How serious a problem is anti-intellectualism?

March 19, 2002 4:02 PM

How serious a problem is anti-intellectualism? Is it that the academy is out of touch and treacherous? Or are the public egged on to ignore and deprecate the wisdom of left-wing intellectuals by a cynical media, as this author alleges? [more inside]
posted by Gaz (36 comments total)

The whole 'intellectuals are betraying America' angle has been done to death (for and against), so let's assume that at least some of the time these intellectuals are right, but the public won't listen. Why is that, and can it be stopped? And is this a good explanation for the increasingly abusive tone of discourse from some on the populist right?

For what it's worth, the author of this piece, Mark Crispin Miller, has been discussed here before.
posted by Gaz at 4:03 PM on March 19, 2002

Gaz, IMHO unfairly attempting to control the debate with your first response, by insisting we assume as correct something many of us believe is not true, before even starting the discussion.

Anyway, if you want a literal response to the first question: It's not a problem at all, except to the intellectuals worried about the reputation of their chosen occupation (inasmuch as "intellectual" is a job title, anyway) and the decreasing relevance of what they have to say to the public at large.
posted by aaron at 4:17 PM on March 19, 2002

Sorry aaron, maybe I struck the wrong tone, but I didn't want to start yet another discussion about intellectuals as fifth columnists. Just to balance things out, here's a take on the issue from Robert Nozick that may be more to your taste. And since you think I've moderated the post too much already, I'll shut up now.
posted by Gaz at 4:23 PM on March 19, 2002

Intellectualism has, for a long time, been a vocation -- yet another specialty in an age of specialization. It shouldn't be a professional interest, with gatekeepers and hierarchies and a spoils system, but it is, and that's primarily where intellectualism now finds its home -- not in the general population.

I don't know how to react to this article. On the one hand, I've been upset for years at the proud thinking-is-painful-ism of so many people ("When I see a movie, I don't want to have to think; I just like to turn my brain off" etc.). On the other hand, an article about by an author about how irrational responses to his book prove that anti-intellectualism is on the rampage -- well, it's all a bit self-serving.

I don't know when America has had a particularly lively or widespread intellectual tradition, if ever. We've been principally known as an emotive people -- impulsive, individualistic and, as a paradoxical result, liable to harshly policed conformity. But intellectual? Not really.

The rise of the professional class of thinkers, which I find distasteful (albeit for different reasons than Dubya), may not have displaced intellectualism in society -- meaning, it may not have been there to begin with. But it does give the anti-intellectuals a neatly formed target, title and all.
posted by argybarg at 4:25 PM on March 19, 2002

The author of this article is a complete idiot. I agree that Bush is a moron, but he can't be much dumber than Miller. He's hardly in a position to defend intellectualism in general. And what an asshole. It's not so much an article about anti-intellectualism as it is about why nobody bought his book.
posted by bingo at 4:25 PM on March 19, 2002

The guy's got a good writing style, and i agree with a lot of what he says, but he seems to set up a straw man in his critics (simply by pointing out the worst of them and knocking them down) and risks becoming hypocritical while trying to prove his point.

However, i do have to say that "you can drop the books, put on your goggles and your rubber boots, and venture forth into the endless shitstorm that is now our civic culture" is one of the best lines i've read in a while. Too bad it gave me higher expectations for the whole article.
posted by Ufez Jones at 4:39 PM on March 19, 2002

I'm not sure anti-intellectualism is a problem - if we all can agree that there are idiots throughout the political spectrum. Intellectualism itself, and how it masquerades, is the 'problem' we should deal with.

Of course, I could just be labeled an anti-intellectual and dismissed forthwith.

This much is clear from the incurable selective blindness of the anti-intellectuals, who can perceive the hated caste of academic privilege only insofar as it includes "the left."

Replace "the left" with "the right" and the argument seems to dissolve into some kind of political inferiority complex. While I think the selective blindness is untrue, feeding the delusion is the best way to rant about a 'problem' with a few people that could easily have been ignored. Anti-intellectuals deserve neither Mr. Miller's raving or consideration within an honest debate. But we've forgotten the lines between the anti- and the intellectual. To a point, it seems with Mr. Miller, that anyone who disagrees with his "meticulous analysis" is anti- whether they really are or not.

