Recently, I heard JD Vance (the would-be Vicepresident of the US) proclaim: THE ENEMY ARE THE PROFESSORS! Unsurprisingly, this remark alarmed me; I had not been previously aware of being an enemy of the people.
Vance stressed that this was a quote by Richard Nixon made some 40/50 years ago. I looked up Nixon’s quote and found that the original is apparently a little different:
Never forget, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard a hundred times and never forget it.
So, why does Vance quote Nixon (arguably not one of the most honest men in the history of US politics) and insist on THE PROFESSORS ARE THE ENEMY? Why was this puzzling quote followed by plenty of applause from his audience?
The answer must be that it is a populist theme that touches a nerve with right-wing voters. But what does the sentence actually mean?
On Vance’s campaign website, he explains that “hundreds of billions of American tax dollars” get sent to universities that “teach that America is an evil, racist nation.” These universities “then train teachers who bring that indoctrination into our elementary and high schools.” Vance doesn’t want public funds to go to institutions that teach “critical race theory or radical gender ideology.” He rather wants them to deliver “an honest, patriotic account of American history.”
Vance and Nixon are not the first politicians to recently claimed that the enemies are the professors. In 2016, the UK conservative Michael Gove refused to name any economist backing Britain’s exit from the European Union, saying that “people in this country have had enough of experts”.
According to Wikipedia, anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, history, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits. Anti-intellectuals may present themselves and be perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academic elitism—and tend to see educated people as a status class that dominates political discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people. Totalitarian governments have, in the past, manipulated and applied anti-intellectualism to repress political dissent. During the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) and the following dictatorship (1939–1975) of General Francisco Franco, the reactionary repression of the White Terror (1936–1945) was notably anti-intellectual, with most of the 200,000 civilians killed being the Spanish intelligentsia, the politically active teachers and academics, artists and writers of the deposed Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939). During the Cambodian Genocide (1975–1979), the totalitarian regime of Cambodia led by Pol Pot nearly destroyed its entire educated population.
Fascist movements are notoriously anti-intellectual and anti-science. Adolf Hitler said he regretted that his regime still had some need for its “intellectual classes,” otherwise, “one day we could, I don’t know, exterminate them or something.” And Joseph Goebbels said this: “There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be the man in the street. Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.” And the ‘bon mot’, “when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun”, is attributed even to several of the top Nazis of the Third Reich.
And here we might have a reason why a certain type of politician dislikes intellectuals and feels that the enemy are the professors. Professors do science, science is about truth, and the truth is something that politiciance like Vance must fear like the pest. It would disclose their agenda as being fascist.
In conclusion, the claim, “THE PROFESSORS ARE THE ENEMY”, is an argument of polititians who have good reason to fear the truth, and it appeals to voters who are too dim to understand the danger posed by those they wish to elect.
16 Responses to The enemy are the professors! Really? Why?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
The Vance website is there for anyone to read.
The Wikipedia entry is there for anyone to read.
We the People are still, just free enough, to be allowed to make up our own minds about which is true.
To the old blob, as well as the rest of the ignorantly dupable MAGA sheep, truth is whatever he makes up his mind to believe.
Your are no “People”. You are an ignorant fool, populist and truther.
In my opinion, any politician who declares arbitrary groups of citizens to be the enemy is by definition unfit for the job, and should be removed from their position ASAP.
Well, I’d say the racist part is certainly true. Not only is a large part of America’s success as a nation built on the labor and blood of slaves, but even today, not all people are treated equal. Racism still permeates American society on all levels. (and unfortunately, many other Western countries do not fare much better).
This even goes for the Vance family, appearing to be on the receiving end of racist sentiments, J.D. Vance’s wife being the daughter of Indian immigrants. It really makes me wonder what goes on in these people’s heads – denouncing any initiatives to do something about systemic racism on the one hand, while at the same time suffering this very same racism on the other hand.
Give me an Indian-pal any day of the week – if you are reading this, Pradeep, remember when we were “chased” out of the pub by bone-heads? – or Sarinda Singh, playing table-football at the Poly?
Indian is my favourite race – they are so hard-working and happy!
OB, What is your least favorite race and why?
Well, in your case, it’s because you’re a horse’s ass.
See? No admiration what-so-ever, just as you requested, you silly old fool.
