In all democratic countries, in the United States even more than elsewhere, a strong belief prevails that the influence of the intellectuals on politics is negligible. This is no doubt true of the power of intellectuals to make their peculiar opinions of the moment influence decisions, of the extent to which they can sway the popular vote on questions on which they differ from the current views of the masses. Yet over somewhat longer periods they have probably never exercised so great an influence as they do today in those countries. This power they wield by shaping public opinion.
In the light of recent history it is somewhat curious that this decisive power of the professional secondhand dealers in ideas should not yet be more generally recognized. The political development of the Western World during the last hundred years furnishes the clearest demonstration. Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious evil which the interests of that class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program.
In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of the development in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals. In Germany this stage had been reached toward the end of the last century; in England and France, about the time of the first World War. To the casual observer it would seem as if the United States had reached this phase after World War II and that the attraction of a planned and directed economic system is now as strong among the American intellectuals as it ever was among their German or English fellows. Experience suggests that, once this phase has been reached, it is merely a question of time until the views now held by the intellectuals become the governing force of politics.
The character of the process by which the views of the intellectuals influence the politics of tomorrow is therefore of much more than academic interest. Whether we merely wish to foresee or attempt to influence the course of events, it is a factor of much greater importance than is generally understood. What to the contemporary observer appears as the battle of conflicting interests has indeed often been decided long before in a clash of ideas confined to narrow circles. Paradoxically enough, however, in general only the parties of the Left have done most to spread the belief that it was the numerical strength of the opposing material interests which decided political issues, whereas in practice these same parties have regularly and successfully acted as if they understood the key position of the intellectuals. Whether by design or driven by the force of circumstances, they have always directed their main effort toward gaining the support of this “elite,” while the more conservative groups have acted, as regularly but unsuccessfully, on a more naive view of mass democracy and have usually vainly tried directly to reach and to persuade the individual voter.
The term “intellectuals,” however, does not at once convey a true picture of the large class to which we refer, and the fact that we have no better name by which to describe what we have called the secondhand dealers in ideas is not the least of the reasons why their power is not understood. Even persons who use the word “intellectual” mainly as a term of abuse are still inclined to withhold it from many who undoubtedly perform that characteristic function. This is neither that of the original thinker nor that of the scholar or expert in a particular field of thought. The typical intellectual need be neither: he need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas. What qualifies him for his job is the wide range of subjects on which he can readily talk and write, and a position or habits through which he becomes acquainted with new ideas sooner than those to whom he addresses himself.
Until one begins to list all the professions and activities which belong to the class, it is difficult to realize how numerous it is, how the scope for activities constantly increases in modern society, and how dependent on it we all have become. The class does not consist of only journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists all of whom may be masters of the technique of conveying ideas but are usually amateurs so far as the substance of what they convey is concerned. The class also includes many professional men and technicians, such as scientists and doctors, who through their habitual intercourse with the printed word become carriers of new ideas outside their own fields and who, because of their expert knowledge of their own subjects, are listened with respect on most others. There is little that the ordinary man of today learns about events or ideas except through the medium of this class; and outside our special fields of work we are in this respect almost all ordinary men, dependent for our information and instruction on those who make it their job to keep abreast of opinion. It is the intellectuals in this sense who decide what views and opinions are to reach us, which facts are important enough to be told to us, and in what form and from what angle they are to be presented. Whether we shall ever learn of the results of the work of the expert and the original thinker depends mainly on their decision. MORE @ Mises.org
All too often they are taught what to think instead of how to think.
The stupid is teaching the stupid.
“intellectual” is but a term.
By the strict definition an intellectual is someone with a highly developed ability to apply logic to understand things.
Too often bookish people are mistakenly included in that description and do not possess or apply logic to approach problems.
There are too many examples of seemingly bright and articulate people who offer up pure stupidity. We see them daily.
Common sense and common decency are terrible things to lose.
🚨🚨 WHY SOCIALISM FAILS 🚨🚨
🔵 It starts with the nuclear family, a selfless giving and sharing of resources in which family members assume some members are life-long dependent consumers and others are life-long producers.
🔵 From there, the family, if capable, expands their altruism to extended family like grandparents, cousins etc.
🔵 There, if possible, the selflessness extends to friends, neighbors, schools, and the general community.
🔵 For those with the means, it can extend nationally or even internationally.
🔴 BUT SOCIALISM FAILS BECAUSE…. 🔴
🔵 The liberals smash society into hateful competing tribes stealing, threatening, and terrorizing other tribes into forced altruism causing them to close their minds and pocketbooks.
Summary: Socialism fails at the micro and macro level if the participants hate each other.
Can we really call them “intellectuals” then?
People with fantastic memories can earn a lot of degrees, but it’s the people who know what to do with all that information that really excel. I’ve known people who have multiple degrees and MBAs who don’t understand how a toaster works, but ask them about social topics and politics and you’ll hear the Liberal line and find out they’re supporters of Hillary, Bernie or one of those other clowns! In my experience the people who can figure things out usually don’t fall for Liberal drivel.
What is curious, these well-read people, “intellectuals” always seem to forget, they are often the first to be stood against a wall.
Viva la revolución !
I don’t get it.
“We will do it right this time.” – Idiots
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein,
I very strongly recommend THE ROAD TO SERFDOM. Read it almost 60 years ago . It describes the C word for G. Will – as I said on another site 13 years ago.
Will, is and always has been, COLLECTIVIST. He wants our “betters” to make out decisions for the collective good.
That certainly does explain AOC, obamination, Michael Moore, MSNBC, CNN and all of the other dumb, really ignorant commies who have been thrust upon America.
All are EMPERORS WITH NO CLOTHING, who are constantly exposed as dumber than dirt, but are still carried on the shoulders of lazy minded robots.
Without self appointed “intellectuals”, there wouldn’t be con men.
Some of the most intelligent people I have known were intellectuals.
All of the dumbest people I have ever known were also intellectuals.
Intellectuals are the product of education.
Education, however, is too often accompanied by indoctrination.
Intellectuals are people who can pick up fresh cow shit by the clean end. Harry Truman.
Socialists/Communists are the least intellectual people. They just like to call themselves that, because it makes them feel better about being clueless.
Christians are the true intellectuals.
Because the state is the only one that will pay them.
and, they think it sounds pretty good to run other people’s lives, especially given the first point i made.
The human brain is wired to detect a pontificating intellectual’s lies. Unfortunately, some people don’t listen well and do not use the power of reason to reject this evil.
I would also highly recommend Paul Johnson’s book called Intellectuals. Or anything by Russell Kirk.
Once upon a time a lot of the population was illiterate. Even graduating high school was a big deal.
That meant that the people who became teachers, college professors and writers tended to be from the natively smarter segment of the population. There was a correlation.
That is not the case any more. The smartest people aren’t becoming journalists, or teachers, or, save for a very few subject areas, even college professors. So…
Usually ‘education’ based on indoctrination kills common sense.
TLDR
I’ll tell you why: “People who believe in nothing will believe anything.” …paraphrasing G.K. Chesterton.