may be classified as a genius, even if he has no other real qualifications or redeeming values. When the left finds an individual who can regurgitate both eloquently and flexibly by garnering “A’s” from ivy-league professors whilst simultaneously appealing to plumbers and housewives . . . well, mind you, such a fellow is bound for very high places indeed. Unfortunately, while the left has been admiring its own “intelligence” in the mirror, the rest of the country has been developing an attitude which is decidedly very “anti-intellectual”, at least so far as this silliness is concerned.

Among the Founders, one who can occasionally get accolades from the left is Thomas Jefferson. They are periodically fond of him because of quotes such as “Question with boldness even the existence of a God”. They usually fail to mention the entire quote, which invokes the merit of reason twice in the course of two sentences and notes that God himself (if he exists) would approve of homage to reason: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
 
In many arenas and in many respects, the left has long enjoyed considerable authority to define reality in its own image and this has often included license with respect to defining the meaning of intelligence itself. In that endeavor, the intelligentsia may disagree with Jefferson. But the common man apparently does not. People are discovering not only the arrogance of this self-appointed authority, but its sheer vacuity as well. They’ve peered into the ivory towers and, instead of finding philosophers engaged in deep muse about vital matters far beyond their ability to understand, they’ve found the banquet at a Roman orgy and discovered that intellectual merit is viewed in terms of one’s ability to eat ravenously from the menu of Approved Ideas and then vomit with eloquence. The intelligentsia is obviously very concerned (as well as very offended) . . . and it should be. The potentially devastating consequences of this audacious window-peeping could go far beyond the confines of a merely “political” loss of power.

This may be news for many Red Staters . . . but Elen Degeneres has been hired as a “judge” on one of the reality shows – I believe it was “American Idol (Idle?)”. Anyways, the uproariously amusing thing is the number of people that can be heard on the entertainment “news” shows and in other airheaded media outlets who are expressing concern with regard to her qualifications!

Apparently, Ms. Degeneres does not have any substantial experience in the relevent areas of music and performance and there is – seriously – quite a bit of grave concern over the act of putting a person into a position without adequate qualification. Seriously. I’m talking grave, sincere concern that is clearly a result of careful, in-depth and thorough reflection (careful reasoning can, after all, be applied to silly things as well as serious ones).

Now I know that leftists are inherently subjectivist (selectively applying or ignoring a principle based on convenience), but this really takes the cake. I am sure that most of these intellectual entertainment-followers were Obama voters. Being the “right sort of chap” in an ideological sense is apparently adequate for the highest office in the United States, but it is not sufficient for a judge on a “reality” program. You gotta be QUALIFIED for something THAT important!

I am not sure what to make of this, except to make note of it and its humorous/depressing/ironic value.

A NOTE IN MY OWN DEFENSE: I feel it appropriate to point out how I discovered this vast left-wing concern, lest it create the impression that this is being written by a reader of Variety and “O Magazine”, etc: There are a couple decent talk programs on a local radio station (Hannity and a local conservative). Unfortunately, the radio station is definitely a second fiddle in a smaller market, so they apparently run the cheapest thing they can get at other times and it turns out that both of these programs are followed by an entertainment “news” program. Accidental exposure thus results from time to time (i.e. when I am in the middle of something and cannot immediately change stations), but if one avoids the urge to gag, interesting things can be learned on occasion in odd places.

I am afraid that the relationship between conservatism and capitalism is often not communicated as clearly as it should be to the politically undecided. When conservative spokesmen like Hannity and Rush extol the virtues of capitalism without restraint and talk about how good it is, I think (or, at least, I hope) they are saying something that they don’t really mean. This, in turn, can create a negative perception on the part of undecided folks at a time when our need to clearly communicate our true beliefs is more critical than ever.

This may sound like a harsh condemnation and even rather anti-conservative, so please give me a moment to explain exactly what I mean. The problem comes in when conservatives APPEAR to view capitalism as a good thing in the literal Judeo-Christian moral sense of good (as in “ . . . and God saw that it was good”). In other words, we appear to regard capitalism as a cardinal virtue that belongs on the same list as things like prudence, justice, honesty and courage. The problem with this impression is that capitalistic principles can also be used for bad purposes. The undecided know full well that a capitalistic market environment can lead to greed, dishonesty, abuse, exploitation, insider deals, special privileges and other dirty work. Let’s face it – a Mexican drug cartel can use the principles of capitalism to profitably sell methamphetamine just as easily as the local businessman can use it to sell groceries.