The academic world, esp. on college campuses is, and I think it is safe to say, more decidedly liberal than conservative. But mentioning that isn't necessarily without merit. I remember Harvey C. Mansfield on Booknotes talking about how he was among the very few conservatives at Harvard University. He didn't seem exactly bitter about it. It seems to be merely a comment on the 'academics' in colleges.

Any act of critical intelligence, any reasoned effort to see through the mask of power, enrages types like Fred.

Such as with this quote. Any act... that could see through the mask of [insert here] of Mr. Miller enrages him. He gets to write about it. It seems also that he needs to stop thinking of himself as some uber-intellectual who is unerring and oppressed.
posted by alethe at 4:44 PM on March 19, 2002

Yeah the word shitstorm can do that. Kindof like skullfuck or shopworn.

I think intellectual culture in this country is a little short-sighted. They don't seem to understand that it is their duty as clever bastards to educate everybody and generally do everything they can to make things right. They are not here to be angry, or to dissent in the classroom. We really don't need any more Millers - we could use some Naders or Ghandis or Guy Foxes, however.

Not like they're that clever anyway. One of the most conceited groups of people in the country imho. It doesn't say much about the intelligence of our government when it thinks intellectuals are a threat.
posted by Settle at 4:46 PM on March 19, 2002

Gaz, you pussy, grow some frickin' balls already!! How DARE you back off your position with a little shoving from aaron.

The first 3 comments of this thread illustrate the point exactly: Gaz makes a not unreasonable point: intellectuals- y'know, smart, well-read, well-educated, thoughtful people- are sometimes right. Aaron lashes back by suggesting this clearly isn't true (???). Immediately, Gaz retracts in a "Please don't hit me! Not in the face!" manner, kowtowing about his apparent hubris in attempting to craft a starting point into the discussion he himself began.

The problem is not that intellectuals- who aren't, as some are seeming to suggest, a bunch of black-bereted chain smoking Frenchies effetely stating things like "God, ee eez dead, no?!"- are wrong all the time, nor that they aren't occasionally of the isolated-from-the-laboratory-of-real-life persuasion. The problem is that the damned pansies never fight back against bullies with the courage of their convictions.

As for the political relativism; I fail to see where the "liberal" or "left-wing" is ranting and raving about conservatism in this country being too eggheaded. You might make a case that there is a demonization going in the other direction as well, but you'd be hard pressed to show it is a demonization of the right by the left on the basis of anti-intellectualism.
posted by hincandenza at 4:57 PM on March 19, 2002

It's not so much an article about anti-intellectualism as it is about why nobody bought his book.

Bingo, er, bingo.

Seems like it reduces to "Nobody is buying my book. Nobody is reviewing my book. Can't be because it's just one minor, uninteresting book out of hundreds of thousands or minor, uninteresting books published in the last year. No. Clearly it is important, because I am important. It must be because it speaks uncomfortable truths the masses can't understand, or don't want to awaken to, or that damn Roger Ailes at Fox has rigged the whole country against me. So I took it to the masses. The masses tossed it back, and used language beneath the level I think they should. Maybe I can at least salvage something by writing articles about the stupidity of the masses that didn't buy my book."

The whole article is little more than a bruised ego trying to take the pain of rejection every author feels when his/her book fails in the marketplace, and externalize it into some sort of societal crisis. I lived in a writer's community for awhile (Missoula Montana - several MeFi'ers know of it) - for every one book that sells even enough to pay for it's print run, there are a thousand that go nowhere - and behind each is a lot of effort and work. Rejection of one's hard work - by the American population - on a subject one believes in hurts deeply. But it hardly constitutes the galloping of the Four Horsemen of some intellectual Apocolypse.

If anything worries me - it is not the wild and bombastic world of internet email slammin' away off the cuff - such people don't generally even pretend to be intellectuals. No, it is articles like this one - written by "intellectuals", yet showing little evidence of the sort of careful reflection and self-awareness that used to characterize the intelligensia.

The fruit is not being bruised by rocks thrown from without ... it is rotting away from within.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:06 PM on March 19, 2002

The problem is that the damned pansies never fight back against bullies with the courage of their convictions.

"Eggheads of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your yolks!" - Adlai Stevenson.
posted by liam at 5:10 PM on March 19, 2002

Miller's certainly right about Bill O'Reilly's hilarious man o' the people schtick. Demonizing academics is always a good, easy way to appeal to the over-worked and underpaid.

