Smokers’ corner: A confederacy of dunces

The British historian John Dalberg-Acton described stupidity as “a corruption of knowledge.” This may mean information or knowledge that has been distorted. But this in itself is not stupidity as such. Stupidity is allowing oneself to believe the distorted information and knowledge and then refusing to learn from their outcomes, no matter how disruptive they often tend to be. 
In a 2020 essay, the philosopher Sacha Golob wrote that, on many occasions, dumbness gets mistaken for stupidity. Dumbness can be the result of having a low IQ or weak intellect. But unlike ‘dumbness’, stupidity can be found in those with ample amounts of intelligence and education. This is what the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed as well.
Bonhoeffer was baffled by the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime and many of its supporters. To Bonhoeffer, most Germans were not doing this out of malice but due to stupidity. Bonhoeffer was arrested for exhibiting dissent against Nazi policies. While awaiting trial in jail, he wrote a series of letters, in which he developed a “theory of stupidity.”
To Bonhoeffer, the Nazis were not stupid. They cleverly enacted an intolerant and violent state to keep themselves in power. One vital source of this power was the support they managed to attract from a large number of Germans. These not only included the gemeinsames volk [common folk], but also many intellectuals, doctors, lawyers, teachers, white-collar professionals, etc. 
Therefore, Bonhoeffer posited that stupidity is not the failure of intellect, but the outcome of the erasure of “individual autonomy.” He wrote that stupidity emerges when individuals are swept up in the emotions stirred by a ‘popular’ political or religious force. Such emotions greatly limit the individual’s ability to rationally evaluate the force, and also their own response to it. To Bonhoeffer, this was the outcome of the mass stupidity that “infected” German society during the rise to power of Hitler. 
The failure to rationally evaluate one’s response and the source of the response lets a person ‘allow’ their individual autonomy to be absorbed by the emotions. Such individuals then become part of a homogeneously aligned group that actively erases the whole concept of individual autonomy to form, what is referred to as, “groupthink.”
The group uncritically adopts the rhetoric and postures associated with the popular force. It shapes a unified disposition that everyone in it has to follow without ever questioning it. 
Such groups/cults consist of intelligent men and women as well, who willingly decide to embrace groupthink and, with it, the kind of stupidity that Bonhoeffer was warning about. Bonhoeffer wrote that when even an intelligent person is “infected” by it, they become dogmatic and their speech and responses don’t go beyond contradictory rhetoric, cliches and slogans. This stupidity can continue to support popular/malicious forces because it refuses to rationally evaluate those that it has framed as messiahs, gurus, strongmen, saviours, etc. 
To Golob, though, those in positions of power can be stupid too. During last week’s presidential debate in the US between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, Trump suddenly launched into a rant about Haitian immigrants in Ohio hunting down and eating pet dogs and cats.

Trump is known for mouthing all sorts of conspiracy theories.  Some political commentators see this as a clever ploy by him, because a large part of his core constituency includes people who do the same and feel good when their conspiratorial hogwash is validated by a ‘popular’ politician.
Within the paradigm of stupidity shaped by the likes of Bonhoeffer, Trump is indeed the clever one, who is ‘strategically’ exploiting the mindset and emotions of a particular constituency, and then compelling it to embrace stupidity. But according to Golob, there are enough examples to substantiate that many people who have achieved success, power and influence can be equally stupid. 
To Golob, stupidity stems from “conceptual inadequacy.” By this he means a failure to form a conceptual understanding of situations with the aid of certain historical and sociological tools.
Trump is a candidate in what could be one of the tightest presidential races in US history. The conceptual understanding of this possibility means that most voters are now more likely to know exactly what plans the candidates have to address certain important issues. This can then aid the voters to choose who to vote for in a tight contest.
Harris understands this because she’s out to catch some Republican votes as well. Trump, on the other hand, decided to solely stir the interest of his core constituency, by mouthing a ridiculous conspiracy theory to attract applause from clusters of voters who do not need much convincing. 
This was a conceptual failure on Trump’s part that led to a stark exhibition of stupidity. There was something else as well at play here that too leads to stupidity. It is referred to as “availability heuristic.” This is when people make decisions based only on recent memory or recent history.  Histories outside a person’s time period or memory are entirely ignored. Thus, this leads to decisions that are based on a very limited set of references.
Trump struggled to neutralise a rampaging Harris because his ‘strategy’ suffered from an ‘availability heuristic.’ He was still wallowing in the pleasant memory of the debate that he had with Joe Biden just a few months earlier, in which he ‘vanquished’ Biden, who was clearly struggling to remain coherent due to his advanced age. This is why Trump failed to read the room (or a room) in which, this time, there was a much younger, more robust and sharper opponent than Biden. 
So, yes, those who have power and influence over large numbers of people can be stupid too. Current examples include Elon Musk, and populists such as Imran Khan, Trump and various far-right politicians in Europe. 
One can also include the so-called social media personalities who are outraged at the current Pakistani government for trying to reign in ‘pro-Imran judges.’ Apparently, this outrage has something to do with safeguarding democracy. History might disagree, though, keeping in mind the unmitigated disasters produced by 2007’s so-called “lawyers’ movement.”
These ‘influential’ men and women — from politicians, billionaire entrepreneurs, to social media activists — are not dumb or unintelligent. Their stupidity stems from a lack of conceptual resources needed to understand and correctly read certain circumstances. Their followers, however, are largely infected by stupidity as defined by Bonhoeffer.
Published in Dawn, EOS, September 22nd, 2024