My take on Bush supporters.

[The Mad Hatter]

From my flawed Canadian perspective, anyway. I'm not talking about people just voting for Bush because they don't like Kerry or Democrats in general, but those who genuinely support the President and what he stands for. The way I see it, it breaks down into three groups:

1) Those who support Bush because they feel the US has gone down the wrong path on issues like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. They tend to be religious and focussed on "culture war" issues, though they'll also be diehard supporters of the war on terror. These people supported Bush enthusiastically in 2000 and will again this time around, hoping that a second term will reconstitute SCOTUS and allow for more conservative social policies from the administration.

2) Those who supported Bush in 2000 because they believed in smaller government and fiscal restraint. Contract with America types, or libertarians who can live with the ideas from group 1. Given the ballooning federal deficit, expanded government departments, Patriot Act, etc. some of these people might stay home on Tuesday, or (less likely) support Kerry. This is the smallest of the three groups though, and the one most often trumped by other issues.

3) Post-9/11 supporters. Far and away the most amorphous of the three, these are people who admire the President's response to the WTC attack and broadly support his actions since, be it the invasion of Afghanistan, defiance of the UN and the war in Iraq. They might have been independents in 2000 or even Democrats. A lot of people who were apolitical prior to September 11, 2001 fall into this group too, especially those too young to remember the Cold War. Foreign policy and domestic security are their primary concerns. Setbacks in Iraq and the failure to capture Bin Laden have probably trimmed their numbers a bit, but I think the majority will stand behind Bush on November 2.

[Holman]

Your scheme presupposes that most Americans have a commitment to ideas and what the candidates actually plan to do (or say they plan to do). How I wish it were so!

A large number of Americans choose their candidates merely on style and rhetoric. These are those Americans who know little about policy or history but "vote for the man they like." Our sound-bite culture combined with a general American disinclination towards thinking deeply make this inevitable. Bush is good at pitching himself to these people by pretending to be "just a reg'lar guy like you" (except in the South, where he presents himself as "just a humble Christian like you").

To be fair, Clinton probably won some votes over Bush 41 and Dole by being generally sexier than they are.

[RunningMn9]

Our sound-bite culture combined with a general American disinclination towards thinking deeply make this inevitable. Bush is good at pitching himself to these people by pretending to be "just a reg'lar guy like you" (except in the South, where he presents himself as "just a humble Christian like you").

I humbly suggest that the presence of people like Paul Roberts in the opposition camp is exactly the reason that many people support Bush over Kerry.

I'll leave it to Paul Roberts to apply some deep thinking to decipher what I'm talking about.

[Poleaxe]

Our sound-bite culture combined with a general American disinclination towards thinking deeply make this inevitable. Bush is good at pitching himself to these people by pretending to be "just a reg'lar guy like you" (except in the South, where he presents himself as "just a humble Christian like you").

I humbly suggest that the presence of people like Paul Roberts in the opposition camp is exactly the reason that many people support Bush over Kerry.

I'll leave it to Paul Roberts to apply some deep thinking to decipher what I'm talking about.

He won't understand.

[The Mad Hatter]

Your scheme presupposes that most Americans have a commitment to ideas and what the candidates actually plan to do (or say they plan to do). How I wish it were so!

A large number of Americans choose their candidates merely on style and rhetoric. These are those Americans who know little about policy or history but "vote for the man they like." Our sound-bite culture combined with a general American disinclination towards thinking deeply make this inevitable. Bush is good at pitching himself to these people by pretending to be "just a reg'lar guy like you" (except in the South, where he presents himself as "just a humble Christian like you").

To be fair, Clinton probably won some votes over Bush 41 and Dole by being generally sexier than they are.

Yes, of course, there's always many poorly informed voters on any side of an election. The same is true here in Canada, as any observer of our recent federal election could tell you. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of Americans who support Bush on issues. Besides, I laid out some pretty broad ones - you don't have to know the intricacies of US involvement in the Middle East or deficit spending to have an opinion on it.

[Kraken]

You left out my type: Fascists who want to rule the world.

[CSL]

You left out my type: Fascists who want to rule the world.

I thought we finally got rid of your type with Franco.

[Holman]

I humbly suggest that the presence of people like Paul Roberts in the opposition camp is exactly the reason that many people support Bush over Kerry.

I'll leave it to Paul Roberts to apply some deep thinking to decipher what I'm talking about.

