The highly intelligent people tend to be liberal, regardless of education, education can be purchased and intelligence is a gift.
30
The tiresome statistical studies and pseudosociology slog on. Education is a system. It requires rigorous conformity to institutional mores. The most educated always reflect their institutional framework which is always a byproduct of predominant social values at any given time.
So education is fundamentally a reward of conformity.
Nothing wrong with that except it lacks the unctuous self-congratulatory mantle the educated always drape over their self-serving, self-defining statistical onanism.
So education is fundamentally a reward of conformity.
Nothing wrong with that except it lacks the unctuous self-congratulatory mantle the educated always drape over their self-serving, self-defining statistical onanism.
16
This doesn't strike me as news. I recall that in 1980 Jimmy Carter, running against Reagan, got well over 90% of the vote among people with graduate degrees. As I was working on my doctorate at the time, I didn't know a single Reagan voter.
29
Camille Paglia examined a corollary of this in a very interesting lecture last month whose text is on the Drexel University site. She asserts that, "one of the most pernicious aspects of identity politics as it reshaped the American university" was "the confusion of teaching with social work," which led to widespread "political correctness" and the suppression of free thought in universities. She feels that "improper advocacy in the classroom has never been adequately addressed by the profession." She thinks the university's one-time belief that it is a moral obligation to search for truth grounded in authentic scholarly principles has been replaced by highly politicized courses designed to be "relevant." And she looks at how this came about, beginning in the early 1970s.
To her, the highly educated aren't very well educated. They are more indoctrinated.
To her, the highly educated aren't very well educated. They are more indoctrinated.
49
The arrogance of many of these comments – the smug dismissal of all conservative thought as being rooted in ignorance and/or stupidity – reflects rather poorly on Times readers. These ultra-tunnel-visioned cheap (“what morons”) shots smack of a very real stupidity and ignorance that infuses their contempt and scorn for those not swallowing -- hook/line/sinker -- the party line. .
48
Simple, highly educated does not always mean wise. Knowledge comes from education, wisdom comes from living life. Most highly educated have focused in knowledge but lack the wisdom to use it properly.
27
No surprise here. The Radical Right chose to demonize those who favor government support of those in need by calling them "Liberals". As a result, many people who would otherwise have been happy to be middle-of-the-road Independents, found themselves classified as Liberals simply because they care about people and what happens to them. They didn't so much make a political choice as simply found themselves so defined. Those with advanced degrees in particular are more likely to be financially secure and hence free to care about what happens to others without any risk to themselves.
41
Can see examples of this the world over.
The former President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had his base of support among the less educated (and usually more religiously fundamentalist), more rural living Iranians whereas the reformers/opposition tended to be the more highly educated living in the major urban areas.
Ahmadinejad would fire up support whenever he made outrageous claims about the "enemies" of Iran, whether foreign or domestic.
Same goes for Putin In Russia and Erdoğan in Turkey.
Putin and Erdoğan garner support by placing blame on the troubles in their respective countries by placing blame on foreigners, foreign countries, domestic opposition and insurgents or other "enemies of the state" (including "traitors") - both also using the double edged sword of religion (Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox Islam) and uber-patriotism/ethnic pride (Istanbul is pretty liberal as Turkish cities/towns go, compared to those in the Eastern hinterlands).
Now, that isn't to say that liberals/moderates are bereft of prejudices, etc. - but the difference is in the manner and degree.
We also see the same pattern in the past.
The Founding Fathers were the liberals of their day and they were (for the most part) highly educated/learned (more educated than the typical person from that time period), if not intellectuals; same goes for those who started the abolitionist and suffragette movements.
The former President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had his base of support among the less educated (and usually more religiously fundamentalist), more rural living Iranians whereas the reformers/opposition tended to be the more highly educated living in the major urban areas.
Ahmadinejad would fire up support whenever he made outrageous claims about the "enemies" of Iran, whether foreign or domestic.
Same goes for Putin In Russia and Erdoğan in Turkey.
Putin and Erdoğan garner support by placing blame on the troubles in their respective countries by placing blame on foreigners, foreign countries, domestic opposition and insurgents or other "enemies of the state" (including "traitors") - both also using the double edged sword of religion (Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox Islam) and uber-patriotism/ethnic pride (Istanbul is pretty liberal as Turkish cities/towns go, compared to those in the Eastern hinterlands).
Now, that isn't to say that liberals/moderates are bereft of prejudices, etc. - but the difference is in the manner and degree.
We also see the same pattern in the past.
The Founding Fathers were the liberals of their day and they were (for the most part) highly educated/learned (more educated than the typical person from that time period), if not intellectuals; same goes for those who started the abolitionist and suffragette movements.
57
"Evidence and logic were valued; appeals to traditional sources of authority were not."
This is the key difference of liberals and conservatives, with the traditional sources of authority being the Bible, and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Rigid vs. fluid. Unmovable vs. unstoppable. This is where our country is stuck.
This is the key difference of liberals and conservatives, with the traditional sources of authority being the Bible, and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Rigid vs. fluid. Unmovable vs. unstoppable. This is where our country is stuck.
88
I have often asked myself this same question.
I attended a top business school which is known to draw a distinctly conservative sort of student. As a progressive, I often wondered how such intelligent people, most more intelligent than I, could fall for ridiculous antics of the modern day GOP. I came to the conclusion that the answer was not so much in intelligence as it is in a mix of compassion and wisdom. Wisdom can be fed through education but it is rarely a 1 for 1 trade.
I also think that those with a passion and respect for learning have a certain openmindedness. Conservatives in the modern GOP have a haughty disdain for education and learning. Witness their attempts to gut education funding, research, NASA etc. They also wrongly assume that people who have done the hard work of paying for and earning an education somehow look down on those without (the "liberal elite").
I find it so strange that somkeone would choose to disparage people for a scholarly pursuiot like earning a Ph.D. Somehow in that world of Pat Buchanan, ignorance reigns supreme. "Go with your Gut" in the words of the great W - we saw where that got us.
Even worse, the GOP is signing up for another helping of Know Nuthingism with The Donald.
In the end though the wrold is shifting to a giant knowledge economy. We will all have to become more educated to compete. And as with demographic trends, these trends work against the midless frauds of the GOP.
I attended a top business school which is known to draw a distinctly conservative sort of student. As a progressive, I often wondered how such intelligent people, most more intelligent than I, could fall for ridiculous antics of the modern day GOP. I came to the conclusion that the answer was not so much in intelligence as it is in a mix of compassion and wisdom. Wisdom can be fed through education but it is rarely a 1 for 1 trade.
I also think that those with a passion and respect for learning have a certain openmindedness. Conservatives in the modern GOP have a haughty disdain for education and learning. Witness their attempts to gut education funding, research, NASA etc. They also wrongly assume that people who have done the hard work of paying for and earning an education somehow look down on those without (the "liberal elite").
I find it so strange that somkeone would choose to disparage people for a scholarly pursuiot like earning a Ph.D. Somehow in that world of Pat Buchanan, ignorance reigns supreme. "Go with your Gut" in the words of the great W - we saw where that got us.
Even worse, the GOP is signing up for another helping of Know Nuthingism with The Donald.
In the end though the wrold is shifting to a giant knowledge economy. We will all have to become more educated to compete. And as with demographic trends, these trends work against the midless frauds of the GOP.
25
Late to the party. The higher educated have gone through stages requiring critical analysis of subjects, and along the way have acquired a knowledge of history that those who did not keep on learning have not pursued.
Just being educated make you curious about more than your own little world, and you associate with others like that.
I believe one of the effect of higher education lead on to reject authoritarianism. Because I said so is not an answer, when the question is "Who says so?' You do not accept answers and opinions at face value.
The great minds of history were always asking questions, and questioning authority. The divine right of kings and queens does not apply, nor does the dictates of religion. The more you learn, the more you examine the world about you.
We have the Renaissance Society here, and one of our discussion groups is the Cracker Barrel. All are welcome, opinions are offered but no personal debates. Even so the few conservatives that do come frequently do not come back as they hear contrary opinions to their beliefs. Facts speak louder than opinion.
Everyone has at least a BA/BS most have MAs, but they have all kept on learning, that is what makes the group so much fun.
Just being educated make you curious about more than your own little world, and you associate with others like that.
I believe one of the effect of higher education lead on to reject authoritarianism. Because I said so is not an answer, when the question is "Who says so?' You do not accept answers and opinions at face value.
The great minds of history were always asking questions, and questioning authority. The divine right of kings and queens does not apply, nor does the dictates of religion. The more you learn, the more you examine the world about you.
We have the Renaissance Society here, and one of our discussion groups is the Cracker Barrel. All are welcome, opinions are offered but no personal debates. Even so the few conservatives that do come frequently do not come back as they hear contrary opinions to their beliefs. Facts speak louder than opinion.
Everyone has at least a BA/BS most have MAs, but they have all kept on learning, that is what makes the group so much fun.
13
The LAST thing these people want is open discourse, at least in America.
9
The highly educated think highly of themselves. They want to adored for their obvious superiority over everyone else. The only problem for them is that the creators of the world shun formal education for experience. People who make things, businesses, art, etc. are the value creators.
Being highly educated is way overrated, and the highly educated know it. The comfort themselves by telling the rest of us peons that they know what's best for us, especially how we should all just give them our paychecks so they can spend our money.
Being highly educated is way overrated, and the highly educated know it. The comfort themselves by telling the rest of us peons that they know what's best for us, especially how we should all just give them our paychecks so they can spend our money.
23
An insufferably self-congratulatory love note from the pages of the Blue Lady, this article is, in fact, a tangled mess of wishful thinking.
Why are the left the "intelligentsia," asks the paper.
Well, at its most fundamental, the ideological rift is between thinkers and doers. Ayn Rand nailed it in "Atlas Shrugged"--but of course, that is anathema to the supposed thinkers, since it doesn't fit their contrived worldview.
The 1960s were not the rise of the intelligentsia, but the rise of the anti-intelligentsia, those who recognized that the clearest path to power and influence was through pandering, cronyism and shameless subversion of truth in strict Orwellian fashion. They set their sights on undermining every facet of the status quo--the existent American value system--and infiltrating the professions shunned by those who deemed capitalistic success as the ultimate American goal. They then used their platforms--media, movies, and academia--to effectively brainwash anyone gullible or vulnerable enough to buy into it. Now, of course, if you happen to be in any of those fields and dare stray from the Liberal Dogma, you would be blacklisted and drummed out of town, much as Joe McCarthy once did to the communists. Ironic how the victims so easily turned into the bullies, and all without ever doing anything to legitimately earn their power but simply telling lies until they became the reality.
Why are the left the "intelligentsia," asks the paper.
Well, at its most fundamental, the ideological rift is between thinkers and doers. Ayn Rand nailed it in "Atlas Shrugged"--but of course, that is anathema to the supposed thinkers, since it doesn't fit their contrived worldview.
The 1960s were not the rise of the intelligentsia, but the rise of the anti-intelligentsia, those who recognized that the clearest path to power and influence was through pandering, cronyism and shameless subversion of truth in strict Orwellian fashion. They set their sights on undermining every facet of the status quo--the existent American value system--and infiltrating the professions shunned by those who deemed capitalistic success as the ultimate American goal. They then used their platforms--media, movies, and academia--to effectively brainwash anyone gullible or vulnerable enough to buy into it. Now, of course, if you happen to be in any of those fields and dare stray from the Liberal Dogma, you would be blacklisted and drummed out of town, much as Joe McCarthy once did to the communists. Ironic how the victims so easily turned into the bullies, and all without ever doing anything to legitimately earn their power but simply telling lies until they became the reality.
24
Of course the more well educated are more liberal, they tend to be the more intelligent people. To paraphrase the great 19th century political philosopher John Stuart Mill, "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
35
The title answers its own question.
Understanding of all facets of a problem is necessary for a useful solution.
Understanding of all facets of a problem is necessary for a useful solution.
4
Because the white working class and poorly uneducated love Trump and thus are as dumb as a post. The highly educated white person loves Sanders and though are considered smart are very dumb when it comes to understanding the intricate and subtle mechanics of how politics and government operates. The extremes of both sides have their frailties. Each one is delusional in different regards.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
6
I must take issue with the assumptions of "liberal." This article takes "liberal" for granted. But the truth of the matter is that many people are a mix of traditionally liberal and conservative opinions, both economically and socially. I think as long as studies keep using these labels as viable categories, the results will continue to be equally unreliable as determinants of human behavior and thought.
14
Why, being, "Steeped in science and expert knowledge, it embraced a 'culture of critical discourse”, are members of the "intelligentsia" disposed to "Evidence and logic", while "appeals to traditional sources of authority were not"? Is "expert knowledge" the possession of professional majors and "science", leaving unclear whether "science" is natural, social, or both? And, of what is the liberal arts, to which Gross no attention? Do they provide neither "expert knowledge" nor "Evidence and logic", so not exhibiting "liberal values"? If so, how did this development come about? Is Neil Gross exhibiting the current American cultural bias in favor of STEM and professional majors; does he believe there is no humanities graduate education; or is Gross simply confused as to the contemporary character "of those who went to graduate or professional school"?
