. . .have earned the contempt being directed at them these days. If I was a parent faced with the prospect of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate a child at one of these cesspools of political correctness and reified deconstructionism, I'd probably go postal on those idiots. It certainly isn't Republicans who have been importing all of this brain-dead and dishonest nonsense into American higher education, so it's hardly surprising that many Republicans find it objectionable.

No need to stock up on this much straw unless we're getting a pony.

You write, "Extremely intelligent people can promote anti-intellectualism for their own purposes;" this gives a sheen of unseemliness to anyone who is both intelligent and 'anti-intellectual', as if it's necessarily motivated by (say) cynical populism.

But there's good reason to think 'intellectual' implies more than just intelligence; it implies, in a stronger sense, someone who takes there to be a special and dignified social and political function for intellect or rationality. One needn't be motivated by any kind of cynicism to be suspicious of this kind of person; a committment to the normative force of tradition, say, or an abhorrence at so-called 'social engineering' schemes (e.g.) - leaving aside whether these positions are 'correct' - admit of intelligent articulation, and deserve to be taken seriously.

As for your particular complaints, I'm a little astonished you're willing to label the efforts to deny funding to 'controversial' artists as anti-intellectual, of of a piece with anti-intellectualism. It seems to me a consistent position to think that art has a moral-pedagogical value, and one should be careful with art that flies in the face of popular mores; it's also a consistent position to think that art oughtn't be publicly, or perhaps only federally, funded. Anti-intellectualism, even if you take it to mean only something like 'impassivity in the face of rational claims' or misology, hardly seems germane here. And that makes me wonder - though you wish to present your partisan position as stemming from your committment to rationality, it seems all too possible that - here anyway - the reverse is true.

When I hear mockery of universities and academics, it is much more likely that a conservative is speaking than a liberal.

And in many cases, conservatives who have been "in the cesspool." Academics and intellectuals are not identical.

It is the Republican Party that harbors adherents of several policies, many of which are somehow at least argumentatively related to the politically all-important abortion issue, that in one way or another inhibit or fail to sufficiently promote scientific research.

And this is "anti-intellectual" how exactly?

It is Republicans who politically align with the creationists and their sophist offshoots, the IDers.

True, but again, how is such an alignment "anti-intellectual?" Looks to me like poilitcs as usual, stretching to gain a majority.

It is conservatives who deny public patronage to artists because of the astonishing fact that some artists hold and express unconventional views that may offend the mores of majoritarians.

Not this one, it just ain't the job for government and I don't care if they are funding John Phillips Sousa and Frederick Remington. But again, how is this "anti-intellectual?"

It is Republicans who ridicule and boycott performance artists who dare to voice their political opinions.

Riiiight. And lefties make movies about assassinating our President. What does any of this have to do with being "anti-intellectual?"

It is the right in concert with its conservative sponsors, that consistently fights the global warming science for motivations that are becoming more and more nakedly political.

Call me when the anthropogenic models can even accurately portray the past and we'll talk.

I call those policies and acts anti-intellectual, and they emanate in their overwhelming majority from one side of the political spectrum.

You can of course call them whatever you like. Doesn't mean anyone will listen. A definition of anti-intellectual would help as most of your examples have, in my mind nothing whatever to do with "intellectual" at all (the Dixie Chicks? heh.)

There are other experiences like starting a business, or attending Community College. For around $1500 I took an American Revolution course at the University of Michigan where I leaned about salves, Caribbeans, and Indians in colonial American, but didn’t touch upon the Declaration, the Constitution, the causes leading up to, or the aftermath of, the American Revolution. In contrast after I graduated UM I took a Civil War course at the local Community College for about $300 that covered the cause, the major battles, and the aftermath of the war. In my opinion the Community College course was in every way superior to the university one so universities are not always the best institutions for learning per say, unless the one thing you cherish above all others is an exaggerated role of minorities in American history. And if you dare you challenge that exaggerated role at a university it is highly likely you’d be shouted off the stage as a racist. Therefore mocking universities isn’t analogous to mocking learning, only a certain type (overly PC) of learning.