It's not a problem at all, except to the intellectuals worried about the reputation of their chosen occupation (inasmuch as "intellectual" is a job title, anyway)

Touchy, touchy. you're right, though: intellectual isn't really a job description. The term originated during the Dreyfus Affair, as a dismissive epithet used by flag wavers attempting to head off any actual analysis of the subject at hand.

and the decreasing relevance of what they have to say to the public at large.

There will always be a need for historical analysis. One may disagree with the politics of the analyst, but attempting to discredit intellectuals as "irrelevant" is righty wishful thinking. In times of national crisis there are always such calls from the peanut gallery.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:11 PM on March 19, 2002

Touchy, touchy.

Yeah, maybe ... but you know how Wile. E. Coyote's business card reads "Genius"? That's what I always think of whenever I see someone describe themselves as an "intellectual." It just seems like one of those terms that, for reasons of common etiquette if nothing else, others should determine apply to you, rather than you determine applies to yourself.

One may disagree with the politics of the analyst, but attempting to discredit intellectuals as "irrelevant" is righty wishful thinking.

Now now, I didn't say irrelevant, I said decreased relevance. And I do think that a very sizable percentage of society at large - both private citizens and members of the government - have increasingly dismissed intellectuals as a group post-9/11 because of the shrillness and (as interpreted by them, whether correct or not) raging anti-Americanism of their output.
posted by aaron at 5:18 PM on March 19, 2002

Wow, I never though the claim that intellectuals are sometimes right would be so controversial. Wouldn't it be bizarre if there were an inverse correlation between the serious study of a subject and reaching sensible conclusions about that subject? And yet in order to believe that intellectuals were never right and the public wrong you'd have to believe in just such a correlation. I imagine that people accept that historians might have something interesting to say about history, or that english professors might have some worthwhile views on literature. But obviously political philosophers and political scientists aren't worth listening to when it comes to politics, oh no.
posted by Gaz at 5:23 PM on March 19, 2002

For the most part -in my experience- thinking in this country is regarded with suspicion. We are a people rooted in accomplishment, and those who think and those who do are often not the same people.

It is generally accorded better to do...something...anything...rather than nothing. And thinking is often considered 'nothing' since many thinkers are not doers. Things are done by people who have unearthed what someone else has thought (and not done) and gone ahead and did it. There are exceptions, of course.

Thus the doers grow to think that the thinkers don't do. And the thinkers do think that the doers don't. And the fruits of our land are perceived as conceptions of accomplishment rather than accomplishments of conceptions. And the haranguing, self-absorbed style of self-proclaimed intellectuals further their disenfranchisement from lower-watt bulbs who actually get off their ass and do something. Still, it is unsettling that --after all this time-- it is still vaguely insulting to be considered too smart.

Do people just get tired of high-handed, insufferable superiority?

I do.

I think.
posted by umberto at 5:31 PM on March 19, 2002

It just seems like one of those terms that, for reasons of common etiquette if nothing else, others should determine apply to you, rather than you determine applies to yourself.

I agree, and the Wile E. Coyote metaphor is perfect. But wasn't it " Wile E. Coyote: Suuuuuuper Genius"? Thing is, all political persuasions have their own intellectuals, whom they trot out whnever appropriate. When an intellectual supports my point of view he is to be referred to as an expert; when he supports a different point of view, he is to be labeled an intellectual/elitist, and his views immediately dismissed. This is known as O'Reilly's Law.

And I do think that a very sizable percentage of society at large - both private citizens and members of the government - have increasingly dismissed intellectuals as a group post-9/11 because of the shrillness and (as interpreted by them, whether correct or not) raging anti-Americanism of their output.

Government, in its real day to day operations, pays as much attention to intellectuals/experts as it ever did. If not for the work of such (for both parties), the government would cease to function. 9/11 has, however, been used to great effect to head off or discredit substantive analysis, through appeals to "national unity" just as it was during the Dreyfus case.

And characterizing intellectuals as raging anti-Americans is just nonsense, and plays right into the approved storyline. Some are, most aren't. They're work deserves to be examined on its own merits, regardless.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:36 PM on March 19, 2002

The thing about intellectuals is it generally takes at least a century after they've died for others to start following their ideas. Non-intellectuals are OK - just very, very slow. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:38 PM on March 19, 2002

Their work.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:38 PM on March 19, 2002

Government, in its real day to day operations, pays as much attention to intellectuals/experts as it ever did. If not for the work of such (for both parties), the government would cease to function. 9/11 has, however, been used to great effect to head off or discredit substantive analysis, through appeals to "national unity" just as it was during the Dreyfus case.


