Intellectual Elitism: The liberal claimed monopoly of intelligence

Recently I have had the opportunity to spend hours engaged in debate on Facebook and other forums about various subjects from the economy to social issues to foreign policy decisions made by the Obama administration.   I have several liberals that I converse with, yet few are able to impress me with their abilities to reason and intellectually explain their viewpoints and beliefs.   When confronted with fact and evidence, often times the majority of my liberal acquaintances resort to ad hominem attacks (name calling) and fact less, baseless accusations of misanthropy, elitism, homophobia, racism, misogyny, and even  as much as the hatred of children and the elderly.

At the beginning of Tim Burton’s, 1996 film, “Mars Attacks!” which satirizes 1950s alien invasion movies, Martian invaders surround Earth with ships which are quickly detected by Global satellites.  The smartest and most intelligent of Earthly scientists are gathered and all conclude that because the Martians are very intelligent, they must be advanced in culture and thus not violent or malicious in any way.  Of course, those scientists ended up being wrong and the Martians begin to destroy everything in their path.  What, may you ask, does this have anything to do with the liberal attacks upon conservatives?  Simple.  The left seeks to tie intelligence (on which they believe they have a monopoly), to civility, discourse and peace.  While alluding to intellectual superiority would be a grievance in itself, there are those on the left and in the media who get away with blatantly calling those on the right, stupid. 

Intelligence is defined as the “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.” The left further extends that definition to only include those who have obtained a college degree or an advanced degree.   A person is regarded as smarter than another simply because of educational accomplishments and institutions attended regardless of any post graduate successes or failures.  Now while the author does not want to discount the effort of individuals that get into, attend, and subsequently graduate from these prestigious schools, one must ask why is an education the only means by which the left measures success?

According to a 2005 article in the Washington Post, 72% of college and university professors were self- identified as liberal, compared to only 15% for their Republican colleagues.  This in itself is not necessarily a harmful thing; however, my argument lies in the fact that as a result of having a larger amount of college graduates, the left claims to have a greater number of intelligent, educated people than those on the right.  The irony of this of course is the source of this intelligence.  It would be almost shocking to see a group of students end up conservative despite having liberal professors who employ liberal sources and openly profess a liberal bias.  Imagine the madness of putting car parts, car fuel, and car tires into a car factory but expecting to produce an airplane.  The system itself has a greater propensity to turn conservative students liberal (or at the very least more moderate) than it does to turn a liberal student conservative. 

By using the formula that intelligence = a college education, liberals can mock uneducated conservatives while at the same time buoying up their own who have obtained advanced degrees.  Any success by conservatives who lack a college education is either happenstance, or the conservative is accused of the exploitation of a particular group.  (i.e.: Sam Walton vs. George Soros) It is by this that the left wishes to claim this monopoly of intelligence, because as being intelligent and more educated than their conservative counterparts, their ideas, policies and programs are naturally preferable.  Not only is this belief accepted, it is perpetuated by the media, further poisoning the well with liberalism.  For instance, during the 2008 Presidential elections, liberals who sought to derail what seemed to be the unstoppable and very popular train (at least immediately following the Republican Convention) of Sarah Palin.  They decided to hit her right where it counts:  Her Intelligence.   Now while I do not claim that Sarah Palin is the best or brightest that the Republican party has to offer, nor am I a big supporter of hers,  the media has done its very best to make her appear ignorant, uneducated and downright stupid. 

An SNL skit featuring Tina Fey as Palin saying “I can see Russia from my house!”  was played on repeat for weeks after it aired and was meant to poke fun at a quote from Palin during an interview with Charles Gibson when Palin accurately stated that there were parts of Alaska that from which, you can see Russia.  The media replayed the Fey quote to distract from any reality or fact that Palin’s intended quote contained.  This attack by the left and the media was so effective, that in a poll taken for the 2009 film Media Malpractice,  89% of respondents incorrectly stated that it was Palin who said “I can see Russia from my house,”  as opposed to the correct answer, Tina Fey.  This attack on the intelligence of those on the right has been successful on Bush, Bachmann, Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, Malkin, Coulter, and many others and has been proven to  not only mock what these people were criticized for saying but also discredit things they may say in the future.  This action has even excused reprehensible behavior from many on the left including Bill Maher, who on his show recently was quoted as calling Sarah Palin a “dumb twat.”  (With almost no uproar from anyone on the left)

This may seem quite inconsequential but does a great disservice to not only Republicans but to the electorate as a whole regardless of party affiliation.  It has lead to a condition that I and others have come to call Intellectual Elitism, that is, the belief that one is better than another based upon a particular educational experience or institution attended.  It is essentially the belief that one’s education makes them more enlightened and thus more cultured.   Again, I do not take issue with education as I believe it is something that everyone should have as much of as they can, including that of a college education.  The problem lies with the mocking of the idea of another based upon the mockers belief that they are somehow smarter and more intelligent than those they are mocking based solely on education.   By calling into question the intelligence of a conservative leader, conservative party members are the considered guilty by association and labeled with the same stigma.  This has occurred on more than one occasion when in debates with friends regarding issues that face our country.  Almost immediately I am lumped together with the likes of Beck, Bachmann, Palin and Bush and therefore, because something I may say is linked to something one of them has said, I too, must be lacking in education and any opinion I may express is therefore, invalid.  After all, I must lack the proper education to respond in a way that could be comprised as intelligent.  Even if I have obtained a degree equivalent to the person challenging my thoughts, I am often chided for not attending a school as prestigious as the one that they attended.

