Know-Nothing Conservatism

[nicky10013]

An unusually excellent article from Maclean's.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/a-know-nothing-strain-of-conservatism/

The result is a uniquely nasty, know-nothing strain of conservatism. The Thatcher Tories, unlike their forebears, weren’t anti-intellectual: her cabinet contained some of Britain’s most fertile social and political minds. Ronald Reagan, though hardly an intellectual, did not demonize expert opinion, or pit the educated classes against the rest. Even today’s Republican party, as know-nothing as it sometimes appears, relies heavily on a network of think tanks to provide it with intellectual heft. Only in Canada have expertise and ideas been so brutally cast aside. On the level of principle, this is appalling. A society that holds education and expertise in contempt, no less than one that disdains commerce or entrepreneurship, is dying. To whip up popular hostility to intellectuals is to invite the public to jump on its own funeral pyre.

Sums up pretty nicely the disturbing anti-intellectualism of the right wing. Hopefully, the government falls sooner rather than later.

Edited August 17, 2010 by nicky10013

[Ratio]

An unusually xcellent article from Maclean's.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/a-know-nothing-strain-of-conservatism/

Sums up pretty nicely the disturbing anti-intellectualism of the right wing. Hopefully, the government falls sooner rather than later.

amen to that, the sooner the fascist nazi conservatives fo down the sooner canada can get back to health again... imagine how much international aid the f-35 this stupid government bought would have done for the world...

we could have stopped millions from starving.. instead... we have to buy useless stuff to kill people...,

typical nazi Harper...

[Alta4ever]

amen to that, the sooner the fascist nazi conservatives fo down the sooner canada can get back to health again... imagine how much international aid the f-35 this stupid government bought would have done for the world...

we could have stopped millions from starving.. instead... we have to buy useless stuff to kill people...,

typical nazi Harper...

You really have screw loose don't you.

[nicky10013]

You really have screw loose don't you.

As many as you.

[Shwa]

An unusually excellent article from Maclean's.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/a-know-nothing-strain-of-conservatism/

Sums up pretty nicely the disturbing anti-intellectualism of the right wing. Hopefully, the government falls sooner rather than later.

Ehhh, I dunno Nicky:

You can see it in the sneering references to Michael Ignatieff’s Harvard tenure, in the repeated denunciations of “elites” and “intellectuals.”

I have heard some pretty good denunciation of "elites" and "intellectuals" from the Liberals and NDP, heck even the elites and intellectuals do pretty good denouncing one another given the platform. I think what we see here is some good old fashion politicking and not much more. It appears they are trying to shoot the rapids with a minority government, being between the rocks and a hard places:

Perhaps it was true, it was said, that he would do anything and say anything to hold onto power, but you had to admire his cunning.

But now? After so many miscues, unforced errors, too-clever tricks and utter botch-ups, does anyone still cling to the “strategic genius” view of Stephen Harper?

[nicky10013]

Ehhh, I dunno Nicky:

I have heard some pretty good denunciation of "elites" and "intellectuals" from the Liberals and NDP, heck even the elites and intellectuals do pretty good denouncing one another given the platform. I think what we see here is some good old fashion politicking and not much more. It appears they are trying to shoot the rapids with a minority government, being between the rocks and a hard places:

I'm sure they believe it will play well politically, even though it's backfired. Yet, even then, that doesn't make it right. Nor does that mean they DON'T believe in that approach. Hell, Stockwell Day believes the earth is only 6000 years old.

[Alta4ever]

As many as you.

Where you not taught the difference between conservatism and fascism, if not you paid way too much for your education.

[nicky10013]

Where you not taught the difference between conservatism and fascism, if not you paid way too much for your education.

Clearly not, though I was taught the difference between were and where.

For the record, I never said he didn't have screws loose. I said merely he had as many screws loose as you do. Perhaps you should treat yourself to reading comprehension lessons on your company dime. After all, it wouldn't be good for you, the CEO (or, as you've claimed to be the CEO) of a company, to be illiterate.

[Alta4ever]

Clearly not, though I was taught the difference between were and where.

For the record, I never said he didn't have screws loose. I said merely he had as many screws loose as you do. Perhaps you should treat yourself to reading comprehension lessons on your company dime. After all, it wouldn't be good for you, the CEO (or, as you've claimed to be the CEO) of a company, to be illiterate.

Clearly you've never made a typo.

[Shwa]

I'm sure they believe it will play well politically, even though it's backfired. Yet, even then, that doesn't make it right. Nor does that mean they DON'T believe in that approach. Hell, Stockwell Day believes the earth is only 6000 years old.

Well it hasn't quite backfired yet since, as the Liberals and NDP have amply supplied over the years, criticism of elites and intellectuals is easy pickins especially when you hold their paycheques over their heads. It doesn't appear to be right, OK, but everyone is doing it - or has one it - including the elites and intellectuals themselves from time to time.

As for Stockwell Day, well, LOL, what can you say? However, as one person in the CPC his beliefs are relatively harmless as President of the Treasury Board. I would imagine the dinosuars that work there keep him busy though.

[nicky10013]

Well it hasn't quite backfired yet since, as the Liberals and NDP have amply supplied over the years, criticism of elites and intellectuals is easy pickins especially when you hold their paycheques over their heads. It doesn't appear to be right, OK, but everyone is doing it - or has one it - including the elites and intellectuals themselves from time to time.

As for Stockwell Day, well, LOL, what can you say? However, as one person in the CPC his beliefs are relatively harmless as President of the Treasury Board. I would imagine the dinosuars that work there keep him busy though.

When was the last time the Liberals bashed academic elites?

Also, the problem with Day is that he was once the leader and his views are far more known. A lot of the CPC caucus members belong to fundamentalist christian sects and believe the same kind of thing. We just don't hear about it as often.

[nicky10013]

Clearly you've never made a typo.

I'd be inclined to believe you if you hadn't completely misread the entire post.

[Alta4ever]

I'd be inclined to believe you if you hadn't completely misread the entire post.

I miss read ratio's post?

[Shwa]

When was the last time the Liberals bashed academic elites?

I did a search of the article for 'elite' and it came up once, in the passage I quoted above. As well, there is no reference to "academic elites," but I would assume that a reference to "elites" could include those in academic fields as well as business and the bureaucracy. I also did not find the word "bash."

If you are wanting a dissertation, I suppose I could dredge something up, but nah. But how about this? 'Trudeau slams constitution critics' Lots of elites and intellectuals were caught in PET's pet project. Fun times!

Also, the problem with Day is that he was once the leader and his views are far more known. A lot of the CPC caucus members belong to fundamentalist christian sects and believe the same kind of thing. We just don't hear about it as often.

OK, we don't hear about it as often, but do you have a link or some credible source to back this up?

Edited August 18, 2010 by Shwa

[Jack Weber]

You really have screw loose don't you.

Says an Albertan seperatist...

Edited August 18, 2010 by Jack Weber

[August1991]

An unusually excellent article from Maclean's.

---

Sums up pretty nicely the disturbing anti-intellectualism of the right wing. Hopefully, the government falls sooner rather than later.

The silliness of Coyne's column is evident when one considers who Harper just nominated to be GG (compared to the cute CBC newsreaders the Liberals chose) and in particular that Coyne himself was recently (10 days ago) invited along with other experts to discuss policy with Flaherty:

OTTAWA – Finance Minister Jim Flaherty convened a two-day policy retreat near here Tuesday, inviting a select group of CEOs, academics, and economists – as well as a lobbyist once blacklisted by the PMO and one of the country’s top journalists.

...

Flaherty has also invited journalist Andrew Coyne, the national editor of Maclean’s magazine.

In his columns, Coyne has often argued Flaherty should slash government spending, and Tuesday he said he would likely repeat that advice.

Toronto Sun

[msdogfood]

An unusually excellent article from Maclean's.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/a-know-nothing-strain-of-conservatism/

Sums up pretty nicely the disturbing anti-intellectualism of the right wing. Hopefully, the government falls sooner rather than later.

Wow a very good story!!

[August1991]

Wow a very good story!!

WTF?

I understand that Nicky is a Registered Harper Hater , a fan boy, so he likes any article/column critical of Harper.

I'm more fearful of something else. People like Nicky trust "experts" because, I suspect, this trust makes legitimate their own education. Or something.

I suggest that Nicky read this review:

Thanks to the expansion of tertiary education, there are more intellectuals, or perhaps people with intellectual pretensions, credentials and careers, than ever before. However, the sum of human wisdom has not been much increased by this proliferation of intellectuals, rather the reverse. In this book Thomas Sowell tells us why. Sowell is a black American economist and social philosopher not nearly as well known in this country as he should be. This, perhaps, is because he does not say what the vast majority of intellectuals want a man of his ethnicity to say.

Link

It refers to this book.

----

BTW, I should tip my hat to Bergkamp's comment in the Maclean's thread of the OP.

Edited August 18, 2010 by August1991

[Bryan]

amen to that, the sooner the fascist nazi conservatives fo down the sooner canada can get back to health again... imagine how much international aid the f-35 this stupid government bought would have done for the world...

we could have stopped millions from starving.. instead... we have to buy useless stuff to kill people...,

typical nazi Harper...

You're insane.

Harper is one of the most socialist Prime Ministers this country was ever known.

[charter.rights]

You're insane.

Harper is one of the most socialist Prime Ministers this country was ever known.

ha ha ha ha ha.

Harper is Reformer. He sits on the right of centre right in the political spectrum and closer to fascism then most people think.

[NA Carter]

WTF?

I understand that Nicky is a Registered Harper Hater , a fan boy, so he likes any article/column critical of Harper.

I'm more fearful of something else. People like Nicky trust "experts" because, I suspect, this trust makes legitimate their own education. Or something.

I suggest that Nicky read this review:Link

It refers to this book.

----

BTW, I should tip my hat to Bergkamp's comment in the Maclean's thread of the OP.

I'm always a little wary of any book, when the reviewer is breaking out the race card before even talking about the content of the book.

I do agree that there are more intellectual wannabes than there used to be. Unfortunately, that's what happens when 'consulting', especially for the government becomes so lucrative. Let's keep in mind that it doesn't take long for the cream to rise at the expense of the pretenders.

I've always wondered about the distrust Conservative supporters have for intellectuals and elites. Last I checked, being 'elite' at something meant that you were among the best at that particular endeavour. Do Conservatives not want the best people to help run the country? An intellectual (a real one that is), is somebody who has specialized education and experience in a particular field. We all know the Conservatives distaste for criminologists (you know those people who actually study crime and the people who do it). Who do they want studying crime in this country? Fred the Barber down the street?

A little insight from Conservative supports might be enlightening.

[Wild Bill]

I've always wondered about the distrust Conservative supporters have for intellectuals and elites. Last I checked, being 'elite' at something meant that you were among the best at that particular endeavour. Do Conservatives not want the best people to help run the country? An intellectual (a real one that is), is somebody who has specialized education and experience in a particular field. We all know the Conservatives distaste for criminologists (you know those people who actually study crime and the people who do it). Who do they want studying crime in this country? Fred the Barber down the street?

A little insight from Conservative supports might be enlightening.

Well, I'm not exactly a conservative supporter. I just disagree less with them than the other idiots. Still, I'll take a stab at it for you!

I don't think the bias is against intellectuals so much as against 'academic' intellectuals. There are many well educated members of the CPC. However, they do seem to have a mix of people from other backgrounds, whereas the Liberals seem to be virtually all law and poli-sci graduates, with only a few exceptions.

The bias against academics seems stronger in the West, although it has been picking up some steam here in the East as well. The charge against academics is based on the popular caricature of an academic being some university prof who has never actually done a specific task himself but because he has taught it from a book believes he knows all about it! This view is usually accompanied by some anecdotes about how someone with a string of degrees was put in charge of a product, arrogantly ignored the experience of all the people under him and then had the project go down in flames for failing to understand the specific details of the task, for having taken a superficial textbook example as gospel. An example would be Stefan Dion and his 'green energy plan'.

The charge is of course an exaggeration but there is a grain of truth to it, unfortunately! Technicians have joked for generations that while it may take a tech to make something work to really screw it up requires an engineer!

The Liberals have always seemed to put much trust in academics and perhaps this explains some of the estrangement they suffer in western Canada. Maybe it's a french thing! One of the constant criticisms of government programs is that they always sound good in the action plan but bog down into a mess for not foreseeing the details. Myself, I'm even more cynical because I don't believe governments really care about things working at all! It's enough to look good to grab votes. If it actually works that's just a bonus.

LHence the old joke about a 'liberal Solution': "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

Academic solutions flourish best when times are flush and it doesn't really hurt when they make mistakes! Errors like the National Energy Policy hurt the people in the west so badly that they were forced to be very practical in their outlook, just to keep food on the table. It went so deep that it became part of their culture to distrust academics and so-called experts. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Ontario has been economically hurting for some years now as well and we are seeing a growth in sharing Alberta's view.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it! I'm not saying that the anti-intellectual or academic viewpoint is justified in all cases, just trying to explain what it is, where it came from and why it survives. Like any other instance of having lost trust in something, it's much harder to get it back! When someone has come to distrust academic intellectuals the only way to earn that trust again is to give a very large number of success stories.

That is perhaps the very hardest thing for ANY politician of ANY party to do!

