Splicetoday

Pop Culture
Oct 08, 2008, 06:05AM

So That's Why People Hate Liberals

Anti-intellectualism is always wrong, but it’s understandable after sitting through two hours of Bill Maher.

Maher.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

A few days ago, a dinner discussion with a Republican friend, about Sarah Palin and the Republican ticket, led me to write about a dominant theme in this year’s presidential campaign for which I simply have no patience: the Average Joe phenomenon.

Why, I wondered, is the notion that a candidate is ideal because they’re “just like us” so persistent? Why this obsession with electing somebody average, someone “ordinary” for a position so important, for which the ideal candidate is surely far above average and nothing short of extraordinary? The argument that voters will be drawn to Palin because she is “real normal,” and consequent attempts to play up her “real normal” side, I argued, is completely irrational.

Proponents of this argument often say that “average Americans” will vote for Palin because they consider it more important that a candidate share their worldview and values than have a firm grasp on the issues. The “average American” doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, so why should Palin? This idea is terrifying. The possibility that millions of Americans will vote on personality, rather than on politics, bodes very ill indeed for the future of this country.

America’s related aversion to “Washington insiders,” people who know how this country is run, and to “intellectuals,” people who approach the issues with insight and broad understanding, is similarly nonsensical. The concept of anti-intellectualism simply makes no sense to me; the very existence of the phrase “anti-intellectual” boggles my mind. Why on earth would we want our president to be someone who doesn’t fully understand the intricacies of, say the Middle East, who doesn’t know history, or think things through, or consider all the implications of their actions? Why would we ever view intellect as anything but admirable, not to mention desirable, in our nation’s leaders? And if they get to be “anti-intellectuals,” do I get to call them “pro-stupid?”

These were my views until 9:30 P.M. on Monday. And then I saw Religulous.

Bill Maher’s new movie, a documentary about our world’s many faiths and the people who subscribe to them, is a perfect example of why so many Americans hate “intellectuals.” Maher is perplexed by the idea of religion, and particularly by religious fundamentalism, and is unable to understand why so many people interpret literally things that “can’t possibly be true.”

To discover what it is that makes these people do what they do and believe what they believe, Maher went around the U.S. and around the world with a small camera crew (using a fake, and far more innocuous-sounding working title) and spoke to religious leaders, political leaders, scientists and “average Americans” about their faiths. Once out of earshot or safely ensconced in the editing room, he mocks them for what he sees as their stupidity, gullibility and, in some cases, sheer insanity.

Sometimes, he mocks them to their faces. About 20 minutes into the film, Maher is at a chapel, a demountable trailer with a dozen seats and a lectern, at a truck stop outside of Raleigh, NC, talking to truckers who have come for Sunday service. As one man tells of his conversion from Satanism to Christianity, and of his unshakeable belief in God and Jesus Christ, Maher mocks him to his face, then insists when one man leaves in disgust that he’s “just asking questions.” As he tries to convince the trucker congregation of the scientific impossibility of virgin birth, Maher is smug and overwhelmed by his disbelief at their belief.

As a staunch, mostly nonreligious liberal, I found myself cringing at much of Maher’s snide editorializing and open disrespect. I also found myself suddenly enlightened as to why anti-intellectualism is considered a perfectly valid viewpoint in this country. Maher’s attempts to use science to trump the religious people he interviews, to insist that science and his own superior knowledge make their views absurd, demonstrate exactly why anti-intellectualism has become such a powerful force in America, and in American politics. While Maher’s message is often a good one, the delivery is so smug, so superior and disrespectful, that it was hard, even for someone who agreed with that message, to side with him. I left the theater thinking, “He may be right, but does he have to be such an asshole about it?”

Maher’s hateful antagonism is made to look even sillier by several interviewees who manage to be intelligent and well spoken without also being condescending and superior (this shouldn’t seem like a revelation, but after an hour with Maher, it really does). Not only that; they also prove that it’s entirely possible to be skeptical and well educated and also be a person of faith. The two people in the film to whom I warmed the most, who speak the most sense in the most respectful voices, are in fact religious scientists: a Vatican astronomer, and one of America’s best-known religious geneticists. They are men of science, who are firm in their religious faith, but they feel none of Maher’s need to belittle or mock those who think differently from them.
 
Given the behavior of people like Maher, it’s perfectly understandable that some Americans have developed a distaste for intellectuals. The consequent desire to see someone less “intellectual” and more “average” in the White House also makes a great deal of sense. As I sat in the theater watching Maher scorn and belittle those who subscribe to religion rather than respectfully disagreeing with them, it became increasingly obvious why anti-intellectualism came to be such a force in American politics, or how Sarah Palin’s inability to name just one newspaper she reads has in fact endeared her to many voters. While the message of liberal intellectualism might often be spot-on, its delivery, in its smugness and superiority is just, well, ridiculous.

Discussion
  • I haven't seen the movie, so I don't agree or disagree with your assessment. I do have a question, though: do you think that there would have been any way to make a movie questioning religion without it seeming smug and condescending? I don't mean that rhetorically; I actually want to know your opinion on that. It's just that I feel like any meaningful debate between a religious person and a nonreligious person can't be sustained because the bottom line is that one person believes in it and the other doesn't. If someone is telling you that the story of Adam & Eve is true, you can't argue with them except to say, "that's absurd and here are the reasons why."

    Responses to this comment
  • As a fairly religious person, I have no desire to see this movie, although I've liked Bill Maher in the past. But to philmedley: religion is something I simply don't talk about with friends who don't share my views. It's not worth it.

    Responses to this comment
  • Alison, I agree with you - I avoid the topic if I don't know where the person stands because it can be hugely alienating. However, doesn't it seem like there is something inherently wrong that we have this huge issue of religion in our society, yet it is basically off limits for discussion?

