Conservative Anti-Intellectualism -- Or Not

What do Rick Santorum and the Supreme Court argument over Obamacare have in common?

I will start with Santorum. Conventional wisdom has it that he is the last non-Romney standing purely by process of elimination. Various alternatives to Romney had their days in the sun, were subject to public scrutiny, and then declined as their flaws became apparent. Santorum is simply the last challenger to Romney because no one took him seriously until everyone else had self destructed. There is probably something to that.

But in another way Santorum is different from any other Republican front runner this primary season. He is the only one to give the lie to Paul Krugman when he said that any Republican candidate must be either totally clueless or totally cynical. Rick Santorum is neither cynical nor clueless, just crazy. But despite his craziness, he has a formidable intellect. Which emphasizes an important point, probably the only ray of hope to emerge from this primary. Cluelessness has become a liability among the Republican base.

It was not long ago that the Republican base reveled in its anti-intellectualism. They applauded George Bush when he boasted that he ignored the out-of-touch, liberal elitist experts with their reliance on facts and evidence and instead went with his gut. And even after facts and evidence turned out to be more reliable predictors of what was going on in Iraq than George Bush’s gut, they applauded Sarah Palin, who proudly held up her ignorance as proof of virtue. Sarah Palin might be considered peak cluelessness. But after a while the charm of a candidate whose best qualification for office was that she didn’t know what she was talking about started wearing off. If ignorance was virtue for Palin, it has proved to be a distinct liability for Bachman, Perry and Cain. Instead, Republicans turned to Gingrich, who at least plays the part of an intellectual. And their reasons are revealing. They wanted Gingrich to show Obama up and prove that he was smarter. Is it such a stretch to suggest that Santorum may have a similar appeal?

Much the same tendancy is at work in the intense conservative glee at the drubbing Obama’s Solicitor General got in front of the Supreme Court at the hands of the conservative justices, and the brilliant showing by Paul Clement. And the deepest glee was not just the prospect of destroying Obamacare, root and branch, but of showing those snooty liberals that they aren’t so smart after all.

All of which causes me a strong suspicion about conservative anti-intellectualism. I suspect a lot of it is just sour grapes. Conservatives don't oppose knowledge and expertise at all. What they resent is that the experts keep reaching conclusions they don’t like. Wonks who reach acceptable opinions, and put forth a strong intellectual case for them are a different matter altogether. And what rankles even more than that is liberals’ patronizing sense of intellectual superiority, together with a strong suspicion (probably accurate) that the pose of intellectual superiority covers a sense of moral superiority.

So, once again, I have some suggestions for my fellow liberals (that they will never hear). You can’t do much about the first problem. If the facts suggest that evolution, global warming, tax cuts costing revenue, or whatever are correct, it would ruin our integrity to deny these conclusions just to politically pander. Besides (a) the people we are lying to would undoubtedly recognize the lies and be unimpressed, and (b) ignoring unpleasant facts won’t make them go away. Sooner or later, they have to be dealt with. But if we should not adjust our conclusions to suit conservative sensibilities, can we at least drop the attitude of intellectual superiority? Make no mistake, that attitude is one of Democrats' greatest weaknesses among the white working class.