Why is Intellectualism not Consistent with Traditionalism?

John Savage has an interesting couple of connected posts over at Brave New World Watch that deal with this question. In the original entry entitled Have We Always Had Lindsay Lohans? John cites a marxist author, Dwight Macdonald, whose writings he used to read and have an affinity for. I can't make heads or tails out of what Mr. Macdonald is saying, to be candid, but that's beside the point.

John's post, having been inspired by VA's post on the same subject, which is from an opposing view which I find myself more in agreement with, seems to equate VA's position (and my position via my agreement with hers) with that of Mr. Macdonald's on some level. If I'm misinterpreting him, I trust he'll set me straight...

John goes on to explain in his sentence following the excerpted quote that writings like Mr. Macdonald's, which stimulated some of his youthful exuberance about the superiority of 'intellectualism' caused him to speak in similarly elitist styles of 'proper' marxist prose during his more formidable years, but that now having lost much of that passion, he regards with a great deal of skepticism the charge often leveled from traditionalist circles that today's America is uniquely 'dumbed down.' John's position seems to be that the accusation itself emanates more from a liberal perspective on the subject than from a traditionalist one. But is this true?

John seems to believe that the founding generation was simply an exception to the rule that Americans have otherwise lived and conducted themselves by regarding their approach to 'education,' which to him is one of a tradition of anti-intellectualism, which he dates back to the election of the non-intellectual President, Andrew Jackson, following what some of us would term 'Western Expansion and Deterioration.' John and I would agree that the founding generation was an exceptional one educationally speaking, but in what way?

On the point that the founding generation was an exception to the rule as per its emphasis on education, I would disagree simply on the basis that the generations preceding the founding generation seem to have placed a great deal of emphasis on providing their youth with a quality education, “...dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches.” I quote here from “New England's First Fruits,” c. 1643, so it would appear, in light of the whole document, that unless John believes the founding generation to have extended to the establishment of the first colonies in America, his thought that that generation was an exception, at least to that point, is misplaced. I would further disagree on the basis that it simply seems logical to me that the deterioration in the quality of education in America thereafter, given that John acknowledges at least a peak in education level during the founding generation, must have occurred at a slow and something of a steady rate; probably at a rate that was not that noticeable, or that was not that alarmingly noticeable to most except academics of the time(s). This would imply to me that Americans, rather than having always had a 'contempt for learning' as John asserts, rather developed a contempt for it over time.

John seems to think that Americans have always rejected intellectualism; that this is one of the essences of American 'traditionalism,' and that today's traditionalists, to be true to their 'traditionalism,' would also tend to reject the idea of 'intellectualism.' This is where I might agree with John, though perhaps for different reasons than he. I've been critical of 'intellectualism' on numerous occasions here and elsewhere. And here again I think we might need to properly define our terms.

My view of modern intellectualism (and to be fair to John, he doesn't use the term with the suffix attached) is consistent with John's view, I think, that it is an 'elitist' idea at its core. In this sense I reject intellectualism, and I've always considered that to be consistent with my 'traditionalism.' 'Intellectuals,' particularly the self-proclaimed types, tend to see themselves as possessing a higher order of knowledge that puts them in the unique position of always knowing the better way. In a very real sense these folks tend to think of themselves as being almost 'all-knowing.' I once read it expressed by one of these self proclaimed types as “knowledge is power; anything else isn't.” And though the author of that quote feigned a belief that the 'lower classes' had big enough brains to become intellectuals themselves, this was really not consistent with his true view of the subject, which he simply could not help but make known in his other writings. His way was the better way because his intellect was superior, and until everyone else's intellect had been raised to his level, he and his type were in a unique position to rule over the lower classes.

But to get back to this idea that American traditionalism and intellect just don't, and never have mixed well, I often lament that the level of education of the average person is far inferior today than it was many years ago. Personally I think that children have a higher capacity for learning than our educational institutions lend themselves to. I believe that the main reason for this is a 'non-traditionalist' philosophy and methodology of education in this country, and that can be reduced to the undue influence of government on education in America. So, while I would agree with John that the quality of education in America has been low for a long time by a certain standard, I would disagree that genuine traditionalism endorses and encourages this on the grounds that a different standard was once applied as regards education, and the kind of 'literacy' it was once supposed to produce.

My position on the subject is consistent with that of “America's Schoolmaster,” Noah Webster, who defined in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the term “education” this way:

EDUCATION: Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations...

