Tremendous insights, Ike, and having been a beneficiary of such fellowships in my career, I wholeheartedly agree with many points, but this in particular; as the outcome gained through these engagements and interactions "engage, question, argue, test, and return sharpened."
Beags—thank you. I really appreciate that, especially coming from someone who’s lived the value of those fellowships firsthand.
That phrase you pulled out gets at the whole point for me: officers aren’t meant to be protected from ideas—they’re meant to be sharpened by them, then return to service with more confidence in their own judgment, not less.
Grateful for your engagement and for adding your voice to the conversation!
Are you claiming that Critical Race Theory, Radical Feminism and Wokeism in general are *Not* Anti-Intellectualism?? Because they all definitely stand at the center of the dumbing down of America
No, I’m not arguing that any idea flying under the banners of CRT, radical feminism, or what gets lumped together as “wokeism” is automatically intellectually rigorous. In practice, many of their popularized forms do drift into anti-intellectualism—especially when they replace inquiry with moral certainty, dissent with denunciation, and evidence with assertion. On that point, I think we actually share more ground than you might assume.
Where I draw a hard line, though, is here: anti-intellectualism is not about which ideas are being debated; it’s about whether debate itself is allowed.
An idea becomes anti-intellectual the moment it claims immunity from criticism, treats disagreement as bad faith, or insists that conclusions must be accepted before arguments are examined. By that standard, some strands of CRT and radical identity politics qualify—but so do their mirror images on the right when they dismiss entire fields, methods, or institutions rather than engaging them seriously.
My core claim is narrower and, I think, more important:
a republic weakens when it stops arguing with ideas and starts trying to banish them wholesale—whether by ideological capture from within or political repudiation from without.
Intellectual decay doesn’t come from exposure to bad ideas; it comes from losing the habit of disciplined contestation. Universities fail when they protect dogma. Governments fail when they abandon knowledge production altogether instead of demanding rigor from it.
So yes—there is real intellectual rot in parts of academia today. But the cure is more serious argument, not less; sharper standards, not scorched earth; confidence in debate, not fear of contamination.
Dead on Ike. KegsBreath @secdef has no idea what the strength and power of our Nation is.
Tremendous insights, Ike, and having been a beneficiary of such fellowships in my career, I wholeheartedly agree with many points, but this in particular; as the outcome gained through these engagements and interactions "engage, question, argue, test, and return sharpened."
Beags—thank you. I really appreciate that, especially coming from someone who’s lived the value of those fellowships firsthand.
That phrase you pulled out gets at the whole point for me: officers aren’t meant to be protected from ideas—they’re meant to be sharpened by them, then return to service with more confidence in their own judgment, not less.
Grateful for your engagement and for adding your voice to the conversation!
Amen
Are you claiming that Critical Race Theory, Radical Feminism and Wokeism in general are *Not* Anti-Intellectualism?? Because they all definitely stand at the center of the dumbing down of America
Burton,
Fair question—and let me answer it directly.
No, I’m not arguing that any idea flying under the banners of CRT, radical feminism, or what gets lumped together as “wokeism” is automatically intellectually rigorous. In practice, many of their popularized forms do drift into anti-intellectualism—especially when they replace inquiry with moral certainty, dissent with denunciation, and evidence with assertion. On that point, I think we actually share more ground than you might assume.
Where I draw a hard line, though, is here: anti-intellectualism is not about which ideas are being debated; it’s about whether debate itself is allowed.
An idea becomes anti-intellectual the moment it claims immunity from criticism, treats disagreement as bad faith, or insists that conclusions must be accepted before arguments are examined. By that standard, some strands of CRT and radical identity politics qualify—but so do their mirror images on the right when they dismiss entire fields, methods, or institutions rather than engaging them seriously.
My core claim is narrower and, I think, more important:
a republic weakens when it stops arguing with ideas and starts trying to banish them wholesale—whether by ideological capture from within or political repudiation from without.
Intellectual decay doesn’t come from exposure to bad ideas; it comes from losing the habit of disciplined contestation. Universities fail when they protect dogma. Governments fail when they abandon knowledge production altogether instead of demanding rigor from it.
So yes—there is real intellectual rot in parts of academia today. But the cure is more serious argument, not less; sharper standards, not scorched earth; confidence in debate, not fear of contamination.
That’s the line I’m holding.
Appreciate you engaging directly.
Respectfully,
Ike