Not so hard to figure out. You write that such folks make decisions based on "evidence and logic," both of which have a well-documented liberal bias.
10
the highly educated are liberal with your money and conservative with their own money.
23
One of the most crucial skills learned in any reputable advanced degree program, is an eye for objectivity and logic in the truest sense. It is essential for research, taking a position, writing and debating. With an advanced degree, you do not learn just to take in and regurgitate. You have to create and solve. To do this, you have to understand your specialty inside and out.
Because of my education, I look at any claim, liberal or conservative, with the same degree of cynicism that I read a professional research document. I read it, understand it, and look for the counter arguments. I fact check and consider who said it and what their motives are. I consider how reputable the claims are and what experts in the field may say. I also consider trends in history. I ask myself ‘has something like this happened before, and can we make a prediction about what probably will happen next?’ Time and again, it seems that my conclusions tend to fall more left. I do not choose to be liberal because it holds some prestige or aligns me with a certain class. I am liberal because I think for myself and education gave me the tools to do that.
Because of my education, I look at any claim, liberal or conservative, with the same degree of cynicism that I read a professional research document. I read it, understand it, and look for the counter arguments. I fact check and consider who said it and what their motives are. I consider how reputable the claims are and what experts in the field may say. I also consider trends in history. I ask myself ‘has something like this happened before, and can we make a prediction about what probably will happen next?’ Time and again, it seems that my conclusions tend to fall more left. I do not choose to be liberal because it holds some prestige or aligns me with a certain class. I am liberal because I think for myself and education gave me the tools to do that.
46
I'd like to challenge Neil Gross's comment on the perception that conservatives are hostile to science. For every conservative climate change denier, I am sure I can find one liberal GMO denier and a liberal vaccine denier, not to mention dozens of conspiracy theorists who believe America is run by an oligarchy.
Support for nuclear power -- as an environment-friendly option -- is greatest among nuclear physicists, followed by physicists, and then scientists ... You get the idea. The more people know about nuclear power, the more favorably they view it. Needless to say, liberals display a quasi-religious revulsion against nuclear power.
One of the many things liberals and Trump have in common is their opposition to freer trade with poor countries. For twenty to thirty years, liberal activists have demonized our open borders and the outsourcing of manufacturing to poor countries. The same period has seen an unprecedented decline in world poverty and great advances in health in the poorest countries.
Support for nuclear power -- as an environment-friendly option -- is greatest among nuclear physicists, followed by physicists, and then scientists ... You get the idea. The more people know about nuclear power, the more favorably they view it. Needless to say, liberals display a quasi-religious revulsion against nuclear power.
One of the many things liberals and Trump have in common is their opposition to freer trade with poor countries. For twenty to thirty years, liberal activists have demonized our open borders and the outsourcing of manufacturing to poor countries. The same period has seen an unprecedented decline in world poverty and great advances in health in the poorest countries.
12
Liberals also hold the highest high school drop out rate of any political group.
9
Any data on the degree to which the highly educated put into practice their liberal beliefs?
Treating the Latina nanny, who has two kids of her own at home, like "one of the family" doesn't count. (Southern slaveholders could have told you all about that.) Politely greeting the black doorman? Nope. Telling your kids to be nice to the token diversity students at their private school? Not even warm. Voting for a candidate who takes millions from Wall Street? Thanks for the laughs.
Treating the Latina nanny, who has two kids of her own at home, like "one of the family" doesn't count. (Southern slaveholders could have told you all about that.) Politely greeting the black doorman? Nope. Telling your kids to be nice to the token diversity students at their private school? Not even warm. Voting for a candidate who takes millions from Wall Street? Thanks for the laughs.
10
Quality always trumps Quantity. My gratitude to the few educators who imparted that to me.
4
Why are the uneducated so conservative?
6
My thoughts on the rise of the new class of people with advanced degrees; I assume they have an interest in the survival of our civilization and understand the basic rule of morality: the golden rule.
However, the new "liberal class" has failed to communicate priorities and also failed in promoting policies that increase egalitarianism & fair distribution of incomes & jobs. The record over the last forty years shows a divergence of the upper 20% from the rest of our society. Clearly, access to education, which is financed by local property taxes disadvantages public schools in poor areas. We also failed at healthcare for all. We have also failed to rein in the military industrial & political complex which is currently a major diversion of investment in the fundamental elements of our society such as convenient and efficient transportation, communications & fairness and efficiency of the safety net for those who were born with disadvantages, disabled, or aged into dependency on society. These are old questions but clearly we have been unable to reach a political consensus on a path forward.
Most glaring is the political disagreement over global warming. Scientists are telling us that globally we are pumping too much of the gasses of combustion into the atmosphere and as a result the very survival of civilization depends on technical solutions for maintaining our existing quality of life without fossil fuels. An extremely difficult challenge for the new class.
However, the new "liberal class" has failed to communicate priorities and also failed in promoting policies that increase egalitarianism & fair distribution of incomes & jobs. The record over the last forty years shows a divergence of the upper 20% from the rest of our society. Clearly, access to education, which is financed by local property taxes disadvantages public schools in poor areas. We also failed at healthcare for all. We have also failed to rein in the military industrial & political complex which is currently a major diversion of investment in the fundamental elements of our society such as convenient and efficient transportation, communications & fairness and efficiency of the safety net for those who were born with disadvantages, disabled, or aged into dependency on society. These are old questions but clearly we have been unable to reach a political consensus on a path forward.
Most glaring is the political disagreement over global warming. Scientists are telling us that globally we are pumping too much of the gasses of combustion into the atmosphere and as a result the very survival of civilization depends on technical solutions for maintaining our existing quality of life without fossil fuels. An extremely difficult challenge for the new class.
5
The highly educated are overwhelmingly socially liberal, even those who are Republicans. I'm not sure that as many of the highly educated are economically liberal, however. I would guess that those who are economically liberal tend to those who depend upon government for their income - either directly as a government employee, or indirectly as a college professor or recipient of government grants. The highly educated in the private sector tend to be economically conservative.
6
It's all about critical thinking, which is what a good education teaches, and what is generally required for more advanced and professional degrees. Critical thinking and the devaluation of intellectual curiosity and rejection of scientific inquiry are mutually exclusive.
What I find discouraging about this article, however, is the implication that those on the wide spectrum of liberalism (which covers a lot of territory) should somehow "dumb down" their message to make it accessible and attractive to "the masses", as if working people in this country - and white working class men, in particular - won't get it otherwise and will be seduced by the likes of Donald Trump and the other demagogues of his ilk.
Reading this year's Donald debacle in this way would be, I believe, a serious mistake.
What I find discouraging about this article, however, is the implication that those on the wide spectrum of liberalism (which covers a lot of territory) should somehow "dumb down" their message to make it accessible and attractive to "the masses", as if working people in this country - and white working class men, in particular - won't get it otherwise and will be seduced by the likes of Donald Trump and the other demagogues of his ilk.
Reading this year's Donald debacle in this way would be, I believe, a serious mistake.
6
A typical biased article with cherry-picked data to support the conclusion that the author (and NYT readers) want to believe.
Of course, no mention was made of the fact that the average Republican is much more educated than the average Democrat (33% of Repubs have college degrees compared to 22% of Dems).
A more plausible reason for the "highly educated" being more liberal is because they are much more likely to be academics, and thus much more likely to be sucking at the big-government teat, via their job and/or research funding.
Btw, given the relative difficulty of obtaining my mere BS in physics, I will match my "lowly educated" status against most of your cheesy humanities PhDs any day.
Of course, no mention was made of the fact that the average Republican is much more educated than the average Democrat (33% of Repubs have college degrees compared to 22% of Dems).
A more plausible reason for the "highly educated" being more liberal is because they are much more likely to be academics, and thus much more likely to be sucking at the big-government teat, via their job and/or research funding.
Btw, given the relative difficulty of obtaining my mere BS in physics, I will match my "lowly educated" status against most of your cheesy humanities PhDs any day.
20
Guess what? They're not. Many intelligent people actually have common sense and use it. That means they subscribe to no party. It's the academics, many pseudo intellectuals.
10
It's so easy even a sociologist should know the answer -- Think of what educated people tend to move away from and you'll see where home is for them: they oppose the new Amendment 2 baloney about having guns everywhere, cheap beer blasts, bible-belt superstitions, fears of women's sexuality, hatred of critical thinking, gospels of capitalism and greed's Goodness, denial of medical vaccinations' efficacy, laughter at the possibility of climate change and any negative results of carbon energy, distaste for the poor, preference for entertainment on tv to reading books more than a month old, love of states rights nd hatred of federal rights enforcement in Old Boysville, and love of pop myths and an ignorance of history...
etc. So the question is really this : Why do educated Conservatives side with uneducated people? Power, sir, brute, ignorant power over women, minorities, foreigners, historical and scientific minds. Let 'em vote so we can go on getting rich. hat's it in a nutty shell.
etc. So the question is really this : Why do educated Conservatives side with uneducated people? Power, sir, brute, ignorant power over women, minorities, foreigners, historical and scientific minds. Let 'em vote so we can go on getting rich. hat's it in a nutty shell.
8
These days scientists poll almost unanimously very much on the `liberal' side of the political spectrum. Why? Because facts are facts: climate change, evolution, the advantages of early childhood education, the advantages of sex education, etc., etc.
8
I grew up in a working class suburb of Boston. My friends were Catholic Democrats but a mixed bag politically. I was the guy who aced standardized tests, which got me into Harvard Law School. Most of my HLS classmates also aced standardized tests but came from wealthier backgrounds. They were overwhelmingly liberals. I had more in common with my hometown friends. I don't consider standardized tests to be reliable indicators of intelligence and I find political conformity to be inversely related to intelligence and directly related to lack of diversity.
6
That's the conclusion to this piece? Dumb it down for the plebs? I cannot agree with this cynical conlusion.
This piece may be speaking in terms of pure electoral realpolitik, where appealing to ignorant prejudices and bonk pseudo-science is as good as actually getting educated and thinking your way through issues. Any way that gets you vote is legitimate, right?
But attitude is one reason for dysfunctions of the American democracy. Education and intelligent is viewed as a lifestyle choice, a quirk of a social class. An ignorant public is easier for political parties to manipulate and control. But is this really the country we want in the long term?
This piece may be speaking in terms of pure electoral realpolitik, where appealing to ignorant prejudices and bonk pseudo-science is as good as actually getting educated and thinking your way through issues. Any way that gets you vote is legitimate, right?
But attitude is one reason for dysfunctions of the American democracy. Education and intelligent is viewed as a lifestyle choice, a quirk of a social class. An ignorant public is easier for political parties to manipulate and control. But is this really the country we want in the long term?
3
Conservatives here in Australia add to their memberships by appealing to the baser instincts. Educated people tend to think about issues more whereas conservatives see everything as black and white.
The solution? ... enact laws that put lying politicians in the slammer.
The solution? ... enact laws that put lying politicians in the slammer.
2
I would like to see an income/political affiliation chart and an educational level/political affiliation chart from 1980 and from today.
All of this was summed up by Stephen Colbert: "Reality has a liberal bias."
15
The central theme would be more credible if "liberal" people didn't offer such twaddle as proof of their superiority. A PEW study demonstrates your bias does it well I'll leave that for another day it's enough to point out that the man that penned this drivel is an unabashed propagate of the infantilization of the American college student. The thing that everyone from either side would do well to consider is that the grey lady will chuck whoever her current bed fellows may be when the winds of "history" change (and yes dear reader they do)- muslims, egg head lefties, gays, and black lives matter-I'm lookin at you. It's not a problem for those of us who don't depend on her stoking our vanity but for those who do...ouch, it's gunna be a well deserved bone crushin thing.
5
I'll never forget listening in as a group of middle-age, working-class guys at the DMV talked about the upcoming election. They all intended to vote for Trump, and one of their main reasons was "because he's so wealthy he can't be bought." Huh? You mean once people achieve a certain level of wealth, they become immune to bribes, special favors, or watching out for their friends? Well, knock me over with a feather, who knew?! If Trump wins in November, I hope those guys are right.
12
For me Liberalism has to do with being open to new ideas, challenging existing philosophies and belief with reason,logic and facts, believing in equality and justice for everyone regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or economic class. I don't think you need a masters/phd degree with that.
10
Well a round of applause for the highly educated! We think we are so great and so superior and now we know why...we are brilliant! But, we knew that and have the student debt to prove it. Its those dumb republicans who think you can't spend what you don't have but we liberals are way smarter than that! It's new math. Liberal math.
