Why Conservative Men Can’t Spell

In 1963, historian Richard Hofstadter sat in his office at Columbia University and wrote a sentence that described MAGA sixty years before MAGA existed.

He defined anti-intellectualism as “resentment of the life of the mind, and those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition to constantly minimize the value of that life.”

Not ignorance. Resentment.

That distinction is the key to understanding everything about the Republican Party’s relationship with education. They don’t attack experts because the experts are wrong. They attack experts because the experts make them feel stupid. And rather than do the work to stop feeling stupid, they declared that being stupid was a virtue and built an entire political identity around it.

Hofstadter won the Pulitzer Prize for proving this pattern is older than the country itself.

What Hofstadter Traced

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life was not a polemic. It was a 464-page historical excavation of the American hostility toward the life of the mind spanning four hundred years.

Hofstadter traced the pattern back to the earliest American religious movements. Revivalist preachers in the eighteenth century scorned the university-educated ministers of New England. They argued that genuine faith came from the heart, not from books. That God spoke to the simple and the humble, not to the learned. That education was a barrier to truth, not a path to it.

The pattern migrated from religion to politics during the Jacksonian era. Andrew Jackson’s populism celebrated the common man and framed intellectual achievement as fundamentally anti-democratic. The expert was the enemy. The professor was the elitist. The person who had spent years studying a subject was, by definition, out of touch with the real Americans who lived it.

Hofstadter showed that this pattern never disappeared. It ebbed and flowed with the political tides. It surged during McCarthyism, when intellectuals were treated as potential traitors. It surged again during the evangelical movements that declared secular education a threat to Christian values. And it is surging now, at an intensity Hofstadter could not have imagined, inside a political movement that has made the rejection of expertise into its core operating principle.

The thread that connects all of these surges is the same thread Hofstadter identified in his opening definition. It was never about ignorance. It was always about resentment. The people who attack education are not people who don’t understand its value. They are people who understand its value perfectly and resent that they don’t have it.

The Resentment Engine

This is where Hofstadter’s framework becomes precise and devastating.

Anti-intellectualism is not the absence of interest in ideas. It is the active hostility toward ideas and toward the people who carry them. And that hostility does not come from confidence. It comes from the opposite.

A person who feels secure in their own intelligence does not feel threatened by a scientist explaining climate data. A person who feels confident in their own knowledge does not feel attacked when a historian corrects a false claim. A person who is comfortable with what they know and what they don’t know does not need to destroy the credibility of every expert who enters the room.

The people who do feel threatened by those things are people who carry an unresolved wound about their own education, their own intellect, their own place in the social hierarchy organized around knowledge. The attack on the expert is not an argument with the expert’s position. It is a defense against the feeling the expert produces in them by existing.

“Do your own research” is not a research methodology. It is a declaration of independence from the people who make them feel small. “College is a scam” is not an economic analysis of the return on tuition investment. It is a story a person tells themselves so they never have to sit with the question of what their life would look like if they had gone.

This is the engine Hofstadter documented: resentment of what you don’t have, reframed as contempt for the thing itself. If I can’t have it, it must be worthless. If you have it and I don’t, you must be the enemy.

The Data That Proves It

In the 2024 presidential election, the education gap between the two parties reached its widest point in modern American history.

Voters with a four-year college degree or higher favored the Democratic candidate by 16 percentage points. Voters without a college degree favored the Republican candidate by 14 points. The gap had been 9 points in 2016. It was 13 points in 2024 by some exit poll measures. Every election cycle, the divide grows wider.

Among white voters, the gap is even more extreme. Sixty-four percent of white men without a college degree identify as Republican or Republican-leaning. Only 29 percent of white men without a degree voted for the Democratic candidate in 2024.

The Republican Party is now, by the numbers, the party of people without college degrees. This is not an insult. It is a demographic fact measured in every major post-election analysis conducted by Pew Research Center, the Associated Press, NBC News, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

And the party’s response to this fact has not been to invest in education, to expand access to college, to improve schools, or to create pathways for their own voters to gain the knowledge they lack. The party’s response has been to attack education itself. To cut school funding. To defund universities. To demonize teachers. To call professors indoctrinators. To treat expertise as elitism and knowledge as a liberal conspiracy.

Hofstadter would have recognized every word of it. The pattern is four hundred years old.

The Hypocrisy That Reveals Everything

The most revealing fea