Hang on a second--Are you saying that this is *not* an American type of voter, and that Bush *doesn't* work hard to attract them with his folksy image? Isn't it a valid point that lots of Americans vote on shallow perceptions rather than issues? (All of Mad Hatter's categories were issues-defined.)

You'll notice that I did not imply that all conservatives are dumb, only that many Americans vote as I mentioned. And of course it goes the other way too. I'm perfectly ready to say that plenty of people (especially young ones) voted for Clinton on the basis of his Arsenio Hall and MTV appearances, which added nothing to the substance of political debate.

Insults not appreciated. You can do better than that, RM9.

[geezer]

I humbly suggest that the presence of people like Paul Roberts in the opposition camp is exactly the reason that many people support Bush over Kerry.

I'll leave it to Paul Roberts to apply some deep thinking to decipher what I'm talking about.

Hang on a second--Are you saying that this is *not* an American type of voter, and that Bush *doesn't* work hard to attract them with his folksy image? Isn't it a valid point that lots of Americans vote on shallow perceptions rather than issues? (All of Mad Hatter's categories were issues-defined.)

You'll notice that I did not imply that all conservatives are dumb, only that many Americans vote as I mentioned. And of course it goes the other way too. I'm perfectly ready to say that plenty of people (especially young ones) voted for Clinton on the basis of his Arsenio Hall and MTV appearances, which added nothing to the substance of political debate.

Insults not appreciated. You can do better than that, RM9.

For some odd reason, RM9 seems to be trying to adopt the attiitude (here and in other threads) of a certain conspicuously absent former R&P semi-frequent poster. I can only speak for me, but really, the try-too-hard condescention and pedantic attempts at superiority aren't really missed or needed.

That's just my humble opinion, of course, but it is a shame when a poster who is obvioulsy intelligent and informed feels the need to be smug in addition.

[RunningMn9]

Insults not appreciated. You can do better than that, RM9.

Maybe, maybe not.

I wasn't insulting you. I was pointing something out for you about the electorate, specifically the large block of voters that you are referring to, and why they are voting for Bush.

It's not entirely because Bush is folksy. A very large part of it is the presence of people in the Kerry camp (i.e. Democrat camp) that believe that a sizeable portion of the supporters for the other guy, are that way because they are superficial and/or stupid.

It's called "elitism", and it's one of main reasons why people just don't like Kerry (and many of his supporters). And Bush attracts these voters by not being "elitist". These voters vote more for the man, and less for the policies. Because in their estimation, the character of the man is more important than the shifting sands of any politician's platform. That's where Kerry fails for these people, and where Bush excels.

And geezer, if you're implying that I'm trying to post like Grundbegriff, I appreciate the comparison - but it's not intentional, or forced.

It's just what's come to mind as I read many of these threads leading up to the election.

I mean, we have people here posting that they think Clinton will be viewed by history as a good/great President. How am I supposed to react to something like that, if not with open disbelief (and associated condascension)?

[Grundbegriff]

I can only speak for me, but really, the try-too-hard condescention and pedantic attempts at superiority aren't really missed or needed.

Waxing a little insecure there, ain't ya, geezer?

[Fireball]

It's called "elitism", and it's one of main reasons why people just don't like Kerry (and many of his supporters). And Bush attracts these voters by not being "elitist".

Elitism is supporting policies which advance the interests of society's ruling a class -- a class which is strikingly white, corporate and Republican. The notion that liberals comprise a controlling share of society's "elite" is absolutely inane.

These voters vote more for the man, and less for the policies.

Which is an incredibly stupid reason to vote for someone. I'm sorry, but that's just not a tenable way to create a sustainable democracy. While candidates are often oblique on specifics, most do not stray far from their stated philosophical positions. It's not hard to make an educated, issues-based decision in an election

God, I wish I could get everyone to read "What's the Matter With Kansas."

[Grundbegriff]

The notion that liberals comprise a controlling share of society's "elite" is absolutely inane....

Which is an incredibly stupid reason to vote for someone. I'm sorry, but that's just not a tenable way to create a sustainable democracy....

God, I wish I could get everyone to read "What's the Matter With Kansas."

Whip out the tongs, RunningMn9. You've got a few more specimens over here.

[RunningMn9]

Elitism is supporting policies which advance the interests of society's ruling a class -- a class which is strikingly white, corporate and Republican. The notion that liberals comprise a controlling share of society's "elite" is absolutely inane.

