From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Politics and Intelligence
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:32:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.011152.21245@raven.alaska.edu> fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage]) writes:
>etbeteille@happy.colorado.edu writes
>] 
>] If it is generally true that the more "intelligent"
>] among us (i.e. university professors, and other 
>] alleged leaders of the mind) tend to be more liberal
>] politically, would it follow that those who are
>] considered extremely intelligent would naturally
>] be libertarian?

How so?  If the average person is middle-of-the-road, and the more intelligent
is more liberal, then how is that the even more intelligent swing away from
liberal ideals to cross the middle-of-the-road into libertarian country?

And what's _natural_ about being libertarian?

>] 
>] I would argue yes, that libertarianism, as expressed
>] in American documents such as the Declaration of
>] Independence and the Constitution as well as works
>] by Thomas Jefferson, takes an acute mind to understand
>] and appreciate without deteriorating into the old
>] emotional arguments used by both liberals and conser-
>] vatives when they are forcing the rest of us to do
>] things.

It's your assertion that the Constitution, the very work fought tooth and nail
by the antifederalists, best epitomizes their interests as well as those of 
the libertarians?  Perhaps in the abstract, the Declaration could be seen as
such (since it was Jefferson's baby) but certainly not the Constitution.

Or is that an `old emotional argument'?

>
>I believe that intelligent people resent government interfering with them 
>when they are smart enough to regulate themselves.  I also believe that 
>intellectuals are more for freedom of thought and expression, at least for 
>themselves.

Certainly the same could be same of the `Bubba' contingent.

>
>But libertarianism is also based on the idea that people in general are 
>intelligent enough to govern themselves.  In my experience, I have found 
>that not all intelligent people believe this.  I, however, do.  People 
>deserve more credit than they are given, by society or themselves.  

There is absolutely no necessity for intelligence to be libertarian.  The
basis for libertarianism is rooted in a passion for independence from gov't, 
not a love of self-government.  The latter is anarchy, not libertarianism.

The idea behind libertarianism is more one of `survival of the fittest', 
`the market will sort itself out', and `leave me the Hell alone', than 
`intelligence will persevere'.

>Intelligence is nothing more than the sum total of everything a person does.

Intelligence is only a _small_ part of what someone does.  Ethics, values,
industriousness, compassion, ambition -- all of these are complementary to
intelligence in what constitutes a person's behavior.  They are certainly
not a part of intelligence, nor is intelligence necessarily part of them.

>
>I think there is a correlation between intelligence and perception of 
>inteligence.  Intelligent people tend to associate with intelligent people 
>and so find intelligence more easily, and believe in teh intelligence of 
>humanity.  And so believe the libertarian philosophy.

Eh?  You've lost me.  It takes one to know one.  OK.  Birds of a feather.  OK.
But what makes you think this results in the intelligent having confidence in
the ability of humanity to govern, responsibly and by autonomously?  That
certainly didn't work for Jefferson.  He had little confidence in people's
ability to govern responsibly, even _with_ the checks and balances built into 
our constitution.  He even suggested that the common man was unqualified to 
vote, much less govern himself.

Political parties reflect much more than intellectual idealism.  Many people 
are political, as in the case of Republicans and Democrats, to foster laissez-
faire vs. active government, distributed vs. centralized government, strong 
defense vs. strong social programs, to advocate the interests of the `econom-
ically autonomous' (aka. rich) vs. the poor or culturally/intellectually 
elite.  It's more often a common set of values than an affinity for intell-
ectual brethren that draws politicos together.

If intelligence breeds anything, it's the recognition that libertarianism is
going nowhere and that all the fun is being had by the two parties with the 
money.  I'd expect the intelligent (wise?) person to be associated with one 
of these if they hope to accomplish anything, not with libertarians.

BTW, in a similar vein, I've been wondering where the recent (I think) appeal 
among young (semi)intellectuals for libertarianism and rebublicanism sprang 
from.  A few years back, it was typical for most college kids to be socially 
idealistic, to be active at least vocally in supporting the needs and rights 
of minorities and the dispossessed.  But now, most college kids seem to fall 
somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Lyndon LaRouche.

I can't believe that worsening economic conditions are solely to blame.  Times
were also very bad in the late 70's and early 80's and as many kids weren't so
coldly mercenary about getting through college with minimal effort and entering
corporate America.  It seems like idealism and activism are all but dead among 
those who used to be the most optimistic about the changes the future may hold.

Or is it just me?  Is my generation gap showing?





-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102