Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Could you please expand the section on Foucault? At the moment there is nothing there and I think it is unfair on the person themselves if someone gives them a label without explaining why. Also it is out of my own personal interest that I found out why you critise Foucault.--Lamb12 21:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

Pachyderm 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's right-hand man, is a liberal? By what standard? Jonquil

"When Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination to Nixon, Kissinger told Dean Brown, an American diplomat, that he would have to abstain. "I could never vote for Nixon, of course, and that clown Humphrey would never make a President." Publicly he called Nixon "the most dangerous" of the candidates." [1] Rob Smith 18:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)
Anyone that didn't want to vote for Nixon is a liberal? Really? Don't you want to spend a bit more time thinking about this one? --Favre4Pope 18:39, 21 November 2007 (EST)
You may be missing the point; Nelson Rockefeller is considered a liberal Republican; indeed "Rockefeller Republican" is still the common term used to refer to liberal Republicans. Henry Kissinger was a Rockefeller Republican, and was one of Nelson Rockefeller's closest advisers. When Nixon beat Rocky for the '68 GOP nomination, Kissinger was a survivor of Rocky's organization who made to the White House. Kissinger voted against Nixon in the primaries.
So the idea that Nixon & Kissinger are Siamese twins is just, once again, pure liberal crap. Nothing surprising in that, really. Rob Smith 20:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)
You should quit playing dumb and deal with the conversation directly, rather than pussy-footing around irrelevant gibberish. --Favre4Pope 20:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)
The question was answered point blank, duh.
BTW, is there a hint of anti-Catholicism in your user name? Rob Smith 20:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
The more Richard Nixon relied on Henry Kissinger, the less conservative Nixon became. Conservatives always knew that Kissinger was not conservative, and for that reason Ronald Reagan resisted the intense liberal pressure to include Kissinger as an adviser.--Aschlafly 00:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)


I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,

  • A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
  • A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
  • A Governor/President of the United States
  • An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
  • A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
  • A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
  • A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
  • A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
  • A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
  • A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
  • An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
  • A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work

Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals." While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--Bayes 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is ad hominemism not a Liberal activity?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:
for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
(Matthew 7)
Godspeed JSmith 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
The above liberal protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.
Bayes illustrates the liberal love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the Wizard of Oz, Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other liberals. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed liberals. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow liberals instead.
JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by liberals. You even cite the Bible. Are you a real devotee to the Bible???
Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the liberal style entry.--Aschlafly 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ad hominem fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--Bayes 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. Teller's H-Bomb. The Founding Father's U.S. Constitution. The liberal obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow liberals, is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the Wizard of Oz.--Aschlafly 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--Bayes 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Add-on: I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--Bayes 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
If you think the liberals on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--Aschlafly 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[2] --Rutm 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--Aschlafly 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--Bayes 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Bayes, you continue to cite liberal awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.
Someone should do an article on Heather Wilson, which includes her past achievements. --Rutm 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Teller did real physics. Oppenheimer was the manager at Los Alamos who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.
Your question about whether someone can be liberal and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--Aschlafly 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ad hominem attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the Oppenheimer-Phillips process, and the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--Bayes 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my Bible citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example Shakespeare, and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed JSmith 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of liberal style, now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:
  • #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
  • #25) using non sequiturs in argument
Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--Aschlafly 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK blocked him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? BLocke 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

"Richard Dawkins lasted only 2 years teaching at University of California, Berkeley, a mere lecturer at Oxford until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him"

Oh, a mere lecturer at Oxford? And Bush's resume is so much more impressive than that. - Barry Sherman

Bush does not use his credentials to claim any intellectual superiority.--Aschlafly 13:05, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

And? That article is obviously an attempt to make liberals look intellectually inferior. - Barry Sherman


An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

  • Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
  • Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
  • Women should give birth to every baby conceived
  • Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
  • The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
  • Discrimination cannot be quantified
  • Women are inferior to men
  • Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
  • The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

OldFaithful 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--Aschlafly 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

  • Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
  • Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
  • Abortion harms health
  • Ceasefires are pointless
  • Arms limitation treaties are pointless
  • Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
  • Genders are not equal
  • African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
  • The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? OldFaithful 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--Aschlafly 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

  • Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
  • Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
  • Abortion harms health
  • In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
  • Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
  • Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
  • Genders are not equal
  • African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
  • The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. OldFaithful 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. OldFaithful 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Do not try to insert deceit here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --şŷ�?ô�?-₮KṢ�?ёаќǃ 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. OldFaithful 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 rule is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--Aschlafly 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, AncientSage 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)


In reply to your list above:

   * Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See Laffer Curve.

   * Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See John Lott.

   * Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

   * In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the communist North Vietnamese.

   * Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a deceitful enemy, like the communist Soviet Union.

   * Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

   * Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the 19th amendment be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --Rutm 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[3], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[4]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --Rutm 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. OldFaithful 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

   * African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by liberal attempts to analogize the two.