In this case, I was referring to the intellectual elitism that suggests that your reasons for selecting a candidate are the result of deep and nuanced contemplation of the issues, and your opponents criteria (since they arrived at a different conclusion than you) are the result of stupidity.

That's the collective you.

Which is an incredibly stupid reason to vote for someone. I'm sorry, but that's just not a tenable way to create a sustainable democracy.

QED.

It's actually a very good reason to vote for someone. No one could have imagined when choosing between compassionate conservatism and the holder of lockboxes, that what we were really choosing was someone that would have to deal with something worse than Pearl Harbor.

And that makes the point. In addition to electing someone to represent your views on the issues (something that you should primarily be concerning yourself with in your Congressional representation) - you are electing someone that is going to have to deal with the unknown.

And in that decision, the character of the man - and your gut feeling on that - is definately something that's reasonable to base your decision on.

While candidates are often oblique on specifics, most do not stray far from their stated philosophical positions. It's not hard to make an educated, issues-based decision in an election

And it's not that hard to see that you never know when the issues are going to take a back seat to some bullshit that you could never possibly consider happening in the next four years.

God, I wish I could get everyone to read "What's the Matter With Kansas."

And I wish that most people would understand that "different" opinions wasn't a synonym for "stupid" opinions.

Neither of us is likely to have our wish granted.

[RunningMn9]

Oh, and Grund - welcome back. I kept your seat warm (apparently).

[Poleaxe]

God, I wish I could get everyone to read "What's the Matter With Kansas."

You're kidding, right? We're talking about the elitism of the left, and this is the book you bring up to prove your point? The whole premise of this book is elitest.

There is nothing wrong with Kansas. They aren't buying to the classism that dems have to offer. They make voting decisions based on more than just economics. They don't need or want the govt. to be their momma.

[malchior]

Paul is partially right and mostly wrong IMO. I've seen it go both ways. I've got friends I've been avoiding(I know, I know ) out in Phillipsburg, NJ because I don't want to hear about the election from them anymore. They spent great amounts of time letting me know that they like Bush because he's a regular guy like them. They couldn't understand that I had problem with Bush's actions. They called me a liberal. They said I supported terrorists. They sounded like Dick Cheney.

This was even after I pointed out that I was going to vote down the left(funnily the Republican column is the left column here) side of the ballot except at the top where it says President, where it'll say Kerry. I'll see them once the election is over. The funny thing is that they generally have the same social values I do, but the issues literally mean nothing to them. They don't understand and don't want to understand economic issues, science issues, environmental issues. They are by far in the minority of the people I've talked to about this election. Most people I talk to can name actual reasons why they are voting the way they do and sometimes, and even though I can't believe they think the way they do about those issues, I find that at least they are informed about it.

That is why the culture war is a huge part of this election. I've read articles time and time again where that one or two issues that people truly cared about was the deciding factor for them. For many, it is 2nd amendment rights, for others, it is the abortion stance. There are huge swaths of the nations 150 Million protestants that won't vote for a Roman Catholic based solely on their religion. Interestingly, this election is shaping up to be just like the 1960 election, which was won by only a few tenths of a percentage point in the popular vote when the electoral college was skewed more heavily to the NE and elected the first RC President, and is pitting another Protestant(Methodist specifically) versus a Roman Catholic. Though this may be simply a product of the last election.

While I think that the intellectual elitism angle is present and very real(I work at a liberal college and hear it all day), I don't think it pushes many people to Bush because frankly most Americans don't have contact with academia on a regular basis. Coupled with the news medias inexorable tilt to the right, because of media consolidation, we can expect that Hollywood's vise grip on Pop Culture will be loosened a little.

These two elections have been the result IMO of the country reaching a tipping point on our social values. A Bush victory signifies that the Electorate wants the country to be more conservative and a Kerry victory signifies the opposite. Some probably would even call it a boiling point. We may be in for rough times as the country redefines itself over the next few election cycles.

[RunningMn9]

Maybe part of the problem is that the "issues" in this election have been the same "issues" in each election for the past 30 years. Maybe there's a large number of people that have no more faith in any of these jackholes to fix any of these issues, and so they don't bother wasting their time on them?

malchior - the intellectual elitism of the left is by no means limited to academia. John Kerry positively oozes it.

[geezer]

I can only speak for me, but really, the try-too-hard condescention and pedantic attempts at superiority aren't really missed or needed.

Waxing a little insecure there, ain't ya, geezer?

Just calling things the way I see 'em. But I *am* sorry if I jumped on RM9 for a perceived rather than actual intention.

[SuperHiro]

One of my bestest good friends in the whole wide world is a Bush voter. He's a total fiscal conservative. That said I certainly don't think ALL Bush voters are morons/idiots/limp-dicks. I do find the people who say the "loyalty oaths" to be really doofy though... is that okay?

But there's a certain strain that I find particularly abhorrent. The ones that think Bush is God-appointed. Yeah pretty much anything even smelling of that angle. Luckily there aren't any people like that in this forum. Because if there's one thing that pisses me off more, it's people saying why I should vote for Bush because it's God's Will blah blah blah.

Man I thought I could never find a group of people I dislike more than Furries.

[Holman]

With all the talk about "intellectual elitism" and how it turns off some citizens, let's not forget that some candidates are indeed smarter than others, and that some ideas are better than others, and that some policies are more effective than others. There is a strain of anti-intellectualism in this country--yes, it has its adherents on the Left as well as the Right--that makes ideas less powerful than they ought to be.

As a partisan liberal, it seems to me that the Bushies' decrying of "intellectual elitism" is a way of trying to tap into that anti-intellectualism for votes. And I believe that even a non-partisan perspective will agree that this is not the best way to decide who gets to make policy.

Anyway, I'm just sayin'...

[RunningMn9]

As a partisan liberal, it seems to me that the Bushies' decrying of "intellectual elitism" is a way of trying to tap into that anti-intellectualism for votes. And I believe that even a non-partisan perspective will agree that this is not the best way to decide who gets to make policy.

It's not just the "Bushies'" that are crying "intellectual elitism", it's the common folks that have been watching the supposedly intellectual elite fumble uselessly for DECADES trying to "solve" the same issues, year after year.

At some point you just get the feeling that the intellectual "elite" are only so in their own minds, and their assertions that they craft better policy simply come off as arrogant and ineffectual, rather than just ineffectual.

All things being equal, they'll take plain old, common sense ineffectual.

[LordMortis]

All things being equal, they'll take plain old, common sense ineffectual.

oh, hard. The problem is that things aren't equal, IMO. Common sense ineffectaul turned out to be, no common sense self-destructive.

Edit:

And I suppose I have joined that anti-intellectual crowd in my own way as well. I feel like at the ripe old age of 34, I have been sold a bill of goods for my entire life that life at a desk was supposed to be me goal. Now that I have been here for a decade, I so wish I would have gone into a skilled trade that they are a much more "noble" (for lack of being able to find another word) profession.

[Grundbegriff]

....condescention and pedantic attempts at superiority....

Waxing a little insecure there, ain't ya, geezer?

Just calling things the way I see 'em.

Well, the irony is that calling someone "pedantic" and "condescending" -- even in the abstract -- is a way of pedantically condescending. In such cases, calling things the way one sees 'em and embodying things the way one sees 'em converge.

[Grundbegriff]

With all the talk about "intellectual elitism" and how it turns off some citizens, let's not forget that some candidates are indeed smarter than others

Indeed

[The Mad Hatter]

With all the talk about "intellectual elitism" and how it turns off some citizens, let's not forget that some candidates are indeed smarter than others

Indeed

Except that the problem with Bush isn't his IQ (a fairly meaningless statistic anyway), it's his complete lack of intellectual curiosity. That's something cited by friend and foe alike. I suppose once you believe God is speaking to you why bother trying to understand anything else? At any rate, that's what I find personally offensive. I would find it so regardless of political orientation.

Of course, this is all irrelevant to my original point, which was tailored in a way NOT to start this rather old discussion. I do find Bush repugnant on just about every level but I'm trying to be a nice foreign moderate here, and talk about the issues on a rational level.

[Holman]

It's not just the "Bushies'" that are crying "intellectual elitism", it's the common folks that have been watching the supposedly intellectual elite fumble uselessly for DECADES trying to "solve" the same issues, year after year.

Just some of the issues upon which intellectual elites have wasted DECADES of useless fumbling:

Child labor
Enfranchisement of women
Universal literacy
Monopoly-busting
Decent wages for working people
Workplace safety
Jim Crow
Rural electrification
Insured banking
Fair Housing
Public health
Civil rights
Free speech
Social security
Pollution control

...and that's just the past century or so. But I'm sure that, left to good old common sense, all of these problems would have worked themselves out on their own. What were those elites thinking??!

[Eel Snave]

And how are we sitting on them? Everything should be fixed, then shouldn't it?

