Proud To Be Stoopid

Maureen Dowd contrasts Marilyn Monroe, who "aspired to read good books and be friends with intellectuals," with Sarah Palin, et al., & their "refudiation" of intellectual aspirations.

The Times moderators again squelched my comment on Dowd's column, so since it's substantive, I've posted it here:

Of course there has always been an anti-intellectual thread in American culture. It's a minority frame-of-mind that is probably found in every great culture, but it's particularly prominent in the U.S., where "rugged individualism" has long been viewed as a distinct & "exceptional" American quality.

Politicians have played pivotal roles in turning anti-intellectualism into a "positive" quality. They do it, of course, for crass political advantage. I should think the modern strain of anti-elitism began with Richard Nixon's public embrace of the fundamentalist "Moral Majority." Remember his Vice President, Spiro Agnew (who admitted to criminal activity & was forced to resign in disgrace) & his William Safire-writ speech decrying "the nattering nabobs of negativism," "pusillanimous pussyfooters," & "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals"?

Nixon's heir, Ronald Reagan, despite his wife Nancy's designer tastes, cozied up to Southern racists & the Jerry Falwell crowd (often one and the same). Reagan began his government career as an anti-intellectual by declaring war on the University of California. His second act, George Bush Pere, was no dope, but to counter his East Coast bona fides, he pretended to be a pork-rind-eating Texas cowpoke. Hilariously, Karl Rove asserted that George Bush Fils, who was a true-life non-intellectual, was in fact a book-reading phenom who breezed through Camus novels for light reading. Uh-huh.  

Let us remember that Sarah Palin is a John McCain production. She would still be back in Alaska at what she recently called her boring desk job, had McCain not thought -- correctly -- that glamor devoid of intellectual curiosity would sell with the class of voters he courted. Indeed, Republicans depend upon anti- & non-intellectualism to garner votes. Any "regular person" who was smart enough to understand how cruelly the Republican platform treats the little guy would never vote for anyone in today's Republican Tea Party. Republicans are bound by the cynicism of their policies to play to the lowest common denominator. Now, with the rise of the Tea Party element, they are even fielding candidates whose only defense is that they are not elites.

The other day Chris Coons tried to explain to Christine O'Donnell how the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment. She truly was not smart enough to get it, repeatedly interrupting Coons to question his explanation. When Coons repeated that the First Amendment requires that "the government shall make no establishment of religion" O'Donnell asked, with exasperation: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" The audience laughed because they realized she really didn't know that. This is a woman who believes God wants her to be a United States Senator, but she has repeatedly assured Delaware audiences that she will base her legislative decisions on the Constitution, not on the Bible. How can she? She has no idea what's in the Constitution or how Constitutional law evolves.

Fortunately, Carl Paladino, who wants to take a baseball bat to Albany (which could just possibly be an unlawful means of governance), won't become governor, but he is the Republican nominee, & it isn't clear he's much smarter than the candidate of "The Rent Is Too Damn High Party."

 On the Republican side, the lowest common denominator has become the cream of the crop.*

The Constant Weader

* No, I haven't forgot about Democratic nominee Alvin Greene of South Carolina. But I'm trying.

Vote California Prop 19! Spiro T. Agnew named Mike Brewer & Tom Shipley "subversives" for this classic. The audio isn't the best, but it'll do:

... Here you go, boys -- "a modern spiritual by Gail & Dale":

Bonus Comment

Some other frequent New York Times commenters & I discussed MoDo's column after we wrote our comments last night. The Times rejected two out of four of our comments. Here's one of the letters I wrote as part of our discussion. I've removed a few lines of personal stuff:

... I learned a long time ago -- from my beautiful friends, definitely not from personal experience -- that being a beautiful woman is nearly a curse. A beautiful woman is almost always an object first (whether the subject is a man or a woman), & a person second -- often a far-distant second. For decades, it's hard "to be" beyond being beautiful.

Arthur Miller was an asshole.

Here's a story I heard at the party after my grandmother's funeral.... The setting is someplace in Connecticut, probably in or near Danbury, on a hot summer's day. My grandfather, who was a sweet man, was waiting in line at a frozen custard stand. The day being so hot, the line was long, & he got into a conversation with the woman standing in front of him. They chatted for 10 or 20 minutes until the woman got her frozen custard, said goodbye, & left.

The other people standing in line mobbed my grandfather. "How do you know her?" they asked.

"Who?" he responded.

"Marilyn Monroe!" they said.

"You mean that woman I was just talking to?" he asked.

"Yes, didn't you know that was Marilyn Monroe?" someone said.

My grandfather asked, "Who's Marilyn Monroe?"