Is intellectual a dirty word in any other country?

I'm just curious. People in the media keep calling Obama the "I-word" to mean a negative--like it's a code-word for "effete, pampered, and gay."

Perhaps unique among Western nations, our country seems to prefer "horse sense," more than anything else--you know, the old-fashioned, home-spun common sense that prompted our current President decide that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in cahoots because, well, they're both A-rabs. Meanwhile, future Nobel-prize winner Al Gore was derided as "boring."

Methinks that if Thomas Jefferson ran for President today, he wouldn't make it past New Hampshire.

They are a 'threat' to fascism.

the list goes on.

Myanmar

EVERY authoritarian regime uses the intellectuals they agree with to strengthen their hold

they destroy any intellectual that threatens their power, by whatever means necessary.

re: the Soviets, one of the most effective measures used against dissenter was sending them to Lubyanka, then on to the Gulags, if they failed to see the light

Socrates, anyone?

That Bush has made so famous. They don't remember what its like to have thoughtful smart President.

Is your answer.

In the event of a McCain win this year, the only possible solution I could offer is that 'Stupid States' are stripped of a certain number of electoral votes.

we have waited 8 years.

(psst. McCain may not have any)

Not too many left.

And I mean specifically England, not the UK as a whole. The Scots and Welsh have much more respect for intellectual pursuits.

I don't think the anti-intellectual attitude is as extreme here as in America, however.

Particularly when those cherished beliefs and values are opposed to reality.

There is no place for intellectualism in a fascist or proto-fascist culture.

Fundementalists of any monotheistic stripe are not known for the tolerance of anything intellectual.

Plenty more countries fit the mold, but S.A. comes to mind first as one of the more cheerful examples.

a fairly strong strain of anti-intellectualism. Some of it is rooted in how the concept of equality is misinterpreted and misrepresented ( "if we are all 'equal' then how can those intellectuals be smarter - know better - than me"). Some of it comes out of our early colonial/ expansionist heritage that believed that "the common person" could achieve anything through hard physical work. A chunk of it comes out of the movement in higher education - starting, I think, roughly with Teddy Roosevelt, but probably earlier - that maintained that the purpose of education should be practical and business oriented. Look at the people we uphold in our popular mythos who are "smart:" Thomas Edison and Henry Ford - eminently practical "inventors," but hardly intellectuals. Look at how academics, artists and thinkers are portrayed in general culture.

To a great extent, we have a nation of pundits whereas a number of other countries have a history of public intellectuals, artists and writers. It is a pretty complicated issue as to why and the history, but generally speaking, yes, the United States likes practical, common sense "everypersons" ( who, more often than not are blockheads) and resents and mistrusts intellectuals.

EDIT: It's the one great American unifier.

Stalin hated academics and other smart people. Just like the GOP does now.

are somewhat anti-intellectual, while a few T.V. personalities will make a television program showcasing how stupid Americans are.

I've heard that intellectual pursuits are hard to find in Australian cities, and they like to travel alot, not sure if those two are related. Depends upon where an Aussie will journey to, and for what reason.

candidate would you want to have a beer with" is exceedingly disturbing and sadly characteristic of the deeply engrained streak of anti-intellectualism in this country which has gotten much worse in the last decades. I don't want a "regular guy" in the Oval office. I want someone brilliant, special and extraordinary --- and yes, intellectual.