It isn’t so-called global warming science that is fought, it is the nakedly political solutions (higher taxes, regulation) that most conservatives object to.

In regards to art, a good artist will make it on their own. As for bad artists, well, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Regarding "boycotts" of performing artists, two examples come to mind: Cat Stevens and the Dixie Chicks. The former quietly left the scene altogether, but the DCs continue to complain stridently about "boycotts", suppression of their free speech rights, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The DCs can say whatever they want, whenever they want to whoever will listen. (Seems like most of their listeners these days are foreigners.) But I can't see any legitimacy to the argument that former fans' refusal to buy their CDs or concert tickets, or to listen to them on the radio, is somehow unfair or an infringement on their rights.

Given the generally low level of education of most performers, their knee-jerk liberalism and their obvious lack of knowledge about global affairs that don't involve African adoptions, very few of them have anything useful or enlightening to say. They are free to use their bully pulpits to inflict their naive and painfully cliche'd political views on anyone who will listen, but with that comes the consequence of audience alienation. Any of them not understanding that proves the point about how little they have to say that is worth hearing.

By "global warming" I assume you mean anthropogenic global warming. I am willing to discuss at length the flaws in Mann et al.'s theories on which AGW is based. But far more important is the virtually complete failure of AGW's true believers to discuss the economic consequences of the remedial measures they propose, or the enormous flaws in the Kyoto Accord/Protocol. Suggesting that people who don't accept AGW as a fact are harbingers of anti-intellectualism on the Right suggests (1) an incomplete understanding of the weaknesses of the theories underlying the AGW doctrine and (2) a lack of awareness of the huge eco-industry that would lose billions of dollars in grants and donations if it stopped imitating Nostradamus.

When I hear mockery of universities and academics, it is much more likely that a conservative is speaking than a liberal.

And more than likely it reflects a member of the faculty being rather foolish or different rules being rolled for conservatives. BTW, the different rule meme runs thoughout your comment.

It is the Republican Party that harbors adherents of several policies, many of which are somehow at least argumentatively related to the politically all-important abortion issue, that in one way or another inhibit or fail to sufficiently promote scientific research.

The all important abortion issue clearly resides with the Dems and their minions. The best example of this is the treatment of SCOTUS justices. Of note, no member of the GOP has inhibited any scientific research. That is, private and government dollars, although not federal dollars, have freely flowed into scientific research where federal dollars have not followed.

I would say that the price controls which have been proposed by the Dems will have a far greater impact on scientific research than anything pursued by this Admin.

It is Republicans who politically align with the creationists and their sophist offshoots, the IDers.

Where is Irving when we really need him with respect to the "sophist" comment.

It is conservatives who deny public patronage to artists because of the astonishing fact that some artists hold and express unconventional views that may offend the mores of majoritarians.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph please point out to me where artists are deemed to be a special class due special entitlements.

It is Republicans who ridicule and boycott performance artists who dare to voice their political opinions.

Who knew that freedom of speech was a one way street!

It is the right, in concert with its conservative sponsors, that consistently fights the global warming science for motivations that are becoming more and more nakedly political.

Please refer to the above comment.

I call those policies and acts anti-intellectual, and they emanate in their overwhelming majority from one side of the political spectrum.

The shorter version of your comments, who knew that liberals are so intolerant.

But is there anything on the Left comparable to rejection of evolution that permeates so much of the Right? We are talking about a mainstream scientific theory, widely accepted and tested by the experts in the field, and that is consistently denigrated or denied by leading authorities of the GOP, including President Bush.

I have seen nothing remotely comparable on the left. This is not to say that many on the left will challenge results they dislike but that is common to both sides. But AFAIK the left does not simply negate the validity of a whole branch of science as the right does.