...confuse intelligence or education with moral sense, as if the former automatically demanded the latter.
Indeed, why is this confusion rampant?
Or is this a case of the intelligent revolutionary being viewed as morally superior?
(forget for a moment what it is that he wants to do, and what he is revolting against...just remember that he is revolting against something, and destroying something in the old order...)
I don't think the authors have fallen for revolutionary chic. The book, by the way, isn't too bad overall.
I think the assumption here is not linking education to morality, but that a man who has traveled widely, and has a deep knowledge of other languages and cultures, is less likely to be a xenophobe or bigot.
It's still dubious. To cite a few examples, Qutb, Khomeini, and Pol Pot lived in democracies; Pol Pot had, IIRC, an advanced degree from a prestigious Parisian university. Milosevic had also visited many countries as an official of the Yugoslav central bank.
It does seem true, however, that to be a scholar of a foreign culture is a strange career choice for a nationalist fanatic. I can't immediately think of any similar examples.