Elites, Pseudo-Intellectualism, & Language

August 18, 2009 / 11:23 am • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Wow, Washington, D.C. is filled with preening, sanctimonious a-holes. Drunk on their own intellectualism and stunned into self-reflective absorption, the only thing that matters to this collective Narcissus is vainglory. This assessment includes conservatives and Republicans, by the way.

I read Andy McCarthy’s dissent from the National Review Online editorial about Sarah Palin and “death panels” and thought: they still don’t get it. “They” being the Conservative Intelligentsia which includes Think Tank leaders, Congressmen and Senators, etc. First, here’s what Andy concluded:

I think Palin was right to argue her point aggressively. Largely because she did, a horrible provision is now out of this still horrible Obamacare proposal. To the contrary, if the argument had been made the way the editors counsel this morning, “end-of-life counseling” would still be in the bill. We might have impressed the Beltway with the high tone of our discourse and the suppleness of our reasoning, but we’d have lost the public. I respectfully dissent.

Well, Andy is being far more respectful than I feel at this point.

You know, you can be intelligent, possess intellectual subtlety and a Webster-esque vocabulary, and still be ignorant and unwise. Conversely, just because a person speaks plainly and uses common language does not mean the person is stupid.

The smartest guy I have ever met attended Chiropractic college with me. He was a genius. He has a photographic and audio memory, but more than that, he can integrate the information in a meaningful way. And most impressive, he could teach what he knew simply without ever making the student feel stupid. He was my peer and a friend and he’d tutor a group of us (he was a semester ahead) from time to time. He was patient, never condescending and spoke plainly.

Who likes being treated like an idiot? No one. And yet, the Left and Liberals in general, speak to the American people like they’re morons. The absolute worst is Al Gore. The most insulting thing is the guy ain’t that smart and he comes across as a doltish buffoon and still has the nerve to lecture stupid Americans. It’s annoying.

And so, rather than engage Sarah Palin on the merits, even the editors at the National Review get lost in what they consider hyperbole. Elites hate hyperbole (except when they’re employing it to chastise the masses into using fluorescent lighting). The form-police ignore the substance because the messenger doesn’t have an air of hauteur and the Ivy league parchment required to engage in the “conversation”.

Oh blech.

Intellectualism is not on trial here. Pseudo-intellectuals who discredit valid opinions because they find the form bothersome is on trial. Also, the inability to write or talk plainly is on trial here.

Chief Justice John Roberts possesses a few admirable traits: He has a towering intellect. He has humility. He has grace. His opinions are straight-forward and written plainly. He makes his opinions understandable. This all demonstrates his intelligence rather than diminishing it. It also demonstrates empathy. He could, easily, write using complex language and arcane vocabulary, but that would serve only to aggrandize himself at the expense of the understanding of those with whom he communicates.

Too many in Washington, D.C. desire to sound smart over being smart. So laws and bills are convoluted, pages long, and complex. Editorials are snark-filled, eviscerating vanity [hello Maureen Dowd].

And through this wordy haze, the substance is lost.

The American people are not stupid rubes who need to be guided to enlightenment by their betters. The American people do recognize that there are experts in diverse fields in the government and media. They want those experts to speak plainly and argue the substance understandably. This is not too much to ask.

I hear D.C. insiders sniff about populist impulses. Their fears are laughable. These very same insiders condescend to those whom they ostensibly serve, treating them like no more than dull-witted peasants. This is a Republic not a constitutional monarchy. The representatives actually are supposed to represent people not command them. If there are populist embers burning, the insiders should spend some more time doing what they love: looking in the mirror. Any populist impulses are a reaction to obnoxious elites, not the other way around.

So, Congressmen and the press react in horror at American outrage. Why is everyone so angry? Well, this question just demonstrates dull-wittedness. How long would you, Mr. Smartypants Inside-the-Beltway person like someone to call you stupid overtly or imply it through your arts (Hollywood’s dystopian representation of American culture), your opinions and your laws? Yeah, you’d be pissed off, too, to use the common vernacular.

Enough, already. Americans deserve better than this from their leaders. By being too smart by half, the insiders end up sounding all stupid. Perhaps a return to more straight-forward actions, simpler language and respect for the voter will mend the relationship that is broken. It’s going to take a while, though. And it’s probably going to take new leaders who aren’t so far removed from those whom they serve.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    “When ideas fail, words come in very handy”

    –Goethe

  • newton

    Preach it, Doc!

