Anti-Intellectualism Goes Mainstream

David Frum looks at the rise of the Republican Fringe and says the conservative movement needs to engage in some self-criticism -- the anti-intellectualism and suspicion of expertise they've encouraged have allowed Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul to break through despite having quack economic policy ideas. In response Ross points out that Rudy Giuliani has a quack economic policy idea at the center of his campaign, too "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenue. The Democrats don't know that. They don't believe that." And yet Frum somehow can't find the strength to criticize him.

And in some ways, I'd note that it's even worse than yet. Mitt Romney, presumably under Greg Mankiw's influence, has always carefully refrained from saying he thinks cutting taxes increases revenue. But he still swears allegiance to the Gospel of Neverending Tax Cuts. And more to the point, he won't criticize his rivals for their adherence to a crackpot notion because he thinks that would be a losing issue for him. The rot goes all the way up and down the structure.

Comments

Mitt Romney, presumably under Greg Mankiw's influence, has always carefully refrained from saying he thinks cutting taxes increases revenue.

False.

Posted by jhupp | December 17, 2007 2:27 PM

The rot goes all the way up and down the structure.

This is exactly what makes the party so terrifying.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 17, 2007 2:39 PM

Matt,

Isn't that a little silly. A politician who doesn't criticize his rivals when it might hurt his poll numbers? I've never heard of such a thing! Politicians in tight contests are morally bound not to try to win but to speak the trust about their opponents regardless of whether it helps them or not! The horror, the horror.

Posted by John B | December 17, 2007 2:47 PM

You know what's anti-intellectual?

Calling your political oppositions' ideas "quackery" and "crackpot notions" because of your desire to defend the IRS and Federal Reserve without actually discussing the supposed merits and obvious failures of those institutions.

Posted by underground | December 17, 2007 2:54 PM

Yes John, that's his point. It would be politically unwise for Romney to do so because the concept is so integral to current Republican ideology.

Posted by mad6798j | December 17, 2007 2:54 PM

there may be something wrong with Ron Paul's economics, but anti intellectualism is not it. The man is well read int the Austrian economics tradition.

Posted by jstrummer | December 17, 2007 3:09 PM

Underground, the claim that lowering federal income taxes in the United States will lead to increased federal revenues isn't just an idea, it's an empirical prediction, and it's an empirical prediction which the people making it have every reason to believe is false and no reason to believe is true. What's your definition of quackery? If someone ran a political campaign and part of their platform was that we don't need to worry about any long term fiscal problems because the world is going to end in 2012, would that be quackery, or just an opposition idea which should be treated respectfully?

Posted by washerdreyer | December 17, 2007 3:09 PM

Washerdreyer, I'm pretty sure someone is running on that platform.

Posted by jhupp | December 17, 2007 3:18 PM

OK, Giuliani's plan isn't one I'm going to defend because its plain to see from the effects of Bush-league economics that it results in huge deficits and declining currency in the current climate. This is Keynesian theory and I'm disappointed that fake Republicans like Bush and Giuliani are embracing the old left's government-driven economy mindset.

Now, using a sales tax to encourage investment over consumption - or slashing spending in response to an over-extended budget, those are the beginnings of a good plan and ought to be discussed without the "anti-intellectual" dismissal that we typically apply to things that are presented as partisan issues.

Hillary and Obama talk about raising taxes on the rich, but that's just the other side of Giuliani's Keynesian coin. It doesn't change the paradigm that has contributed to sustained, relative economic decline.

Posted by underground | December 17, 2007 3:28 PM

Today's verging anti-intellectual environment compares badly to the incredible flowering of intellectual appreciation we saw under Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms, and then again in post-9/11 George Bush Jr. leadership.

One could hardly walk down the street without conservatives pining about the glories of academic achievement and the value of those individuals who found their careers in academic life.

