There is no comparable anti-intellectual streak in the American left as there is in the right. Attempts to equate the two is pure bothsiderism, as insulting as it is wrong.
Not sure about the productivity of it, but is it wrong?
Consider the belief, widely held by American conservatives, that destructive weather cannot possibly be related to climate change, but rather is God's punishment of America for legalizing gay marriage. As stated publicly by such conservative icons as Tony Perkins, John Hagee, and Franklin Graham. It's easy to passively dismiss these guys' views as fringey, but they are definitely not fringe actors in D.C. All are influential in mainstream republican politics, and all are staples of mainstream conservative media.
Perkins is perhaps the most powerful evangelical lobbyist in America, whose endorsement has long been practically requisite for repubican candidates for both congress and the presidency. Hagee leads another of the largest political organizations in the country, was an ally and confidant to the Bush white house, and is now enjoying a surge in popularity due to Trump's enthusiastic support. And Franklin Graham, nearly as famous and influential as his father.
This is just one example I picked at random. There are many, many more. I can't offhand think of a comparable example from the liberal side of mainstream American politics. The nearest I can conjur is from Britain: Jeremy Corbyn's support of the Chavez/Maduro regime in Venezuela.
It's not productive because it doesn't matter how much you're right and they're wrong. Yes, mainstream Conservatives and the GOP are anti-science. If they deny it and you try to argue, what is the point? What are you going to achieve by arguing with them about what side is worse?
You should be focusing on how to reduce GOP political power. How can we actually get people elected who won't be anti-intellectual? How can we turn out more voters? How can we elect people who aren't corporate stooges?
Another route: think about how you can better communicate with Republican voters that the Democratic party better represents their interests than the GOP. You definitely aren't winning their votes by telling them that they're the whole problem.
I don’t think it’s right to avoid pointing out the responsible party just because their partisans will dispute it and the discussion will devolve from their.
It’d be like a conference on measles and not mentioning vaccines because it makes 20% of the delegates filibuster the parties with speeches on autism.
> Attempts to equate the two is pure bothsiderism, as insulting as it is wrong.
I'm not letting the irony escape here; you've found the time to express a strong emotional response, but not enough time to actually explain or argue.
> There is no comparable anti-intellectual
As I hinted at above, how are we defining anti-intellectual today? Because a very quick check suggested to me that "anti-intellectualism" is defined as "republican party policy". Eg, I found a Quora article [0] where someone attempts to spin homosexuality as an intellectualism issue (second point, ironically dismissing the opinions of a neurosurgeon as unscientific in the process). That is off the rails; being homophobic is just plain bigotry. Homophobia is a symptom of intolerance, not anti-intellectualism. The scientific status of homosexuality is probably irrelevant to most bigots.
If we define anti-intellectual as anti-science, then it is plague on both houses territory. Both wings of politics have hot-button issues where any attempt to use science will result in angry crowds forming.
If we are defining that as right-wing people don't like academics then that seems plausible to me, but also not exactly a problem. Academics can be wrong politically just like the rest of us (academics were famously pro-communism as a body, and look where that went!). With that in mind, it isn't anti-intellectualism as such rather than a recognition that academics aren't supporting issues that right wing voters think are important. Pretend that 60% of plumbers associate right wing - nobody on the left is anti-plumber because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. At worst their political beliefs would be ignored.
> ironically dismissing the opinions of a neurosurgeon as unscientific in the process.
Ah yes, you're referring to Ben Carson, the famous neurosurgeon. Let's take a look at one of his more prominent scientific statements on homosexuality:
> "[homosexuality] is a absolutely a choice (...) because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight—and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question."
Brilliant, right? In a subsequent defense of his statement (couched in an apology of sorts), he went on to deny the very existence of transgender and intersexual people:
> "I'm a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality. We do know, however, that we are always born male and female."
Unfortunately his vast medical knowledge and experience seems to have left him completely unaware of the numerous people born physically hermaphroditic, or the much greater numbers of people whose non-binary sexual development is caused by hormonal conditions such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
That such profoundly ignorant statements lead many people to discount Dr. Carson's opinions is thoroughly unsurprising.
Why would the opinion of a neurosurgeon on homosexuality be relevant or interesting? It’s not as if homosexuality is apparent in the large-scale structures of the brain that are visible to a surgeon.
The raging measles epidemic in my state came, in large part, from granola munching upper west side moms. (The balance came from the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn.)
They have absolutely nothing in common except their rabid disavowal of modern medical science when it interferes with their pre-existing prejudices.
And yet you’ll find essentially no anti-vaccination sentiment among left-wing politicians. (In fact, by far the most prominent politician to espouse anti-vaccination views is the Republican President.) Left-wing anti-intellectuals certainly exist, but they have little traction.
Contrast this with the right wing, where things like denial of climate change are a major part of the party’s platform, to the point that you’d hard time getting elected as a member of that party if you express confidence in the scientific consensus.
" no comparable anti-intellectual streak in the American left as there is in the right"
Wow.
Intersectionalism, as it is applied popularly, is a massively 'anti intellectual' exercise.
Authoritarianism, controlling speech, banning speakers etc. at campuses all across the US is largely driven by a specific group of leftists.
Those actions are quite fundamentally 'anti intellectual' and 'anti liberal' to the point wherein it has quite a number of people in those communities afraid to speak out.
This has spread from academia into other institutions such as government and media and has significant impact upon us all.
I'm not taking sides, other than to point out that there's some roughshod everywhere you look, it just takes different forms. The hard part is most people might not want to have the self awareness to consider that some actions may be corrupt, i.e. banning 'Jordan Peterson' from speaking may be considered a moral act by some, hence, they see nothing wrong on 'their side' only 'the other'.
You'll notice that only stories that make some Republican look bad stay on the front page for very long. The American left isn't so much anti-intellectual as they are anti-inconvenient-facts, although the end result is largely the same.
Both sides ignore 'inconvenient facts'. Neither side seems to be willing to admit it. And framed using certain language i.e. 'anti-intellectualism' then one side can frame themselves as less ignorant than the other, even if it's not true.
