Moderator: This is a response to Anthony Barnett's post below on his oD article about why Gordon Brown needs an inelligentsia.
Martin Wolf (London, FT): The arrogance of members of the self-declared intellectual elite defies belief. When did I say ignorance is a virtue? But who says members of self-selected "intelligentsias" are knowledgeable in any relevant way? On the contrary, engagement in policy requires both knowledge and practical experience. These are not the qualities I associate with the word "intelligentsia". The essence of an intelligentsia is that it is outside day-to-day politics, views the world through a predominantly literary, rather than scientific or technocratic, lens, and is sure that its superiority gives it the right to transform the world as it sees fit. Communism was the intelligentsia's idealistic project for the betterment of mankind in the 20th century. Enough said, I think.
So I have a challenge for Anthony. He describes the intelligentsia he desires. Where is such a group of philosopher kings to be found? Was it in Sartre's France? A country with an outstanding intelligentsia is, of course, Russia over the past two centuries. That is not exactly a model of successful politics, is it?
It used to be argued that English politics were successful precisely because a separate intelligentsia, outside and against day-to-day politics, never emerged. Why does Anthony think this is wrong?
So I want some concrete examples from Anthony of an intelligentsia in political life. Then I might know what he is talking about or, indeed, whether he is talking about anything.
