“the group is too intellectual (too much Ivy League)”
Ah, that old saw. Liberals are too smart for their own good. Has there been a Democrat in the 20th century who wasn’t smarter than his Republican opponent?
Nevermind FDR’s personal academic credentials (it is widely known he was no book genius), his administration was run by the Brain Trust. We know they were smart, of course, because they were all socialists.
Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower because Ike (who lead the largest and most complicated invasion and subsequent campaign in the history of warfare) because the former was an “egghead”.
Carter was basically a nuclear scientist, for pete’s sake! Al Gore is mankind’s greatest climatologist. The less said about Reagan and Bush II the better.
Surely, we conservatives have been playing up the anti-elitist angle for a while. That’s not because we think they’re more intelligent than us, quite the opposite, in fact. Chris seems to think it is. Though I might remind him what party is more likely to back the masses and oppose aristocrats. Both parties back the mass—their own special mass—and neither have any real aristocrats, obviously. I’m just saying, which is MORE likely to be anti-elitist/pro-unitellectual (even if technically comprised of “intellectuals”; that is, intellectuals who have abandoned their intellectual heritage).
lead = led