Stone's "Third Road" the result of politics, not the approach

In the Wednesday, June 8 edition of the Summer Wildcat, Matt Stone demonstrates exactly why Americans posses such an "aversion to intellectualism." It is precisely the brand of intellectual snobbery displayed by Stone that so many Americans loathe, and the same which accounts for the current tailspin of the Democrat Party.

Extremists have long employed the same tactic as Stone. So it goes that when a given radical or pretentious intellectual disapproves of a policy, politician or election results, the electorate as a whole – necessarily – is maligned as too stupid to realize the huge mistake they have just made. If, as Stone suggests, the "electorate lacks the desire to synthesize multiple factors" (i.e. "the average voter is a colossal fool"), it really doesn't matter anyway because of the "ineptitude of almost every Democrat and Republican" the author witnessed while he viewed C-Span.

In other words, the stupid voters got what they deserved: stupid politicians. Perhaps a more acceptable system would be an oligarchy of college professors and intellectuals. Should a post-graduate degree be the qualification for holders of public office?

Maybe such a group could make better sense of Stone's muddled text. What exactly was the point behind the author's base assault on the dreaded "religious right"? Despite Matt Stone's better efforts, there is no large disconnect between gun ownership and Christianity, or, for that matter, an anti-abortion position in accord with pro-death penalty leanings. A more outwardly contradictory position seems to rest with those who prefer life for murderers, and death for the unborn.

Throughout, Stone decries a "close-minded" citizenry, even as he advocates atop a highly parochial perch. Though Stone can't discern it from his intellectual heights, that "petty squabbling" which occurs on Capitol Hill is what it sounds like when ideologies clash.

The eventual outcomes of these clashes are that "third road" Stone so treasures. A "third road" is less an approach to politics and more the result.

There have been times when one side takes the lead, for example the stranglehold the Democrats had in the House from 1933-1947, then again from 1955-1995, and in the Senate from 1955-1983, but mostly, compromise rules the legislative process.

Patrick McNamara
journalism senior

Stone jumps the gun with "intellectual" assertions

I would like to reply to Matt Stone's column "The Third Road Between Left and Right Dummies" for two reasons. I would like to commend him on his ability to make such nonsense sound so good, which is indeed the purpose of "intellectualism," that beleaguered pursuit he so boldly defends.

The first bit of evidence he provides for America's rampant anti-intellectualism is the fact the American people haven't elected a North-Eastern liberal since JFK, as if "intellectuals" can only be North-Eastern liberals. Perhaps it's intellectual arrogance that should be the subject of an opinion piece, not anti-intellectualism. Furthermore, that 30 percent of the American electorate opted for one Yale educated aristocrat and slightly less than 30 percent opted for another I think says more about the Public Relations industry than it does anything about intellectualism.

Secondly, the assertion of the fair trade left as "anti-intellectual" was, sadly, almost laughable since Stone himself demonstrated a clear disdain for intellectual pursuit with the evidence he provided. First, he claims that "protectionism" is not a viable economic model, then he goes on to give the Korea and the United States as examples of economic success. Surely Stone must know that that Korea, indeed all of the so-called Asian Tigers, employed high trade tariffs on imports, especially agricultural goods, so as to protect domestic industry and farming, in other words "protectionism." Stone must also know that the United States has some of the highest agricultural subsidies in the world.

Furthermore, he suggests that the history of labor abuse in the United States justifies sweatshop conditions in other countries. The United States also benefited from slavery, and this helped us to become an economic super-power today -- why not allow other countries to use slavery too? It took many years for workers to win the right to a safe working environment (plus many other rights which are once again under threat in the United States), and today 112 countries have ratified all the International Labor Standards conventions upholding such rights (excluding the United States).

Finally, Stone suggests that globalization can catapult a nation into the ranks of the "First World." He doesn't define the amorphous term "globalization," but if it involves the tax-free export processing zones in countries like Indonesia, which ensure that almost no capital gets reinvested into a society, then I'm afraid I don't share Stone's zealous, blind faith in the religion of the "free-market." If this is "intellectualism" as Stone sees it then I hope he is right about the climate of anti-intellectualism in this country.

David Marshall
Near Eastern Studies Graduate Student