Did someone say “intellectual”?
Mar 12, 2009 Edumacallit, Medialites, Politics and Poker
Via Glenn Reynolds, it appears that someone is questioning the crammed-down concept of “Obama the intellectual.” Indeed, that’s one of the themes of the last couple of days, as his Harvard Law Review “experience” is being questioned as well.
Only I already asked that question in a post called, well, “Obama the Intellectual?” In June. As I said regarding another fabulously credentialed young Democratic President:
Intellectuals are as intellectuals do. Bill and Barack utilized their credentials, as they had every right to and as almost everyone else does, as stepping stones toward the realization of their grand ambitions. But neither of them can in any way be credited as having demonstrated a genius for anything other than achievement of that ambition. And this is not the same, we should recall, as a genius for leadership or government, with which we might credit a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. Neither man can be credited with being the moving or creative force behind the building of any great institution, public or private; of a noteworthy government program, initiative or policy; or a political movement that transcended the political institutions of their time and place.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
My dear cousin,
By your own standards you are not an intellectual, and yet I consider you one. I think you’re definition of an “intellectual” is too narrowly defined. Moreover, the post you link to is based on the premise that intellectualism and pragmatism are irreconcilable. A premise I reject entirely. Indeed, I think intellectuals who are not pragmatic are idealogues … something entirely worse.
Your post from June (and this one) was obviosuly done without the benefit of actually reading Obama’s books. And yet, I think his first, Dreams of My Father, is an intellectual tour de force. And that he wrote it 13 years before he became President, and in fact became President despite of writing with such honesty, gives it all that much more meaning.
With respect to your concluding paragraph above, he’s been in office for 3 months! I think your jumping the gun in your obituary.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I didn’t read Dreams of my Father, but I will say that I indeed did not consider this memoir as a work that would qualify as a credential that could establish a person’s reputation as an intellectual. Maybe it is one after all, given that he did indeed write it.
I must admit, however, that I was thinking that I was thinking that a person with such exquisite legal education credentials and an academic post at a top law school could fairly be expected to establish his bona fides by writing in the field of, well, law. I think the lack of such work is stunning considering the resume. Did he have nothing to say about the law worthy of publication even after editing the Harvard Law Review and teaching law all that time?
In fact, I argued that Clinton and Obama both fail that test, because “There is no book or book chapter, no judicial opinion in a case where one of them acted as counsel, no published article in a scholarly or professional work.” You delicately suggest that I fail this test too, despite your graciously expressed regard; if so, then I would argue that anyone else in my field would have to exceed this record of law-related publications, some admittedly not quite so scholarly, in order to meet that definition. We’d both agree, however, that President Obama, my clear superior in the legal credentials pecking order, doesn’t come close.
On the other hand, if we use your more relaxed standard, maybe I can make it based on my artistry in the field of Blackberry-based photography?
March 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
It certainly took a lot of thought and effort to create Obama’s public persona. However, the evidence suggests that this was not his thought and his effort. That balloon was pumped up by Ayers, Axelrod, and other mentors, for their own partisan or personal reasons. The theory that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s book is not as far-fetched as Obamans claim.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
People who believe that anyone other than Obama wrote either of his two books are irrational and cannot be reasoned with. Ron, I’m surprised you subscribe (or at least lend support by linking to) this tripe.
Regarding the substance of your response, Ron, by stating you don’t meet your own definition of an intellectual I was referring to the latter part of your criteria: “Neither man can be credited with being the moving or creative force behind the building of any great institution, public or private; of a noteworthy government program, initiative or policy; or a political movement that transcended the political institutions of their time and place.”
Somehow, I knew you would use your reply for self-aggrandizement (consider it a softball). But I think you’ll agree with me that it is not quantity, but quality that establishes one as an intellectual.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Yeah, quite the softball. It’s pretty soft self – aggrandizement too! But what can I do, when the breathless millions might be left with the impression that I haven’t published!
I guess people have long debated what indeed establishes someone as an intellectual. Frankly I rest my case on the tweedy sportcoat I wore to work today. But we cannot say it is truly only quality and not quantity that matters. It is true that writing a string of popular novels, worthless articles or whatever does not make someone an intellectual. A moment of brilliance, however, does not an intellectual make. After all, both Clinton and Obama are very, very smart guys. It is, to me, the concept of being motivated by the life of the mind that separates the intellectual from the dilettante, and that motivation usually leaves a trail at least of the efforts expended.