5
As Trump himself rebuked the "conservatives" in the GOP,
it's called the "Republican Party", not the "Conservative Party".
Likewise, it's the "Democratic Party", not the "Liberal Party".
Maybe the names ought to be changed to more "functional" appellations.
But, in any case, back to Professor Gross' thesis:
The "highly educated" are "liberal", he claims.
Presumably, he would also claim the converse:
namely, that the "liberals" -- i.e. those who vote mostly for Democrats -- are, on the average, highly educated.
If so, surely he and his fellow like-thinking liberals would have no objection to an IQ test for all persons to qualify for voting.
And if not,then what's his point?
That it's only the "conservative"/"Republican" voters who should be ridiculed for being supposedly ignorant and ill-informed,
but not the great mass of the voters in the "liberal"/"Democratic" "base",
-- you know, the ones who can't figure out how to get an ID to register to vote,
let alone take an IQ test and score as well as the supposedly ignorant voters among the "conservatives/"Republicans".
it's called the "Republican Party", not the "Conservative Party".
Likewise, it's the "Democratic Party", not the "Liberal Party".
Maybe the names ought to be changed to more "functional" appellations.
But, in any case, back to Professor Gross' thesis:
The "highly educated" are "liberal", he claims.
Presumably, he would also claim the converse:
namely, that the "liberals" -- i.e. those who vote mostly for Democrats -- are, on the average, highly educated.
If so, surely he and his fellow like-thinking liberals would have no objection to an IQ test for all persons to qualify for voting.
And if not,then what's his point?
That it's only the "conservative"/"Republican" voters who should be ridiculed for being supposedly ignorant and ill-informed,
but not the great mass of the voters in the "liberal"/"Democratic" "base",
-- you know, the ones who can't figure out how to get an ID to register to vote,
let alone take an IQ test and score as well as the supposedly ignorant voters among the "conservatives/"Republicans".
4
If, as Mr. Gross argues, the "Highly Educated" are so liberal, perhaps we can flip this and look at the opposite side and ask why conservatives today believe in:
Science denialism.....(climate change isn't happening or it may be happening but man had nothing to do with it.)
Insisting that we pass laws to guard against dangers never documented (Voter ID laws are vital to guarding against massive voter fraud that we have been unable to document.)
Trickle down economics will create a brave new world of economic prosperity (even as states like Kansas and Louisiana descend steadily into chaos after years of adhering to those very policies) And the tricklers still insist that they just need some more time to prove they are right, despite years of mounting failure.
With lesser education, it is far easier to justify increasingly untenable beliefs, including the idea that Donald Trump is eminently qualified to be President of the U.S. and has a detailed plan that will "Make America Great"......again.
Science denialism.....(climate change isn't happening or it may be happening but man had nothing to do with it.)
Insisting that we pass laws to guard against dangers never documented (Voter ID laws are vital to guarding against massive voter fraud that we have been unable to document.)
Trickle down economics will create a brave new world of economic prosperity (even as states like Kansas and Louisiana descend steadily into chaos after years of adhering to those very policies) And the tricklers still insist that they just need some more time to prove they are right, despite years of mounting failure.
With lesser education, it is far easier to justify increasingly untenable beliefs, including the idea that Donald Trump is eminently qualified to be President of the U.S. and has a detailed plan that will "Make America Great"......again.
9
I'd rather know as a member of the party of the Ph.Ds than the party of the GEDs.
3
As liberalism has come to further dominate the professional classes, inequality in the country has grown. What an odd coincidence. Or is it that the "culture of critical discourse" never gets beyond the discourse stage and that most data minutes are actually spent on personal advancement. Not that that's bad or wrong. It's just that it's not typically considered the liberal agenda, which is usually thought to concern itself with helping provide opportunities for people who weren't born with all the connections and all the breaks.
1
Interesting article -- two thoughts:
1. Most college professors are liberal, and possibly, the longer you immerse yourself in a liberal environment, the more likely you inherit those beliefs.
2. Highly educated does not correspond with higher intelligence. A lot of smart, thoughtful people do not have PhDs. A lot of people with PhDs are not smart, thoughtful people.
1. Most college professors are liberal, and possibly, the longer you immerse yourself in a liberal environment, the more likely you inherit those beliefs.
2. Highly educated does not correspond with higher intelligence. A lot of smart, thoughtful people do not have PhDs. A lot of people with PhDs are not smart, thoughtful people.
7
Education is not the same as wisdom -- look no further than the liberal mindset for evidence of that.
4
In this era of ultra-conservative talk on tv and radio, the sooner the progressive and scientific "elite" can retake the national stage, we (the entire nation including Repubs and Dems) will all be better for it. The hideous denial of real science and the attempt by conservatives to create a Christian state, runs counter to what Jefferson had in mind, despite the fact that he was pro-states' rights.
The idea that liberals have been on the march to demonize conservatives is quite a delusional notion to say the least. Thanks to the small cabal during Nixon's second, and failed, administration, it was the conservatives who invented the idea of Fox News as the public relations arm of the extreme conservative movement. It made millionaires of the tiny-brained gas bags such as Limbaugh, Savage, Erickson, Palin (later on), and a host of Fox News talking heads who made a great living spewing whatever their rumor mill could produce.
Wrapping themselves in the flag and false patriotism, they have supported the thrice-failed concept of trickle-down/supply-side economic offered up by the libertarian econ' professor, Arthur Laffer. These are the followers of the disgraceful Ayn Rand, the Soviet runaway writing books about the importance of ignoring the teachings of Jesus. If anyone personified the antithesis of Jesus's teachings of compassion, empathy and the importance of good-faith negotiation, it was Rand. Watch any interview of Rand on YouTube to see what I mean.
The idea that liberals have been on the march to demonize conservatives is quite a delusional notion to say the least. Thanks to the small cabal during Nixon's second, and failed, administration, it was the conservatives who invented the idea of Fox News as the public relations arm of the extreme conservative movement. It made millionaires of the tiny-brained gas bags such as Limbaugh, Savage, Erickson, Palin (later on), and a host of Fox News talking heads who made a great living spewing whatever their rumor mill could produce.
Wrapping themselves in the flag and false patriotism, they have supported the thrice-failed concept of trickle-down/supply-side economic offered up by the libertarian econ' professor, Arthur Laffer. These are the followers of the disgraceful Ayn Rand, the Soviet runaway writing books about the importance of ignoring the teachings of Jesus. If anyone personified the antithesis of Jesus's teachings of compassion, empathy and the importance of good-faith negotiation, it was Rand. Watch any interview of Rand on YouTube to see what I mean.
4
I think its quite simple. If you are trained to use logic, and for those of us in science, the scientific method, your investigations of matters political and otherwise most likely will lead you to a conclusion that would be considered "liberal." That is, the world will be a better place if we take care of all people, especially those who have lost out in the capitalist battle (its takes a host of losers to make winners...duh). In today's world that's a liberal. The world will be a better place if everyone has a chance to make something of themselves. Those views come from studying the world in all its complexities and being asked to consider how it could be made better. By being challenged to leave your preconceived notions behind and consider the facts as they are. Granted some well-educated people manage to get through the system without discarding the biases they entered with, and some leave with their views hardened. But the majority, having learned how to think, to consider what are facts and what are opinions, will inevitably retain their ability to think after they graduate and so will most likely adopt "liberal" views. To be a liberal means to be open to other points of view, to consider them, and to accept them if they accord with facts.
4
Is this a trick question...;)
There's a marketing phenomenon that says 'Every object has a price floor, below which consumers believe the price reflects poor quality rather than good value'.
Today's GOP (and the phenomenon of the Trump candidacy) has reached that floor on an intellectual basis. But the Party mandarins and paladins haven't yet come to terms with that reality yet...and probably won't until they lose their 3rd national electoral contest in a row, in November.
The GOP has simply priced itself too far downscale for those educated enough to know who they are and what their place is in the world, not to mention what they have to lose by allowing the politically-unscrupulous and hysterical-sounding GOP to put their hands on serious public power. In the end, 'truth' really DOES have a 'liberal-progressive bias'. Thankfully, the GOP is too self-involved to see how their dirty linen appears to those outside the bubble. Unthankfully, that bubble also allows them the luxury of believing themselves in terms of a messianic victimhood, defined less by ideas of participatory democracy than by indulging in a perverse Nietschzean ethos of strong-man worship to preserve the Party's grip on political power. Meanwhile, nary a thought given to the damage such tactics do to governance, parliamentary procedure, regular order, and constitutional principles meant to contain the worst instincts of a fearful and angry constituency. Faced with that, no wonder the educated skew lib-progressive!
Today's GOP (and the phenomenon of the Trump candidacy) has reached that floor on an intellectual basis. But the Party mandarins and paladins haven't yet come to terms with that reality yet...and probably won't until they lose their 3rd national electoral contest in a row, in November.
The GOP has simply priced itself too far downscale for those educated enough to know who they are and what their place is in the world, not to mention what they have to lose by allowing the politically-unscrupulous and hysterical-sounding GOP to put their hands on serious public power. In the end, 'truth' really DOES have a 'liberal-progressive bias'. Thankfully, the GOP is too self-involved to see how their dirty linen appears to those outside the bubble. Unthankfully, that bubble also allows them the luxury of believing themselves in terms of a messianic victimhood, defined less by ideas of participatory democracy than by indulging in a perverse Nietschzean ethos of strong-man worship to preserve the Party's grip on political power. Meanwhile, nary a thought given to the damage such tactics do to governance, parliamentary procedure, regular order, and constitutional principles meant to contain the worst instincts of a fearful and angry constituency. Faced with that, no wonder the educated skew lib-progressive!
5
I am an anthropologist who conducted research outside the US. My liberalism stems from what I discovered doing that research.
1
At Harvard Law School, those from the poorest backgrounds were often the most conservative. They believed in succeeding on their own. As the most educated come more and more from privileged backgrounds, noblesse oblige takes the place of rugged individualism.
8
A better title for the article would be, "Why Are Most NY Times Writers Such Dunces?"
"It’s a boon for the Democrats, though they need to be alert to its dangers," says our wise and learned writer.
But I don't need you to alert me to any dangers, Mr. Gross.
When one's liberalism, or conservativism, is based mostly ideology (aka prejudice) and lacks pragmatism, a so-called "liberal" can be just as much as a fascist as a conservative tends to be.
In fact, neo-liberals are in many important ways just as ignorant and prejudiced as are neo-conservatives.
That's why so many Americans are "independents" who reject the party line.
You might want to educate yourself on the topic first before "alerting" the rest of us to the danger, Mr. Gross.
"It’s a boon for the Democrats, though they need to be alert to its dangers," says our wise and learned writer.
But I don't need you to alert me to any dangers, Mr. Gross.
When one's liberalism, or conservativism, is based mostly ideology (aka prejudice) and lacks pragmatism, a so-called "liberal" can be just as much as a fascist as a conservative tends to be.
In fact, neo-liberals are in many important ways just as ignorant and prejudiced as are neo-conservatives.
That's why so many Americans are "independents" who reject the party line.
You might want to educate yourself on the topic first before "alerting" the rest of us to the danger, Mr. Gross.
5
When you have read Charles Dickens, Upton Sinclair and our history you can not help but be aware of the sufferings of people. If you can do this and deny them you are not human.
3
The intellectual elite is a different category than those with advanced degrees, who are a diverse group with different training and interests -- e.g., engineers, corporate lawyers, sociology professors, literary critics, etc. Intellectuals consist of college graduates working for a non-profit devoted to social change, etc. I wonder how the different groups vary in their social and economic views and devotion to these ideals.
3
"The Democrats may find they need to give up a little of their wonkiness if they want resounding victories."
By all means let's dumb it down to the level of the emotionally driven ignorant rabble.
Better to move into our own enlightened tribal enclaves with other progressives and humanists and wait for natural selection to take it's inexorable toll.
The red state white christian haters are dying out at a very high rate! A real benefit of cultural evolution as they drop from drug and alcohol abuse and obesity and self infused depression.
By all means let's dumb it down to the level of the emotionally driven ignorant rabble.
Better to move into our own enlightened tribal enclaves with other progressives and humanists and wait for natural selection to take it's inexorable toll.
The red state white christian haters are dying out at a very high rate! A real benefit of cultural evolution as they drop from drug and alcohol abuse and obesity and self infused depression.
3
this article is almost laughable … pure conjecture
4
Yes things have changed, many of them for the better but not all. As we include more and more into the category of "normal" it pushes both extremes further and further apart. Hint- that's not the good part.
It may be good to reflect on the French Revolution as well - perhaps there is something the US can learn from that. There is also the aspect of liberals and flipping liberals. Much of the voting power behind Hilary is not the intellectual group, it's the opposite.
It may be good to reflect on the French Revolution as well - perhaps there is something the US can learn from that. There is also the aspect of liberals and flipping liberals. Much of the voting power behind Hilary is not the intellectual group, it's the opposite.