Mr. Webster goes on to explain that:

To give children a good education in manners, arts and sciences, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

To me this is the true 'traditionalist' view of education, as well as the measure of 'literacy' and of intellect, and one that developed over the years from 1620 to 1776. But I think it very interesting that 'traditionalists' disagree as to what constitutes 'traditionalism,' on this question as well as others. I should like to hear some of your thoughts on what you consider to be 'traditionalism,' and why. It is interesting that the term "intellectualism" was not an entry in Webster's 1828, but the term "intellectualist" is, and the definition Webster offers us is itself intriguing in light of this conversation. You may go to the online version of this dictionary at the link provided for it in the right sidebar of this blog.

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 2)

In the first edition to this series I posed the 'big question' which you see in the titles of that post, and again in this one: Who is this Ron Paul Character? In addition, I gave you some bit of insight as to what you might expect in this as well as future editions to this series. And of course you'll recall my mentioning that the series itself, once completed to my satisfaction, would likely contain anywhere from three to five separate entries or more.

But before we get on with the meat of the subject let me also make you aware that I'll be embedding links from post to post in the series to assist anyone who happens to link up to a single entry, yet is unaware that there are others in the series. The 'Part 1,' Part 2,' and etc., designations should help us in that regard, but I imagine that before all is said and done here there will be the distance of days as well as unrelated topics separating the connected entries. Therefore, if you happen to be a regular reader, just ignore the minor inconvenience this presents you. Otherwise, use the provided links when needed, that's what they're there for.

And now, let us begin our investigation into who this Ron Paul Character truly is, as opposed perhaps to who we've been led to believe he is by himself and/or by others...

It seems like as good a place to start as any to open our investigation by attempting to answer one question which I posed in Part 1 of this series: Is Ron Paul really who he says he is? And a good place to open that investigation up would be, it would appear, to determine what it is that Ron Paul is saying about Ron Paul, as opposed to what others are saying about him. As to that latter part, we will most assuredly get to it later. But for this entry let us concentrate our efforts overall, once again, on what the man is saying about himself publicly.

In the opening paragraph to Part 1 of this series you may recall that I described Ron Paul as a "self-styled Champion of the Constitution," and that I later made a second mention of this designation. My source for that information about Rep. Paul, as well as other information about the man destined to make its way into this series directly or indirectly, is a site which I provided a link to in one of my posts a couple of weeks back. If you'll click on the link to that site provided here again for your convenience, it's just a matter of properly navigating the site (which I'll leave to you to do) to get to that revelation of Mr. Paul about himself.

I'll admit here that I'm rather turned off by individuals claiming to themselves such distinctive attributes as Mr. Paul chose to do at the late Presidential debate in June of this year. Truly it seems more appropriate to me to allow others to make these bold claims about oneself while the designee himself concentrates his efforts on supporting the claim rather than asserting it. It may just be a matter of a display of improper decorum, but it still tends to raise suspicions in me as it has something of an offensive quality to it. To be fair to Paul though, I understand the desire and the need to separate and distinguish oneself from the rest of the pack in a public debate between Republican Presidential contenders wherein one might find himself, as Paul, a relative unknown certainly must have - little recognized. Still, the traditionalist in me finds it somewhat distasteful for a 'bonified leader' under virtually any circumstances to engage himself in such self-promotional displays as Paul here did. My idea of a 'true leader' in this regard being someone possessing internal qualities of character which would rather tend to resist such impulses, strong as they may be under certain circumstances. But I can let that slide if in fact Paul truly is what he says he is - "The Champion of the Constitution." So is he? Is Ron Paul truly THE champion of the Constitution as he says? That's the question before us, and to answer it properly we must take our investigation of the man to yet another level.

Of course the preceding paragraph reveals, if nothing else, that to this point in my own investigation of Rep. Paul he's rather behind the eight ball so to speak given that he has at least one strike against him and none as yet for. So, for our purposes here our subject (Paul) has some ground to make up. This shouldn't present him with too much of a problem given that his career in public service has been rather marked, if I may say so, by this very 'champion of the Constitution' description afforded himself. And in point of fact this very thing is what has led to some of his Congressional colleagues casting other laudable characteristics at his feet. Ron Paul has been referred to (among his colleagues mind you), among other things, as 'the most principled man in Congress.' Further, it is said of Mr. Paul that he simply will not vote for a bill which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. And there's certainly something respectable to be said of that quality which he seems to possess in a much superior way to the vast majority of his Congressional peers. While it may be said of the majority of his colleagues that 'they rarely saw a bill they wouldn't vote for,' it might be said of Ron in contrast that 'he never saw a bill that didn't raise suspicions as to its specific authorization by the Constitution.' As for me, that latter is a truly distinguishing mark that at very least evens the score for Ron once more.

Having now brought our investigation back, in fairness to Ron, to more of an even keel let us proceed by investigating Ron's principled stand on some of the key issues. Once again I would direct your attentions to the link provided above. Having successfully navigated the site to Paul's page, and under the heading "Ron Paul on Principles and Values," we find Congressman Paul's 'principled' belief as pertains to the first amendment.

The question is posed:

"You ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?"

And here is Paul's answer:

"I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all. That's why we shouldn't have it at a central level."

Ignoring the obvious misquote of the first amendment, assuming that Paul is simply paraphrasing here, I'll concentrate more on the meat of what he's saying. If I understand him correctly he seems to be saying that he believes that the 'establishment clause' in the first amendment should be read and applied more literally than seems to be the habit of that body as well as that sphere of government which he finds himself a member, albeit an often dissenting member of. On this point I would agree with Paul wholeheartedly, and notably to this investigation on this very point he seems to hold indeed to the distinguishing designation: Champion of the Constitution. However, this to me is something of an oddly simplistic view coming from a man having been the particular recipient of such accolades from different quarters of being a 'true intellectual.' I think to get a true and accurate reading of exactly where Congressman Paul stands on this issue of church and state we need the question to be posed in a more particular sense. Since the context of a Presidential debate does not necessarily lend itself to expounding upon a stated view of a given subject, we must ultimately take our investigation elsewhere.

However, Congressman Paul has given us herein enough of an insight into his overall view of the subject to warrant, in my opinion, some measure of breaking down the elements of his answer in that context in order to assist us in answering our own questions which may well come to mind in reading his answer. As an example my mind was naturally led to ask, given the fact that we do have laws in place restricting the exercise of religion, would Paul consider it appropriate for the Congress to 'write' laws consistent with the non-prohibition clause of the first amendment? In other words, if the first amendment may be read in part as "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." and in light of the first amendment's express prohibition on Congress to 'make no law respecting an "establishment" of same,' would Congressman Paul consider it proper (or 'constitutional) of the federal Congress to write laws which tend to encourage and assist in Congress' resisting the apparently overwhelming urge among its members to create laws in actuality restricting the 'free exercise of religion?' And if so, should that 'writing of such laws' at the federal level tend to reflect the general sense of the People, or should it tend more to protect 'the free expression of' minority religions represented by relatively small segments of this society at the expense of the majority and the 'free expression' of its religion? What little I'm able to glean from his statement leads me to believe that he thinks it improper of Congress, and perhaps actually "unconstitutional" to write and pass any law 'respecting' religion period, effecting an 'establishment' thereof or otherwise.

I think Paul more or less answers these questions of ours, though, when he offers his thoughts on how best and at what level of government these questions should be dealt with generally speaking. Here again I tend to agree with Paul on the idea that these questions should be dealt with in more particular ways at the State and local levels of government. But that's just not the reality of our situation at present. You have to have a strong federal stucture in place to support this idea, and that we just don't currently have. More often than not these questions when dealt with in a more appropriate way at the lower levels are challenged in the courts and at length the federal government decides the issue on a grand scale. And in this process the central authority tends rather to side with the minority (often a very small and insignificant minority) on this question of the free exercise of one's religion.

By virtue of this fact we are rather left with bare remnants of the original design of this government which cannot be said to have possessed any appreciable fear or determination that it should arm itself and its minority citizens against encroachments on its powers and their rights via restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian Religion in particular. While it is all well and good to remind ourselves from time to time of the original intent of the founding generation in demanding a 'bill of rights' be attached to the Constitution, we should also, and in compliance with the underlying reasons for those reminders of ours, seek out practical means for returning our government to that original intent while in the meantime working to halt the degenerative process so pervading our government and her institutions. In this sense I think it possible that Ron Paul may more accurately be said to be something less than 'THE champion of the Constitution,' for a true and a committed 'top of the food chain champion' of anything or any worthy cause, would firmly adhere to the genuine sense in which the cause in question is to be maintained and furthered. And I think it may be said of the first amendment that a genuine reading of same would yield that indeed the federal Congress, while being expressly forbidden from 'making any law respecting an establishment of religion,' is rather encouraged to, than being prohibited from making laws of a non-prohibitionary type with respect to the 'free exercise thereof.' For what good is the statement "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." without the force of law to uphold and guarantee it against violations of the principle? Some may claim that the Constitutional provision itself is enough. But this does not square with the reality that the provision of the first amendment has proven to be of little use in prohibiting the actual practice thereof.

