Well, the ones who campaigned for Republicans certainly were.
"Egghead" specifically referred to Democratic intellectuals seen as being crackpots and/or being sympathetic to communism.
It was a term seized upon by establishment Republicans (and some establishment Democrats) who were themselves college-educated.
It's pretty clear that one here is talking about intellectually-inclined liberals or Democrats in general, despite the way this is typically framed. They are talking about privileged leftists (in both parties) with poor judgment. Apparently a topic of complaint in every country.
This was obviously true for most of the 20c, but it was common for Democrats to (mockingly) call the Republican Party "the party of ideas" in the late 19th century. We take those ideas for granted for now, but no one did more intellectual work than the 1856-1865 Republican Party.
I'm still not sure why the GOP didn't figure this out on its own. Maybe it did and we just don't hear much about it. Interesting that Moynihan says "real Republicans," not "conservatives." The "conservativism" framing may have been inevitable, but strikes me as a strategic error.
This 2015 Politico article is concerned that Trump may be unwilling to listen to GOP intellectuals, or that they'll have nothing offer him. Now the media expresses outrage that pro-Trump intellectuals exist.
First off, the report indicates that it will refer to "freedom of speech"--which it distinguishes from "academic freedom"--as "freedom of expression."
"Academic freedom" was a concept imported from Germany by newer US universities that kind of grated on Harvard and MIT.
While such protections were a big deal in Germany, Harvard and MIT had long defaulted to practices that served the same purpose, so the idea that they now had to import a German concept and procedure in order to secure what they already had was a bit ludicrous.
This really was just what most books were like in mid-19c America.
That's why I just stare blankly and say I don't care when someone recites the textbook narrative of religious or theological history and then implies some 19c American's beliefs are "scandalous" or "puzzling."
Like, once again, America was full of religious dissenters and radicals who invented new religions and often utterly and flamboyantly rejected the standard Old World narratives, if they were even fully conversant with them. And many were into elaborate parodies, manifestos, etc.
It's just completely meaningless to point out that a 19c American was heretical, radical, or off-narrative when it came to religion. Most of them were proud to be so. Entirely different mental and social universe, with no oversight.
And they knew their First Amendment rights:
Yeah. This is a complicated issue, but I increasingly suspect that the pervasive total ignorance about the history here, and the utopianism and naivete that results from it, is itself doing incredible damage.
Drug addiction seems to have been pretty common in the 19/20c US, but because drug use for the most part wasn't harshly policed, legally or socially, and drugs were generally either in less concentrated forms or less potent/deranging in their affects, it wasn't as big of a deal.
That's my understanding, anyway. And I'm not suggesting that pervasive drug addiction is ever "fine," obviously, but that it tended not to be as socially disruptive, and that I don't think drug use/addiction has ever been particularly rare, or that it's likely to become so.
MA officials/doctors started freaking out about the consequences of locals being afraid to seek medical care for ailments other than covid. Which is the reaction that all the messaging had encouraged.
There was a strange period of time early on where MA was desperately broadcasting all these totally off-narrative PSAs, with no acknowledgement of the contradiction. But you can't say that Baker and the hospitals didn't immediately step up here:
Yeah, much of my interest in this topic comes from the bizarre experience of hearing Trump voters egregiously mischaracterized for years. I get that this sort of thing differs somewhat by state, etc., but they even insist it is a "white working class" thing when discussing MA.
In MA, it is most conspicuously an enraged provincial petite bourgeoisie thing, yes. I know this group very well, although its MA incarnation is somewhat atypical.
But it's also, less conspicuously, a professional or wealthy male thing, depending on the industry or profession.
Exactly. It's a visceral and cultural thing that is of greater importance for GOP candidates, and there's no getting around it so long as voters' views have any significance.
It's definitely not gone, but if both parties refuse to cultivate and run with it, or if it lacks the numbers or appeal to support a political culture, then all the grand plans will go down with it. In one way or another, it's supplying most of the coherence that remains to us.