As to the question of whether Obama wrote the book published in his name, I don’t know why it is so offensive to suggest that it was ghosted. Is Bill Ayers worse than Ted Sorenson? Without getting into the heavy lifting, the case set out in these stories is not so far out nor was it convincingly disproved. If he did it is not a crime nor proof of anything to me other than what is obvious:
Very good writers, such as those who have read the book agree must define the author, don’t usually just write one good thing. First of all, you don’t just wake up and find out you’re a very good writer. Secondly, if you have that muse, you write.
I don’t see how, out of nowhere, this non-writer of a man wrote that book all by himself.
To me this has no impact on his qualifications for the Presidency, by the way.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Well, well …
This post spurred quite the debate in my home last night with my visiting sister-in-law, a Professor of Poli Sci, on what constitutes an intellectual. Little did I realize it was the subject of such critical debate (although I must say academics debating who/what is an intellectual strikes me as tilting at the windmills, or mental masturbation).
After some thought, I’ve settled on the following as to what I believe makes an intellectual: “Intellectuals are not defined according to the jobs they do but the manner in which they act, the way they see themselves, and the values that they uphold”. I think it matters not how much you publish, but how critcally you view the world, question your own worldview with reason, logic, and compassion (in terms of being open to contrary views of others), and acting in accordance therewith.
But let’s use your definition for present purposes …
“It is, to me, the concept of being motivated by the life of the mind that separates the intellectual from the dilettante, and that motivation usually leaves a trail at least of the efforts expended.”
Can one be motivated by the life of the mind without leaving a trail and still be an intellectual? If an intellectual is in the woods, and no one hears him …
Regarding the authorship of Obama’s books you write: “the case set out in these stories is not so far out nor was it convincingly disproved.” Well, argumentum ad ignorantiam is not quite an intellectual expostulation now is it?
You posit “Very good writers … don’t usually just write one good thing… if you have that muse, you write. I don’t see how, out of nowhere, this non-writer of a man wrote that book all by himself.”
Everyone has to have a first, no? Moreover, Obama also has a second, right? And its not like he was doing nothing between authoring the two books. Legislating, raising a family, writing countless speeches (both by himself, e.g. “the race” speech, and with the assistance of others), being elected Senator and then President of the United States. You know, small accomplishments. Excuse me if I find no fault in his decision to make “doing” his priority rather than writing.
Again, f you were to actually read Dreams of My Father you would find it to be a highly personal recitation of a self-discovery journey that is unmistakably written in Obama’s voice. To think that back in 1995 Ayers & Axelrod and/or anyone else conspired to create “Obama’s persona” is a bit too conspiratorial – and not quite intellectual enough – for me to give it any credence. It strikes me as nothing more than hackneyed political theater by those with sour grapes.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
As the sister in law in question – I have a few thoughts:
What makes an intellectual as such is the desire to apply all reasoning to logic, to expand thought and fact and analyze with data, commentary, exposition, etc. SO: Here’s what makes Obama an intellectual: He tries to solve particular problems in expanisve ways. When examining the housing problem he included not only housing experts but also those schooled in social work, finance, health care and eduation in order to address the very central issue at hand. The very definition of intellectual has been recently defined well by not the liberal, but by the conservatives: The folks who authored what we now colloqially call the “Neo Cons:” Leo Strauss, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, etc. These were men and women of letters, language, the arts and true, REAL intellectualism. Their thoughts have been implemented in idealogical ways, but their reasoning was derived through logic and knowledge. Obama possesses this intellectual curiosity in grand abundance and has proven so in his first few days in office.
I am proud of this nation for the first time in a decade in electing someone who can think beyond the populist.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Brian, there are many kinds of writing a person can do, and of which he leaves ample evidence, before publishing his first book. Writers write; Obama did not, really, write much at all. Obama is an extraordinary man in many respects; maybe in this respect, too, he is extraordinary. I am not “faulting” him for not writing instead of doing, but expressing skepticism at his ability to not dedicate himself to learning how to write, and then to be able to write brilliantly at his first attempt.