2
well-educated women tend to be especially left-leaning.
Please don't put Hillary in that crowd as her own words show otherwise... "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat." - Hillary Clinton
Please don't put Hillary in that crowd as her own words show otherwise... "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat." - Hillary Clinton
3
Isn't that the purpose of an education to liberate us from old, fogey, out-dated ways of thinking? The purpose of education is to open our minds, not to keep us hostage to the status quo! What is the point of getting an education if it doesn't challenge your way of thinking and change you for the better? Both my daughter and I are proud to be members of "the party of the PhD.s" We worked hard to earn our PhD.s, and I thank the feminist revolution for playing a big part in making this achievement possible for not only women, but women of color as well.
3
I believe it is like Albert Brook's movie, Defending Your Life. It is when you overcome your fears that you are able to achieve an enlightenment that takes away your biases and prejudices.
2
If this is true then we have a very bad high education.
Just look at comments sections of the NYT - critical discourse? Almost total name calling from the liberal side. And the same from the journalists - "clowns", "ignoramus", and more, and more. Look at awful distortions of common logic with propagandizing Black Lives Matter, college "safe spaces"; mind-bogging linguistic acrobatics - "undocumented immigrants", "persons involved with justice system". It's just scary what lies ahead if we will continue to walk this path.
Just look at comments sections of the NYT - critical discourse? Almost total name calling from the liberal side. And the same from the journalists - "clowns", "ignoramus", and more, and more. Look at awful distortions of common logic with propagandizing Black Lives Matter, college "safe spaces"; mind-bogging linguistic acrobatics - "undocumented immigrants", "persons involved with justice system". It's just scary what lies ahead if we will continue to walk this path.
6
The longer your stay in college the longer liberal propaganda has a chance to marinate.
4
Liberals peddle facts. Conservatives peddle fiction. Where else would the well-educated go?
4
We're too smart to fall for the conservative scare tactics.
1
Because they're highly educated. Not a huge leap in logical deduction.
2
This doesn't strike me as hard to explain. It isn't that the education are so leftists. It is, rather, that what counts as "left" in the US is "center" pretty well everywhere else (hint: "liberal" isn't "left"). Educated Americans are more cosmopolitan and know all too well that that the US is terribly regressive compared to, say Western Europe, Canada, and Australia. For instance, no conservative party anywhere else would dare oppose universal health care. In the US, even the Democrats can't reach consensus on so basic a topic. It is long past time for the US to join the 1980s.
6
Poorly educated people tend, in my experience, to see the world in black-and-white Manichaean terms. Educated people have been trained to see the world in shades of gray. For uneducated people, the answers to life's questions are usually simple, clear and unambiguous; for educated people, the answers are almost never clear and unambiguous. Those who are more comfortable with the certainty of black-and-white answers tend to be on the conservative end of the political-cultural spectrum; those who are comfortable with the paradox and uncertainty of ambiguity tend to be found at the more liberal end of the spectrum.
5
Albert Einstein was so smart he went beyond liberalism into socialism:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/036.png
The whole "liberals being smarter" syndrome is actually pretty simple and comes down to one word: evolution:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/061.png
Democrats need to EMBRACE liberalism, not triangulate away from it:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/047.png
I am not the only one saying it but if Hillary Clinton keeps pushing "Republican-Lite" all she will do is hand the Presidency to Donald J. Trump.
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/036.png
The whole "liberals being smarter" syndrome is actually pretty simple and comes down to one word: evolution:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/061.png
Democrats need to EMBRACE liberalism, not triangulate away from it:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/047.png
I am not the only one saying it but if Hillary Clinton keeps pushing "Republican-Lite" all she will do is hand the Presidency to Donald J. Trump.
3
The limousine liberals live in the same neighborhoods, work in the same occupations, join the same expensive - and, therefor, exclusive affinity groups, have their children go to the same schools, from pre-kindergarten to post-tertiary education. They also tend to marry each other. The farther they are away from the hoi polloi, the more they exude support for them.
Hillary Clinton, for example, is concerned about the "glass ceiling," but for most women getting off the floor is the major problem in their lives. Of course, these women don't usually read the NT and don't provide comments for the edification of the readers. Is it unsurprising, therefore, that she had a deaf ear for people advocating a substantial increase in minimum wages, an increase that would help a vast majority of working women already in the labour force and encourage others to join them. Higher minimum wages, by the way, would have a disproportionately beneficial effect on Blacks and Latinos, two groups that HRC has paid lip service to supporting.
Is there anything more reprehensible than "morally superior," self-satisfied, hypocritical, pseudo intellectuals who are quick to mention their elevated sentiments while at the same time deriding people for whom daily existence is an existential reality rather than a topic for conversation over vintage wines.
Hillary Clinton, for example, is concerned about the "glass ceiling," but for most women getting off the floor is the major problem in their lives. Of course, these women don't usually read the NT and don't provide comments for the edification of the readers. Is it unsurprising, therefore, that she had a deaf ear for people advocating a substantial increase in minimum wages, an increase that would help a vast majority of working women already in the labour force and encourage others to join them. Higher minimum wages, by the way, would have a disproportionately beneficial effect on Blacks and Latinos, two groups that HRC has paid lip service to supporting.
Is there anything more reprehensible than "morally superior," self-satisfied, hypocritical, pseudo intellectuals who are quick to mention their elevated sentiments while at the same time deriding people for whom daily existence is an existential reality rather than a topic for conversation over vintage wines.
9
Intelligent, open- minded people know that conservative theory is politically viable and a cogent world view. If the well-educated can't see this, they are neither intelligent nor open- minded. This is evident from the fact that most think level of education is the mark of intelligence.
3
I used to think it was bias to suggest smart people are liberal. But now, the data is in, so....
The problem is not that smart people have not provided for the proletariat, have not welcomed them into the middle class -- but that the smart people abandoned the unions that protected the working class to the Republicans. Without labor democrats, the Republicans have a clear chance.
The problem is not that smart people have not provided for the proletariat, have not welcomed them into the middle class -- but that the smart people abandoned the unions that protected the working class to the Republicans. Without labor democrats, the Republicans have a clear chance.
2
Liberal Fascism: what you get when ideas, opinions, and facts that are not in line with the liberal orthodoxy are stifled, shunned, and ignored.
3
Higher education teaches flexible thinking and higher order reasoning skills. College students learn how to examine, analyze data, how to form and counter an argument, how to draw comparisons and evaluate conclusions while considering multiple viewpoints. Higher education also provides exposure to the multiple different perspectives that exist in our society, in other societies, and through history. And often it involves leaving one's home community, and interacting with people who have different opinions,viewpoints, and backgrounds than the ones you grew up with.
All of this leads to more liberal thinking because by definition, considering multiple points of view is liberalism. That's why conservatives are so scared of public education. Teaching young adults to think, reason, and consider alternate viewpoints gives them the tools to challenge the status quo.
All of this leads to more liberal thinking because by definition, considering multiple points of view is liberalism. That's why conservatives are so scared of public education. Teaching young adults to think, reason, and consider alternate viewpoints gives them the tools to challenge the status quo.
4
I didn't even have to read the entire article to know the answer to this one. Men who are not really men are drawn to higher education. When I came home after 4 years of college my old friends asked if I was gay. Academia and college tend to take away a man's more masculine traits, unless, of course, you're in a frat, or playing sports, in which case one becomes something of a neanderthal. You rarely see a real man, a man who exudes manliness, testosterone, as a doctor, scientist, writer, professor. In short, the higher the intellect and degree, the higher the propensity toward femaleness and liberalism.
1
Oh pish posh. All college has done in the last 30 years is to teach people how to hide their racism and prejudice in PC baby talk.
Note the outward facing attitudes of very liberal people. Then compare how many of them live in integrated neighborhoods and send their children to majority-minority schools.
"Do as I say, not as I do" is the byword of the liberal arts education and one I experienced at the BA, JD, and LLM level.
Note the outward facing attitudes of very liberal people. Then compare how many of them live in integrated neighborhoods and send their children to majority-minority schools.
"Do as I say, not as I do" is the byword of the liberal arts education and one I experienced at the BA, JD, and LLM level.
6
because the highly educated know more, connect more, and are overall more accepting of ideas that challenge and contradict received 'wisdom.' They can hold contradictory ideas as they think. Practice it some time.
3
William Perry, Jr., the Harvard educational psychologist, studied the cognitive development of college students and identified a progression of stages through which students passed as a result of engaging with the educational process. Each successive stage of thought was a shift away from relying on authority and toward relying on arguments based on reason and evidence, with an ability to see different points of view. This opening of the mind tends to have a liberalizing effect.
3
FALSE: 65% of Americans dont have college degrees and they elected Obama
4
The scientific method teaches us to make observations, generate hypotheses based upon those observation, see what those hypotheses predict and then modify or reject those hypotheses based upon further observational data. In this way, we advance towards a model of the universe that moves closer and closer to reality, even if that model is inconsistent with our initial prejudices.
Try using this method to assess different political systems that exist today or have existed historically. Look at the type of societies that tend to result from those systems, looking for a system that leads to a safer, happier and more stable society. I think that one would conclude that people should be allowed to live their lives as they choose to live them, as long as they do not physically injure or defraud other people. Capitalist incentives should be present to promote innovation and technological advancement. Taxes have to be high enough to allow the government to ensure that everyone had access to nutritious food, safe shelter, high quality education and medical care. The system should be set up so as to ensure that upward mobility is possible for those who are successful in various endeavors (academic, entrepreneurial, artistic etc.) without class barriers to advancement. This may explain why those who examine the evidence before reaching conclusions tend to be liberal.
Try using this method to assess different political systems that exist today or have existed historically. Look at the type of societies that tend to result from those systems, looking for a system that leads to a safer, happier and more stable society. I think that one would conclude that people should be allowed to live their lives as they choose to live them, as long as they do not physically injure or defraud other people. Capitalist incentives should be present to promote innovation and technological advancement. Taxes have to be high enough to allow the government to ensure that everyone had access to nutritious food, safe shelter, high quality education and medical care. The system should be set up so as to ensure that upward mobility is possible for those who are successful in various endeavors (academic, entrepreneurial, artistic etc.) without class barriers to advancement. This may explain why those who examine the evidence before reaching conclusions tend to be liberal.
2
The article seems to be at odds with the reality in the media recently. You cannot turn on TV or radio, read news and magazine and not read about how popular and powerful Donald Trump and his followers are and they are about to take over the country. Yes, I am one of the "highly educated" with Ph.D. degree. I am very happy to do all I can to address issues of economic inequality, minimum wage, childcare, and maternal leave. But I am not willing to compromise on guns, abortion, climate deniers, purposefully misinformed and racist people. I am not willing to give up, not even a little, on what I think is right and just.
1
The answer is inthe definition. Conservatives are those who like to conserve what they have (or had) and are afraid that any change will destable their way of life in which they will not do as well as now. The highly educated do not have such qualms. with their education, they think they can adopt and adapt new waysto benefit every one and that they will not be left behind. Their education also also eposes them to other ways of life and education eliminates biases and they can evaluate if the new ways are better or noe.
3
"Why are the Highly Educated So Liberal?" While I'm not a fan of gross generalizations, it seems like the answer is: "Because the highly educated are smarter." To get admitted to an advanced degree program you typically have to take the GRE, GMAT, MCAT, or LSAT. Among other things, these tests demonstrate your analytical capabilities. If you score well on these tests, you've demonstrated that you have the capability to think beyond Step One. What this means, for example, is that if someone like Paul Ryan comes along and claims that we must cut social welfare programs and lower tax rates, the highly educated person will not merely take those claims at face value, but will look further to see if those claims make any sense.
The execrable Ann Coulter once said: "If Democrats were smarter they'd be Republicans." To which we highly educated liberals respond: "As if."
The execrable Ann Coulter once said: "If Democrats were smarter they'd be Republicans." To which we highly educated liberals respond: "As if."
It is also not in the long term interest of the Democrats to "give in" to the religious right.
Wall street executives, CEO's, greedy corporate executives and physicians; these are all often highly educated people and yet these people are often conservative. As a physician I can tell you that most physicians are conservative. I think where the distinction lies is between the highly educated that work in the real world vs. the highly educated that are in academia. When you work in the real world you become more conservative but behind the idealistic academic society it's easy (and safer referencing the article NY times put out last week) to be liberal.
4
One main reason the highly educated are liberal is that so-called conservatives have moved away from fundamental areas of knowledge, such as science, history, math, and economics. Educated people find it very difficult to embrace a world view that claims climate change is a hoax, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and income inequality is healthy for a nation's economy. Educated people believe in being empirical and not exclusively faith based. In today's America, that makes them liberal.
3
Addendum to my prior comment:
Keep in mind that these are average 'tendencies', so don't get too hung up on anecdotes.