Intellectual Elitism is like any other superiority complex.  The constant cries on the left of conservative racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination all originate with it.  That is, liberals seem to think that they are somehow more enlightened than their counterparts on the right and therefore are incapable of being a racist, sexist or a homophobe.  Words uttered on the left describing African- Americans as “negroes” or statements lumping legal and illegal immigrants together based upon ethnic origin are somehow enlightened yet the same words uttered by a conservative are racist and hateful.  Blatant statements of hate calling women twats and whores are dismissed as comedy, while conservatives’ statements lead to media crucifixion.   Liberal professors have spent four years either breaking students of logical conservative thinking or reinforcing liberal thought and encouraging their personal beliefs of liberal intellectual superiority.  The opinion of those who have not received the same level or quality of education is discounted and often discarded, even to the point of advocating that conservatives be stripped of the right to vote.  This claim to the monopoly on Intelligence is a way of claiming that what they say is intelligent while anything that may be a product of something that disagrees with their point, fails to meet their fine qualifications.   What happens if it doesn’t meet their qualifications?   The sources are called into question.  Palin, Bush or any other conservative who has faced this in the past knows exactly what it feels like. To be called dumb, uneducated, or even worse and far more discriminatory: retarded.  While it is conservatives who are often accused of elitism, (be it racial, economic, etc.) every last one of those accusations is grounded in the liberal belief that their point of view, educated and intellectual as it is, is somehow incapable of being discriminatory.  

Now while I am not claiming that this is necessarily unique to democrats, it is a largely implemented strategy (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and is unabashedly used on a daily basis.  I believe conservatives have called Obama a lot of things, however, I do not believe the majority seeks to discredit Obama based upon his intelligence.   Misinformed?  Destructive?  Unconstitutional?  Unrealistic?  Liar?  All things I will agree that Obama and other members of the left have been called.  However do any conservatives make a concerted effort to call into question liberal’s “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity?”  Hardly, and should they ever choose to do so, liberals will be waiting to criticize and condemn such an action.  After all, conservatives can’t use intelligence or education as liberals own that monopoly.   We are second class citizens.  Not as a result of race, or sex, or sexual preference but rather a liberal imposed pity of how we are uneducated and unrefined.  Ignore the fact that the majority of successful businesses are run by conservatives or that the debt to income ratio of most conservatives is half that of liberals.  Ignore the fact that the party affiliation of over 80% of people on social welfare throughout the country is democrat.  Ignore that Obama in two years has spent more than any other President in the history of this country, yet suddenly is miraculously concerned with the deficit and national debt.  Let’s let the liberals explain it to us.  We are waiting.  

Hypocrisy at its best

On Monday, President Barack Obama addressed the nation regarding the current military action in Libya attempting to expound on the  motivation for the no-fly zone, the status of the current situation, and the plan for the future in that country.  His speech was chided by Republicans, moderately supported by Democrats and questioned by the media. 

Obama began by sounding the call to action as he spoke of Gaddafi’s forces cutting off supplies to cities that were under Rebel control and using aircraft to strike these Libyan citizens.   If the reasoning behind Obama‘s order for military action was to stop a government’s attack on its own citizens, where are the similar attacks on Yemen, Bahrain and Syria?  Are these other governments not also guilty of stifling the flames of revolution by ordering attacks on protesters?  Why does Obama choose Libya over these other countries?  The only explanation offered by the President is that action in Libya was in America’s best interest, but then fails to define what those interests are.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated  on Tuesday  that Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States” which would suggest that our national security was not threatened by any violence occurring within the Libyan borders and if that is true, then what is this “interest” that Obama refers to?

As anyone who owns a car knows, gasoline prices in the United States have been on the rise due particularly to speculators unease about recent Mid-East violence.  As recently as this morning, Los Angeles gasoline prices for regular unleaded gasoline began to average over 4.00 a gallon, and people across this country already feeling the pain of an economic slump, have been further pained at the pump.  Is this the “strategic” and “core” interests that Obama refers to in his address to the Nation?  What are the alternative answers and if there is no other answer where are the cries of “war for oil” from the left?  Bush goes to war to protect a people against a vicious dictator and it’s about oil, right?  Obama does and it is about protecting “national interests.”   To assume this however is to assume that Obama had intended the use of force to begin with, which due to weeks of inaction could have never have been his intention.

