Foreign Policy magazine is inviting readers to vote for their Top Five Public Intellectuals. Here’s the link. As you can see, there are 100 "intellectuals" listed.
One Hundred. And yet, I didn’t make the list. Tom Friedman — sure, HE made the list. And the Pope, too — and you know, I don’t even like this Pope as much as the last one…
I’m reduced to being like one of those pathetic celebrity freaks at a premiere, standing alongside the red carpet, hoping to see an intellectual I recognize: "Oh, LOOK, there’s Salman Rushdie! I know him — I met him at a reception over at Andrew Sorensen’s place! I had my picture taken with him (and I’m still waiting to get a copy, I might add)!"
It’s sad. So then I pore over the list, looking for the biases of the compilers. Hmmm. I see four guys who are mainly known for being famous atheists, so is that … no, there are several religious types other than the Pope. Wait, what’s this — how can you have a "Muslim Televangelist," since "evangelist" refers to a proclaimer of the Gospel? No way. They could have put me in that guy’s place…
Oh, well. At least I can pick my own Top Five. Here they are, in alphabetical order, with the rather thin rationales for each:
- Pope Benedict XVI — As I said, no John Paul the Great, but a smart guy, whatever you think of him. And he has one of the world’s bulliest pulpits. I figure if you’re looking for public intellectuals, we’re talking potential for influence, right?
- Umberto Eco — Did you read The Name of the Rose? I did, and was impressed. (Not so much by Foucault’s Pendulum, though.)
- Tom Friedman — Hey, I had to give a nod to somebody in the trade. And he has potential to have more public influence (and for the good, I’d say) than almost anyone else on the list.
- Vaclav Havel — Based on the cool factor. Both a playwright and a paradigm-busting political leader.
- David Petraeus — There is no more practical or unforgiving testing ground for an idea than the battlefield. By applying his ideas, he turned around both facts on the ground and the political momentum in this country. No mean feat.
I almost put Robert Putnam on there, just to get somebody with communitarian cred. But you can’t have everything in a Top Five list. In fact, if you don’t shoot from the hip, you can’t get your list done. Reflect too much and it doesn’t work.
And believe you me, the most famous names of the moment are likely to dominate here — unless the Foreign Policy readers ALL go esoteric, just to prove how smart they are, which is a distinct possibility.
But this list was compiled with an eye to celebrity, and provocation, for that matter. For instance, I find Robert Samuelson more intellectually impressive than Paul Krugman, but Krugman made the list (provocation) and Samuelson didn’t. And I’ve had the privilege of engaging in long conversations with both Al Gore and Lindsey Graham, and guess what — while Al’s no slouch, Lindsey’s smarter. But with his Nobel and his Oscar, of course he was chosen (also, in defense, he’s WAY more influential, thanks to that celebrity).
Have I ticked off enough people yet? I’m sure I have. OK, smart guy — who’s in YOUR Top Five?
Related Posts
Tom Friedman is barely acquainted with some of his favorite subjects, far from an intellectual.
Vacav Havel – same beliefs as Ron Paul. Both of them are intellectuals. And right.
What’s interesting about the list is that there are so few from the current US administration. But cowboy foreign policy is typical for us, no matter who runs the administration–shoot first and look later.
But why would you put Friedman in front of Nicolas Kristof? Kristof gets it better than Friedman does.
I find Robert Samuelson more intellectually impressive than Paul Krugman, but Krugman made the list.
I’ve had the privilege of engaging in long conversations with both Al Gore and Lindsey Graham, and guess what — while Al’s no slouch, Lindsey’s smarter.
-Brad
Brad, your pro-occupation bias is shining through on this one. Clearly Graham has gotten almost nothing right concerning the occupation of Iraq. Given the latest round of violence in Iraq it’s really a complete impossibility to defend that $3 trillion (and counting) boondoggle any more. This cost is affecting our economy by forcing us to borrow from abroad to pay for this mess thus putting downward pressure on the dollar. The cost of gasoline is just one consequence of this. All of this of course is in addition to the huge number of deaths (including thousands of suicides), injuries and the loss of self-respect in the world. Does Lindsey ever talk about this? Of course not, he ignores it, just as you do. That doesn’t make him an intellectual, that just makes him a demagogue. Yet you persist in claiming, without evidence, that Lindsey is somehow an intellectual. Give me a break.
As far as Samuelson vs. Krugman that’s a no-brainer. Last week Samuelson was making claims about the virtues of drilling for oil (ANWAR, Atlantic Seaboard) that have looooog ago been debunked. Krugman has been spot-on in his analysis of economic matters.
RE: Lindsey Graham. The last time I checked, they don’t hand out Nobel’s for being known for riding a sex scandel.Maybe you mean that Lindsey is so smart that he knows how to be smart and shallow at the same time.
My top five:
1) Dennis Miller
2) George Will
3) Mark Sanford
4) bud
5) Brad
Careful, Brad…”intellectual” is a dirty word in America.
There are a lot of silly inclusions on their list…as much as I admire Al Gore and what he’s chosen to do since 2000, he’s an activist, not an intellectual. He synthesizes and advocates on behalf of work others have done. In music circles, there are others who are much more of an intellectual bent than Daniel Barenboim…his buddy Edward Said was a much better example, but he’s dead so we can’t nominate him. Petraeus? Impressive general and implementer of approaches espoused by others, i.e., thinkers. Again, he doesn’t belong on this list.
Friedman is much more passionate on behalf of the cause of…Tom Friedman…than anything else, though he is perceptive much of the time. I agree with Bud, Herb, and (gulp) even Lee that Friedman does not rate. Kristof is much better, and Samuelson is just a conservative shill, not terribly persuasive. There are plenty of more coherent conservative thinkers out there, I would rank George Will and Newt Gingrich as worthy of this list ahead of some others.
My top 5 would include Tony Judt, the Pope, Rem Koolhaas, E.O. Wilson, a write-in vote for Esa-Pekka Salonen as a better (and more future-looking) music-related choice than Daniel Barenboim…and a three-way tie for honorable mention between Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, for fighting back on behalf of atheism.
Tom Waits-“I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy”
Frank Zappa-“So,when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden,if you go for all these fairy tales,that “evil” woman convinced the man to eat the apple,but the apple came from the Tree of Knowledge.And the punishment that was then handed down,the woman gets to bleed and the guy’s got to go to work,is the result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a good idea,that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property and domain of God.So,that right away sets up Christianity as an anti-intellectual religion.You never want to be that smart.If you’re a woman,it’s going to be running down your leg,and if you’re a guy,you’re going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life.So,just be a dumb f*** and you’ll all go to heaven. That’s the subtext of Christianity.
Don Delillo-“I think it’s only in a crisis that Americans see other people.It has to be an American crisis,of course.If two countries fight that do not supply the Americans with some precious commodity,then the education of the public does not take place.But when the dictator falls, when the oil is threatened,then you turn on the television and they tell you where the country is,what the language is,how to pronounce the names of the leaders,what the religion is all about,and maybe you can cut out recipes in the newspaper of Persian dishes.”
Anthony Braxton-“Everybody in America is angry about something.”
Gore Vidal-“Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically,by definition,be disqualified from ever doing so.”
General Petraeus graduated at the top of his class in high school and at West Point. Those who know him say he is an intellectual. Generals like Petraeus do not just implement the policies of others – they tell their political leaders what the situation is and how to handle it. Petraeus would not have taken the job without a lot of free rein to go after the thugs in a few remaining enclaves, and he has been cleaning them out.
Stick to the list, folks. Kristof’s not on the list. Do like Philip — not that penultimo doesn’t make at least one fine choice.
One point though, Philip — fighting BACK on behalf of atheism? Strikes me that those dudes are pretty much on the offensive, not playing defense. I’m reading Dennett at the moment, and he keeps making arguments against things that make me stop and say, “But who’s saying THAT?” He’s shadowboxing with a caricature of religion, along the lines of the Zappa one bill just cited.
I’m afraid these guys have formed their ideas of religion and the religious from the MSM, and I’m here to tell you, the MSM on the whole doesn’t know squat about religion…
I would suggest that one important requirement for an intellectual is that they are not given a pre-determined mandate. That would automatically exclude David Petreaus. Even if you believe him to be an intelligent, capable man his job was simply to put a face on a policy already set by the administration. He did not have the latitude to analyze the situation and reach conclusions independent of the already determined Bush policy mandating a continued occupation of Iraq. He was merely a front-man trying to put the best face on that policy. To the extent that he’s served as a good front man you could argue that he’s done a pretty decent job. But given his limited role he cannot be regarded as an intellectual.
A true intellectual would actually provide a thought-provoking analysis of both the costs and benefits of different options related to Iraq. Petraeus merely provided some costs and vague benefits of the pre-determined policy. His various presentations always start with the end-result in mind, that we will continue in Iraq. Then Petreaus works backwards from that pre-determined decision in order to provide the best possible spin on the situation.
They must have shown distinction in their particular field as well as an ability to influence wider debate, often far beyond the borders of their own country. criteria
Jimmy Carter is omitted so “sticking to the list” makes this a specious activity. The sheer volume of his international activity and his direct influence in Africa and in elections throughout the world, beyond his revolutionary work on Middle East peace, makes him a no brainer.
We’re seeing a rapidly increasing interest in Africa and a continuing interest in Arab-Israeli peace. Carter was in the vangaurd for both. His visit with Hamas leaders is certainly cutting edge and engages the world in dialogue that few dare to initiate. His perceived audacity to actual criticize Israel on behalf of the plight of the Palestiniens is courageous and acts as a catalyst for dialogue.
I never stuck to the list before, and I’m not going to stick to any &*^*^(*^ list now.
Besides, you should be down on your knees apologizing for today’s offensive editorial cartoon.
What were you thinking?
I agree with mcfarland. I find that quite offensive!
I nominate Scott Ritter, chief UN Weapons inspector in the 90s as one of the great intellectual thinkers of our time. He correctly surmised that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction and likewise suggested our invasion would result in a bloody, never-ending stalemate.
Brad, I knew you were going to say that about my “fighting back” comment, and I confess I threw that in there partly to get your goat a bit. No disrespect intended.
But in this country at least, where 85% of the population claim a religious affiliation, I submit that a leader who openly claims an atheist position would basically be a pariah. In this state as you well know, it is a clause in the Constitution specifically prohibiting an atheist from serving as Governor. Can you imagine if that clause read that no Jewish person could be Governor, or no Buddhist, or no Catholic? Is this any less discriminatory?
I know that it’s not true that 85% of Americans go to worship services every Sunday, but a still-very-high percentage do, so they are receiving religious doctrine weekly. Their children are raised in the structure of religion, which makes it more difficult to make an even-handed choice later in life about what to believe or not to believe.
We pat ourselves on the back for being religiously tolerant in this nation, but if you think about in terms of all the structures of society, that tolerance really only extends to believers of different creeds.
I bet there will be a serious Muslim candidate for Prez before an openly atheist candidate.
So, three writers going to bat on behalf of non-belief is only fair. If anything, you could argue that their books have sparked a number of eloquent counter-arguments on behalf of faith. These are good and healthy conversations to be having, the kind of conversations Western civilization needs to have to draw a strong contrast with fundamentalism such as we see practiced currently in much (not all) of Islam, and as we’ve seen in centuries past from Christianity.
General Petraeus can be in intellectual in some other subjects. His job at this time is to finish a war that we have been winning at different rates, from the very beginning. He is not an academic teaching at the War College.
Rene’ Descartes was an intellectual, but not in warfare, even though he was a mercenary soldier.
Come to think of it, ranking you below Mark Sanford and bud just to insult you was too good for you.
You have either the unmitigated gall, profound ignorance or complete insensitivity that would spark your unimaginable approval for today’s disgusting editorial cartoon, and yet all you can talk about is your regret you didn’t make the top 100 intellectuals on some stupid list.
You’re not in the top billion intellectuals, Mr. Warthen. Apparently, you spend all your time reading pundits without noticing what’s actually happening outside politics.
Shame, shame, shame.
OK, I give up — what is it that upsets you about the cartoon?
Actually, Philip, there were four. You’re not counting Peter Singer. Maybe not as famous as the others, but he still espouses atheism.
There may be more. I only found out about Singer accidentally.
The cartoon makes light of the horrific pain and suffering of an animal.
And bud: "Even if you believe him to be an intelligent, capable man his job was simply to put a face on a policy already set by the administration…"
The guy wrote the book, bud. The administration bought HIS ideas, not the other way around.
You would prefer I chose Robert Kagan? He was on FP’s list as well…
A quick top five…
1. Bill Gates
2. John Irving
3. John Derbyshire
4. Tom Peters
5. Mary Ro——sh (gone, but not forgotten)
I had to put the —- in the last name because Brad’s spam filter blocked it. Sort of like Valdemort in Harry Potter — she who must not be named.
The guy wrote the book, bud. The administration bought HIS ideas, not the other way around.
-Brad
That’s complete, utter nonsense. The stay-the-course model serves as the framework for the Iraqi occupation. Petreaus is nothing but a front man who is basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We’re little better off than we were 14 months ago when the “Surge” first started. On the evening news a few days ago they showed an ongoing fire-fight between American troops and Shiite militia units. This action was taking place while the Americans were trying to build a wall around the insurgent’s zone of operation. A wall? What kind of assinine progress is that? No Brad, Petreaus is no intellectual, he’s just another Bush puppet.
The guy wrote the book, bud. The administration bought HIS ideas, not the other way around.
-Brad
That’s complete, utter nonsense. The stay-the-course model serves as the framework for the Iraqi occupation. Petreaus is nothing but a front man who is basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We’re little better off than we were 14 months ago when the “Surge” first started. On the evening news a few days ago they showed an ongoing fire-fight between American troops and Shiite militia units. This action was taking place while the Americans were trying to build a wall around the insurgent’s zone of operation. A wall? What kind of assinine progress is that? No Brad, Petreaus is no intellectual, he’s just another Bush puppet.
I wish he’d included these comments in his “religious freedom” speech during his campaign…but better late than never: a certain former GOP Presidential candidate shares my views on discrimination against atheists.
Face it, bud – most of current events is way over your head.