Not all disciplines are the same, with some self-selection before and some reinforcing of that selection by the discipline, some disciplines' relevance being more about feelings or philosophy and others' about hard evidence. Economics tends to be less 'liberal' than sociology, engineering less 'liberal' than earth sciences or architecture, and all of these tend to be less 'liberal' than the humanities.
Keep in mind that these are average 'tendencies', so don't get too hung up on anecdotes.
Not all disciplines are the same, with some self-selection before and some reinforcing of that selection by the discipline, some disciplines' relevance being more about feelings or philosophy and others' about hard evidence. Economics tends to be less 'liberal' than sociology, engineering less 'liberal' than earth sciences or architecture, and all of these tend to be less 'liberal' than the humanities.
Say what? It is hard to be more "highly educated" than Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, GWBush, Antonin Scalia, and most of the CEO's who take their big bonuses and perks while claiming their companies can't afford to pay a living wage to workers. It has to be more than just level of education. I personally think it is explained by an empathy gene, or lack of such.
As WS GILBERT wrote in Iolanthe, you're either born a little liberal or a little conservative. Fa la la la.
As WS GILBERT wrote in Iolanthe, you're either born a little liberal or a little conservative. Fa la la la.
The highly educated have stayed roughly the same in their views. But everyone else has moved right.
3
Both groups are supremely smug.
No wonder they overlap.
No wonder they overlap.
3
Why this is a mystery to Gross? As he said, these educated groups work in professions that require an unbiased openness to information. Being open to data leads to some not surprising conclusions that may be lazily lumped as "liberal." Income inequality has exploded, a growing part of the population is being left behind by the new economy, the climate is changing for the worse, lifestyle choices made by others don't detract from our lives, etc. A better question is why educated members of the "old class" don't draw the same conclusions? Add Gross' point about the conservative embrace of anti-intellectualism and denial of inconvenient facts, and there isn't much choice. But before Gross, Kristof, Vox, et al. go too far in promulgating this cartoonish view of the new professional class as being reflexively liberal in all matters, they might consider some glaring contradictory information. Many of the icons of this new class (I'm looking at you Jeff Bezos) indulge in what looks like some old class behavior when it comes to sheltering wealth from the tax collector, abusing blue collar workers, and busting unions. On the university campus where I am a professor, I only have to walk 5 min to the Med School, Law School, or Business School to find some buttoned down colleagues with old-time conservative attitudes on matters from government entitlements to gender-neutral bathrooms. Maybe they didn't get the memo that they should behave like liberals.
1
Greater knowledge and experience leads to less fear, more tolerance, and a greater willingness if not desire to venture beyond the safety of our comfort zones and explore the world and universe. Liberals embrace these values, and applaud those who venture out to explore and examine the human and natural universes. Conservatives recoil in fear of the new, the true, and the audacious brutality of sheer scientific fact. Conviction is paramount in their world. Fact should be subservient to belief. "Truth" is a fabrication if it doesn't meet certain political aims. This is a very dangerous political bent, currently growing across the western world, that needs to be exposed and confronted on every single tweet, blog and street-corner.
4
Let's assume for a moment that a good education results in actually knowing something. Even some Republications (Bobby Jindahl, for example) bemoan their own Party as "The Party of Stupid." From the GOP presidential debates this sorry electoral season, you could record short audio clips at-random, at any time, of any candidate, and they would sound an alarm of "Warning! Idiot at large, armed and dangerous!"
Why does the GOP engage in persistent, knee-jerk opposition to education, science, research and critical thinking? Because its fortunes, as self-defined, depend on an uninformed, fearful, bigoted base. Why else does the Party's presumptive presidential nominee "love the uneducated?"
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Why does the GOP engage in persistent, knee-jerk opposition to education, science, research and critical thinking? Because its fortunes, as self-defined, depend on an uninformed, fearful, bigoted base. Why else does the Party's presumptive presidential nominee "love the uneducated?"
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
Your final point is a good one. My parents were the initial generation of highly educated professionals you speak of. They were also huge intellectual snobs. The first question they asked about someone was "Does s/he have a college degree?" They were truly liberal in racial and ethnic matters but they did harbor a prejudice against southern whites. I decided I did not want to become like them with respect to their prejudices, because I realized the hurt and humiliation we inflict when we look down on someone else. There is no question in my mind that in this way many liberals have made their own contribution to the polarization we see today and the backlash of those who are less educated. I see the disdain for them often in the comments section of the Times. If we want to move beyond this, we can each do our part by reaching out to those who are different, learning about their lives. There is something to respect or empathize with in every human being.
4
Adam Smith: "The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. . . ."
Hayek (or arguably, his editor most of it) and there and in other works explaine wrote "The Fatal Conceit" where, and in other works, he explained the problems of "planning" economies. But, he conceded that socialists or progressives (now we say liberals; he used the word to mean what we call libertarians) were often very bright, leading to their belief in their planning prowess.
Hayek (or arguably, his editor most of it) and there and in other works explaine wrote "The Fatal Conceit" where, and in other works, he explained the problems of "planning" economies. But, he conceded that socialists or progressives (now we say liberals; he used the word to mean what we call libertarians) were often very bright, leading to their belief in their planning prowess.
1
This fantasy editorial has way to many holes.
Many of the most liberal people I have known have never gotten past a high school diploma. They think Obamacare and welcoming in millions of illegal aliens is so wonderful without ever thinking that somebody has to pay for these disasters.
Others have been liberal arts majors that the closeset they can get to a job is teaching the drek they wasted 4 or more years in college learning.
I would not cofuse an engineer or business administrator who comes up with practical ideas with the fantasy of "liberalism". Like many of my associates we are open to and do even hire people of any sexual orientation and see no limits on free speech. But don't mess with our 2nd Ammendment.
Many of the most liberal people I have known have never gotten past a high school diploma. They think Obamacare and welcoming in millions of illegal aliens is so wonderful without ever thinking that somebody has to pay for these disasters.
Others have been liberal arts majors that the closeset they can get to a job is teaching the drek they wasted 4 or more years in college learning.
I would not cofuse an engineer or business administrator who comes up with practical ideas with the fantasy of "liberalism". Like many of my associates we are open to and do even hire people of any sexual orientation and see no limits on free speech. But don't mess with our 2nd Ammendment.
4
Thought. Experience. Knowledge. Reflection. Empathy.
2
Why are the highly educated so liberal?
For the same reason the highly educated don't get shot with their own guns by their own toddlers.
For the same reason the highly educated don't get shot with their own guns by their own toddlers.
4
As an independent, I have always despaired of finding a political party, the majority of whose positions I felt truly comfortable with. While I wholeheartedly wish for European-style universal healthcare, meaningful regulation of economic markets and campaign finance reform, women's reproductive rights, marriage equality and would dearly like to see religion walled off from the state (preferably in an airless chamber), I view gun control as "barn door after the horse is out" issue, think it's well past time we removed affirmative action training wheels for people of color, and acknowledge the common sense notion that the presence of a multitude of undocumented unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the US labor pool depresses wages for native born peoples similarly situated in the economy.
In my view, the world is gray, not blue and not red. Obama's treasury rewards Goldman with 100 cents on the dollar for tens of billions in worthless AIG swaps and his justice lets HSBC off with a fine for laundering money for the Sinaloa cartel. Bush leads us into a trumped up war on false pretenses, utterly fails to properly prosecute it and in the process destabilizes the entire Middle East. Reading all the mindless, middle-brow cheerleading in the posts below just makes me depressed.
In my view, the world is gray, not blue and not red. Obama's treasury rewards Goldman with 100 cents on the dollar for tens of billions in worthless AIG swaps and his justice lets HSBC off with a fine for laundering money for the Sinaloa cartel. Bush leads us into a trumped up war on false pretenses, utterly fails to properly prosecute it and in the process destabilizes the entire Middle East. Reading all the mindless, middle-brow cheerleading in the posts below just makes me depressed.
2
Simple answers: the highly educated like facts; they see their own well-being as being related to the well-being of all. The brand of conservatism that has overtaken the Republican Party disparages facts and promotes the rich at the expense of the poor, using hatred as an organizing tool. If there were a responsible conservative movement in the country, many of the highly educated would join it and the nation would be better off for it.
2
I believe in global warming, evolution, and vaccinations. I think the Republicans take anti-intellectualism to a fine art, in particular their current frontrunner, who changes positions, sometimes in the same sentence.
I also think the academy is monolithically, indeed repressively left-wing, to the point conservative professors without tenure are interviewed anonymously in parking lots. There have been multiple examples of sociologists, historians, and psychologists squelching any study that might have conservative implications, whereas ideas like stereotype threat that fit liberal narratives are promoted and then fail to be reproduced. I think this has a lot to do with the highly educated being very liberal.
I also think the academy is monolithically, indeed repressively left-wing, to the point conservative professors without tenure are interviewed anonymously in parking lots. There have been multiple examples of sociologists, historians, and psychologists squelching any study that might have conservative implications, whereas ideas like stereotype threat that fit liberal narratives are promoted and then fail to be reproduced. I think this has a lot to do with the highly educated being very liberal.
This is precisely the group -- with its smarts and access to important data and research -- that should have read the smoke signals in the early 1980s that real wages had begun to diverge downward from increasing productivity. And that the people who would suffer most from this development would be the working class. This steady decline has lead us to the untenable economic inequality we see today. But this cohort was mostly checking the health of its own 401k plans and as far as class solidarity is concerned, has been mostly missing in action.
3
Edge-a-cation? what is dat? Is it an APP? what button do I click f'r dat?
Edge-a-cation, evybody is sayin we need mo' edge-a-cation.
If we needed more edge-a-cation Comcast would add a channel and an APP
f'r dat. DOH!
Edge-a-cation, evybody is sayin we need mo' edge-a-cation.
If we needed more edge-a-cation Comcast would add a channel and an APP
f'r dat. DOH!
3
As a liberal with a PhD, I am forever appalled by the progressive demand that we ignore all evidence in order to support fashionable progressive ideals. We must deny the impact of illegal immigration on the jobs and wages of working class Americans, we must ignore the horrifying statistics on violence in the inner city in order to support Black Lives Matter, we must support the racism inherent in affirmative action, me must pretend that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and ignore its current destruction of European civilization, the list goes on and on. I am dismayed by progressives precisely because I AM a liberal.
3
I can see a definite positive feedback loop going on here. Highly educated people probably attended good universities. Good (research) universities tend to be near cities. In cities there is greater diversity than elsewhere and people are closer together - like it or not. These conditions bring good jobs. The good jobs attract businesses, etc. It all feeds on itself. People do better and get along better when they have room - and make room - for each other.
1
Highly educated means they have spent alot of time in the liberal cesspools known as American Universities, and have not been able to shake the brainwashing. College liberal indoctrination was going on when I graduated in 1981 and is still going on today. Fortunately I, and many people I know, freed ourselves from the liberal noose. This only occurred after we finished college and for the first time became exposed to diverse thought, diverse people, conservative intellectuals and the real world.
If you are looking for the free exchange of ideas and diversity of thought you will not get it at college. You are better off going to the corner tap room if you want true diverse intelectual stimulation.
If you are looking for the free exchange of ideas and diversity of thought you will not get it at college. You are better off going to the corner tap room if you want true diverse intelectual stimulation.
2
Judging from many comments here, I'd say Pete from West Hartford puts it right:
"Almost everybody [defines] 'critical thinker' as a person who agrees with them..."
"Almost everybody [defines] 'critical thinker' as a person who agrees with them..."
3
Why are the highly educated so liberal? The answer is the conservatives despise intellectuals.
It seems to me that more highly educated people of often curious and open to learning about many different subjects. They tend to believe that, in order to realistically deal with many complex issues in our society, it is necessary to investigate the wider context and nuances of the stated situation, and to depend on truthful, verifiable evidence when developing effective, fair solutions to problems. Also, they have learned the value of open-minded, honest, civil discourse, they are willing to compromise in order to benefit the common good, and they tend to value social, cultural and philosophical/spiritual diversity.
In a large population, many individuals display a wide spectrum of attitudes and beliefs. Unfortunately, there are many people who prefer to approach problems in a more emotion-based, simplistic way, and they often disparage analytical thinking and scientific evidence. They mistrust ideas regarding social, cultural, and religious diversity. Also, they consider compromise to be a sign of weakness and insist on "my way or no way".
In a large population, many individuals display a wide spectrum of attitudes and beliefs. Unfortunately, there are many people who prefer to approach problems in a more emotion-based, simplistic way, and they often disparage analytical thinking and scientific evidence. They mistrust ideas regarding social, cultural, and religious diversity. Also, they consider compromise to be a sign of weakness and insist on "my way or no way".
2
The highly educated are just as stupid as everyone else but they know enough that that if your opinions don't mesh with the popular opinion you keep your own council.