[Shwa]

I've always wondered about the distrust Conservative supporters have for intellectuals and elites. Last I checked, being 'elite' at something meant that you were among the best at that particular endeavour. Do Conservatives not want the best people to help run the country? An intellectual (a real one that is), is somebody who has specialized education and experience in a particular field. We all know the Conservatives distaste for criminologists (you know those people who actually study crime and the people who do it). Who do they want studying crime in this country? Fred the Barber down the street?

A little insight from Conservative supports might be enlightening.

I am not (much of) a CPC supporter, but a fair defence is recognized in criminology is it not?

I think your defintition of elite and intellectual is a titch too narrow and appears to exclude an 'elite or intellectual' person from having political views. So I believe there are 'Conservative' elites and intellectuals in practically all aspects of Canadian life whether academic, business or bureaucracy. Not all elites are intellectuals and not all intellectuals are elites, although I would say most intellectuals are deemed so because of some sort of talent, not necessarily so with the elites.

So ideology - in our very liberal Canadian way - counts. So if you were a CPC and had a choice between a conservative sounding criminologist and a liberal sounding criminologist, who would you be taking advice from? Because it isn't like criminology is hard science or something, where one's political viewpoint really doesn't count for much. (usually - but lets not go there) We can't ignore that elites and intellectuals frequently quarrel among themselves, so what is the big deal if the political elite argues with them?

Besides, despite Wild Bill's good take on some of the problems, August1991 has really put the stake through Coyne' article by showing that it might be only a certain 'brand' of elite or intellectual that Coyne is beefing over. Perhaps the Conservative brand of elites and intellectuals get invited to policy retreats, as did Coyne. )But I am betting he won't be invited again. )

Edited August 18, 2010 by Shwa

[Argus]

I've always wondered about the distrust Conservative supporters have for intellectuals and elites. Last I checked, being 'elite' at something meant that you were among the best at that particular endeavour. Do Conservatives not want the best people to help run the country? An intellectual (a real one that is), is somebody who has specialized education and experience in a particular field. We all know the Conservatives distaste for criminologists (you know those people who actually study crime and the people who do it). Who do they want studying crime in this country? Fred the Barber down the street?

A little insight from Conservative supports might be enlightening.

Some of the reasons have already been mentioned, but I'll add one which hasn't. For most of the past generation this country was under the control of the "Natural governing party". It became much more socialized during that time in that the government involved itself in almost everything. If you wrote a book in Canada, chances are you got a grant. If you were involved in any kind of artistic endeavor, you cultivated close ties with the government to get grants. If you were in academia and had a project you wanted to work on, be it statistical studies, scientific studies, social studies, whatever, you cultivated the government to get a grant for it. Over the years a rather close and cozy relationship developed between what one might refer to as the "experts" if you will, and the Liberal Party. There was a lot of moving back and forth between the two as the government gave grants and often appointments to the ones who sucked up to them the most. Many joined the party. Many Liberals wound up joining them, ie, look at who the president of Ottawa University is these days. So in many cases what you have are elites with very liberal (and Liberal) sensibilities who naturally enough supported the Liberal party, and who naturally enough don't think much of the Tories. Needless to say, this led to the Tories being extremely suspicious of the entire breed, and how much of their opinions were influenced by their close ties to the Liberals.

[Keepitsimple]

So in many cases what you have are elites with very liberal (and Liberal) sensibilities who naturally enough supported the Liberal party, and who naturally enough don't think much of the Tories. Needless to say, this led to the Tories being extremely suspicious of the entire breed, and how much of their opinions were influenced by their close ties to the Liberals.

It's certainly evident that professors are predominantly Liberal in their political leanings and I tend to agree that there has been a cumulative coziness over the years between Universities and Liberals. I can take that eliteness a step further. It has been mentioned in other threads but certainly since the Trudeau years, a huge number of lawyers have been Liberal MPs - and that is still the case. The legal community has always had a major influence within the Liberal Party. It's painfully obvious that many of the soft-on-crime, charter challenges, parol fiascos, refugee appeal systems, etc. lend themselves to increased legal representation. A revolving door justice system is a cash cow. It's not a stretch to believe that many of the studies and reports on crime favour the status quo because change represents fewer and shorter legal representation. This is a whole other area of elitism that the Canadian public is sick of....it's a patronizing attitude that many Canadians, in their gut, know is wrong. This doesn't mean that all lawyers are bad - that all judges are bad. It just means that the Liberal Party has been an "enabler" for the Legal Lobby to "protect" their profession through what many Canadians have come to believe as poor policy.