Your comment “argumentum ad ignorantiam is not quite an intellectual expostulation” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my point, and it doesn’t rebut the analysis made in the original article I linked to, which was rather deeply detailed and analytical. I didn’t find much out there that did rebut his piece, except to dismiss it, as you’re doing. I bet you have read the article yourself — being a critic of argumentum ad ignorantiam — and have either done or read a good fact-based rebuttal, so be sure and share that link with me when you have a chance!
I think you mistake being intelligent, even highly intelligent, for being “an intellectual.”
March 14th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“Joe,” I like a lot of what you have to say, but you lose credibility for me by asserting a number of conceptually huge claims about President Obama that are either not obviously true (“Obama possesses this intellectual curiosity in grand abundance”; “someone who can think beyond the populist”) or even amenable to evaluation at this moment (“Obama … has proven so in his first few days in office”).
It’s a bit of a wonder to me how we can be talking about intellectualism and then, Joe, you first assert that the mark of an intellectual is one who “expand[s] thought and fact and analyze[s] with data, commentary, exposition, etc.” — and then you kind of just make these assertions without even attempting to substantiate them. I suspect that this is not because you cannot but because you are used to traveling in a milieu — such as, I don’t know, academia? — where it would be heretical to even question the probity of these statements.
You see the irony here, I am sure!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Touche!
Well done, and good on you. You’re absolutely correct – I should have substantiated my comments with my own data, and (for good measure and for purity of thought) at least a few footnotes or note-benes).
Yes. This is SO academic. But then – as you state – that is my mileu.
OK. So now that you got me, let me back up my statements with some fact, although I will assume that you’ve read what I have already. Never assume knowledge, right?
Obama, in his inquiry into the vast and turly amazing problems left to us by his precdecessor, hired a number of scholars, academics and practitioners to gather togteher and workshop the answers. I find this, after years of “yes man” deliberation, very refreshing. Further, he has added to his staff personnel to bring to the table voices that have been, in the past, excluded, to include those of minority groups, the disabled, and disenfranchised groups. You may think these are groups that simply fill a quota, but to me it adds evidence that he brings a diversity of opinion to the table in decisionmaking that is a stallwart of intellectual curiosity.
So is intellectual curiosity the same as intellectualism? Great question. I, unlike my brothers and sisters in the academy, do not consider myself to be an intellectual. But I certainly do admmire the qualities of intellectualism in others, and those are RARELY seen: Certainly, not by those in the past administration who were adherent only to their way of thinking, and blind to perspectives of others. Obama has been in office for 54 days – not exactly enough time to make a judgment for sure. But I do know that when first in office, he is admitting what he does NOT know, which is as intellectual a question as what he does.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Here’s a first …. I love my sister-in-law!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
By the way, one of the things I like about Barack Obama is that when he speaks he sounds like one of us — by which I mean a 40-something (no, not one of you!) guy out of the Ivy League who is used to thinking in terms of policy and of problem-solving and who is obviously a lot more comfortable with extemporaneous speaking than his predecessor and, to me, sounds much more engaged than the so-called “policy wonk” Bill Clinton whose every word sounded to me like a dodge. And I imagine that this manner makes many people in the intellectually-oriented fields — the faculties, the professions, etc. — feel, too, that he is one of them, too. So to call Barack an intellectual is therefore mutually agreeable.
It is hard to say, however, that his early work in office justifies this description, as you suggest, Joe. Now I understand the difference between differing on a policy matter and considering an approach intellectually unjustifiable, and it is clear that you do, too — thought it’s not always easy to tell the difference.
But it’s not enough to say, hey, great credentials, bright mind, smooth talking, he’s hired the “best and the brightest,” so there you go. There are lots of reasons to say that here’s a very intelligent guy who may — as I said in my original argument — end up demonstrating political genius and leadership. This would make him as good as JFK, who no one seriously argues was an intellectual.
And maybe Obama will prove the Right wrong and achieve greatness in office. This would make him better than JFK and than Clinton, but perhaps as good or better than FDR or Reagan — also men considered successful, though controversial, presidents, but not intellectuals.
Maybe then, with most of his life in front of him, President Obama will retire to the Supreme Court, a la Taft, or return to the academy… and make genuine intellectual contributions too. But if he doesn’t, while still doing one or both of the above, what’s to complain?
March 16th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
The thug Ayers is indeed a whole lot worse than ghostwriters in general.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Maybe Roman Hruska had a better idea.