    I think the American People will have to give all those “Intellectuals” a collective slap in their faces so they can finally begin to “get it.”

    When the people begin to see that their leaders think of them the same way as “Let them eat cake” Marie Antoinette, you know that the people will soon storm the gates.

  • David Currey

    D.C. insiders do this because they know you will quit. You will quit arguing with them and trying to understand them because you have other things to do. You have a life to lead. They wear you down with this nonsense so you will quit and they will win. It must be stopped!

  • goodspkr

    There is a difference between book smarts and common sense. Unfortunately if you don’t have it, you don’t know it.

    Sarah Palin is the left’s worst nightmare. She’s like Reagan to them. She’s too simple to be believed, yet the other simple people believe her. That makes her a threat. How can they do what’s good for the people if someone is too foolish not to simply go along with them?

  • Alamo

    I’m curious if you have had the misfortune to interact with members of the two most ignorant professions extant: reporters and politicians.

    No person can possess in-depth knowledge on all subjects or issues. Most of us realize this, but what makes those the majority of journalists and pols so dangerous is their absolute belief in their own knowledge and opinions, even when their understanding is astoundingly shallow.

    The most profound manifestation of ignorance, and the most damaging, are those who believe they have mastered a subject or issue simply because they consider themselves intellectually superior, or of a class or profession that gives them license to judge.

    Reporters and politicians are hopelessly ignorant on almost any individual issue you wish to discuss, and worse, too stupid or too arrogant to realize it.

  • CJ

    This was probably the worst article I ever found through conservative grapevine.

    Yes I too hate pseudo intellectuals, but the truth is, mmost of America is stupid. Roughly half the nation things the bible is an actual history book, and that there’s no such thing as evolution. Talking down to these masses must suck for some people, clearly not for you though. If someone sounds smart, maybe its because they want to express themselves more accurately. It’s easy to say they’re are just trying to sound intelligent but that’s always a matter of opinion. This article really just sucks.

  • Barkha

    CJ –

    The Bible IS a history book – many archeological sites have been found because of the Bible. As for “sounding smart” – hello – BO sounds smart but cannot offer any “accurate” responses to basic questions – even related to his own programs.

    Einstein said that if a person cannot explain a theory to their grandmother, then they don’t understand the theory. I am sorry, but Sarah Palin IS intelligent, just not savvy – but she is a quick study. The death panel is a death panel (feel free to look up the dictionary for the words “death” and “panel”). A group deciding if you receive a medical procedure or not is not a “Life Panel” by any means, and it IS a panel. So, if it bring you closer to death – it’s a death panel.

    I am willing to bet that Julius Cesar did not believe in evolution – but was able to govern Rome just fine. What a personal belief has to do with running a country I do not know. Just look at BO – a Harvard education and community organizing experience is not translating very well to running a country – is it? But running a State would.

    Melissa – keep up the good work.
    Sincerely,
    Barkha

  • http://gaycelebritycrap.blogspot.com Dave M

    An elite isn’t an elitist. Elites are smart; elitists tend to be stupid enough to think it’s a compliment when people call them elitists (36% of liberalism is not realising that adding the suffix -ism to words changes their meaning).

    It’s not possible to LITERALLY not belive in evolution. When you tell someone a bacteria has developed resistence to an antibiotic, they don’t say “No, it didn’t”. Weird responses to polls tell us more about the shortcomings of polling that about those of people. If it upsets you when people say they don’t believe in evolution, then there is a good chance that that is why they are saying that.

    The Bible is as much of a history book as anything by Josephus or Heroditus.

  • RickS

    I’m so glad I wrote “cancel” on that National Review invoice that I sent back today.

  • http://www.johansens.us Jay

    I’m a software geek, and I do a lot of technical writing for my job, and I read a lot of technical material. And somewhere along the line I noticed that people who write technical material seem to have one of two very different basic motiviations: Group 1 see their purpose as being to help their readers to understand this potentially difficult material. And so they use plain, simple language, give clear examples, etc. Group 2 see their purpose as to convince the readers how smart the writer must be to understand this very difficult material. They deliberately use complex language, obscure examples, etc. The second group is quite happy if the reader puts down their tutorial manual more baffled than when they picked it up, because that contributes to the idea that the writer must be a genius if HE understands this mess.

    Political commentators seem to fall into the same pattern.