2
"Last month, the Pew Research Center released a study showing that nearly a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have “down the line” liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally."
We know that math is not a "progressive" strength but if only 1/3 have liberal or "progressive" views that means 2/3rds do not.
We know that math is not a "progressive" strength but if only 1/3 have liberal or "progressive" views that means 2/3rds do not.
Because they're smart.
2
I feel very sorry for highly educated conservatives. Imagine what it must be like to have to pretend to admire the leaders they're expected to endorse or accept the policies they're expected to support. I'll bet if you performed autopsies on intelligent right-wingers you'd discover their insides were tied in knots from all the cognitive dissonance.
2
Lefties dominate universities. Lefties are incredibly intolerant of opposing views. As a result, conservatives have a hard time getting ahead in the academic world (as even Kristoff recently acknowledged). Thus, lefty brainwashing of college students goes largely unchallenged. This is not the only reason why the highly educated are so liberal, but it is a big reason.
2
Re: Alvin Gouldner's theory, exactly how many of the young people of the 1960s and '70s were "student radicals"?
Not one of my friends (most of whom ended up being highly-educated) were students radicals, but most were and still are liberal. Although I'd like to attribute that to superior thinking skills, the truth is that our parents and grandparents were FDR Democrats and we were more accepting of liberal ideas from the beginning.
Not one of my friends (most of whom ended up being highly-educated) were students radicals, but most were and still are liberal. Although I'd like to attribute that to superior thinking skills, the truth is that our parents and grandparents were FDR Democrats and we were more accepting of liberal ideas from the beginning.
1
I see a lot of resentment towards Trump in the comments. However, I ask is it not a shot in the arm for America that it is Trump ? Think abou the alternate - Harvard educated Cruz ? Lucky us that we have Trump at least you would not have to put pants back in the Piano , Chairs and Tables. Not much critical thinking needed to figure this one out.
ONE WORD ANSWER: INDOCTRINATION. Bertrand Russell who influenced the ENTIRE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM: “Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished… When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” ~ Bertrand Russell, quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology at Prussian University in Berlin, who influenced the entire public school movement.
1
It seems fairly obvious: the more well educated, the more likely it is that the person reads a lot (and not purely junk news) so is better informed; the more likely it is the person lives in an urban center and encounters people from all races, religions, walks of life and sexual preference. It's the same way that the more well-traveled a person is, the less likely he or she is to believe that the American way is the only way.
3
Highly Educated (with privileges and insulation)? Yes. Identifying as Liberal? Why not--at least it's not Republican. Willing to throw the working class under the bus if it's in their own self-interest? Definitely. Since the politics and economics of this country have gotten worse as this new demographic has emerged, many of these comments come off sounding like self-congratulation.
Some forty years ago I noticed that there was a war (yes the favorite American word used for everything from drugs to ice cream) on education.
Behold the results.
It is also no accident the ideological cultures of "be happy, be positive" disneyfied indoctrination & the magical thinking of evangelical dogma have
paralyzed the brains of a hefty percentage of the "citizenry." Add to that the mass dispensation of anti-depressants--another artificial mode of calming (read controlling) & dumbing down---and you have a very stupid electorate, the kind that republicans adore.
Behold the results.
It is also no accident the ideological cultures of "be happy, be positive" disneyfied indoctrination & the magical thinking of evangelical dogma have
paralyzed the brains of a hefty percentage of the "citizenry." Add to that the mass dispensation of anti-depressants--another artificial mode of calming (read controlling) & dumbing down---and you have a very stupid electorate, the kind that republicans adore.
1
The issues confronting the modern world are highly complex. Simplistic solutions are appealing but are not based on analysis from considering information fully and deducing the most logical, but often tentative, explanations. Post-grad and professional education in almost every field requires a ton of training in critical thinking. Hardly emotionally satisfying, but necessary. It's so much easier to start with a conclusion and assemble some facts to support it. But that doesn't work if you are a doctor, lawyer, scientist, CFO, professor, etc. "Liberal" positions tend to be more nuanced, less emphatic, and less emotionally satisfying; but they also at least factor in more objective reality. This complexity is unsatisfying to many, seems fuzzy. "Intellectuals" and professionals are trained to be more comfortable with ambiguity.
I semi-enjoyed this essay, and must agree it's not irrelevant to relate the implication of an ominous DT populist if not scary syndrome .
The GOP mainstream establishment supposedly is a bit shocked that party line ideology isn't being adhered to as evidenced by "Trump-ism's" success.
Apparently because the GOP had mastered the art/skill of gerrymandering, their control of so many State legislatures has allowed the House of Representatives of regression to semi-paralyze our nation.
Thus I blame them for our dysfunctional U.S. Congress, but meanwhile--we live and die in the short run btw--the damage & bad faith that has been "accomplished" is tragically sad.
Because of gerrymandering, even if Hillary wins by landslide, the House would probably retain its unbelievably backward oriented Tea Party, adaptive GOP moderation appears to be in obsolescence, because, for the nauseating reality that reactionary pressurized radio talk show dogma still will seemingly still trump traditional win-win negotiations & thus necessary practical compromise.
If Trump becomes President--reportedly Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are truly scary polled places lately--then both the Democrat left liberals and the seemingly now miniscule GOP rational moderates shall lose-lose.
The GOP mainstream establishment supposedly is a bit shocked that party line ideology isn't being adhered to as evidenced by "Trump-ism's" success.
Apparently because the GOP had mastered the art/skill of gerrymandering, their control of so many State legislatures has allowed the House of Representatives of regression to semi-paralyze our nation.
Thus I blame them for our dysfunctional U.S. Congress, but meanwhile--we live and die in the short run btw--the damage & bad faith that has been "accomplished" is tragically sad.
Because of gerrymandering, even if Hillary wins by landslide, the House would probably retain its unbelievably backward oriented Tea Party, adaptive GOP moderation appears to be in obsolescence, because, for the nauseating reality that reactionary pressurized radio talk show dogma still will seemingly still trump traditional win-win negotiations & thus necessary practical compromise.
If Trump becomes President--reportedly Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are truly scary polled places lately--then both the Democrat left liberals and the seemingly now miniscule GOP rational moderates shall lose-lose.
1
How many of these "highly educated" started out in a substandard public school like you often find in Chicago's south side or in other poor, violent, crime-ridden areas? How many of the "highly educated" really went to either a public school in a "nice" community or were sent to private school?
Why are so many of these same "so-liberal-highly-educated" people against parents who want to take their kids out of low-performing public schools and send them to a school of their choice so they can actually learn something in an expectation-based environment and actually graduate? Why are so many of these "highly educated" against impoverished parents sending their kids to the same schools they send THEIR kids to? After all, people love Bernie Sanders because he wants to make education FREE for everyone! Or is it because the "so-liberal-highly-educated" don't want THEIR kids commingling with kids from the violent neighborhoods they claim to know-and-care oh-so-much-about?
Why are so many of these same "so-liberal-highly-educated" people against parents who want to take their kids out of low-performing public schools and send them to a school of their choice so they can actually learn something in an expectation-based environment and actually graduate? Why are so many of these "highly educated" against impoverished parents sending their kids to the same schools they send THEIR kids to? After all, people love Bernie Sanders because he wants to make education FREE for everyone! Or is it because the "so-liberal-highly-educated" don't want THEIR kids commingling with kids from the violent neighborhoods they claim to know-and-care oh-so-much-about?
This is just an inquiry: I posted to “Comments” as one of the first - the screen showed no comments at all at the time - but I never received an email OK for it, and it does not appear. Frankly, I think it was one of the better comments in terms of those posted. Of course, I don’t expect every comment to be accepted, let alone get a NYT Picks - and I have received a few of the latter. But I am concerned that it may not have gotten through. It was hard to write, with periodic freezes, and people here have had trouble with the Frontier takeover, although I have not. I am particularly concerned because the article is now one of the most emailed, and yet it appears and disappears frequently from the online “front page."
For the past 60 years, the education system in America, from preschool through college, has been an INDOCTRINATION system to create a liberal base of Democrat voters. Teachers and the Dept of Education have dumbed-down and force fed them Marxist ideas. THAT is why the most educated are the most liberal. By design.
1
"Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?"
___
That's an easy question to answer: Indoctrination. The liberaization of higher-education professors and institutions continues unabated with predictable results.
___
That's an easy question to answer: Indoctrination. The liberaization of higher-education professors and institutions continues unabated with predictable results.
2
Yes, the highly educated use arguments based on logic and evidence, and not appeals to authority.
But for many a political issue is a case study, a method learned in business and law school. In this case, the marginalized become objects and not subjects. They are a demographic group or a cohort. The lower classes become not mere pawns, but individuals manipulated every which way to gain a pecuniary or political advantage.
Many a highly educated person rationalizes this by pointing out all the "good" they do, and at the same time advancing themselves professionally, financially, and socially.
Many conservatives engage in this activity also. However, when liberals do it there remains a bitter taste of duplicity.
But for many a political issue is a case study, a method learned in business and law school. In this case, the marginalized become objects and not subjects. They are a demographic group or a cohort. The lower classes become not mere pawns, but individuals manipulated every which way to gain a pecuniary or political advantage.
Many a highly educated person rationalizes this by pointing out all the "good" they do, and at the same time advancing themselves professionally, financially, and socially.
Many conservatives engage in this activity also. However, when liberals do it there remains a bitter taste of duplicity.
1
I think an excellent education has taught me that not everyone is like me, and that all of us (not just people like me) deserve justice and mercy.
2
Most of us know what works soon enough, politicians takes a bit longer to figure it out.
We seem to be talking about technocrats educated to run a complex society without disrupting its power structures. Their political views are tolerated and to a degree accommodated. They may, through their liberal educations and generational experiences, sympathize with the growing underclass but aspire, if not struggle doggedly, to retain and improve their privileged positions.
This is a joke question right? Highly educated are liberals because they are smart and highly educated. Maybe the Times need to post up the definition of liberal as it seems to self define highly educated.
Liberal
adjective
1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened.
2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general "a liberal education"
Liberal
adjective
1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened.
2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general "a liberal education"
2
Well they are not really highly educated just highly brain washed. Those that are really highly educated trust science, not liberalism that fails around the world to deliver freedom and opportunity.
As Jacob Bronowski posited in his 'Ascent of Man' - it's the difference between 'knowledge' and 'certainty.'
Neither liberals or conservatives have absolute ownership of knowledge; but in my observations, conservatives tend to rely (disproportionately) more on certainty.
Neither liberals or conservatives have absolute ownership of knowledge; but in my observations, conservatives tend to rely (disproportionately) more on certainty.
1
Mr. Gross should have heeded Twain's warning. In effect, don't confuse schooling with education. In the new era of grade inflation and diploma mills, many of the certifications bestowed by Regents after the transfer of the proper remuneration are worth so much chaff in the wind.
Remember the old joke about the meanings of B.S., M.S. and Ph. D.? It's the same, only more so.
Remember the old joke about the meanings of B.S., M.S. and Ph. D.? It's the same, only more so.
By " highly educated " you don't necessarily mean those with college degrees from Trump University...do you ??
1
"Evidence and logic were valued..."
What a concept.
What a concept.
1
It sounds to me like the author needs to read the New York Time's review of ‘Listen, Liberal’ and ‘The Limousine Liberal’ by Thomas Frank and Steve Fraser respectively:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/books/review/listen-liberal-and-the-li...
By BEVERLY GAGE APRIL 26, 2016
Millions of self-satisfied liberals who chortle smugly and exchange knowing glances pompously when discussing with each other the average hick in Frank's 'What's The Matter With Kansas' might not be laughing so hard when the microscope is turned on the hypocrisies of New England and the West Coast and the joke turns out to be they.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/books/review/listen-liberal-and-the-li...
By BEVERLY GAGE APRIL 26, 2016
Millions of self-satisfied liberals who chortle smugly and exchange knowing glances pompously when discussing with each other the average hick in Frank's 'What's The Matter With Kansas' might not be laughing so hard when the microscope is turned on the hypocrisies of New England and the West Coast and the joke turns out to be they.
Keep it up, NYT libs, you just keep mocking and looking down the end of your nose at the rest of your fellow Americans who don't think like you, in fact have the NYT write an op ed that effectively calls each and every Republican an idiot.
See what happens in November and allow me to quote Homer Simpson as he runs for garbage commissioner: "I hate the public so much, why won't they vote for me?
See what happens in November and allow me to quote Homer Simpson as he runs for garbage commissioner: "I hate the public so much, why won't they vote for me?
2
Interesting analysis. Not sure that the professional class described here has anything like power of the wealthy self-described 'makers' who think they own America and the American way and who have succeeded in tilting the playing field in their favor.
Also wonder if the supposed class of professionals is capable of countering the huge emotional appeal of a proto-fascist in a pre-fascist climate like the one that seems to exist today where so many uneducated or poorly educated people are angry and looking for easy answers and scapegoats.