It is no secret that irrational smuggling circulates easily in and out of universities, even with the help of academics and intellectuals. A curious –and esoteric– example was that of the Argentine agronomist Iván Lepes, who, after retiring from university teaching, dedicated 25 years of his life to investigating the possibility of communicating telepathically with flies and, in this way, meeting extraterrestrial intelligences (Agostinelli, 2014). We also have the case of the American decolonial philosopher and feminist Sandra Harding, who went so far as to describe Newton’s work, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, as a manual of rape due to its “extremely sexist and exploitative nature” language (Andrade & Ferreira, 2021). Another interesting case was that of the Belgian philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray, who suggested that Einstein’s equation (E = mc2) was sexist because it privileges what goes faster, that is, light ―the problem is that with a different speed the equation does not work―. This researcher also stated that fluid mechanics was underdeveloped in relation to that of solids because solidity was better identified with masculine mechanics and fluidity with feminine mechanics (Sokal & Bricmont, 1999). When one wonders how and why a civilization born of knowledge and dependent on it is so intent on combating it, one feels, quite rightly, obliged to think about the role played by intellectuals (Revel, 1989). However, it is not by censoring this kind of anti-intellectualism that we are going to solve the problem. What we need is for intellectuals committed to science and, above all, to the truth, to make a greater effort to combat this type of thinking in the arena of public and academic debate.
“Another interesting case was that of the Belgian philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray, who suggested that Einstein’s equation (E = mc2) was sexist because it privileges what goes faster, that is, light ―the problem is that with a different speed the equation does not work―.”
😃
Actually, it “privileges” what goes slowest: the equation applies to a particle in a rest frame; a particle having rest mass (invariant mass) 𝑚 and velocity 𝑣=0.
I’d counter with: 𝐸 = 𝑚𝑐² privileges slothfulness !
For moving objects:
𝐸 ≈ 𝑚𝑐² + ½𝑚𝑣²
Thank you!
An Excellent and well reasoned argument you post. After watching the RNC convention I can’t help but ask myself isn’t there a separation between church and state?? Jesus Christ was mentioned as often as Trump Vance. Perhaps many Republicans believe they are one and the same??
@Jay Kennedy
So specifically, what does this separation look like ?
The US Constitution does not specifically state a distinct separation, rather it says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ”
“Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America’s doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one’s will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions.”
Separation of Church and State… is an ambiguous term that is still being defined. In other words, it’s up to interpretation.
@
RG“John”Nope, it is quite unambiguous. This, for instance, is a serious violation of the separation of church and state, and thus of the US Constitution:
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/19/politics/louisiana-classrooms-ten-commandments/index.html
If the courts refuse to have this law repealed, this means that the US is one step closer to theocracies such as Afghanistan and Iran. There is no good reason whatsoever to force schools to prominently display the 10 commandments.
For much the same reasons, teachers, schools and/or states are not allowed to perform prayer (mandatory or even voluntary) in class or e.g. before sports games.
@dick rasker
(You botch my name, and I am free to retaliate)
lol
Sir, you seem to be inept in US law.
The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, yes. The Supreme courts job is to INTREPRET the law, and they will define the law as they see fit. After 250 years, the battle between State Rights and Federal Law is still being fought. Folks from other countries … as you are find this difficult to understand.
Roe vs Wade was a nationally protected right to an abortion for 50 years, however the S Court decided to give the power to decide the right back to the States. Why ? … because the right to an abortion was never mentioned in the Constitution. And yes, the judges are capable of wrongly interrupting the law…. at any time.
Also, if the law in Louisiana challenged, and likely it might be, the case will go as far as the Supreme Court to be decided if there is an overreach in the Louisiana State law.
That said, in the very link you suppled, there is another case mentioned that might indicate to you that as I said, not everything is cut and dry. Some things need to be defined as the courts interpret the law.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/19/politics/louisiana-classrooms-ten-commandments/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics/football-coach-prayer-high-school-supreme-court-kennedy/index.html
“The court said coach Joe Kennedy’s prayers amounted to private speech, protected by the First Amendment, and could not be restricted by the school district.
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., June 26, 2022.
Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark First Amendment decision, leaving higher bar for libel in place
The decision lowers the bar between church and state in an opinion that will allow more religious expression in public spaces. The court clarified that a government entity does not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause by permitting religious expression in public.
Keep trying sir
It doesn’t detract from the arguement but it should be noted that Goebbels didn’t say that – being a good propagandist he would maintain that he was always telling the truth. Vance isn’t good enough to maintain the kayfabe…
Full explanation here:
https://truthisthegreatestenemyofthestate.blogspot.com/2019/09/another-fabricated-quotation.html
For you, it’s because you’re as big as a horse. Do you see? As you desired, you ignorant dweeb, I offer you zero admiration.