Well, but the tide always washes in and out, and intellectual currents move from one extreme to the other. 9/11 did supress "substantive analysis" of some topics. But by the same token, prior to 9/11 a "substantive analysis" of something like global trade was also quite difficult. Anyone attempting to make a rational case for it was shouted down. People that burned McDonalds' were on the verge of being invited to the WTO table courtesy of Clinton - and not because of the rigor of their intellectual arguments.

I suspect 9/11 simply intensified a trend that was already underway. We had 8 years of Clinton. The people now being supressed were - but a short time ago - supressing. 'Tis just the swing of the pendulum.

The thing left unmentioned up to now in this thread is that intellectuals - left or right - are every bit as fad oriented, as often petty, vindictive, and combative as any other segment of society. A Hitchens/Chomsky dispute is little other than a slightly higher spiral of a WWF grudge match between a couple of overdeveloped thugs. Only difference being that the WWF thugs don't think they occupy some universe superior to the rest of the population.

(I remember reading a couple of years ago - not sure where - that Woodrow Wilson, who served as the President of Princeton University prior to being elected President of the US, was asked whether being a university president had in any way prepared him for leading the country ... to which he answered that university politics were far more nasty and brutal than national politics were ...).

The thing about intellectuals is it generally takes at least a century after they've died for others to start following their ideas. Non-intellectuals are OK - just very, very slow.

Possibly, possibly not. Remember - for each intellectual whose ideas do stand the test of time, and are accepted a century after they die - there are thousands whose ideas went nowhere, contributed little, and turn to dust on the intellectual landscape. And the intellectuals themselves seem no better at picking the ones that will last than the rest of the population. As 'ol Tom Robbins said, ideas are made by masters, dogma by disciples, and the Buddha is always killed on the road.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:25 PM on March 19, 2002

Gaz: I imagine that people accept that historians might have something interesting to say about history, or that english professors might have some worthwhile views on literature. But obviously political philosophers and political scientists aren't worth listening to when it comes to politics, oh no.

This guy Miller is a professor of media studies, not political science or philosophy. I'm not saying that those fields don't overlap at all, but he doesn't fit very squarely into your analogy. And as far as the foils you set up go, there are in fact a lot of professors who don't have a lot of worthwhile things to say about their chosen subject matter (though of course many of them do).

aaron: That's what I always think of whenever I see someone describe themselves as an "intellectual." It just seems like one of those terms that, for reasons of common etiquette if nothing else, others should determine apply to you, rather than you determine applies to yourself.

Eh. I don't think so. You don't have to be humble to be an intellectual. And, for that matter, you don't need validation from the outside world to be an intellectual, either. That being said, you can certainly call yourself one when you're not, and then accuse naysayers of failing to appreciate your intellect. I think it's safe to say that the idiot who wrote the article is in that category.
posted by bingo at 6:35 PM on March 19, 2002

)®??racterizing intellectuals as raging anti-Americans is just nonsense, and plays right into the approved storyline.

Conversely, anti-intellectualism in America has a long tradition.
posted by liam at 7:06 PM on March 19, 2002

Well, "don't boo-hoo for Tuvalu," says Pat Michaels – at least not yet. "Sea level around Tuvalu has been declining for the past 50 years" because the sea has been getting colder, says Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute who teaches climatology at the University of Virginia.(*)

I think intellectual is a very flexible word; people seem only to use it when they want to abuse someone they think is shrill and anti-American. What has always struck me is why people would obfuscate the matter when we have perfectly good words for those traits already.

There are more valuable questions to ask: 1) Why is public discourse different and academic discourse? 2) Which is better for establishing truth? 3) Whose interests does it serve to use one form of argument over another?
posted by rschram at 7:43 PM on March 19, 2002

rschram, those don't sound like questions; they sound like statements disguised as questions. And the meaning and use of the word "shrill" is something that is actually discussed rather hotly in certain academic (feminist) circles.
posted by bingo at 8:18 PM on March 19, 2002

"Wile. E. Coyote's business card reads "Genius"?" Thing is...he had no wisdom. Just another animal pushing rocks uphill.
posted by clavdivs at 9:03 PM on March 19, 2002

I think if you asked the average person in the US to name a famous intellectual, you'd probably get "Einstein". If asked to name another one, there would probably be a pretty long pause. The average person thinks about intellectuals about as often as you think about chimney sweeps.

UNLESS...it's an election year. Then, intellectuals occasionally reach national prominence as scapegoats for (insert problem here) as perceived by (add name of right-wing politician here).

Those of you around in the '60's may recall George Wallace ranting about "pointy-headed intellectuals that can't park their bicycles straight". I don't recall exactly what he didn't like about these angularly craniated people, but I seem to recall that they were in league with the "briefcase totin' beaureaucrats", so it was obviously a conspiracy.

George found that they make ideal scapegoats. As you can tell in this article, they speak a strange, whiny multisyllabic language not easily understood by the plain folk. This renders whatever defenses they offer mostly incomprehensible.

It's nothing new. But the author claims to be able to divine some sort of insight into the mind of GW based on his "meticulous analysis both of Bush's off-the-cuff remarks and of their treatment by the stalwarts of the media". That's about like reading the future by staring at chicken entrails. Perhaps in this case it's not anti-intellectualism, it's just anti-bullshit.
posted by groundhog at 9:03 PM on March 19, 2002

I think the author should have gone into the root cause of American anti-intellectualism. Since he did not, here goes nothing.

There is a perception that intellectuals consider themselves to be better than 'common people'. To some extent, this is probably true, and I think this is what most anti-intellectuals are reacting to. Our nation is so hell-bent on achieving uniform equality that we consider the opinions of any one man to be equally as valid as that of any other man. I mean, if all men are created equal, then anything they think is equal to anything another man thinks, right? After this assumption of equality has been established, any man that deigns to declare his opinion as higher than that of another becomes suspect. "How arrogant to assume that your ideas about politics, philosophy, and religion are better than mine!" cries the common man. This is the sort of person who would prefer to have everyone equal in slavery rather than inequal in gifts.

The other reason, in my opinion, that our nation seems rampantly anti-intellectual (Bill O'Reilly, anti intellectual cheerleader), is the perception that academics are the first to challenge political, social, and religious mores. People see academics as radical enemies of their traditional way of life. For example, as a general population, it seems that a large percentage of intellectuals agree with socialism, while the general population probably does not (Bastiat said this is because the intellectuals believe that if socialism were enacted, they would be the central planners). When you hear the crazy stories about the 'artist' here or there that is experimenting with different ways of using poop to represent the human condition, the knee-jerk response is "those crazy intellectuals." This is of course, a misunderstanding. You only hear in the major media about the pedantic, radical academics, because that makes interesting news. And so the man who styles himself to be an everyday Joe develops distrust, then disdain, and eventually outright hatred for intellectuals.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:59 PM on March 19, 2002

This is of course, a misunderstanding. Probably because the media portrayal of academia is one of a decidedly narrow and provincial variety, where everyone holds the same ideas in their luxurious ivory towers, free from the workaday life to think up 'crazy shit'.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:02 PM on March 19, 2002

I truly believe that the left is where to be. For the past two hundred years, and beyond that, our societies have been moving leftward. However, the reason why we have a right and a center is that people cannot make gigantic leaps in thinking overnight. And sometimes the left is incorrect.

Common sense, right? I don’t think so. I believe that intellectual is the incorrect word to describe these people. Possibly philosophers or who knows what, but the term “intellectual” connotes that the right does not think. This obviously is not true. For as many non-thinkers on the right, there are an equal number on the left. My honest belief is that average people do not think because they are not required to do so.

We’ve become such specialized creatures that we forget to think about the world; to understand the world. Whether I’m a Republican businessman or a Democratic businessman, we seem to focus only upon our career and our immediate surroundings.

Philosophers (my new term) have a greater purpose in life. They tend to ignore small-picture issues and see a larger picture. They think because this is their specialization. And the rest of the country categorizes them as head-in-the-cloud persons.

People aren’t anti-intellectual. People are lazy and only focus on issues that immediately benefit themselves. Professors think because they are paid to do it. Businessmen are paid to make money (excuse my confusing description). Priests are paid to preach. Thinking is something we all can do. We can’t all be intellectuals, but intellectuals aren’t all on the left.

Ask yourself this: Why bother thinking about society, our future progresses, and possibilities when you can be paid to do something else? This entire debate, in my mind, is foolish. If you think, deeply think, about more than your career and family, you are an intellectual. If you are paid to do it, you’re a professor and philosopher.

This isn’t about intellectuals or thinkers. This entire debate boils down to left vs. right. This article is a pathetic attempt to polarize the audience. Ridiculous. We really have better things to do than separate ourselves into more categories, right?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:50 PM on March 19, 2002

This thread reminds me of a piece I once read--wish I could remember if it was by Harlan Ellison or maybe Gene Roddenberry--about the anti-intellectual bias in all Star Trek plots. Every week, the crisis would be resolved by the emotional Kirk, not the brains of the outfit, Spock. This was the formula, not to be deviated from.
The one Ellison-written episode (best of the lot IMHO), "The City On the Edge of Forever," may be the exception to the rule--Bones has to accept that Joan Collins must die so her pacifism movement will not change history by enabling a Nazi victory in the coming war.
But the anti-intellectual bias was not limited to Star Trek--it's long been a Hollywood standard. Every "egghead" film role is usually a comic figure--nerds with taped hornrims and pocket protector and high-water pants and no social skills; geniuses made to look like idiot-savants. It's just Hollywood pandering to the lowest common denominator as always.
posted by StOne at 11:13 PM on March 19, 2002

St0ne, that makes it sound like the only movies you have ever watched came out between 1985 and 1992.
posted by bingo at 2:12 AM on March 20, 2002

There seems to be a bit more to being an intellectual than simply working within the University. For example Albert Einstein is still praised as a leading intellectual figure of the post-war United States, in spite of the fact that this was his least productive period, while his good friend Godel was relatively ignored. Intellectualism seems to be related more to celebrity than actual practice or productivity.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:13 AM on March 20, 2002

In other news, stupid people are still stupid and credulous. And they are the majority.
posted by riviera at 4:54 AM on March 20, 2002

I agree with BlueTrain - although there are a small percentage who reflexively mistrust anyone they perceive as having more smarts than themselves, for the most part, people are not anti-intellectual.

Most people, after they've knocked around on the planet for a while, begin to trust their own perceptions about the world, based on their experiences. My grandmother used to say that the one good thing about getting old was the freedom to not really give a shit what other people think. I confess, as I've gotten older, I've become less likely to accept new "facts" that are based on theories or studies that seem to lack a "real world" connection, or that are counter to my own experiences.

The only groups of people I see as being "anti-intellectual" are some very conservative politicians and pundits who are able to play to the natural skepticism of the general population.
posted by groundhog at 6:09 AM on March 20, 2002

America isn't the only country where many people think intellectuals and academics are irrelevant and ineffectual. They're called the 'chattering classes' in the UK, the implication being that chattering is all they do. I used to read the Daily Mail in my youth (my mum bought it), and it would always bang on about how lefy intellectuals and academics had no 'common sense'. Of course common sense means whatever you want it to.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same stance is taken by right wing taboids and a large section of the population everywhere there's a free press.
posted by Summer at 8:20 AM on March 20, 2002

But by the same token, prior to 9/11 a "substantive analysis" of something like global trade was also quite difficult. Anyone attempting to make a rational case for it was shouted down.

Shouted down? Give me a break. There's no equivalence there at all, though it might be a pet issue. Pro-globalization sentiment has and continues to dominate the issue.

People that burned McDonalds' were on the verge of being invited to the WTO table courtesy of Clinton - and not because of the rigor of their intellectual arguments.

There you go again. Nobody burned a McDonald's, though I agree that "burned" makes for better propaganda than "smashed windows". The people making the rigorous intellectual arguments against corporate globalization were not the same as the thugs who destroyed property, though failling to make a distinction between the two groups also makes good propaganda. Way to follow the script!

Can you see the contradiction in your statement? On the one hand, pro-globalizers were regularly "shouted down" by the supposedly all powerful anti-trade forces, but on the other hand, anti-globalization demonstrators had to "burn (sic) a McDonalds" to get their case heard. Choose one, would you?
posted by Ty Webb at 9:12 AM on March 20, 2002

They're called the 'chattering classes' in the UK

...goes nicely with 'nattering nabobs of negatism', a phrase popularized by a former US vice-president.
posted by groundhog at 12:59 PM on March 20, 2002