These laws should of course, as I said, reflect the general sense of the citizenry while taking into account the necessity of preserving our form of government in very particular ways as it cannot be stated too often nor too forcefully the irrefutable fact that the general consists itself in particulars. So, while I tend to agree with Paul's approach as stated, that these questions should be dealt with at more of a local level under a 'more perfect' scenario, I should think that given our current situation on this question the reality evinces that Paul's approach to addressing this question, as stated above, while it may have been an appropriate and a capable one 150 years ago is certainly less than so now. I should further think that such an approach, once more, given our current situation, would rather tend to provide opponents of the Constitution inroads to overthrowing its sacred principles which we must maintain at all costs.

If Congress is considered by its members and by the People in authority over them authorized by the Constitution to 'write laws' on questions of religion and morality, which I certainly think may well be said to be the case, and if in fact a proper reading of the Constitution itself does yield that conclusion to be consistent with the truth of the matter (not necessarily with the way it is applied) then to me the better, not to mention the more 'Constitutionally consistent' approach is to place less emphasis on what one considers a prohibition on that authorization, and rather to use one's 'pulpit' to emphasize the duty of Congress to write such laws adhering to the true sense of the Constitution, and to the general sense of the population under its governance. Does it rise to the level of an 'establishment of religion' for the federal Congress to acknowledge by law the right of the State and local authorities to themselves authorize prayers in the local schools? Or is it rather that such laws strictly adhere to that clause of the first amendment which has in it an implicit authority for the federal Congress to guarantee by law that it (the federal Congress) shall never write or endorse a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' in schools or elsewhere? Is this not the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read? Is this not the restriction on itself that the federal Congress is bound to acknowledge lawfully as inplicit in the first amendment? If indeed it is, and if Paul holds a view contrary to this, then it follows that it must be said of Paul on this issue that he is wrong. And if that is the case, then we have at least one reason to believe that Congressman Paul is not the 'champion of the Constitution' that he claims himself to be, as well as further calling into question his qualifications for being the next President of the United States. On the other hand, if this is the case, and if Paul's statement reflects a view consistent with the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read, as well as lawfully applied, then it may be said of Paul that he is in this particular truly what he says he is - THE Champion of the Constitution - as well as securing to himself his rightful place among the Presidential contenders.

In the foregoing discourse we have endeavored to discover whether Ron Paul, while certainly being rightly denominated in some sense "A" 'champion of the Constitution,' may be wrongly denominating himself "The" champion of the same, at least in the sense that we've investigated the matter here. As I said before I can forgive Paul for what I consider to be an inappropriate display of self-promotion IF indeed he can truly be said to be what he claims to himself, though I would certainly advise him against restating the offensive gesture too forcefully as well as too often. During the course of this investigation, and for the reasons offered here among others we will surely cover, my mind is led to question and further investigate whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be all he says he is. Therefore, my conclusion to this point in our investigation is that Paul inadvisedly expressed something of a rather high opinion of himself as well as of his own sense of self-importance in his introduction of himself at the late debate, unnecessarily raising doubts in the minds of some, including myself. And while I'm sure that this conclusion of mine is likely to bring some unfavorable comments my way, nonetheless this is my conclusion. But as I said in Part 1 of this ongoing series now well underway, I welcome your input as my conclusions about Paul and his statements may certainly prove to be misguided as well as misplaced.

In any event I would once again encourage you to leave a thoughtful comment to this post whether you happen to agree with the conclusions I've drawn or not. And also that you would return to read the third edition to this series which will be coming shortly. In the meantime, and if you haven't done so yet, do utilize the link I've provided here to further educate yourself on this man, Congressman Ron Paul. I look forward to your participation as certainly and as has been promised, this series while being paused for the moment, is most assuredly:

To be continued....

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 1)

Up until just recently I had never heard the name Ron Paul before, or at least I don't recollect ever having heard it. And I really wonder whether a significant percentage of traditionalists had ever heard of this self-styled "champion of the Constitution" prior to that fateful moment when he and Guiliani famously butted heads back a few months ago.

Is Ron Paul who he says he is? Is he the man that others, advocates and adversaries, portray him to be? Can it truly be said of this Champion of the Constitution designate that he is indeed the foremost in that regard of all the presidential contenders? These I think are very relevant questions. And though I do not wish to detract in any way from the excellent work already done on the subject by others whom I highly respect, I should like to at least open an investigation independently done for my own personal purposes, as well as for those readers interested in learning more about the respective contenders perhaps having yet to discover certain already available means to assist them in that endeavor...

In doing so I eagerly invite and implore the readers of this entry (as well as others that will follow on the subject) to engage the conversation so as to inject some degree of proper balance into what in some instances may well amount to an actual misrepresentation of Paul's position on a given issue, and/or, a miscalculation on my part or the parts of others here engaging the conversation, of Rep. Paul's core principles and how they may be good or bad for the country, particularly if elected President, in our estimations.

To this point I have done some 'extensive' independent research on Ron Paul. And I've used various means provided and available to me from a variety of sources to assist me in doing so. Yet, I do not consider my investigation as yet to be anywhere close to exhaustive. Therefore, my approach to this question of "who is Ron Paul?," as regards this blog's purpose (contained in the left sidebar under the heading "blog description"), and as my mind foresees it, is likely going to consist of a 3, 4, perhaps even 5 part series on the subject, this post being the first in the series.

I don't want to put any firm number to it though because I'm simply not sure how many editions the series will ultimately prove to consist of beyond the absolute certainty I have that it will consist of more than this one; at very least two. Depending on the level of involvement from the readership among other variables not precisely predictable, certain questions might be raised which would require one or more additional posts than would be necessary or proper in the absence of those questions, concerns, refutations, or whatever. I will state, however, that while avoiding fixing a firm number to it, I will not allow the series to extend beyond a number of posts that I would loosely describe as a 'maximum,' it being my persuasion that a pretty thorough investigation of the whole view of the matter may be conducted within the confines of a 'high-end' number of posts. Anything over-and-above of which would most probably amount to little more than redundancy.

I should like to make clear as well that I do not intend to get to the meat of the question(s) in this post, as you discerning readers have probably already realized. I have chosen to open the conversation this way for a specific reason which I don't feel it necessary to share at this point. I imagine most of you can figure it out for yourselves anyhow, so there's really no need in my explaining it to you. However...

Being myself attached to the idea of 'capitalism' insofar as it adheres to a moral code of conduct inhibiting the tendency to excess, I own that I should like to utilize the principle to attract a wider readership via what I'm betting will be an increase in traffic to the blog given the level of interest in Paul's campaign. And incidentally, if you're feeling somewhat betrayed having now read this revelation of mine, I would simply remind you that neither is anyone forcing, nor is anyone even asking you to stick around if in fact you don't like what you see and read here. I would also point out that this is a more honest and a straight-forward approach than some bloggers would be willing to initiate. And I trust that most of you will see in this honest approach a quality that is somewhat endearing as well as perhaps refreshing. If not then I bid you a respectful and an affectionate farewell wishing you the best in your continued searches and pursuits on this as well as other subjects of interest. On the other hand, if you do in fact like what you read here and choose to stay around awhile, I welcome you with open arms to Webster's, as well as welcoming, as I said, your particular and unique input.

To close this installment of the series out let me say that I've been thinking on doing something of this sort for a couple of weeks now. Only over the last few days, however, have I put some serious thought to it, particularly as to how it might ultimately shape up. As I've said, I have some resources that I'm using to familiarize myself with Representative and Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, his history, his family, his philosophical approach to government, and so on and so forth. It will be from these sources primarily that my perspective on Mr. Paul's positions will be derived and offered to you in the series of posts forthcoming. And as I've already said, I encourage all of you to join in the discussion. This post is now entered into the record as part 1 in the series bearing the title "Who is this Ron Paul Character?" It is intended to get us thinking on the subject, as well as to finally initiate the somewhat belated process.

I shall now see it through to the end, and I hope you'll chime in...

-DW
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics

Read More

No 'Exit Strategy,' Tom?

Is Tom Tancredo our man for the White House? And if not, then who?

It's a pertinent question, and one which we could (and should I suppose), ask ouselves in relation to every other prominent (or not so prominent) candidate on the campaign trail in the not-too-distant future.

As I was making my morning rounds -a thing that has become something of an enjoyable ritual for me lately- along the blogosphere, I ran into excerpts of this Backwoods Interview with Tom Tancredo posted over at VA's.

As I read the entire interview via the link provided, I noticed early on in the discussion that the question was posed (indirectly) and that Tancredo, picking up on and addressing it, refused to nail down an 'exit strategy' for his campaign. According to Tancredo, 'you can't really do that because once you've made the commitment to run, and you've accepted money and other kinds of support from various and sundry supporters who believe in your cause, you feel obligated to stay in the fight as long as you can, and to push your/their main agenda to the fore.'

For Tancredo that main agenda is immigration reform; real immigration reform. That is why he got into the race to begin with. And as the interview makes abundantly clear, that is why he's still in it at this moment, despite his low polling numbers.

I suppose that on a certain level one can use the same sort of approach with regard to the 'war in Iraq,' and the larger 'war on terror.' Many of us believed from the beginning, and still do today, that once we made the commitment to the Iraq war and the WoT, that we were in it for the long-haul, and that seeking an exit strategy too soon would be disastrous for the country and for the cause. But that's really a different discussion altogether, and I only mention it here because I see some parallels here with regard to what the two men (Tancredo, and President Bush) are passionate about and why an exit strategy as such is not currently an option for either of them in their endeavors.

But as far as I can tell by the interview, Tom Tancredo is all that he says he is, as well as all that he says he isn't. And that latter part is significant. The whole of the interview had me feeling as though this man is truly a regular guy just as he says he is. And of course I can identify with a lot of what he exposes in the interview; the travel to and fro would be a killer, and it would just get to a guy, y'know. Not to mention his freely admitting that the campaign necessitates that he neglect certain family things like, for instance, where he laments over the fact that he can't attend baseball games his grandchildren are playing in, and so on.

But one of the things I find so appealing about Tancredo, and that which sets he and one or two more apart from the rest of the pack to my mind is this very fact that indeed, he is a regular person just like you and me. And btw, I'll address all you self-indulging 'irregular' persons shortly...

Those of you who've been there right along with me in the muck and mire over the last couple or three years probably recall that the quality of 'intellectualism' in and of itself carries little weight with me, particularly when it is considered by some to be of the utmost import in choosing a Presidential candidate behind whom one gets and offers his/her full support. Those of us who were there recall all the self-promoting claims of 'intellectual superiority' interspersed throughout the vitriol of one individual whose name I'll not mention here. But I think it's significant because I think that down deep, this is what 'intellectualism,' and/or, one's being convinced of his/her own superiority therein does to a person. And this is one of the main differences I see between someone like Tancredo, and, say, someone like Ron Paul.

Not that Ron Paul has necessarily given me the impression that he thinks himself superior intellectually to his opponents. There is a slight tinge of that in his speeches and interviews and such, but I don't see it as a big problem with Paul. It's more to the point, I think, that a good proportion of those who support him point to this aspect of Paul (his 'intellectualism') as that one factor that should draw us, above all else, to support his campaign.

Now, I should say that I don't believe there's anything wrong with being an intellectual per se, nor is there anything wrong with identifying that aspect of a candidate as something important to be considered. But when too much emphasis is placed on a person's 'intellectualism,' and the lack thereof in his opponents by inference, I for one start to get a little concerned.

Do we seek in our POTUS an intellectual, first and foremost, or do we seek in him/her someone with good, solid character qualities; someone devoted to family, to God, to country; to liberty and justice for all; someone who truly 'bears true faith and allegiance to the same?' As for me I openly admit that intellectualism comes in a distant second to outstanding qualities of personal integrity and character. The 'quality' of intellectualism, or what the term seems to signify these days, doesn't even register on my radar until I have something of an understanding of the internal character of the individual under my investigation. Then, and only then, when I've identified and am convinced that the candidate in question has a good, solid moral foundation; that his/her personal life and political career are marked by such outstanding qualities of personal integrity and moral character, will I begin to consider his/her intellectual capacity and how much that factor weighs into my choice. So to me, for supporters of a particular candidate to point out that aspect of their choice's person as THE quality most appealing in him, tends more to turn me off than to turn me on to the candidate.

So, all that considered, is Tancredo my man? Well, you could certainly come to that conclusion based on the contents of this post. But the truth of the matter is that I've still not decided who that special candidate is for me. At this point I'm just beginning to investigate the different aspects of the different candidates, and as I've said, Tancredo's 'regular guy' qualities are pretty appealing to me. And he doesn't appear to me to be no dummy either.

There are really only one or two more candidates currently in the race that appeal to me at all. One is Duncan Hunter, and the other is Ron Paul whose libertarian undergirdings, very evident in virtually all of his speeches and writings I've read so far, are becoming more and more troublesome. I can't help it, y'all, that's just the way I feel. But you're more than welcome to try to dispel some of the predispositions and notions I have with regard to libertarianism if you like...

-DW
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics

Read More