   * The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty 

Obviously true. Even Jesus observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--Aschlafly 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

  • Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
  • Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
  • And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
  • "Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
  • Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, OldFaithful 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting abortion), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).
The 90/10 rule against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--Aschlafly 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. NewFaithful 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. Worshipper 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

real intellectuals

i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. AuH2O

  • And yet his college record, and two degrees, from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. AuH2O


may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? Pachyderm 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't resist

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? Graham 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. Graham 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

"intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals"

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --Jenkins 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. Rob Smith 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.
Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --Jenkins 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

This whole section is pretty dumb and should be deleted. I don't think whoever authored it understands what a psuedo-intellectual is. Harvard professors and world class mathematicians are not psuedo-intellectuals, they are the very definition of intellectuals. ----grah 09:45 27 February 2008 (EST)

Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War

Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the Cold War:

"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in Russia a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a planned society. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called socialists. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.
"They indignantly deny the imputation of communism. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for Stalin and his gang.[1] Rob Smith 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  1. While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It, John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, pg. 37 - 38 pdf.


Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. Maestro 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[5] Rob Smith 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Both were privileged. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? Maestro 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

a few comments

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --BillOhannity 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual?

Stephen Hawking, despite his worldwide-recognized advancements in the fields of theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, as well as his contributions to other subfields of NOT an intellectual? I'm baffled by that claim, as I never even contemplated that someone would argue against his being considered an intellectual, if not one of the most brilliant physicists of our time. --Jdellaro 13:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I also think this is incredibly bizzare. Hawking was wrong about black holes? So?

He was right about Hawking radiation (hence the name)and is considered one of the world leading astrophysicists by liberals and conservatives. And Carl Sagan made great strides in exobiology. Really strange ideas here Aschlafly. Darwin a poor student? So was Einstein. How about - George W Bush, privilaged youth, poor student, ran several companies into the ground, bailed out by his father, can barely speak coherent english, has some of the worst approval ratings of any president and is disliked the world over. MetcalfeM 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-MexMax 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier. MetcalfeM 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-MexMax 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough :-) MetcalfeM 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--Aschlafly 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide. MetcalfeM 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading liberal as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--Aschlafly 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks. MetcalfeM 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

When Hawking met the Pope in Rome in the 1990s, he demanded to see where Galileos trial took place. Although the Pope was an elderly and physically unwell man, Hawking had no problem putting him through distress to meet his ends. There is no doubt, from anyone who has studied Hawking and his political positions, that he is an avowed Liberal, and as a Liberal 'academic', deserves to be mentioned in the list. There is no such thing as an intelligent Liberal. BenSchumin 07:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)


Kerry: Fought for his country Gore: Actually look at the link you provided on the 'net Bill Clinton: "may have virtually". So he might have almost? Dawkins: Lecturer at Oxford is still very prestigious Stephen Jay Gould: Any evidence for that? Tribe: A professor at Harvard McNamara: successfully managed the world bank Oppenheimer: was key in developing the bomb (so what about leaks?) Jon Stewart: No evidence at all Chomsky: Actually, he did make significant advances in linguistics, not just "guesses" Keynes: Policies still used today, influenced Hayek and Friedman as well Foucault: See Jon stewart Rachel Carson: Found to have errata by whom? Bertrand Russell: He won a nobel in literature Ward Churchill: Managed to become professor nonetheless Sulzerberger: That says nothing about academic credentials. The same argument could apply to President bush Darwin: How? Give evidence Sagan: Again, more evidence. How do we know he was wrong? Maybe his claim made sense. Clinton: What does that say about the rest of her career?

Since I would like to be banned by this website, I would like to say CENSORED

It is interesting how the Liberal places so much weight on winning a Nobel Prize. The Liberal obviously doesn't understand that the Nobel Prize is merely an award given by Liberals to other Liberals. Notice how the Liberal engages in the act of Deceit and the use of Profanity, a favoured Liberal Style in debates. BenSchumin 07:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Gore Link

A slight problem- the link posted for Al Gore actually argues that he didn't claim that he invented the internet. --Dollfuss

You're right: the link was to liberal claptrap. I've replaced it with Gore's actual quote and a link to the transcript.--Aschlafly 14:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Democrat v. Democratic

Rather than actually explain this to JPatt, I thought I'd share the lesson with all. If you read Jpatt's recent addition, you may (or may not) have determined it was supposed to be an "example" of "liberal intellectualism" to clarify between Democrat and Democratic. But in trying to explain it, Jpatt gets it all wrong. Democrats (correctly used) prefer not to be referred to as Democrat Senators, Democrat Representative, or the Democrat Party. Democrat is a NOUN, Democratic is an ADJECTIVE. Now, Jpatt is not an American, so we'll allow that perhaps he's not aware of the difference in the American language. To use Democrat as an adjective is considered a pejorative, and quite clearly explained here: Wikipedia: Democrat Party (phrase). Now that it's cleared up, I think we can all agree that the difference between a noun and an adjective isn't a "liberal intellectualism" trait, but rather "third-grade English" knowledge. --Jareddr 19:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


