Posted on 11/05/2016 8:17:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
In a recent interview, conservative personality Ben Shapiro slammed Trump for – among other things – lacking a firm intellectual basis for his beliefs. “Trump’s nationalism isn’t rooted in American philosophy,” he said. “It’s more of a gut-level kind of patriotism.”
I agree. But so what? What’s wrong with “gut-level” patriotism? Most American soldiers who fight and die for this country are motivated by “gut-level” patriotism.
And it’s this kind of patriotism that animates most Republican voters as well. Their vote is instinctual, not intellectual. They want less government regulation, not because they believe it philosophically illegitimate, but because they consider it a pain in the neck. They favor lower taxes, not because they understand trickle-down economics, but because they like keeping the money they earn. They want to crush ISIS, not because they necessarily appreciate the ideological threat of radical Islam but because they grew up knowing that if someone punches you, you punch back twice as hard.
Do we really wish to write these voters out of the conservative camp? Is it now our position that only intellectuals – not taxi drivers – are welcome?
Moreover, intellectualism itself is a mixed bag. There’s a reason, after all, why William Buckley famously said he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard University. It’s because common sense and innate morality often steer people better than intellectualism. Jean Jacques Rousseau well-encapsulated the dangers of intellectualism when he wrote that
A murder may with impunity be committed under [a philosopher’s] window; he has only to put his hands to his ears and argue a little with himself to prevent nature, which is shocked within him, from identifying itself with the unfortunate sufferer. Uncivilized man has not this admirable talent and, for want of reason and wisdom, is always foolishly ready to obey the first promptings of humanity. It is the populace that flocks together at riots and street brawls while the wise man prudently makes off. It is the mob and the market women who part the combatants and hinder gentle folks from cutting one another’s throats.
Intellectualism has its place. I personally love the ideology that undergirds our country and find the Declaration of Independence’s first few sentences, and the political philosophy it represents, inordinately inspiring. I also wish public schools taught children the philosophical basis of our form of government and the difference between legitimate and illegitimate power.
But should expertise in the writings of John Locke or Milton Friedman be a sine qua non for supporting a Republican nominee? Did Bush, McCain, or Romney possess such expertise? And isn’t it rather foolish to write people out of our movement who share our beliefs for the “wrong” reasons.
Moreover, Trump’s “gut-level” patriotism, along with his neophyte political status, might actually work to the benefit of the conservative agenda. As a New York Times reporter recently wrote, “[G]etting in on the ground floor of a Trump administration that is short on policy ideas and disdainful of old Washington hands amounts to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity [for conservatives].” I couldn’t agree more.
Trump, we shouldn’t forget, is also a “people person.” He listens to those he trusts. And right now his closest allies – allies with whom he has aligned to a far greater degree than did previous Republican nominees – are groups like the NRA and conservative heroes like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Larry Elder, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani. Grassroots conservatives have arguably never had greater access to a Republican presidential candidate. And never have they had an opportunity to work with someone so open to new ideas and so willing to buck the establishment – both Democrat and Republican.
So is Trump an intellectual? No. But if elected president, he just might be the conservative movement’s greatest blessing.
Better to reach the correct position by common sense, than the wrong position by high brow “intellectualism.”
Career ambitious. intellectual big government lawyers got us into this mess. Clinton X2, Obama X2 for examples.
An artificially created distinction where no real difference exists.
This article precisely identifies my problem with the never Trumpers. I’m partial to the intellectual and theoretical bases for conservatism myself, but there has to be a populist dimension to the movement if it is to get any traction given the liberal cultural hegemony. Build a broad tent with Trump, imperfect as he may be.
I want less government regulation because I believe it is philosophically illegitimate. At the very least, it's irreconcilable with the intent of this country's founders.
I believe in gut-instinct and common sense and Trump has both. I trust him to do what he says and bring the know-how to get it done! GO TRUMP!
