Professsor Paul Rahe

I just concluded another Hillsdale College online course on Western Heritage. I was just watching the interview with lecturer Paul Rahe. It was the 11th Lecture: :From Elizabeth I to the Glorious Revolution".

 The interviewer, Professor John Miller, seemed affronted by Rahe's insightful criticism of James I as an intellectual that wrote books on theology. James was unpopular because he was a Scotch foreigner, and an intellectual that wrote of the divine rights of kings.

Miller challenged Rahe, asking why would we not want a political leader to be an intellectual. Rahe responded that Churchill was an intellectual, but also had earthy practicality. James the I, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and--I add Barack Obama--that were intellectuals that were poor political leaders. They were smug, rigid, authoritarian ideologues. They issued proclamations and directives that they expected the commoners instantly to accept without question and to comply with. They were incensed and insulted, and took it personally if the masses did not buckle under right now.

Those that are practical and worldly, and come out of the world of business, are less ideological ordinarily, and are more moderate. A moderate leader is more democratic, less authoritarian, and more objective, able to hear the oppositional voices of the people and dissidents, without needing to wall them off or coerce them into submitting to his will.

Intellectual ideologues were also prominent in all totalitarian regimes that have existed.

Rahe is spot on: we do not want pure, academic, fanatical professors running our country.

This is also why Hoffer is so brilliant and so original. He is an individual first, unique and self-referencing. He works out in the world with his hand, before reading and writing at night. He lives in the world of commerce and trade, all the while mulling over his concepts, theories and insights in the world of ideas, in the world of the mind.

The moderate intellectual must come out of and back into the world of commerce and profit-making. Then as intelletuals and political leaders, as a group and and a rough rule of thumb, they will be more democratic leaders, willing to lead but also adapt and compromise and be led by the expectations of the people that they were elected to lead.

A fanatic or pure intellectual, is inherently, unavoidably authoritarian, and is inclined to resort to force, violence and punishment to compel the masses to obey his desires and commands as their commander.

The moderate or practical intellectual in inherently freedom-loving, so much so that he demands his own liberty while insisting that his followers keep, enjoy and express themselves in their separate and self-administered domain of liberty.

If the masses reject his opinions and proffered policies, he seeks to use persuasion and argumentation only to win them over. Should they resist and remain solid in opposing his proposals, there are only so many ethical or honorable paths for him to walk down.

First, he can go against his principles, and just cave and do it their way.
Second, he can resign.
Third, he can negotiate and seek and honorable compromise with them, mostly satisfying to all parties.
Fourth, he can just ignore the impasse, agree to disagree, stay in office, and just move on to other more tractable issues.