In the post cold-war world, the United States has remained the lone superpower and has been at the forefront of most “cooperative” international military actions in different places across the globe.  As Gaddafi became increasingly defiant to the international community and violent towards his own people, it was clear to the Arab League, the British, the French and other NATO allies that action must be taken in Libya and a no-fly zone was suggested as early as March 2.   Yet, this “urgent action” that Obama ordered was not commenced until March 19^th.  Now the question must be asked, if as Obama states he is willing to use force “unilaterally when necessary,” and he has stated just how necessary urgent action was, what took 17 days to move forward with a No-Fly Zone?  Clearly, as has been shown it was not Obama’s desire, intention, or even last choice to use military action but simply did so to maintain a semblance of international power. 

When the UN passed the resolution and NATO agreed to a no-fly zone, Obama’s hands were tied and he was left with one choice: To claim it was all his idea and that he was “ordering” that the United States spearhead the attack and that he was doing so for America’s “interests.”  Had Obama sent emissaries to the UN and NATO demanding the no-fly zone, his claim to authorship of this military action might be justified, but this is simply not the case as Obama continually failed to act, failed to decide, and failed to lead in this conflict.  The fact that he stands before the American people claiming credit is sickening and huge disappointment to both sides of the political spectrum as well as the international community.  The Left, who is eternally disappointed with the leader who they held so much hope for, the right, who endured defeats in 2006 and 2008 at the hands of those claiming an unjust war(Obama leading the charge), and the international community who awarded Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize.

In trying to decide on an over-arching theme for the speech, only one seems appropriate: Ambiguity.  At any point does Obama discuss the “goal” of the no-fly zone?   Granted, he states it is preliminarily to protect Libyan civilians, however, as early as March 20^th, the day after the no-fly zone was enforced, attacks on citizens had all but ceased.  Is it time to break out the Aircraft carrier and the giant “Mission Accomplished” banner?  Hardly, because under the Obama plan, without a continual enforcement of a no-fly zone, Gaddafi is just one withdrawal away from a complete annihilation of the opposition.   How long will American forces be committed to providing this no fly zone?  It is unknown.  Why?  Conspicuously missing from the President’s speech, though clearly outlined in the beginning of the speech, is an exit strategy.  As Obama’s 2008 challenger for the Presidency, Senator John McCain described that what we lack is not just an exit strategy, but also a current strategy.  Until our current objectives are established, a plan arrived at and implemented, a time frame for removal of U.S. forces cannot be arrived at.  It was extremely misleading of President Obama to suggest that our mission has completed because in reality, there will be no scaling back of US forces in the region, only the shift of command from an American commander to a French Canadian commander.  Exit? Hardly, and even more alarming it is that American forces will be placed under the directive of a foreign commander.  Why may you ask?  Obama is no dummy.  He saw how things escalated in Iraq and Afghanistan and knows that the same potential lies with Libya.  Should violence increase, Obama will conveniently be shielded from criticism as the operations will be in the hands of NATO forces.  However, should violence simmer out and stability return, Obama will claim credit for bringing peace to the region. 

Perhaps the most frustrating portion of the address yesterday was the source of the address.  A man, who had several times previously made statements about Iraq being a “stupid war” and “against it from the start”, was suddenly, quite miraculously, and vehemently for the protecting of a people against a vicious dictator.  His actions looked heroic as he proudly looked you, and me and the rest of the American audience and with a straight face stating that we had profound “responsibilities to our fellow human beings” to prevent genocide whenever possible. Obama saw Gaddafi as a threat, not to America, but to Gaddafi’s own people and to Libya’s neighbors, and exploited that as justification in using military action.  Remember it was not Obama’s decision to use hard power against Gaddafi forces but rather something he was essentially forced into by our UN and NATO allies.  Instead of being a man of principle as he defiantly tried to communicate to the American people Monday night, he chose to follow the old adage with the Obama twist: “If you can’t beat em’, Lead em.’”  While Obama tried his damnedest to appear strong and resolute and accomplished in this matter, in reality he is weak, defeated and a coward.  When faced with the opportunity to defend not our country, but his own personal belief he collapsed like a house of cards under international pressure.  Say what you want to about President George W. Bush, but I hardly think anyone could call him weak, defeated, or a coward.  His actions at the time, chided by democrats as unnecessary and “stupid” have proven to be able to establish democracy in the place of brutal dictatorships.  While the real results of the campaign in Libya have yet to be seen, very little is being done to usher in regime change, something that Obama clearly said was a secondary goal in Libya.  In reality, when the White House would seek to pronounce Obama’s mastery of Foreign Policy, Obama’s only mastery is revealed:  Hypocrisy.