I thing that this article belongs to mainspace. This is not a ideological stance, only for consistency with a series of other articles with a Liberal theme. I am sorry if I said something wrong. I am new here but already read many articles. LiaraTRP 15:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)


Why was my entry on MLK removed as a smear? Even PC-opedia (wikipedia) admits he plagarized parts of his dissertation. His sexual transgressions are no secret and covered in his biography Let the Trumpet Sound by Stephen Oates (p. 265, 283) and its no secret he took most of his ideas from Gandhi and Thoreau, among others. It's all true. -Mike LaTorres

Grammar lesson

== Superiority Complex ==
The liberal believes they are superior to others.

One should decide beforehand whether to render this in the singular or in the plural, either:
"The liberal believes he is superior..." or
"Liberals believe they are..."
That done, the entirety of the next sentence could be incorporated into the preceeding:

The liberals believe that they are mentally superior to others, claiming the intellectual high ground and warding away challengers with ridicule and other rhetorical devices that serve nothing more than to mock and deride.

The next part is just silly. Democrat is a noun, democratic is an adjective. Once those facts are accepted then the etymological screed below is seen in a different light.

A good example is the classic Democrats versus Democratics statement. Liberal Intellectualism will say that it is not proper to use the sentence with the word Democrats, it must be proper, so it must be Democratics. However, 'Democrats' will suffice rather well and the reader understands regardless. There are many instances where Democratic politicians use the word Democrats. Howard Dean says "Democrats have a lot of work to do among seniors." The nation's liberal newspapers use the word Democrats. Google's spellcheck prefers Democrats. The website for congress is addressed '' Excuses for insisting are endless and a part of Liberal Intellectualism thinking.

Please endeavor to learn and know the basics of the language you are trying to write in before attempting to incorporate your thoughts into cogent arguments. Thank you. Marge 16:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Rhodes Scholarship

The Rhodes Scholarship is political, and not given primarily based on academic merit. Hence the reversion was made.--Aschlafly 17:27, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

This is from the Rhodes website:
"Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead. The Rhodes Scholarships, in short, are investments in individuals rather than in project proposals. Accordingly, applications are sought from talented students without restriction as to their field of academic specialization or career plans although the proposed course of study must be available at Oxford, and the applicant's undergraduate program must provide a sufficient basis for further study in the proposed field. Through the years, Rhodes Scholars have pursued studies in all of the varied fields available at the University of Oxford."

MichaelAnderson 17:35, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

What do you expect its website to say ... that it welcomes pre-med dropouts having political ambitions???--Aschlafly 17:59, 28 August 2008 (EDT)


I am shocked that Feynman is on this list. The criticism that his work was theoretical rather than practical is an irrelevance, and given the enormous yield of his work it isn't even entirely true. Feynman diagrams have revolutionized how we look at QFT, and his work on quantum computing, including establishing the concept, have to count. Trinity123

I removed him from the list. --Ed Poor Talk 15:51, 6 February 2009 (EST)


Why is Linus Pauling on this list? He revolutionized the field of chemistry, and a lot of what he discovered is still taught in chemistry classes over a half century later. His position on vitamin C might have been misguided, but it shouldn't overshadow his previous work, and the fact that he was awarded two Nobel Prizes (I know that the Nobel Prize is ofter dismissed as a liberal pat on the back, but since it's mentioned as a reason Oppenheimer is included on this list, I figured that it's relevant).

I know nothing of the man, public school educated. There are a few individuals on the list with other unmentioned contributions but their influences on liberal deceit merit making this list. I did not create this list and maybe you should direct your request to the author.--Jpatt 20:58, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
I apologize, I thought that this essay was trying to discredit liberal scientists as not having real achievements, not just pointing out geniuses that happen to be liberal. Btw, Pauling is the person who came up with the property of electronegativity, and hypothesized the hybridization of atomic orbitals, he is certainly a giant in the field of chemistry. --MattF5034 21:17, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for your catch. I cleared apparent vandalism out, and feel free to edit it yourself.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 12 October 2009 (EDT)


It seems sort of biased to me Jehosephat25 16:50, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Hemingway Overrated

On what grounds? I consider a lot of liberal writers overrated but Hemingway's work was very substantial and he was clearly a genius despite his failings. But why is he considered overrated? And if so, how overrated? Enough that he doesn't qualify as a true intellectual? KingHanksley 13:38, 5 May 2011 (EDT) Bertrand Russell was a genius too. We need to stop equating "wrong about the most important thing" with "wrong about everything."KingHanksley 13:41, 5 May 2011 (EDT)


CP needs an article on Intellectualism. Since this page is collaborative, perhaps it's time to move it from Essay space to mainspace. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:16, 11 February 2020 (EST)