Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by michaelt 413 days ago
A few decades ago, the Republican party had one foot in the anti-intellectual camp, but only one.

They were the party of young-earth creationists, religious pro-lifers, climate-deniers and gun-lovers - but also of educated fiscally conservative folks. The party would welcome economics professors and leaders of medium-sized businesses, promising no radical changes, no big increases in spending or regulation, and a generally pro-market/pro-business stance.

The genius of Trump was in realising the educated fiscally conservative folk were driving 95% of the republican policy agenda but only delivering 10% of the votes. The average Republican voter loves the idea of disbanding the IRS and replacing all taxes with tariffs on imports. Sure, you lose the educated 10% who think that policy is economic suicide - but you can more than make up for it with increased turn-out from the other 90% who are really fired up by the prospect of eliminating all taxes.

And it works - jumping into the anti-intellectual camp with both feet has delivered the house, the senate, the presidency (electoral college and popular vote), and the supreme court.

The conservative movement has a brain-drain because they've realised they don't want the votes of smart, educated people.

2 comments

Even more amazing considering that 90% doesn't pay any federal income taxes anyway.
What's anti-intellectual about religious pro-lifers?
Their take on scripture is deliberately anachronistic. We didn’t have the medicine or sanitation 2000 years ago to place their kind of value on a fetus.
The medicine in question comes from the very scientific establishment that grew out of scholasticism, which is why I find the accusation of anti-intellectualism rather strange.

My point is that you have to distinguish between arguing against the output of the intellectual activity and arguing against the intellectual activity taking place.

The medicine that I said didn't exist back then? I think you misread my comment.
It’s possible that I misread it, since I don’t understand the accusation of anti-intellectualism.

Isn’t it rather pro-intellectual to found universities like that of Bologna in 1088 and pour massive amounts of resources into research to ensure we eventually get to the level of obstetric medicine that we have?

And isn’t it on the contrary intellectually lazy to throw your hands up and declare life to be disposable simply because you don’t know how to treat and prevent diseases and can’t be bothered to figure out how?

If I'm following you, I should state that I don't see anything anti-intellectual in Christianity as a concept or in practice. The anti-intellectualism I was referring to is specifically regarding the idea that the bible proscribes abortion, solely because the train of thought is anachronistic.