An important first step in conceptualizing anti intellectualism involves defining its opposite. "Intellectualism" is dedication to acquiring knowledge from reason, contemplation, or analytical thought. As an adjective, "intellectual" describes an individual who engages routinely in this type of behavior or praises its practice. On the other extreme of the ambit, "anti-intellectualism" is the attainment of knowledge through instincts, character, moral sensibilities, and emotions. A person who dis plays "anti-intellectual" qualities disparages the rational complexity associated with intellectual pursuits. Despite these negative opinions, anti-intellectuals are not necessarily unintelligent or dismissive of smart people. Instead, anti-intellectualism is best categorized as a specific type of anti-elitism. Anti-intellectuals exhibit distaste for the smugness and superiority they believe accompanies intellectual life. For anti-intellectuals, the intellectual generates suspicion and cynicism. Intelligence may be valuable and use ful, but intellect is dangerous.
Upon examination, presidents and other political elites can be placed along an "intellectual/anti-intellectual" continuum. The permeable nature of the continuum is an integral part of the concept because it is overly simplistic to think of presidents as either "intellectuals" or "anti intellectuals." In the continuum I envision, there are two important components. First and foremost is a president's attitude regarding the utility of intellectual life and its pursuits. Is intellectualism embraced or disparaged, valued or vilified? Does the president view the advice of intellectuals as an integral part of his decision-making process? The second part of the continuum is the president's public engagement of intellectual activities. Does the president engage in intellectual activity himself or encourage others to do so? Does he publicly celebrate intellectual contributions, or disparage them?
These two components of the continuum lead to four general categories of presidential leadership. Pro intellectuals believe in the value of intellectual pursuits and engage in such activities. They affirm the usefulness of intellectual life and showcase their intellectual orientations. Brain trusters understand the value of intellectual contributions, but do not routinely engage in such pursuits. They are intellectual dabblers; supportive of intellectualism but one step removed from a full embrace. Intellectual utilitarians are more scrupulous than the brain trusters. They view intellectualism with a practical gaze, and employ intellectuals for advice and counsel. But they also exhibit a condemning public attitude towards intellectuals and intellectualism in a strategic effort to dispel allegations of elitism. Finally, anti-intellectuals pose an unfavorable opinion of intellectual life, and often advertise their disparagement. Anti-intellectuals may believe in the importance of ideas, but reach conclusions based upon instinctual "gut feelings" rather than intellectual discourse or debate.
Two observations about the political implications of the continuum are worth mentioning. First, as the presidency has developed over time, more presidents have gravitated towards the anti-intellectual end of the spectrum. There has not been an unequivocal pro-intellectual president in the post-New Deal era of the modern presidency. Second, Republicans tend to exhibit anti-intellectual qualities, and Democrats coalesce on the intellectual tail of the continuum. This phenomenon is even more pronounced if the presidents of the past fifty years are considered. The reasons for such a partisan divergence are numerous. They include changing electoral constituencies, the political transformation of the South, the rise of the religious right, and the post-World War II liberalization of academics and intellectuals. Once again, the fluidity of the continuum should not be forgotten. There are no rigid boundaries, and depending on the particular political situation, presidents may alter their position.
In brief case studies, I examine three presidents whose orientations are decidedly anti-intellectual in nature. As I describe it, an anti-intellectual approach to leadership originates from both a president's attitude about intellectual life and his public posturing. In the case studies that follow, I depict anti-intellectualism as a strategic tool used by modern American presidents to enhance their political authority. Presidents make conscious political decisions about where they fall on the continuum. These decisions reflect personal beliefs, but develop into an important component of their public leadership.
Recent Republican presidents have been particularly adept at capitalizing upon historical developments in the presidency and the media, which have encouraged a shift towards a more anti-intellectual leadership style. In Bruce Miroff's words, the modern presidency is dependent upon the creation of "spectacles" that encourage awestruck citizens to become passive spectators rather than active participants in politics. Spectacles lend themselves to the portrayal of presidents as energetic, dynamic, hyper masculine individuals who defeat evil in the name of American democracy, exemplified by George W Bush's landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003. The intellectual process of deliberation cannot constitute a spectacle. Furthermore, the modern presidency is also characterized by its increased assertions of executive independence and unilateral action. The rise of unilateralism encourages presidents to adopt a public anti-intellectual leadership approach. Anti-intellectualism snubs its nose at established experts. Thus, it is a defiant leadership stance-a forceful demonstration of independence. Implicitly, anti intellectualism conveys the message that the president is in charge and that he answers to no one. Anti intellectualism stresses simplicity and efficiency, which enables presidents to justify their unilateral actions. I offer brief sketches of how the anti-intellectualism of Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush has contributed to their political leadership and executive authority.