    Responses to this comment
  • You're right, Phil, but I have no desire to rupture friendships over religion. I'm not very good at debating or arguing, and wind up seething afterwards, so I leave it alone. I'm not sure what topic is more toxic: religion or politics.

    Responses to this comment
  • There's no room for debate when it comes to religion, because any argument hits a brick wall when faith enters the picture. Discussion should never be taboo, but as Phil said, it rarely goes anywhere. I don't think political discussion should fall under the same umbrella, though. As someone who's never really paid attention to what I can and can't say in certain situations, I've never hesitated to get into it when it comes to politics. Some of my best friendships were forged from repeated intense political arguments. As long as it's approached rationally and without personal attacks (something some of my friends can't seem to avoid) then by no means should it rupture friendships in any way. Plus it beats the hell out of talking about American Idol.

    Responses to this comment
  • I saw the movie, and not only did I think Maher was a jerk, but I also thought it was boring, and too long.

    Responses to this comment
  • Although I do agree that Bill Maher sucks, I hardly think of him as a standard-bearer of liberal intellectualism--he's too self-consciously provocative. Blowhards are blowhards, no matter what language they couch their smug, condescending claims in. I really hate anti-intellectualism--and it kills me that the terms of the debate have shifted so much that terms like "Joe Sixpack" even exist, but I'm not convinced that Maher has a lot to do with it.

    Responses to this comment
  • Demian, I've got two decades on you, and, at least from my experience, it gets harder to talk about politics as you get older, and away from a dorm/college atmosphere. I don't mean to be condescending in the least: people get more rigid as they hit middle age, and, unlike you, I've "unforged" friendships talking about politics. The nuttiness over Clinton and Monica was bad enough--so many people got virtuous suddenly--but nothing compared to Bush v. Gore. Maybe this will change with an Obama presidency, but with a voracious media at hand, looking for on-the-cheap ratings, I doubt it.

    Responses to this comment
  • Wrong, philmedley. I'm surprised at you. There's a peaceable way to discuss anything. There's a way to disagree agreeably. Learn how to do it and get back to us (see how agreeable that was!?).

    Responses to this comment
  • Sorry to disagree with you 153351, but Phil Medley's correct. When it comes to religion, and politics (and more recently, finance!), you're threading a needle in trying to have a friendly yet combative discussion. People are way too on edge. As I said above, maybe Obama winning will ease the rancor. At least we can hope.

    Responses to this comment
  • With all due respect TM, Obama winning might ease the rancor in YOUR mind, but not in the minds of upwards of 45% of the population this November -- and that's assuming a big Obama win. Nope, I think the rancor will continue. However, a McCain/Palin loss will result in a bunch of bummed out conservatives; an Obama loss will no doubt result in the Apocalypse.

    Responses to this comment
  • Anyway, I'd like to comment on the article too. I really dislike Bill Maher, for precisely the reasons the author lists: his smugness, his dismissive attitude toward anything he deems "stupid", the fact that he actually considers himself an intellectual, and so on. I'm agnostic, and I don't have a lot of patience for fundamentalism of any stripe, but I respect the right of people to believe what they want to believe. I'm also someone who gravitates to more "intellectual" pursuits, but if there are folks who don't have much need for "book learning" then so be it. I disagree with the author's apparent overestimation of the importance of the President - it's true that we can't send just any person to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but being president doesn't require a Rhodes Scholarship, Nobel Prize, or membership in Mensa. Harry Truman was considered a country bumpkin by many, but he turned out to be a very capable president. Lots of "intellectuals" considered Ronald Reagan a simpleton; as it turns out, he was an extremely clever and focused leader. In the end, we expect far too much from the president - for a sober discussion of this phenomenon, check out this article by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9615.

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't know, I really enjoyed Religulous. It was funny and pretty scathing, and I'm a pretty big fan of Bill Maher to begin with.

    Responses to this comment
  • You've either got very high tolerance for propaganda, Kodak, or just an intense hatred for people who take their faith seriously. Do you also dote on every word that Michael Moore commits to film?

    Responses to this comment
  • To Phil and his cohorts: If you can't discuss religion, finance, or politics without offending the other side, then you need to learn about respectful honesty. I've discussed and studied religion with the devout. I explain that I don't share their views but am curious about theirs. Not once, have I had an issue. Instead of pondering the subject amongst others on line, who have an equal fear, try getting out in the world and talk to others instead. Who knows, you might learn something

    Responses to this comment
  • blprentice, thank you for your insightful comment and link. Thank you for disagreeing agreeably, nobly even. philmedley, were you taking notes? That's how you do it. And it's certainly within the realm of intellectuals and psuedo-intellectuals to do it. Else what is all their intellectualism for?

    Responses to this comment
  • The article says, "The possibility that millions of Americans will vote on personality, rather than on politics, bodes very ill indeed for the future of this country." I agree wholeheartedly. That is why no one should vote for 0bama!

    Responses to this comment
  • The article also says, "Given the behavior of people like Maher, it’s perfectly understandable that some Americans have developed a distaste for intellectuals" That is, if you classify Maher as an intellectual, which he is not. He is a smart-ass, hypocritical, smug bastard - as well as a crappy, want-to-be comedian.

    Responses to this comment
  • Oh, jojobber, you're the smartest of the bunch. Bill Maher is too smug and self-satisfied for words.

    Responses to this comment
  • I've really had my fill of the "elitism" debate that has permeated this presidential campaign. Can't stand Bill Maher, and have equal contempt for Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Tom Brokaw, a lot of academia and people in blue and red states who feel they're superior to others because of wealth, education or power. I don't believe Obama's an elitist (nor is McCain), especially compared to John Kerry, who blew a completely winnable campaign.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment