I Think, Therefore I Am : Relying on talk radio to validate our feelings has become an easy way to avoid intellectual discussion and debate.

When the new congressional freshman class opted to forgo orientation at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, many interpreted it as a shift away from the liberal Northeast academic climate to a more conservative place, which would reaffirm the ideology of the Republicans’ new “contract with America.” But this, combined with Newt Gingrich’s support for cutting funding for public broadcasting, is the unsettling message that intellectuals, particularly academics, are no longer necessary in the public discourse of politics.

There is little doubt that underlying this is the view that academics are a privileged elite who have no understanding of the daily battles of survival for the middle class. The growing demonization of intellectuals in American society speaks to a real danger that threatens governance based on reason and civil discourse.

This is not to suggest that academics do not share responsibility for their own growing isolation from the general public. Clearly, the trend toward greater specialization in research and publication in arcane journals creates an insular life. And leaders in higher education have not been effective in communicating the message that university faculty are relevant to everyday life. In general, those in higher education have been unsuccessful in moving forward the cause for educated reason over emotional response in the debates for social change. Moreover, as academics become increasingly marginalized from mainstream society, their fundamental status as the nation’s educators becomes suspect.

There is no doubt that the media have played a role in fueling the anti-intellectualism that permeates political debate. Rush Limbaugh’s success is linked not only to his ability to validate the visceral emotions of the middle class, but also to the networks’ unwillingness to risk profit levels for programs that require greater literacy from the general public. In many ways, the new opiate for most Americans has become the soothing drone of simple-minded chatter that minimizes “book learning” and reaffirms personal beliefs. This new community of media “intellectuals” who enter our homes and our lives has replaced the front-porch discussions of years past.

Tabloid journalists and talk-show hosts pander to our deepest insecurities, further distancing us from more intellectual pursuits. But the cost of such distancing could be the success of our market system. An electorate that is unwilling to tax itself mentally and enter into heated political discussions based on literacy and knowledge does not bode well for America’s future in the world order.

Liberals and conservatives must not ignore the significance of literacy in informed decision-making. This includes a thorough understanding of an opponent’s point of view. Both reciprocity and tolerance are necessary for the best solution to evolve. Though emotional responses about political issues may develop, they should not dehumanize an opponent. Meaningful debate about social policy always includes judgments, but reason should triumph.

University classrooms are almost the only places left where there are civil discussions of complex issues. And even there, emotions must be controlled to allow for competing interests to examine social issues. Most college students realize that a requirement for participation in a discussion is knowledge of the topic. As students thirst for additional knowledge, the notion of absolute truth comes into question. Relative truth and global complexity emerge as unsettling catalysts.

This painful academic process, which pushes the boundaries of our intellects and forces us to understand, not vilify, our opponents, is a model that must re-emerge in the public arena. Respecting differences and developing consensus are basic skills in most classrooms, but are lacking in today’s political arena, where middle-class feelings have become of greater concern. This focus on emotions rather than reason has further fueled anti-intellectualism.

Middle-class people are the new victims in American society, but the victimization is not from big government or higher taxes, but from their own intellectual malaise. As the middle class points fingers at the poor, at big government, at immigrants, it must begin pointing at itself and taking responsibility for an unwillingness to think.