One of the criticisms frequently hurled at Donald Trump is that he’s an “anti-intellectual.” Liberals count on incautious readers to conflate the term “intellectual” (which refers to a range of professions, which leftists mostly dominate, and not because they have the better arguments) with “intelligent person.” But while there is some overlap, those terms mean quite different things. I care a good deal about this distinction, having edited the website Intellectual Conservative since 2002.

Trump shares very similar views to the other Republican candidates for president against whom he ran, on some 80 percent of issues (abortion, taxes, Obamacare, a strong defense). But he stood out from most of them on a few hot-button issues that are key to the self-conception of contemporary academics and journalists — principally, trade and immigration. On those subjects, he took a stance in support of what he and millions of others see as America’s national interest; that stance was one that’s anathema to most self-conceived “intellectuals” in 2016.

Those candidates who didn’t challenge today’s (quite recent) consensus on those two issues got much milder treatment from the media. For instance, The New York Times described Jeb Bush as “an intellectual in search of new ideas, a serial consulter of outsiders who relishes animated debate and a probing manager who eagerly burrows into the bureaucratic details.”

Now, that description wouldn’t fit Donald Trump. But Trump graduated with high grades from schools as demanding as those Jeb Bush attended. He is a very bright guy who is sloppy sometimes when speaking because he’s not a polished lifelong politician and he enjoys entertaining. It’s part of his charisma. Reasonable people can disagree over Trump’s boorish, flamboyant style. But to claim that he is an anti-intellectual is to grant the left’s self-serving definition of what intellectual life entails. It is clear that Trump has a strong grasp of the issues, although as a relatively newcomer to politics, it could take him several years to acquire the memory to spout details off the top of his head. But any policy wonk invited on a Sunday morning talk show can manage that. Is that what we want in a president?

That Trump may have plenty of supporters with middling IQs is meaningless. Democrats traditionally have higher numbers among less-skilled and less-educated voters and they are never accused of being anti-intellectual. A Pew survey from 2012 found, “On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points.” High school dropouts have traditionally favored Democrats, and this has expanded in recent years to include those with only a high school education or some college. Notably, the majority of regular contributors to my Intellectual Conservative website support Trump, as do the signers of the Scholars for Trump  manifesto.

The Left’s Self-Certifying Coup in the Academy

The left has hijacked the word “intellectual” by shutting conservatives out of academia, relegating equally well-educated and thoughtful conservatives to think tanks and public policy. Secure in their institutional control over academies, the left has run rampant and allowed its own standards to plummet. Look at the dumbed-down and ideological courses offered in higher education. Besides the postmodern nonsense that has infiltrated traditional disciplines like literature and philosophy, there are now entire departments devoted to the left’s agenda, which goes unchallenged. (Find me a pro-life women’s studies professor. One.)

Leftist and far left professors now outnumber conservatives almost 12 to 1 in fields like History, Psychology, Law, Economics and Journalism. In History alone, conservatives are outnumbered 33 to 1. In contrast, in the disciplines that require mathematical competence, but aren’t typically homes of self-designated “intellectuals,”  conservatives still get hired. The left/right ratio is 2.5 to 1 in engineering and 6.3 to 1 in hard sciences and math.

Plain Talk is Part of a Leader’s Job

Trump has amply demonstrated his grasp of conservative public policy. When asked during one of the presidential debates how the Constitution should be interpreted, he responded, “The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life, they will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases ― and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted.” That is Justice Antonin Scalia’s view of the Constitution, put in plain words for ordinary voters.

Similarly, when asked about taxes, Trump replied, “The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. What coal miner or assembly-line worker jumps at the offer of overtime when he knows Uncle Sam is going to take sixty percent or more of his extra pay?”

Even his statements about illegal immigration demonstrate a thorough understanding of the issue. “A nation without borders is not a nation at all,” he said. “We must have a wall. The rule of law matters.”

One of Trump’s most vocal supporters is the conservative pundit Ann Coulter. She is an extraordinarily bright, practiced constitutional lawyer and has written 12 books on politics. Penguin Random House describes one of her books: “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), the instant New York Times bestseller, shows why Ann Coulter has become the most recognized — and controversial — conservative intellectual in years.” Yet, like Trump, she has a speaking style that is disarming.

Trump has become a politician, and most politicians merely skim the surface of ideas, speaking in emotionally appealing talking points in order to gain support. That is their job — not filling the left’s revisionist meaning of the word intellectual.