Now don’t get me wrong . . . I’m certainly not saying that capitalism is a bad thing, but the point is that it is also not a good thing in the literal moral meaning of the term. With respect to this position, I don’t think Hannity or Rush would disagree because the problem is not a matter of what we believe but of how we explain it to those who do not understand the fundamental principles of conservatism.

To better explain our beliefs, we might do well to consider the approach of Second Amendment advocates. Gun people, when talking among like-minded folks, may refer to guns as if they were “good” things. But when sincere and well-studied Second Amendment advocates speak to the undecided, they make it very clear that this is not what they really believe. Fundamentally, they understand that guns are nothing but tools. Of course, they are powerful tools, so they can facilitate either great good or great evil, but they are still purely amoral objects and the moral responsibility lies with the user and not with the gun. In other words, guns belong on a list with things like bombs, shovels and the Internet and NOT on the list where we find things like honesty and justice. 

Perhaps we need to emphasize to the undecided that the same thing can – and should – be said about capitalism. Capitalism isn’t “good” (as conservatives can accidentally imply), but it also isn’t “bad” (as many raging leftists actually believe). Rather, capitalism is an economic tool that can be used for good or bad, based on the morality of those who use it. When used properly, it serves as a legitimate economic tool. In fact, the empirical evidence clearly shows that it is the only decent tool around. If economic systems were guns, capitalism would be the only one known to mankind that actually works without jamming, misfiring, blowing up in the user’s hand or killing three bystanders while totally missing its intended target. But the fact that it is a powerful tool does not elevate it to the level of being a fundamental good or a virtue. It is still a tool and, like a gun, the moral choice still resides with its user. In the hands of moral users, it can be used for great good and it can improve everyone’s economic condition. In the hands of immoral users, it can be employed for great evil. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that many of the current economic problems associated with abuses and scandals are largely due to the fact that there are a lot of capitalists who are not principled moral conservatives.

As I’ve tried to make clear, most conservatives already hold this position, so it may appear that I am stating nothing but the painfully obvious. Well, yes, I am – and that is exactly the point. The painfully obvious is what we are failing to mention and this omission is casting our position in the wrong light with the undecided. Conservatives know full well that the “good” in anything – be it capitalism or a gun or a shovel or a five gallon bucket – comes from the moral choice of the user. But the undecided have been told for decades that the tools themselves are the problem. When we fail to clarify our true beliefs, we can actually add credence to this absurd argument because we appear to believe the opposite – that tools themselves (in the absence of sound morals) are the solution. 

The fact that economic principles are tools subject to both moral use and immoral abuse can be further illustrated by looking at the leftists themselves. A favorite saying among gun rights advocates is “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” and validity of the statement has been repeatedly illustrated by the real-world data. Not surprisingly, the same sort of phenomenon is now manifesting itself in the economic arena in this era of accelerated liberalism. Rabid leftists who castigate capitalism in the real world are tripping all over themselves in an effort to adopt its principles for the purpose of creating and manipulating artificial economies. Here, I am talking about things like “cap and trade” and it is astounding to see how quickly these died-in-the-wool haters of capitalism will take to its principles for the purposes of enriching themselves and their friends while punishing and impoverishing those who they despise. Their goal is to create a fake commodity (carbon credits), then create a fake shortage of that fake commodity (by having experts calculate how much of it will exist) and then create a fake demand for the fake commodity by forcing people to buy it and trade it in order to do virtually anything. Of course, this whole scam is about as far away from free market capitalism as you can get, but the point is that the scammers are exploiting many of the same economic principles (such as supply and demand) that one finds in a legitimate market. The gun is now in the hands of the bad guy and it is being used for bad purposes. It is indeed fair to say that if capitalism is outlawed, only the outlaws will have capitalism.

On a philosophical level, we could argue a great deal about the exact accuracy of this “tool vs. virtue” argument. But in terms of conveying what we really believe to the undecided, I think it provides a far more accurate description of the conservative position than does simply extolling capitalism and creating the false impression that we hold it to be an inherently virtuous moral good. Capitalism is a tool and a very useful tool indeed. But it is still only a tool and the moral choice remains with its user. This viewpoint also brings the debate into the same context as many other issues – conservatives argue that factual truth and proper moral choices are the fundamentals that underpin all of the issues. The liberals, in contrast, scream endlessly that we need regulation – regulation of the guns, the markets, the Internet and even the five gallon buckets. We seem to be making great headway on many fronts, so let’s make sure and include capitalism in the success stories by defining the correct relationship between it and our political beliefs.