Gosh, I'd hate for us to lose our clear memories of these Golden and Silver ages of Amurkin Inteleckshism.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 3:32 PM

From "Rudy: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani" by Wayne Barrett on page 34:

"After seven semesters at Bishop Loughlin, Rudy's grade average of 84.8 earned him a ranking of 130, putting him in the class's second quintile. His report cards for those years show columns of mostly B's and C's, a few A's and one D. He scored a 65 in chemistry, a 74 in Latin and a 92 in American history. His combined College Board scores, 569 in verbal and 504 in math, were twenty-seven points shy of 1100, and quite ordinary."

Wayne Barrett is a writer at the Village Voice and professor at the Columbia School of Journalism, if you want to check with the source.

Here's his academic history: "He attended Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School, Manhattan College in the Bronx, and New York University Law School, graduating magna cum laude."

In comparison, George W. Bush scored 1206 and Al Gore 1330 on the SAT. All these scores are under the tougher pre-1995 scoring system. Add 70 or 80 points to get the equivalent under the current scores.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 17, 2007 3:54 PM

By the way, if Matt is so pro-intellectual, maybe he ought to get around to speaking up against the firing of America's most prominent man of science, James Watson?

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 17, 2007 3:55 PM

In general, I agree with the notional threat that the anti-intellectualism of the mainstream of conservative movement these days represents.

I also worry, though to a lesser extent, of it's obverse.

For instance, all three leading dem candidates have a platform issue of "energy independence" that they will achieve by spending anywhere between 10 - 150 billion dollars along with related policy proposals.

It seems to me a little "faith-based," if you will, the concept that the only thing that is preventing us from achieving 'energy independence,' however one wishes to define it, is spending a definite amount of money over a definite period of time.

I'm all for R&D, but I find it disappointing that they all promise what they know they can't deliver.

Posted by Kolohe | December 17, 2007 4:09 PM

By the way, if Matt is so pro-intellectual, maybe he ought to get around to speaking up against the firing of America's most prominent man of science, James Watson?

Shut the fuck up, won't you, Steve?

Posted by James Gary | December 17, 2007 4:27 PM

Ah, more pro-intellectualism at work!

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 17, 2007 5:00 PM

Kolohe,

You actually make a rather salient point. I've argued for a bit here and other places that the US *could* be energy independent in 5 years or so with no real investment in R&D. Rather, some tailoring of regulations and some large investments in infrastructure will do the trick. But that isn't the popular meme in today's political discourse so instead we'll use the Star Trek tactic and simply technology our way out of this problem.

Posted by freddiemac | December 17, 2007 5:17 PM

I do not know what obverse means. Dems are basically promising snake oil for evergy independence, but some of it would actually help, and, well, frankly I would invent some cope-out if I were a candidate. One could fish for my blog comments and prove that I believe in assorted unpopular things, luckily, I also know that I will not be a candidate.

The difference is that it quite a few stands make sense in each Democratic program, and I have hard time finding something with sense in Republican programs. Guliani proposes to apply crime-fighting statistical approaches to increase the effectiveness of spending by "agencies". It is like that R&D approach for energy independence.

On other issues: so Austrian school is intelectual, and Keynes is "tired old Left"? I would base my economics on the Codex of Hammurabi, it would be intelectual and probably more cogent than "Austrian school".

Posted by piotr | December 17, 2007 6:19 PM

In general, Presidential candidates aren't anywhere near as smart as you'd think a country of 300,000,000 could come up with. John F. Kerry's GPA at Yale was 76, for example, just below George W. Bush's GPA at Yale of 77. Kerry did slightly worse on the Naval Officers Qualification Test than Bush did on the Air Force Officers Qualification test.

This is hardly to say that brainpower should be the main determinant of who gets to be President, but it is striking that out 300,000,000 people, our system doesn't come up with particularly impressive individuals. For example, how many of our current candidates could have become the captain of a nuclear missile submarine if that had been their ambition in life?

Or among Presidents, certainly Eisenhower had what it takes to command a nuclear missile sub, but who else?

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 17, 2007 6:27 PM

I agree with you on Huckabee, but I think you're misdiagnosing the Ron Paul phenomenon. Paul signifies the fracturing of the alliance between the Republican party and its libertarian contingent. Huckabee hasn't been booed at the debates or had his patriotism challenged or been asked if he's really a Republican. Paul has. He's been rejected by his party's leadership, it's commentariat and a large chunk of it's voters.

He's concrete evidence that there is no longer any place for live-free-or-die, small-government libertarians in the modern Republican party.

Posted by Jinchi | December 17, 2007 6:33 PM

I've argued for a bit here and other places that the US *could* be energy independent in 5 years or so with no real investment in R&D.

Possibly true. But the fact is finding alternative energy sources or developing more efficient machines is a technological problem. And that problem requires investment - either by industry or government.

Spending more money isn't a sufficient condition for solving those problems, but it is a necessary one.

Posted by Jinchi | December 17, 2007 6:45 PM

Jimmy Carter (who has a nuclear submarine named after him) was in the nuclear submarine program. He chose to leave the service after his first tour when his father died.

Posted by Kolohe | December 17, 2007 6:47 PM

Or among Presidents, certainly Eisenhower had what it takes to command a nuclear missile sub, but who else?

This was supposed to go on my post above on Carter.

I do not know what obverse means.

What I mean is:

"I go with my gut rather than thinking about it"

is fundementally flawed but only slightly more so, than

"We can solve problem 'x' if only we think about it hard enough."

Posted by Kolohe | December 17, 2007 6:53 PM

Piotr: "On other issues: so Austrian school is intelectual, and Keynes is "tired old Left"? I would base my economics on the Codex of Hammurabi, it would be intelectual and probably more cogent than "Austrian school"."

You are aware that Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian Economist, got the Nobel Prize for Economics. Somebody thought it was better than Hammurabi.

Of course, some Israeli terrorist got the Nobel Peace Prize, so maybe not.

You've read Mises. have you?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 17, 2007 7:18 PM

Did the nuclear sub command shed too many tears when Carter left? I don't know ...

I could imagine Gerald Ford, who wasn't brilliant at anything, but didn't have any major flaws (All-American football player, Yale Law grad, lived in near-perfect health to 93) getting just barely over the hump into the job. Same with the first Bush. But, it would have been a stretch for either.

Nixon might have been smart enough, but he was too much of a weasel.

Kennedy had the unique accomplishment of getting his PT boat run over by a Japanese ship, so there is no way Admiral Rickover would have let JFK anywhere near the command of a boomer.

Reagan wasn't smart enough, nor was Truman. Clinton was too morally weak, like LBJ. The second Bush ... don't make me laugh.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 17, 2007 11:39 PM

has always carefully refrained from saying he thinks cutting taxes increases revenue.

I think I remember Romney saying exactly this on C-SPAN radio this past Saturday at some speech in Iowa.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 18, 2007 12:01 AM

Maybe he said cutting taxes helps grow our economy which is the "best way to get revenue for government," as he said on CNBC here in October:

http://www.boxxet.com/Mitt_Romney/Video_Gov_Romney_On_The_Democrats_Massive_Tax_Increase_Proposals.18msol.d

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 18, 2007 12:07 AM

Exactly what "crackpot economic idea" does Ron Paul support?

Moving away from fiat money is not my favorite idea, but certainly it could be done reasonably (though I'd argue its implementation could have the same inflationary risk that fiat money has, so it wouldn't buy you much).

Paul advocates eliminating the IRS, and says "The IRS could be replaced with a flat tax or national sales tax, although any consumption tax must be coupled with prompt repeal of the 16th amendment." Most economists feel that a consumption tax is actually preferable to an income tax, but certainly anyone who has done their taxes would agree that a flat tax would make life more predictable.

Raising government revenues by reducing taxes is probably not going to happen given existing tax rates (it could if tax rates were much higher though).

However reducing existing tax rates may enhance economic growth, especially if it is met with reducing spending on stupid things like foreign wars that are not required.

Posted by Mr. Econotarian | December 18, 2007 12:20 AM

www.cspan.org

Put Romney in the video search box.

The first link that comes up is:

Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Town Hall Meeting, Carroll, IA. Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Town Hall Meeting, Carroll, IA. 12/16/2007: CARROLL: 41 min.

His anti-tax portion begins at about 9:07.

He doesn't say cutting taxes increases revenues (apologies to Mitt), he just says that to strengthen the economy, you have to keep taxes down. And then he wants to kill the "Death tax."

Bonus Jon Edwards haircut joke starts at about 10:20.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 18, 2007 12:25 AM

Anti-intellectualism has always been mainstream. It's the cornerstone of the Republican party and the Red State ethos. Sure, there are conservative academics and pundits who are well educated, but they serve the rather limited role of finding some vague intellectual edifice to justify the predetermined normative assumptions of a class of individuals who, if not unintelligent (I wouldn't say they were stupid), are nevertheless functionally illiterate, and culturally predisposed to remaining that way.

Posted by gerontion | December 18, 2007 2:33 AM

Intellectualism is whatever I say it is! I decide who is an intellectual! Snoochie boochies!

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 18, 2007 8:02 AM

Steve Sailer is a vile racist beyond all redemption who glories in despising intellect as he despises others.

Posted by Jennifer | December 18, 2007 8:37 AM

Kennedy had the unique accomplishment of getting his PT boat run over by a Japanese ship

So you're arguing that every ship that sinks during a time of war is evidence of the incompetence of it's officers?

Posted by Jinchi | December 18, 2007 11:06 AM

I tried to post this at DeLong, but his spam filter kicked me out. So I'll bless Matt with my presence.

Supposing the Democrats were to win very solid majorities in the House
and Senate, they might think of offering to trade some of their dead
wood to the Republicans -- Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Nelson I, and Sen.
Nelson II, for example. These men would lose their majority status but
might be able to wangle the ranking-minority position on some
committees.

But only a few, leaving the Republican Party still weak. The weak
Republicans would still not be able to obstruct, and the new
Republicans would have lost almost all of their clout. Only a very few
would need to be traded, and the remainder of the fake Democrats could
be intimidated by the threat of being traded, so that they would
cooperate with the leadership.

If this were done, the remaining Republican Party would include more
"moderates" and might be less dominated by the wingers. Congressional
negotiations would be between moderate Republicans and liberal
Democrats, rather than between winger Republicans and turncoat
Democrats, as they are now.

A helpless rump Party dominated by wingers would give Democrats a
freer hand, but Brad's concern here is for there to be a genuine
two-party system. I'd prefer one-party rule myself, but I've put on my
Brad hat for the purpose of this comment.

Even as non-Brad, however, I'm dubious about the continued existence
in any form, even in a weakened form, of a second party as toxically
ignorant, deluded, corrupt and vicious as the present Republican
Party. Under certain circumstances they might recover, which would
lead to someone worse than Bush. Even though this seems very unlikely,
if it's even possible at all, a fail-safe position seems wiser.

Posted by John Emerson | December 18, 2007 3:17 PM

I don't know what motivated Steve to come up with his nuclear sub litmus test for intellectualism. But I did find it interesting.

I would suggest Aircraft carrier command as a better litmus test for president (if we are sticking to Naval jobs). It has the intellectual requirement of understanding the operation of many complex systems (e.g. nuclear power, jet aircraft), the executive requirements of running a 'city' of 5-6k personnel, the power sharing issues of serving with a CAG and Battle Group Admiral.

Back to the subject of intellectualsim:

I don't know why Ike gets a free pass. Great leadership is not a big requirement for keeping your reactor up. In the same vein of thought, I would rethink Tricky-Dick. Weaselry might be quite acceptable as a sub captain trait.

Posted by keith | December 19, 2007 12:04 AM