Also wonder if the supposed class of professionals is capable of countering the huge emotional appeal of a proto-fascist in a pre-fascist climate like the one that seems to exist today where so many uneducated or poorly educated people are angry and looking for easy answers and scapegoats.
1
"A distinguishing feature of this new class, according to Dr. Gouldner, was the way it spoke and argued. Steeped in science and expert knowledge, it embraced a “culture of critical discourse.” Evidence and logic were valued; appeals to traditional sources of authority were not. Members of the new class raised their children in such a culture. And it was these children, allergic to authoritarian values, who as young adults were at the center of the student revolts, finding common ground with disaffected “humanistic” intellectuals bent on changing the world."
Yet, R. Ardrey pointed out in several of his books as did S. Pinker more recently in his book 'The Blank Slate', that what passed for science in those days had an overwhelming error of Rousseau's creation embedded in almost every aspect of psychology, biology/evolutionary theory, history, philosophy, and other "soft" sciences and social sciences, a thing Ardrey called "the Romantic Fallacy":
"a transparent curtain of ingenious weave with a warp of rationality and a woof of sensation that hangs between ourselves and reality.... [s]o transparent is its quality that we cannot perceive its presence. So bright in outline do men and affairs appear beyond the curtain that we cannot doubt but that reality is what we observe. Yet in truth every colour has been distorted. And rare is the conclusion based on such observations that would not bear re-inspection if the curtain were lifted."
In other words, garbage in, garbage out.
Yet, R. Ardrey pointed out in several of his books as did S. Pinker more recently in his book 'The Blank Slate', that what passed for science in those days had an overwhelming error of Rousseau's creation embedded in almost every aspect of psychology, biology/evolutionary theory, history, philosophy, and other "soft" sciences and social sciences, a thing Ardrey called "the Romantic Fallacy":
"a transparent curtain of ingenious weave with a warp of rationality and a woof of sensation that hangs between ourselves and reality.... [s]o transparent is its quality that we cannot perceive its presence. So bright in outline do men and affairs appear beyond the curtain that we cannot doubt but that reality is what we observe. Yet in truth every colour has been distorted. And rare is the conclusion based on such observations that would not bear re-inspection if the curtain were lifted."
In other words, garbage in, garbage out.
I suspect it's more a deep rooted subconscious feeling of guilt because they have a Masters and/or PhD. Also I'll add that it's a subconscious feeling of superiority to say to the unwashed masses, 'Look at how liberal we are and we want to help you.'
However; if the situation were reversed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the intelligentsia would be consistently red instead of blue using this article's cover illustration.
However; if the situation were reversed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the intelligentsia would be consistently red instead of blue using this article's cover illustration.
Maybe because we have critical thinking skills as well as exposure to people who are not exactly like ourselves...and learn to value these "differences" and learn from those with different perspectives than our own??? We are not stuck in all white suburbs, building lives around evangelical churches and the gun culture and voting for the GOP crazies...we don't subscribe to conspiracy theories...and we understand science, civics, the value of education and the rights of others. Above all, we WANT to help those with less advantages and provide equal opportunity to all.
Just wanted to chime in here with a somewhat contrarian view of both the stereotype and the comments of some of the readers. I hold two advanced degrees and the title of Professor of Medicine at one of the top academic medical centers in the world, I am also a Republican (traditional variety, not a Trumpaholoic, Neocon, or Teabag). I an evangelical Christian, and consider every earthly success that I have been fortunate to receive as a gift from God. My politics are complex, as lean left on healthcare and environment, right on personal responsibility, and on social issues I am happy to have a spirited discussion based only under the conditions that everyone in the conversation is treated with dignity and respect. To be honest, I have always been evaluated on the merits of my work and my academic and clinical productivity, never on my politics or religious views even though they are widely known. I am generally considered a leader in my discipline, and enjoy friendships across every spectrum of the political, ethnic, social, and sexual orientation spectrum. So I ask Mr Gross as well as those who would cry academic-based religious discrimination to acknowledge that the "highly educated bloc" is more about curiosity, commitment, passion, and a measure of good fortune that it is to allegiance to a political party. And this block, like all other arbitrary classifications, is composed of people who share the same fallible humanity with everyone else.
Academics seem to lean left but the academics in the liberal arts seem to lean left more so than the academics in the hard core sciences, engineering and agriculture.
Those well educated (but not academics by trade) in the liberal arts - left.
Those well educated by the service academies? not so much.
Those well educated in the graduate business schools? not so much.
MD's? a toss up I am told. Even so, every MD I know (and with seven in the family, I know a bunch) is strongly conservative.
There are so many variables that the essay becomes mushy.
Those well educated (but not academics by trade) in the liberal arts - left.
Those well educated by the service academies? not so much.
Those well educated in the graduate business schools? not so much.
MD's? a toss up I am told. Even so, every MD I know (and with seven in the family, I know a bunch) is strongly conservative.
There are so many variables that the essay becomes mushy.
The "highly educated" not only accept scientific facts and objective data, they appreciate exercising their brains. That means they read a great deal. They depend on more than Fox News. They know how other societies are formed and how they are doing comparative to the US. While they often love the US, theirs is not "my country right or wrong", but "I want the US not to rest on its laurels or cry exceptionalism, but to keep improving".
"Keep improving" is the opposite of a conservative, keep-things-as-they-are (or move backward) approach.
The latter is traditional and fear-based, with an overwrought respect for hierarchy and historic white male entitlement. The former is optimistic and determined to use 21st century knowledge and technology to make life better for everyone, not just the upper class.
"Keep improving" is the opposite of a conservative, keep-things-as-they-are (or move backward) approach.
The latter is traditional and fear-based, with an overwrought respect for hierarchy and historic white male entitlement. The former is optimistic and determined to use 21st century knowledge and technology to make life better for everyone, not just the upper class.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. There could be a myriad of explanations of the findings.
1
“Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?”
One answer: Other views are not tolerated.
My son graduated from Wesleyan University (a liberal school, by any measure) a few years back. My son became good friends with another student who was editor-in-chief of the student newspaper for a while. That may be why my son (and I) pay closer attention to what’s happened with the student newspaper since he graduated.
Last year, a student council that controls the newspaper’s budget voted (24-0) to cut its print budget in half – effectively ending printing. Why? The editors had run an op-ed piece written by someone with a different view on the “Black Lives Matter” dispute. While expressing considerable sympathy for the prevalent view, the writer had argued that many police departments were becoming reluctant to enforce the laws.
I don’t know – and it doesn’t matter – which side has the better arguments on that issue. What does matter is freedom of the press. To his credit, the president of Wesleyan made that point to the student council, but he was ignored. The expressed rationale was that students of color at Wesleyan think of the student newspaper as a “safe place,” and that op-ed had made it seem unsafe to them.
When I read about this, I first thought I must have stumbled upon a piece from The Onion. But the reports were accurate.
In short, educated people – at Wesleyan, at least – tend to squelch dissent, exactly as they accuse their opponents of doing.
One answer: Other views are not tolerated.
My son graduated from Wesleyan University (a liberal school, by any measure) a few years back. My son became good friends with another student who was editor-in-chief of the student newspaper for a while. That may be why my son (and I) pay closer attention to what’s happened with the student newspaper since he graduated.
Last year, a student council that controls the newspaper’s budget voted (24-0) to cut its print budget in half – effectively ending printing. Why? The editors had run an op-ed piece written by someone with a different view on the “Black Lives Matter” dispute. While expressing considerable sympathy for the prevalent view, the writer had argued that many police departments were becoming reluctant to enforce the laws.
I don’t know – and it doesn’t matter – which side has the better arguments on that issue. What does matter is freedom of the press. To his credit, the president of Wesleyan made that point to the student council, but he was ignored. The expressed rationale was that students of color at Wesleyan think of the student newspaper as a “safe place,” and that op-ed had made it seem unsafe to them.
When I read about this, I first thought I must have stumbled upon a piece from The Onion. But the reports were accurate.
In short, educated people – at Wesleyan, at least – tend to squelch dissent, exactly as they accuse their opponents of doing.
There are two kinds of conservative, socially and economically. Sometimes it seems there is only one kind of liberal.
It is actually possible to be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, anti-war and still think it is wrong to borrow 3 billion dollars a day with no ideas at all on how to pay it back, and to think people should obey the law.
It is actually possible to be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, anti-war and still think it is wrong to borrow 3 billion dollars a day with no ideas at all on how to pay it back, and to think people should obey the law.
How much critical analysis is anyone applying if they have "down the line" liberal (or conservative) views? A truly open minded pursuit of truth demands a willingness evaluate each issue on its own merits. There's nothing wrong with holding an extreme position on a given issue -- it was once considered extreme to stand against gay marriage, slavery, and the divine right of kings to govern. That said, blindly adhering to any ideology (e.g., Marxism, religious fundamentalism, or any party's entire platform) requires us to close our minds to evidence and arguments that challenge our worldview.
As a "mostly liberal" who is passionate about the open exchange of ideas, it scares me when I see anyone (on the left or the right) oversimplify reality. History is replete with people on both sides of the political spectrum silencing those who disagree with them. We rely on academics, at least in principle, to take a fearless look at the world and reveal whatever they discover, whether or not it offends.
A loose definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to keep things as they are, and as such, it's not surprising to me that universities would lean left. Philosophers and scientists are hardly ever the vanguards of the status quo (think Darwin, Galileo, Socrates). That said, plenty of studies point to an overwhelming bias toward a narrow definition of what it means to be "progressive" in academia, and it requires a whole lot of group think to blindly adhere to that definition.
As a "mostly liberal" who is passionate about the open exchange of ideas, it scares me when I see anyone (on the left or the right) oversimplify reality. History is replete with people on both sides of the political spectrum silencing those who disagree with them. We rely on academics, at least in principle, to take a fearless look at the world and reveal whatever they discover, whether or not it offends.
A loose definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to keep things as they are, and as such, it's not surprising to me that universities would lean left. Philosophers and scientists are hardly ever the vanguards of the status quo (think Darwin, Galileo, Socrates). That said, plenty of studies point to an overwhelming bias toward a narrow definition of what it means to be "progressive" in academia, and it requires a whole lot of group think to blindly adhere to that definition.
What has education to do with ideology ? Is education not the antithesis of ideology ?
Having said that if a person holds Religious doctrines near and dear he HAS to label himself a Conservative, ( even if he is a Sunday Christian ) or at least NOT label himself a Liberal. I beg to disagree with the very premise of the article.
Conservatism IS an ideology in itself. Liberalism on the other hand is just a synonym of " not idealist ". Needless to mention then that Conservatism and Liberalism are NOT the opposites as being potrayed.
Having said that if a person holds Religious doctrines near and dear he HAS to label himself a Conservative, ( even if he is a Sunday Christian ) or at least NOT label himself a Liberal. I beg to disagree with the very premise of the article.
Conservatism IS an ideology in itself. Liberalism on the other hand is just a synonym of " not idealist ". Needless to mention then that Conservatism and Liberalism are NOT the opposites as being potrayed.
1
The Democratic and Republican parties have also moved so far apart ideologically and have become so toxically contentious toward each other that small differences that would have made little difference to most voters are gone. My father (who holds a master's degree) was a staunch Republican during the Reagan years and even joked with me he would disown me if I registered Democrat back then. He never stopped making fun of Clinton's philandering all through his years in office. But for the last two elections he has voted for Obama and been pleased as Punch with him as president. Possibly the 8 intervening years of Bush made him see that the Republican party's direction was not one that he wanted for our country, because honestly, I think even Reagan would be appalled at this election cycle.
I'm a liberal with 3 degrees who was raised in a small town in Mississippi surrounded by arch conservatives. So I think the answer to why so many of us are now liberal is twofold - (1) we are too intelligent to let others tell us what to think, e.g. Limbaugh and Fox News, and (2) we are repulsed by the racist, homophobic, bigoted views on the right as well as their greed in wanting to cut taxes for themselves while leaving everyone else in the cold. Today's Republican party wants this country to revert back to the plantation days where rich old white conservative men have all the money and power while everyone else is subservient to them. But with some intelligence and independent thinking, most of us liberals clearly see that the US will never go back to that type of society.
2
hello! - maybe the highly educated are more liberal because we're more highly educated!
With age comes a more pragmatic, conservative point of view. Highly educated are often educators caught in a time warp, surrounded by those who never age. Hence, they don't either. Basically they live in Never Never Land filled with fellow Pans.
Generally speaking, intelligent people, whether highly educated or not, tend to think in broader terms---"We and ours", rather than "I and mine".
The exclusive pre-K through 12 private schools of New York, DC, and Los Angeles are packed with the children of liberals, along with a smattering of just enough scholarship diversity students to quiet the parents' consciences.