Intellectualism often becomes becomes rationalization for justification of personal whim ... what the Bible speaks of as worldliness
Vs honest question for truth by inquiry via reason
Wisdom is knowing you know nothing
This article is dripping with condescension towards the rank and file American Patriots. It is saying the average Patriot is a dolt but we pointed heads like them as cute pets.
Now think on the question a little bit before you answer.
This republic was founded on Gut Patriotism. Don't agree? Perhaps you need to restudy the writing's of the founding father.
Very well said and so true.
No Never Trumpers your whole behavior this election season as been the epitome of Anti-Intellectualism. You have thrown away all reason, out of childish petulance and ego, to actively work to elect Clinton who is 100% opposed to every item on your political agenda.
I consider myself an intellectual, insofar as I value ideas, precise definitions, and clear and rational arguments. I have advanced degrees in mathematics, and have been a practitioner of quantitative analysis for 20+ years.
I am a pragmatist. The ultimate test of an idea is whether it works.
Some of the Nevertrump literati such as Ben Shapiro don’t meet my standards for intellectual excellence. Shapiro has a narrow, elitist, Platonist view of the role and edification of political leaders.
My view is broad, accepting, and Aristotelian.
I strongly support Trump in this election.
excellent point.
Practically stated: If Oklahomans, or residents in a county in Oklahoma decide that it should be illegal to import or purchase a Toyota, it's entirely within their rights to do so.
If the Feds, on the other hand, force Oklahomans to accept Toyotas on their streets, and offer subsidies to Toyota owners, and declare that Toyotas always have the right of way on OK roads... well, then we've got a problem.
Wow, brilliant, thank you!
I’d like everyone in America to have read and understood the difference between Locke and Rousseau, and if I become king of America by golly they will.
In the meantime, we picked Trump because he gets it, in his gut, he gets it, and most importantly he fights.
You don’t get to be where he is without being an intellect of the first order, and it is a mark of a truly deep intellect that you can break complex ideas down into short monosyllabic anglosaxon words and lay them out so that anyone can understand it. He does that every day all day long.
The supposed giants of intellect get hoisted on their petards, they go weak in the knees, they fold like wet suits when it comes time to actually face an enemy that hits back. I have great faith in intellect but not a lot of faith in intellectuals and much less in politicians as a class.
I love Pence, he is one of the best. But they asked him the other day if Hillary was corrupt, and he hemmed and hawed, he couldn’t answer. Is Loretta Lynch corrupt? Couldn’t answer. Gave us a word salad for an answer. It is Trump’s gift that not only can he answer with one word, he can show you up for a fool for even asking the question when the answer is so obvious. That’s when I realized that, however much I like Pence, it is Trump who must lead the ticket.
But to your main point I get it.
Excellent!
First of all, Donald Trump may use very down to earth words, but he is obviously highly intelligent. Shapiro and others unfortunately confuse sophistication--a word derived after all from "sophistry"--for intellectualism. They are very, very different qualities.
Secondly, Donald Trump comes much closer to actually understanding the philosophy of the Founding Fathers than any Presidential candidate for a major party, since Reagan. The thing which distinguished American philosophy from just about any other, was that it was based not on cloud-borne wish lists, but on six generation's of the actual experience of the original Americans--and I use 'original Americans" correctly, not in the way that insults our American Indian nation neighbors or the European settlers.
For a more developed argument, see America Grounded on Experience & Reason. [Please feel free to use any argument at my web site, with or without any attribution or credit. Truth belongs to everyone. Lies only belong to the Damned. (For some reason Mrs. Clinton inspires one to think of the Damned.)]
The problem is that the word ‘intellectual’ has been co-opted and miss used,like many words,ie: conservative. It’s what progressives,Marxists do. Co-opt the language, cultural Marxism itself given a nicey-nice name ‘ political correctness’. People today who fancy themselves as intellectuals do nothing but engage in group think, if one is engaged in group think,I think there is not a lot of thinking going on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.