I'm not saying intellectual elites suck, I'm just saying that you should give someone else a try, not that it'll do any good.

[Poleaxe]

Just some of the issues upon which intellectual elites have wasted DECADES of useless fumbling:

Child labor- but rail against free trade which would help curb child labor in the third world
Enfranchisement of women- but told a generation of women that staying home to care for the family was a cop out
Universal literacy- but have turned public schools into money pits with students who can't read
Monopoly-busting- we're all so glad that AT&T got broken up
Decent wages for working people- yeah whatever you say
Workplace safety- which of course led to osha, god help us
Jim Crow- of course blacks had a hand in taking care of that as well
Rural electrification- inevitable
Insured banking- if you say so
Fair Housing- also built projects because it's a good idea to consentrate large groups of poor in small areas
Public health- yes, andd now wants to socialize it so that we crush the best medical system in the world in the name of fairness
Civil rights- and through massive entitlement programs left two generations of blacks feeling...um, entitled
Free speech- ?
Social security- a ponzi scheme, and now resisting efforts to reform
Pollution control- maybe, but so far a failure

[noxiousdog]

It's not just the "Bushies'" that are crying "intellectual elitism", it's the common folks that have been watching the supposedly intellectual elite fumble uselessly for DECADES trying to "solve" the same issues, year after year.

Just some of the issues upon which intellectual elites have wasted DECADES of useless fumbling:

Child labor
Enfranchisement of women
Universal literacy
Monopoly-busting
Decent wages for working people
Workplace safety
Jim Crow
Rural electrification
Insured banking
Fair Housing
Public health
Civil rights
Free speech
Social security
Pollution control

...and that's just the past century or so. But I'm sure that, left to good old common sense, all of these problems would have worked themselves out on their own. What were those elites thinking??!

How, pray tell, are these successes of specifically 'intellectual elites'?

[The Mad Hatter]

As a partisan liberal, it seems to me that the Bushies' decrying of "intellectual elitism" is a way of trying to tap into that anti-intellectualism for votes. And I believe that even a non-partisan perspective will agree that this is not the best way to decide who gets to make policy.

It's not just the "Bushies'" that are crying "intellectual elitism", it's the common folks that have been watching the supposedly intellectual elite fumble uselessly for DECADES trying to "solve" the same issues, year after year.

At some point you just get the feeling that the intellectual "elite" are only so in their own minds, and their assertions that they craft better policy simply come off as arrogant and ineffectual, rather than just ineffectual.

All things being equal, they'll take plain old, common sense ineffectual.

Of course, it was the neocon intellectuals who told Bush that Iraqi children would be throwing flowers in front of US tanks and that by November, 2004 there would only be a token force left of American troops. The neocon movement is an intellectual one formed in the universities and the think tanks, and they have a dominant role in the Bush administration.

[RunningMn9]

Just some of the issues upon which intellectual elites have wasted DECADES of useless fumbling:

You don't follow the news much, do you?

Most of your items are either not solved (child labor, universal literacy, decent wages for working people, public health, social security, pollution control, fair housing) or were the successes of groups other than the intellectual elite (enfranchisement of women, monopoly-busting, workplace safety, Jim Crow, rural electrication, free soeech, civil rights).

Let me ask this a different way. How many of the past elections have the candidates been promising us to "fix" healthcare, education, social security, minimum wage, racism (or it's new, broader form - "hate crime"), crime, etc.?

Ever election is about the same thing. We're going to fix the education system. No, WE'RE going to fix the education. Neither one of you is going to fix the education system because you don't have a goddamned clue what's wrong with the fucking education system, and don't understand your own role in institutionalizing it's failure.

Same for health care. Same for social security. Etc.

The absurdity of it all came to a head when I had to hear Al Gore telling me that HE was going to fix education, health care, social security, etc. Asshole. You've been in power for 8 years. WTF were you doing for 8 years that these problems are worse now then they were 8 years ago? And why should we believe that you'll fix them when your record is that they are worse?

This election has the unfortunate feature of BOTH major candidates with a history of being unable to do anything to stem the tide in these problems. Has Kerry been hiding his secret "fix it" plans from us for the past 20 years?

At least in 2000, Bush hadn't had the chance to take a crack at these problems at the federal level yet.

Child labor. That was a good one. So long as by "fix" you meant that we would legislate it so that it was other children we put to work instead of our own.

[noxiousdog]

So much for kinder, gentler RM9. LordMortis will be happy.

