The vilification of education ("the elites") in US politics and popular discussion is perhaps the most terrifying trend we see today.
The intellectual basis of conservative political thought in the US has been destroyed by it and you can occasionally see similar attempts on the left. It's extraordinary how quickly this has happened.
Historically, the educated elites used to support conservatives. Pretty much every revolution in history was against 'the elites', and some of these revolutions were justified. Polybius himself wrote for a very exploitative empire - so there's no need to support these elites uncritically.
In modern America, there has been educational sorting where the Academy is pushing for its class interests, and using their own forms of vilification for that - reducing polarization would require a change there that is not going to happen.
the soundest education and training for a life of active politics is the study of history, and that the surest and indeed the only method of learning how to bear bravely the vicissitudes of fortune is to recall the calamities of others.
ok, perhaps I misunderstood your point. Are you arguing that conservative politics is imploding because of anti-intellectualism, and that a wide study of history is the solution? What historical examples can be drawn upon to salvage it? Is there even an intellectual basis for conservative thought?
Can't speak to the OPs motivations but ant-intellectualism does appear to be a strong element or modern day conservatism in many economies. Arguably an over dependence on intellectual arguments c/f "the deplorables" is the other side's bugbear. Hilary made a target on her own back with that.
Current conservative movements in the US, UK, Australia. Hungary, Poland appear to commonly rely on an appeal to the masses against intellectuals, other people, and against anything which smacks of imposed costs and taxes for the wider public benefit (ie AGW mitigation)
It might be possible to engineer a type of democracy that solves this problem, partly by combining two seemingly opposite ideas. For instance, imagine a society that has frequent elections, but for long terms. An example would be a society which elects 9 people a year, for terms of 11 years, thus establishing a legislature of 99 people. The frequent elections would be a vent for all of the populist rage that we see, but the long terms would mean that, once people are elected, they have plenty of time to get real work done, without having to worry about re-election. The system would work even better if the legislature was stripped of all power save the power to appoint people to committees, and then "the intellectuals" (people with a lot of training) could work to either control or advise those committees. Those committees should be far enough removed from the populist rage that the committee members should be free to focus on delivering good government. I wrote about this here:
Yes, that's what I meant. The committees would have oversight of the permanent civil service, and could, in a sense, be considered part of that service.
The problem isn’t anti intellectualism. That’s what the people who like to think of themselves as intellectuals call it. Their opponents would say the “intellectuals” are pseudo intellectuals saying nonsense that they themselves have not been convinced is true. Of course, the intellectuals say that just means they’re stupid. But often it’s simply a different interpretation of the evidence. Of course, the “intellectuals” only accept one interpretation and disregard the dispute.
For example, are Victor Davis Hansen of Stanford, multi book author Douglas Murray, etc “anti intellectuals”?
I can't see pandering working TBH. Chess-Boxing and philosophy down the pub seem like good ideas. Bernie mixes with his voters and doesn't look down on them. Liz Cheney lost touch with her local base, I don't like her or her in-party opposition I just observe she might be what you'd call an intellectual republican.
Simplifying the message is equally dangerous. We are not at war with China, trade or otherwise. Not every opposing view is a lie, and not every opposing person is a traitor or paedophile. Maybe what we need is some truth in the debate? Can't see MTG or Cruz or Boebert doing much truthing and I cannot say I find Pelosi's positions on the DNC and her share trading very truthy either. Bit of "both sides" going on.
Not a US citizen, resident or voter. Just an outsiders view. US exceptionalism, religious fundamentalism, Right wing models of political debate leaked into my country (australia) and we're politically empoverished because of it.
Interesting essay, written by Polybius, an ancient Greek historian from two millennia ago. As the title suggests, he argued that it is necessary to take a comparative view of history to reap the most benefit from its study. I like the analogy he provides in the conclusion, so I'll copy it here in the hopes it entices you as well.
> He who believes that by studying isolated histories he can acquire a fairly just view of history as a whole is, as it seems to me, much in the case of one who, after having looked at the dissevered limbs of an animal once alive and beautiful, fancies he had been as good as an eyewitness of the creature itself in all its action and grace. For could anyone put the creature together on the spot, restoring its form and the comeliness of life, and then show it to the same man, I think he would quickly avow that he was formerly very far away from the truth and more like one in a dream. For we can get some idea of a whole from a part but never knowledge or exact opinion. Special histories therefore contribute very little to the knowledge of the whole and conviction of its truth. It is only indeed by study of the interconnection of all the particulars, their resemblances and differences, that we are enabled at least to make a general survey, and thus derive both benefit and pleasure from history.
But by what miracle does the interconnectedness recover or enliven the animal once alive and beautiful?
There is, in fact, no miracle to be had. You will have a more rounded view of history, but history is written by the victors - it is heavily biased from the day it was written.
IMO, it is impossible to find the truth in history - only hints.
The intellectual basis of conservative political thought in the US has been destroyed by it and you can occasionally see similar attempts on the left. It's extraordinary how quickly this has happened.