SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (191881)6/17/2012 3:19:53 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 543851
 
But that's the point, assuming that a vote against the 64 civil rights act was "anti-intellectual," then Gore, who clearly was intellectual, voted against it because the majority of the people who voted him into office weren't. I.e., the south was anti-intellectual. Ed
As you might guess, I've concluded sometime back that the use of the term "anti-intellectual" hardly encompasses the place this discussion has taken us. And you can feel it in the obvious stretch you are trying to make with this post.

The point I'm making is a fairly small one in this entire debate. And that is a vote against civil rights is, on its face, not an anti-intellectual indicator; just a political survival technique. As for the point you make, Gore's reading, and most likely accurate reading, of his prospects for staying in the senate was he needed to do so to stay. It does mean that he read the Tennessee voting population was tilted toward opposition; it hardly means there was enough of a tilt to say, in a serious sense, that the "culture" was anti-intellectual. It simply means what it means, that he read his voting prospects as such and such.

Tennessee was also the home of one of the treasures of the civil rights movement, the Highlander School. Does the singular fact that it was never burned down but continued to operate, effectively, through the 50s and 60s, and, for that matter still exists today, evidence of an "intellectual" presence in Tennessee and enough resonance to say it damages an argument that the south is anti-intellectual. I hardly know but it does make such blanket assertions hard to maintain.

I'm about exhausted with this topic. If you want to keep going, I'll see if I find anything interesting for a reply. But I may just skip.