[LordMortis]

Hey, I like the kinder and gentler RM9 better. I was not to thrilled with his "salty bastard" days. Of course at that time he was egging on a certain fellow whose nick began with AJA and ended with ARG.

A reasonable RM9 is one whose dissertations I can get through. Though I haven't seem him write a long essay since the coming of the testicles...um tentacles.

[Holman]

noxiousdog:

How, pray tell, are these successes of specifically 'intellectual elites'?

Because they are all issues where improvement was brought by the kinds of engaged policy experts, thinkers, intellectuals, and others who would today be decried as "intellectual elites" or "liberal meddlers." We all know that they did not do these things on their own, but they helped a great deal, often on the government side of things. And in all of these cases, it was a coalition of "elites" and progressives who brought change in the face of (and often against the fierce opposition of) the self-styled defenders of "common sense" (which is usually a code word for those economic elites who benefit most from the status quo).

Poleaxe:
So you would rather that we have *not* have those gains which have been made in these areas? I've not claimed perfection, just improvement.

RM9:

Most of your items are either not solved (child labor, universal literacy, decent wages for working people, public health, social security, pollution control, fair housing) or were the successes of groups other than the intellectual elite (enfranchisement of women, monopoly-busting, workplace safety, Jim Crow, rural electrication, free soeech, civil rights).

Agreed on both points. But most efforts by anybody to address these issues have been opposed by reactionaries who always--always--attack the progressives as meddlesome elites, outside agitators, etc.. If today's rhetoric were transported to the past, then Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, FDR, Upton Sinclair, and a hundred other heroes of progressivism would all be tarred with the brush of "elitism."
One of my points is that the know-nothing "anti-elitism" of the Bush administration is generally just a mask for this same old antiprogressivism. After all, who is more elite than the have-mores whose interests the current administration works so hard to protect?

Now someone will come back and say that plenty of progressive projects have failed, or repeat that public education is a joke (RM9's particular bugaboo), or something similar. If we're going to speak on that scale, however, you must admit that you have to take the successes with the failures, and acknowledge that the "common sense" you seem to advocate is any empty mask generally worn by whatever powers control the Party Of The Right.

[RunningMn9]

Agreed on both points.

If you agree that those issues aren't solved, or that they were solved by people other than the intellectual elites - why did you just list them as the successes of the intellectual elites?

[RunningMn9]

neocon intellectuals

Are you even allowed to put those two words together?

[noxiousdog]

Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King were hardly intellectual elites. They were doers, not thinkers.

Upton Sinclair about The Jungle

I wrote with tears and anguish, pouring into the pages all that pain which life had meant to me. Externally the story had to do with a family of stockyard workers, but internally it was the story of my own family. Did I wish to know how the poor suffered in winter time in Chicago? I only had to recall the previous winter in the cabin, when we had only cotton blankets, and had rags on top of us. It was the same with hunger, with illness, with fear. Our little boy was down with pneumonia that winter, and nearly died, and the grief of that went into the book.

on Dorothy Day

In November 1917 Day went to prison for being one of forty women in front of the White House protesting women's exclusion from the electorate. Arriving at a rural workhouse, the women were roughly handled. The women responded with a hunger strike. Finally they were freed by presidential order.

[Kadoth Nodens]

Of course, it was the neocon intellectuals who told Bush that Iraqi children would be throwing flowers in front of US tanks and that by November, 2004 there would only be a token force left of American troops. The neocon movement is an intellectual one formed in the universities and the think tanks, and they have a dominant role in the Bush administration.

Only an intellectual would know that! Stone him and his book lernin'!!!

[LordMortis]

Because they are all issues where improvement was brought by the kinds of engaged policy experts, thinkers, intellectuals, and others who would today be decried as "intellectual elites" or "liberal meddlers."

Color me ignorant, but I don't see it. I don't see how the "inellectual elite" nor the "liberal meddlers" were the ones who bringers of these improvements.

I guess part of my problem is that I am not sure who the "elite" are nor do I see specific improvements being brought on a group I would call elite.

I suppose when I think of political accomplishments of the intellecutally elite in the my lifetime, the closest thing I can come up with was Kent State and even that was before I was born.

It's kind of ironic that those we would call intellectual would bring riots to the table and call this good. If you can find it, I would reccommend look into some of the philosophy of education books and by sidney hook. He goes to great lengths to examine how the "intellectual" exist with the those of "common thought".