Intellectualism - The Trap We Set for Ourselves

In the landscape of political movements, a recurring pattern emerges: the rise of parties dominated by a self-anointed elite who wield power under the guise of benevolence. These elites proclaim equality for the masses while positioning themselves as the enlightened shepherds guiding the flock. This dynamic is not merely a flaw in human organization but a deliberate trap, often cemented by the allure of intellectualism. Intellectualism, as a state of mind distinct from emotion, faith, belief, logic, intuition, or instinct, serves as a fragile yet seductive glue that binds followers to the cause. It promises superiority and certainty, yet it sows the seeds of corruption and decline. This essay explores how intellectualism becomes a self-set trap in political parties, examining its role in justifying elite dominance, sustaining loyalty, and ultimately inviting downfall.

At the heart of these political entities lies a profound hypocrisy. Leaders espouse egalitarian ideals, insisting that their movement uplifts the common people. Yet, in their private convictions, they view themselves as uniquely equipped to lead, uniquely able, caring, and qualified. This self-perception breeds a dangerous self-satisfaction, where the elite deem themselves fundamentally good. History warns us to beware of those in power who feel inherently virtuous, for such moral certainty paves the way for corruption. Once in control, these parties inevitably erode both morally and materially. The rationale is insidious: since they are doing so much good for the greater cause, minor indulgences like perks or favoritism toward allies seem justified. Even electoral manipulation becomes palatable, framed as a necessary safeguard for the party's, and thus the nation's, survival.

The Soviet Union's Communist Party exemplifies this trajectory. Emerging from the ashes of tsarist oppression, it initially promised a comparative goodness, a radical departure from feudal inequality. However, it swiftly devolved into reliance on coercive force, with the gun supplanting ideology as the true enforcer. Corruption entrenched itself, persisting even after the ideological facade crumbled. This pattern is not unique to communism; it manifests in any system where elites cloak their ambitions in moral superiority. The trap is set when leaders convince themselves and their followers that their rule is not only necessary but righteous.

In modern times, similar dynamics appear in the Chinese Communist Party, which maintains a thin veneer of collective leadership and equality while being steered by a technocratic elite. Entry into this elite often requires excelling in rigorous examinations and demonstrating unwavering party loyalty, creating an illusion of meritocracy. Yet, this system justifies vast disparities in power and wealth, with leaders portraying themselves as the intellectual vanguard essential for guiding the nation through complex global challenges. Corruption scandals, such as those involving high-ranking officials amassing fortunes, reveal how self-perceived goodness rationalizes personal gain under the banner of national progress.

Another contemporary example is found in progressive movements within Western democracies, particularly in the United States. Here, intellectual elites from academia, media, and technology sectors dominate discourse, claiming superior understanding of social justice issues. They position themselves as shepherds enlightening the masses on matters like environmental policy or identity politics, often dismissing opposing views as ignorant or backward. This intellectualism binds followers through appeals to expertise and moral authority, yet it fosters division and invites accusations of hypocrisy when elites benefit from the systems they critique. For instance, environmental movements that began as elite concerns have evolved into mass ideologies, but their leaders frequently advocate policies that burden the working class while exempting themselves.

In the United States, the Democratic Party has increasingly embodied intellectual elitism, aligning with highly educated and affluent voters while distancing itself from working-class bases. Party leaders and supporters often present their agendas as rationally superior, grounded in expertise and evidence, which marginalizes dissenting voices as uninformed.

 

This elitist posture justifies practices like media bias or procedural manipulations in elections, rationalized as defenses against populist threats to enlightened rule.

In Europe, the European Union's technocratic governance illustrates this trap. Bureaucrats and experts in Brussels wield significant power, justifying decisions as intellectually sound and necessary for unity. This elite-driven approach, rooted in post-war ideals of enlightened administration, often overrides national democracies, leading to populist backlashes like Brexit. The claim to intellectual superiority alienates citizens who feel reduced to sheep, fueling corruption through unaccountable lobbying and perks for the connected.

In Latin America, Russia's influence on intellectual elites through media, universities, and think tanks exemplifies how external actors exploit this dynamic. By co-opting academics and influencers, Russia promotes narratives that serve its geopolitical aims, positioning these elites as enlightened guides who justify anti-Western policies. This capture perpetuates corruption and erodes democratic institutions, as self-satisfied intellectuals rationalize actions that benefit foreign powers over local needs.

 

The backlash against such elitism has fueled anti-intellectual populism, as seen in movements like Trumpism in the United States. These reactions decry intellectual superiority, often embracing emotional appeals over rational discourse, yet they can mirror the same self-righteous certainty. This tension underscores how the intellectual trap provokes countermeasures, deepening societal divides.

dissentmagazine.org +1

Within higher education, which nurtures political elites, intellectual elitism thrives as students and faculty view themselves as intellectually and morally superior, dismissing alternative perspectives as lesser. This reinforces the shepherd-sheep hierarchy in wider politics.

 

Anti-populist rhetoric itself often betrays elitism, as critics broadly label diverse movements "populist" to discredit challenges to established orders, claiming moral high ground while suppressing open dialogue.

 

Sustaining such a party requires more than elite conviction; it demands recruitment and retention of the masses. The faithful core, the self-satisfied shepherds, must expand their ranks to endure. Binders like religion or subtle threats of violence can hold the structure together, preserving the illusion of goodness. Yet, intellectualism emerges as a particularly potent adhesive. Proponents claim intellectual supremacy: "We are more intellectual than the others; we grasp truths they cannot; we have uncovered the true path." This appeal is magnetic, especially for the intellectually insecure, who flock to the movement as willing sheep, eager for the validation of belonging to an enlightened vanguard. The converse mantra reinforces the bond: "Our beliefs and practices prove we are smarter than the rest." This neatly marginalizes opponents, relegating them to inferior status on scales of both intelligence and morality. Intellectualism, though weaker than visceral forces like emotion or faith, provides a veneer of rationality that attracts and retains adherents.

However, this intellectual glue is inherently vulnerable. Unlike religion, which demands challenges to its foundational validity, a daunting task, or violence, which risks exposing the party's hypocritical "goodness," intellectualism can be undermined by exposing its contradictions. To dismantle such a party without resorting to force, one must loosen this binder by relentlessly highlighting its intellectual failings. Campaign against every misguided policy, corrupt leader, or flawed tactic, framing each as evidence of non-intellectualism. When the party's actions reveal stupidity or shortsightedness, the claim to superior intellect crumbles. Corruption, if it swells to egregious levels, may even erode internal faith, signaling the beginning of the end. For parties anchored in intellectualism, attacks on morality alone may falter, but assaults on their purported intelligence strike at the core.

In contrast, the most effective governance arises from humility, not hubris. Truly capable leaders and parties operate with constant self-doubt, rigorously questioning their decisions for efficacy. They eschew claims to universal justice, higher knowledge, or righteous goodness, recognizing the complexity of human affairs. Ironically, this lack of dogmatic certainty deprives them of the compelling attributes that ensure longevity. Without the trap of intellectualism or similar binders, such systems may not endure as monolithic entities, but they foster genuine progress unmarred by corruption.

Ultimately, intellectualism in politics is a trap we set for ourselves, a seductive illusion of superiority that justifies elite control and stifles dissent. It draws in the insecure, sustains the corrupt, and invites downfall through its own fragility. By recognizing this pattern in both historical and modern contexts, societies can guard against it, favoring self-doubting pragmatism over self-satisfied certainty. In doing so, we escape the cycle of hypocritical rule and move toward governance that truly serves the people, not the shepherds.

References.

Berkman, A. (2024, April 19). Higher education has an intellectual elitism problem. The Duke Chronicle. https://dukechronicle.com/article/041924-berkman-higher-ed-elitism-20240419

Buckelew, J. (2019). The divide between right-wing populists and the left-wing elite. Democratic Erosion. https://democratic-erosion.org/2019/03/31/the-divide-between-right-wing-populists-and-the-left-wing-elite-by-jacob-buckelew

Chaguaceda, A., & Rouvinski, V. (2024, September 10). Russia’s capture of intellectual elites in Latin America. Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/russias-capture-intellectual-elites-latin-america

Chari, S. (2016). The intellectual labour of social movements. Briarpatch Magazine. https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/the-intellectual-labour-of-social-movements

Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? Prentice-Hall.

Huy, Q. (2016, November 17). Why the intellectual elite can’t learn its lesson. INSEAD Knowledge. https://knowledge.insead.edu/economics-finance/why-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson

Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.

Mounk, Y. (n.d.). Beyond left versus right, beyond elites versus populists. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/beyond-left-versus-right-beyond-elites-versus-populists

Torok, L. (2025, September 17). Is Democratic elitism ruining the party? The Michigan Daily. https://www.michigandaily.com/statement/is-democratic-elitism-ruining-the-party

Venizelos, G. (2019, September 28). The elitism of the “anti-populists”. Jacobin. https://jacobin.com/2019/09/the-elitism-of-the-anti-populists

Waters, A., & Dionne, E. J., Jr. (2022). Is anti-intellectualism ever good for democracy? Dissent Magazine. https://dissentmagazine.org/article/is-anti-intellectualism-ever-good-for-democracy

 

P.S. This is an update of a blog I wrote on this site back in 2012.