A little intellect goes a long way

After somewhat carefully reading Stephen Mack's entries in his blog on the public intellectual (here and here) I was left with one overriding sentiment: You're never going to convince people of anything if they fundamentally disagree with you. Case in point, Mack and I had a discussion as to whether or not Sean Hannity is a public intellectual. My argument was that he makes political statements, supported by facts, and has a wide audience who pays attention to what he says.

Mack, who suffice it to say is not a regularly listener to Mr. Hannity, was not convinced. Paraphrasing here, he said something to the effect of, "Just because many people listen to you doesn't mean your a public intellectual." This is where he and I disagree.

The value of a public intellectual is found in his ability to inform and convince me to agree with him. Now let me defend my definition. I think Mr. Mack would have a hard time disagreeing with me that a public intellectual who cannot change the mind of his audience is of much value. Thus, just being informed may make you an intellectual, and just being published may make you public, but you can hardly be called a public intellectual if you're just preaching to the converted all the time.

That being said, I think it's unfair to argue that the polar opposite of the ivory tower type I just described is not a public intellectual. Our friend over at Politosaurus Rex helped me with my research here: "Ralph Waldo Emerson described the public intellectual as an active force in society. They should be knowledgeable in history, but only because of its relevance in today’s world." Sean Hannity clearly fits that description. It's his job to tell it like it is, to convince his viewers, listeners and yes, readers to see the world the way he does. The only difference between Hannity and Ralph Waldo Emerson is what they're trying to convince me of.

Now, that may sound glib, and it is. But here's the catch, and here's where this gets fun. The value of a public intellectual is in their ability to affect change in the republic. "The measure of a public intellectual is not whether the people are listening, but whether their hearing things worth talking about."

What Mack's essentially saying is that a public intellectual should critique what need critiquing. That it's the role of a good public intellectual to criticize the wisdom of others to make sure it's sound. "It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs." If there was ever someone whose day job it is to practice criticism, it's Sean Hannity.

Hannity role as a public intellectual is to examine what he thinks needs to be looked at, to poke and prod it to his viewer's delight. Talk radio hosts don't gain an audience cause they're always nice guys. They get paid the big bucks because they go after the other guys, and yes, it's fun to listen to. But here's the key. Every once in a while, every once in a while, they say something useful.

Every once in a while they show the millions of people who would otherwise not care about an issue of public concern. Something Mack's "public intellectuals" would also talk about. But without Hannity, without Rush, without Michael Savage, people who otherwise wouldn't be paying attention at all hear about what Mack wants them to pay attention to. Dittoheads they may be, but we're better off because these public figures make average Americans just a little bit more intellectual.

Good artists borrow...

I liked this post over at Of Ignorance so much I figured I'd link to it so the three of you who actually read this would check it out. It's about a major art theft in Switzerland last week.

A Classroom Revolt

Apparently the rank and file of the California Teachers Association stormed the Bonaventure (so to speak) when the board, holding their annual meeting at the hotel in Los Angeles tried to ram through an endorsement for Hillary Clinton.

Word is leaking out that CTA’s membership staged an outright mutiny at Los Angeles’ Bonaventure Hotel and bucked its own Board’s attempt to railroad through an early endorsement for Hillary. CTA’s elites apparently got a big wake up call when their effort to crown Hillary as the official choice of California’s teachers was upended by overwhelming resistance from rank and file Obama supporters.

Kristol Klear

In what has now become my favorite weekly op-ed, Bill Kristol annoys New York Times readers with his conservative insights on the 2008 race. This week's column addressed Bill's effect on Hillary in SC:

Hillary was ahead in South Carolina polls as recently as early December. And in fact, women made up 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, blacks 55 percent. If Obama was getting votes because of race and Hillary because of gender, Hillary had a perfectly good chance to win. Bill Clinton’s excuse is unconvincing and unseemly.

He's repeating the CW of the week, but his prediction for this week's action is interesting:

Right now, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls in almost all the big states voting. She is a tough and capable campaigner, and she may be able to hold on to those leads. But it is now clear that putting her in the White House brings a hyperactive Bill back in with her. Who needs it? Liberals and Democrats can get basically the same policies without the Clinton baggage, and in choosing Obama, they can nominate a more electable candidate.
So Hillary’s advantage in the polls will, I suspect, erode. The erosion could be hastened by the expected endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy on Monday. It could be helped further along if Al Gore hops aboard the Obama bandwagon later in the week. Meanwhile, Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader during most of the Clinton presidency, is actively supporting Obama. Talk to Democrats in D.C., and it’s amazing how many who know the Clintons well — many of whom worked in the Clinton administration — are eager that they not return to the White House.
This week, the Clinton team will dump every bit of opposition research it has on Obama. We’ll see how Obama responds.
But the moment of truth could come at the Democratic debate Thursday, in Los Angeles. Edwards may have dropped out by then. If so, it will be a one-on-one showdown. Even if he’s there, he’ll be effectively a bystander. Will Obama hold his own?
I’d say that even if you’ve (understandably) skipped the previous debates, this is one to tune into. I had a dinner scheduled Thursday night. I’m canceling it. The Giants probably won’t beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. But this could be the week Obama upsets the Clintons.

There's no way Edwards drops out before Super Tuesday, but Kristol is right, Thursday is Custer's last stand. I'll definitely watch the debate, but I won't be canceling dinner...more likely, I'll order the pizza in advance...

The Southern Strategy

Well it seems like just about everyone has their eyes focused on the south this weekend. While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been chasing after every last vote heading into tonight's primary, the Republicans have branched out, with Mike Huckabee looking for some Super Tuesday votes in Alabama and Georgia:

"A quick email from the campaign trail in Florida. Two new polls released today show us in 1st in Georgia and tied for 1st in Alabama with Senator McCain. We are working hard to win these delegate rich, Super Tuesday primary states."

For Romney, Florida is a must win state, and the most recent poll I have shows Romney in striking distance of McCain:

From Subscriber Pages on The Polling Report
(use the link above to get the same data from Pollster.com for free)

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll. Jan. 23-25, 2008. N=814 likely Republican primary voters statewide. MoE ± 3.4.
Republican Primary Trial Heat:
		%
	John McCain	31
	Mitt Romney	28
	Rudy Giuliani	15
	Mike Huckabee	10
	Ron Paul	5
	Other	2
	Unsure	9

If Romney pulls it out, we've still got a race on our hands. If McCain holds on, he's basically the nominee. Tonight should be a lot of fun...

Inevitability 2.0?

With McCain and Hillary's wins today, the question going into Florida is whether our original front-runners are once again on top. If Hillary can win next Saturday, at least among my unrepresentative sample of friends, all agree she'll be our first female nominee of a major party. If not, who knows.

On the Republican side, the comeback kid took his gains in New Hampshire, reminded South Carolina why some of them liked him the first time around, and eeked out a win against populist Mike Huckabee. I'm a Huckabee fan, but this is definitely the end of the line for him. Again, the unrepresentative sample agrees, Florida is about McCain and Romney. John has the momentum and Mitt the money. If Florida repeats South Carolina, all the talk of a brokered convention is off, and we've got our candidates. If I had to put my money anywhere, it's on those two.

Isn't it a little ironic that if the same question was asked a year ago today, you'd get the same answer... I understand why Hillary turned out the way she did, but McCain's comeback needs a better look from a numbers perspective. Exit polls analysis to come, later...