Why Intellect and Politics Don’t Mix

In a recent post I wondered why an attack on Mr. Harper and the Conservatives on legal and moral grounds does not seem to be resonating with the voters.  I read in this morning’s New York Times (Wyoming Boom Poses Challengers for Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/politics/17wyoming.html?_r=1&hp) that a significant upturn in the economy of Wyoming does not reflect well on Obama’s presidency.  The reason is that the turnaround in Wyoming is based, largely, on coal and natural gas.  Liberals are fighting hard to suppress the country’s dependence on coal, a dirty fuel.  It turns out that $5 a gallon for gas has still not had a significant impact on American’s (and Canadian’s) dependence on oil.  How are these two issues connected?

Americans (and largely Canadians) are suspect of a President with too high an intellect.  Adlai Stevenson never became president in the US because the US electorate thought him too brainy.  Canada had one brush with a brainy Prime Minister:  Pierre Trudeau, and the country is still feeling the results of that government (bilingualism, biculturalism and the national oil policy).  France is never really recovered from its years under Charles De Gaulle, considered to be super intellectual.  Why have intellectuals faired so badly.

Intellectuals all believe that they “have the answer”.  They have the intellectual tools to theorize on what a particular solution should be.  However, they are almost singularly removed from “the people”.  They impose solutions rather than allow solutions to bubble up from the electorate.  They have a tendency to dictate rather than govern.  Canadian leaders, with the exception of Trudeau were all men of the people.  Some may have come from not-so-humble beginnings but they all had a healthy respect for the people who sent them to govern.  Trudeau had a not-so-healthy regard for the people (witness “the finger” on occasion).  Pearson was the ultimate servant of the people and passed significant legislation while in power (see post on minority governments).

Threat of loss of freedoms and the disrespect that Mr. Harper shows for the House are abstract ideas.  They have not, as yet, had a tangible effect on the electorate.  Demagogues count on it.  By the time the electorate figures this out it is often too late.  Energy self sufficiency is also an abstract idea.  Instead of imposing a cap and trade system on carbon emissions (which would have required some political leadership)  Mr. Obama has opted to lecture Americans about making better energy choices.  Mr. Ignatieff, already seen as an interloper from Harvard is possibly the worst advocate of abstrat ideas.  He has yet to connect with voters.  Mr. Layton is having a better go at it—as can be reflected in the polls.  It seems the Canadian voters (and possibly American voters in 2012) are not going to trust yet another intellectual with the reigns of power.  Mr. Harper hails from a reformist (call that “grass roots”) background.  Though he has an advanced degree in economics he keeps that fact well hidden.  He does not deal in abstractions.  In a few weeks we shall see who wins out.

Bernie