Various people have commented over the years about what they view as anti-intellectualism in America. They believe that a large number of people despise intellect and brilliant minds. Certainly, anti-intellectualism can be dangerous for any society, since progress comes from ideas put into action. There really isn’t any significant portion of American society, however, that is truly anti-intellectual, in the sense of being against people who think. The American people are, on the other hand, most certainly opposed to the arrogance of intellectuals who believe that they know how to run the lives of others, that they have a right to do so, and that they know how to solve every problem by the sheer power of their own intellect, ignoring the localized and tacit knowledge essential for the effective functioning of every society.

The real issue is not that intellectuals have ideas which other people envy or despise, but rather that they seek to impose their views onto the rest of society, typically using government coercion. It is not what the intellectuals think that offends, but rather what they do. Thus people are not anti-intellectual. They are anti-intellectual-arrogance and hubris.

Many intellectuals foster the notion of the “ivory tower,” where they remain separated from real people and experiences in society and think their deep thoughts in a vacuum far above the fray. They are entertained by concepts and notions that need not have any bearing on actual life and society, while the rest of the world operates within the confines of reality.

A recent example of that ivory tower hubris was offered up by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. The perspective is that economics is hard, very, very hard, and nobody but PhD economists should comment about it. The lay public, according to this line of thinking, should just go about its business and leave all of that really hard stuff to the experts. After all, look how well they have done with our economy so far to make it stable and prosperous for all. That thinking disregards the fact that the business that people go about doing every day is economics. People make decisions virtually every waking minute of the day, and economics is about individuals making decisions.

Not all intellectuals think alike or propose the same theories. There are PhD economists whose ideas are the polar opposites of other PhD economists. Both sides cannot be right, however smart or good-hearted they are. A PhD degree does not impart truth or omniscience on its holder. Which expert should you believe? One is able to explain phenomena using clear, straight-forward logic, based on valid premises, supported by factual evidence, and borne out by history and daily life. The other can offer only cryptic gibberish based on unrealistic models, the very foundation of which is economic and logical fallacy, and then say: “Trust me. I’m an expert. It is much too hard for you.”

The overriding problem with most macroeconomists in the mainstream is that they don’t try to understand and delineate economic laws the way that other scientists try to understand and delineate the physical laws. The primary function of modern macroeconomists is to provide ideological cover for politicians and government agencies to do what they always want to do anyway; tax, spend, and regulate. That’s why they are popular with politicians.

The research report mentioned above used an example of cancer research to make the point that people don’t comment on oncology because they aren’t qualified. Oncologists, however, are involved with curing cancer in individuals. That individual voluntarily contracts with the specialist for a service. A good oncologist will be able to explain in plain language what is going on so that the medical service customer understands the implications and risks before making a voluntary decision for his or her own personal benefit.

If oncologists used government to enforce a specified regimen, people would harbor just as much animosity toward them as they do toward economists. Oncologists and other specialists need the ability to covey the benefits of their recommendations so that people will voluntarily follow the guidelines. Experts, especially those in economics, have forced their opinions on the public through government programs, even though they were wrong-headed and damaging. People have a low level of trust for many experts because those experts have displayed a low level of trustworthiness, reliability and accountability. They make other people bear the consequences of their mistakes, with no remorse or apologies. Thus, people despise their arrogance, not their intellect.