Pres. Yoon contradicts stance against anti-intellectualism

“Anti-intellectualism, marked by individuals selectively embracing facts that align with their preferences or by majority power silencing dissenting opinions, poses a threat to democracy and erodes public trust in its principles.” In his inaugural address in May 2022, President Yoon Suk Yeol strongly denounced anti-intellectualism. He emphasized that science and truth must guide the process of compromise between people with differing opinions.

However, recent events paint a contradictory picture. On Sunday, Yoon’s supporters staged a violent protest at the Seoul Western District Court. This act, described as an assault on the rule of law, has been widely criticized as a prime example of the anti-intellectualism Yoon had condemned.

Critics argue that President Yoon has not only failed to distance himself from such behavior but is actively leveraging anti-intellectualism to rally his base. During an impeachment trial on Tuesday, Yoon made provocative remarks, stating that “the National Assembly and the media are much more powerful than the president.” This statement appeared to cast him as a victim of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea and its leader Lee Jae-myung, while encouraging far-right YouTubers who promote election fraud theories. President Yoon Suk Yeol’s appearance during the impeachment trial—complete with a 2-to-8 parted hairstyle and a red tie—bears a symbolic resemblance to his appearance on the day he declared martial law.

Adding to the controversy, President Yoon reiterated his claims about election fraud, asserting, “Before the martial law declaration, I had many doubts over the credibility of the fairness of the election.” While insisting he was not denying the election, he called for a “fact-check,” framing his martial law declaration as a step toward uncovering electoral truth.

It was President Yoon himself who made the people reread his inaugural speech. On Friday, Yoon released a message from the Seoul Detention Center, claiming to be “reflecting on past state administration.” However, his actions and rhetoric suggest otherwise. Critics argue that Yoon has become the very embodiment of anti-intellectualism he once condemned, dividing the nation by labeling his supporters as “patriotic citizens” and his opponents as “anti-state forces.” Far-right YouTubers, many driven more by financial incentives such as “Super Chat” than by patriotism, have amplified President Yoon’s rhetoric, further deepening divisions in the country.

The late literary critic Hwang Hyeon-san once described the pain of living in an authoritarian state fueled by anti-intellectualism as “having to listen to absurd speech as though it is reasonable.” For many, this sentiment resonates with the current political climate in South Korea. The path to healing lies in President Yoon abandoning his divisive rhetoric and confronting the contradictions in his leadership.