Those kids will grow up to replace their parents as the highly educated, highly segregated liberal elite. The times, they aren't a-changin'.
Those kids will grow up to replace their parents as the highly educated, highly segregated liberal elite. The times, they aren't a-changin'.
When kids graduate high school, it's common for them to think they have finished their education and know what they need to know. Cocky ignorance is the luxury of youth.
Those who continue to college or university are forced to confront this arrogance. They see that the world is made up of different ethnicities and ideologies, and those people who have alternate experiences and attitudes are, at the very least, worthy of consideration, compassion, and tolerance. People who study beyond high school are forced to challenge basic assumptions and consider established dogma. Hopefully, they learn to think critically. Hopefully, they expand their horizons. Hopefully, they realize that "the other" is just as valuable as "the self."
Meanwhile, people whose formal education stops at or before twelfth grade are seldom afforded such opportunity for intellectual growth. They tend to think that how they grew up was the "right" way, and are disdainful and distrustful of anyone who thinks or acts differently. What they have, according to this insular and stunted world view, they earned and deserve; it's difficult for them to consider that what benefits the community benefits the individual, that the food they are eating was made possible, in part, by the taxes collected to build the roads to transport the ingredients. Change is bad, the past was easier, their god is superior.
The educated consider "the" world, the uneducated consider "their" world, hence liberal and conservative.
Those who continue to college or university are forced to confront this arrogance. They see that the world is made up of different ethnicities and ideologies, and those people who have alternate experiences and attitudes are, at the very least, worthy of consideration, compassion, and tolerance. People who study beyond high school are forced to challenge basic assumptions and consider established dogma. Hopefully, they learn to think critically. Hopefully, they expand their horizons. Hopefully, they realize that "the other" is just as valuable as "the self."
Meanwhile, people whose formal education stops at or before twelfth grade are seldom afforded such opportunity for intellectual growth. They tend to think that how they grew up was the "right" way, and are disdainful and distrustful of anyone who thinks or acts differently. What they have, according to this insular and stunted world view, they earned and deserve; it's difficult for them to consider that what benefits the community benefits the individual, that the food they are eating was made possible, in part, by the taxes collected to build the roads to transport the ingredients. Change is bad, the past was easier, their god is superior.
The educated consider "the" world, the uneducated consider "their" world, hence liberal and conservative.
The more one is educated past one's comfort zone, the less likely one is to adhere to conspiracy theories, and the more likely one's thought process is to be well informed and logically consistent. Whether this makes one "liberal" or merely more thoughtful is the question. I think the notion of a new "class" is yet to be reality.
I've been following a Facebook group of people who attended my high school in the early '60's. I’d characterize the group as very conservative, reflecting in part the conservative collective personality of the city in which our high school is located. But, the attitudes I've observed appear to differ based on the nature of peoples' educational experiences.
Those who pursued careers in fields like engineering and the hard sciences, for example, tend to be conservative in their views. I’ve observed far more liberal and progressive attitudes among those who indicate that they followed paths relating to the social sciences and humanities.
One way I personally distinguish "conservative" from "liberal" relates to how open people are to life and its possibilities, how generally receptive people are to the multitude of cultural perspectives and values in the world. The social sciences and humanities nurture this.
When I became aware that every culture on our planet has a story of how people came into existence on the earth, why we are here and what will happen when we die, I thought, "How in the world can I or anyone else legitimately claim preeminence for their individual world views?"
Educational experience that exposes us to cultural diversity and the opportunity to realize that all people are equally valuable will likely make people more liberal. Certainty-oriented educational experiences heavy with dogma and rigid science may well have the opposite influence.
Those who pursued careers in fields like engineering and the hard sciences, for example, tend to be conservative in their views. I’ve observed far more liberal and progressive attitudes among those who indicate that they followed paths relating to the social sciences and humanities.
One way I personally distinguish "conservative" from "liberal" relates to how open people are to life and its possibilities, how generally receptive people are to the multitude of cultural perspectives and values in the world. The social sciences and humanities nurture this.
When I became aware that every culture on our planet has a story of how people came into existence on the earth, why we are here and what will happen when we die, I thought, "How in the world can I or anyone else legitimately claim preeminence for their individual world views?"
Educational experience that exposes us to cultural diversity and the opportunity to realize that all people are equally valuable will likely make people more liberal. Certainty-oriented educational experiences heavy with dogma and rigid science may well have the opposite influence.
1
Aside from a few disciplines, most higher education faculty are liberal. The exceptions are the sciences, math, and business. Graduates of those disciplines are less liberal than others. The highly educated tend to be more liberal because they have been educated by those who are more liberal.
I was a bit confused by this section:
A distinguishing feature of this new class, according to Dr. Gouldner, was the way it spoke and argued. Steeped in science and expert knowledge, it embraced a “culture of critical discourse.” Evidence and logic were valued; appeals to traditional sources of authority were not.
How would you reconcile this with the NYT's other report on "Bernie Bros" who rely on a bullying sense of authority to pressure other into their views? That statement just looks like a "humble brag," since that researcher includes himself in the highly educated group.
Personally, in my experience, the two differences between people who tilt left or right are (1) conception of scarce resources and (2) empathy. People who view the world as a fixed pie, zero-sum game of resources tend to lean right, and people who view money as growing on trees tilt left. Empathy can also matter, as someone highly empathetic but views the world as a fixed pie may still want to allocate more of the pie to others.
A distinguishing feature of this new class, according to Dr. Gouldner, was the way it spoke and argued. Steeped in science and expert knowledge, it embraced a “culture of critical discourse.” Evidence and logic were valued; appeals to traditional sources of authority were not.
How would you reconcile this with the NYT's other report on "Bernie Bros" who rely on a bullying sense of authority to pressure other into their views? That statement just looks like a "humble brag," since that researcher includes himself in the highly educated group.
Personally, in my experience, the two differences between people who tilt left or right are (1) conception of scarce resources and (2) empathy. People who view the world as a fixed pie, zero-sum game of resources tend to lean right, and people who view money as growing on trees tilt left. Empathy can also matter, as someone highly empathetic but views the world as a fixed pie may still want to allocate more of the pie to others.
The highly educated are liberal because;
1. They understand the damage that racism and sexism cost our society. They know that the person with the ability to solve cancer may not be able to do so, because they are born into a poor family. We as a society die earlier and more often because of these evils...
2. They know that ignorance and stupidity limit our country's progress into the future.
3. They know that economically, we would all be much better off if opportunities were open to the masses. We are poorer when only a limited few have educational and financial opportunities. (Economics 101)
4. Because the highly educated class has mostly likely reached some professional and financial goals, they are simply less insecure.
5. Professional men nowadays are mostly likely to marry professional, highly compensated women. This helps them develop attitudes that are not sexist, and they also are more likely to want equal opportunities for their daughters.
6. Their minds are less closed - they have developed study habits, seen other cultures and views, and have more open minds.
1. They understand the damage that racism and sexism cost our society. They know that the person with the ability to solve cancer may not be able to do so, because they are born into a poor family. We as a society die earlier and more often because of these evils...
2. They know that ignorance and stupidity limit our country's progress into the future.
3. They know that economically, we would all be much better off if opportunities were open to the masses. We are poorer when only a limited few have educational and financial opportunities. (Economics 101)
4. Because the highly educated class has mostly likely reached some professional and financial goals, they are simply less insecure.
5. Professional men nowadays are mostly likely to marry professional, highly compensated women. This helps them develop attitudes that are not sexist, and they also are more likely to want equal opportunities for their daughters.
6. Their minds are less closed - they have developed study habits, seen other cultures and views, and have more open minds.
1
My personal observation is that administrators, department chairs, the tenured, and the tenure track are liberal in the same sense that Hillary Clinton is liberal. They are deeply invested in the status quo of the economy but will passionately fight for human rights--as long as they don't involve upsetting the economic apple cart. They love the idea of open bathrooms for all, but are determined to keep the untenured and unprofessionals (no matter how many Ph.D. Degrees they might have) away from the opportunity to earn much.
The rise of the adjunct class is in many ways analogous to the rise of Sandersism. When university presidents make millions and adjuncts make 15K, they are mostly "liberal" but only in the most superficial of ways. The university is a corporation. Almost all are highly educated on paper; many lack empathy and humanity when a pitiful adjunct or janitor is in front of them at the same time as they are proud to support Amnesty International.
The rise of the adjunct class is in many ways analogous to the rise of Sandersism. When university presidents make millions and adjuncts make 15K, they are mostly "liberal" but only in the most superficial of ways. The university is a corporation. Almost all are highly educated on paper; many lack empathy and humanity when a pitiful adjunct or janitor is in front of them at the same time as they are proud to support Amnesty International.
2
So from the conservative perspective, eliminating higher education is a good thing for their party and their platform. We must remain vigilante for those among us who may consider this notion.
2
Higher education and progressiveness go hand in hand, because at some point, you come realize that having things like a strong social safety, and readily available health care, are beneficial to society. And their presence makes your world a more pleasant, safer, and less violent. And so you don't mind paying for it through higher taxes - even though you may never need to use many of the services it has to offer.
1
Perhaps it has something to do with a group that wish to think for themselves, ask questions and move ahead. Conservatives have great difficulty in adapting to an ever changing society and in many respects , fear it. ultimately, wishing to remain in the past.
A more accurate question would be to ask,'Why are the educated Liberals so delusional?" An observation which is easily confirmed here by reading the bulk of anti-Trump commenters. Truly astonishing stuff for their detachment from Reality and general ignorance.
"The group [Highly Educated Liberals] is active politically and influential."
If the number of erstwhile middle class Democrats (or, at least non-Republicans) they've belittled & alienated into DJT's open & waiting arms can be considered "influential", then I agree. Wholeheartedly..
If the number of erstwhile middle class Democrats (or, at least non-Republicans) they've belittled & alienated into DJT's open & waiting arms can be considered "influential", then I agree. Wholeheartedly..
One reason might be that so many "professors" at schools of "higher education" are extremely liberal themselves. They take young, impressionable, lives and feed them with totally one-sided "truths" and virtually "brainwash" these young minds to their way of thinking. It's been a longstanding standard in Socialist/Communist countries around the world... Start with the young!!
Only those educated in this manner who are capable of what was said in the 70s and 80s... "Question authority!" are able to break free and think for themselves.
Only those educated in this manner who are capable of what was said in the 70s and 80s... "Question authority!" are able to break free and think for themselves.
What explains the consolidation of the highly educated into a liberal bloc? The growing number of women with advanced degrees is part of it, as well-educated women tend to be especially left-leaning
Hey Neil how sexist are you? You ask the important question "why are highly educated left-leaning" and then you answer by saying that a lot of women are highly educated----so...But Neil---what if the answer were "a lot of men are left-leaning"---then of course you would want to answer why MEN are left leaning---simply saying 'its a bunch of girls got degrees now' is ridiculously sexist--and show the innate bias in so many of us--it almost seems ok, to say that people with degrees are more liberal now because more of them are women....This answer would have been outrageous to everyone if you had said "because more of them are black, and black people tend to be liberal" or "because more of them are gay, and gay people tend to be liberal" Two big problems--1) you don't answer the question of why educated people are more liberal and you are totally sexist in the way you try to answer it. The question you needed to answer is "why are educated women so liberal."
Hey Neil how sexist are you? You ask the important question "why are highly educated left-leaning" and then you answer by saying that a lot of women are highly educated----so...But Neil---what if the answer were "a lot of men are left-leaning"---then of course you would want to answer why MEN are left leaning---simply saying 'its a bunch of girls got degrees now' is ridiculously sexist--and show the innate bias in so many of us--it almost seems ok, to say that people with degrees are more liberal now because more of them are women....This answer would have been outrageous to everyone if you had said "because more of them are black, and black people tend to be liberal" or "because more of them are gay, and gay people tend to be liberal" Two big problems--1) you don't answer the question of why educated people are more liberal and you are totally sexist in the way you try to answer it. The question you needed to answer is "why are educated women so liberal."
And "liberal" means what, exactly?
If liberal is defined to mean inclusive or egalitarian, then I don't think the current generation of highly educated professionals is liberal. More than ever, these people seem obsessed with status in schools, cars, homes, hobbies and the like. If their lifestyles were in any way threatened, they would quickly turn on their support for liberal causes.
That's exactly what has given such an opening to so-called conservatives. The vast majority of educated Americans are locked out the uber-elite enclaves of the highly educated and they are angry.
That's exactly what has given such an opening to so-called conservatives. The vast majority of educated Americans are locked out the uber-elite enclaves of the highly educated and they are angry.
Liberals tend to be clustered in the "feeling" side of academia, where they tend to write their own "facts" to support their views. You will find plenty of highly educated conservatives in fields like engineering and finance, because numbers are hard facts that can't be manipulated as easily. By the numbers, Reagans recovery was far better in every aspect than the 8 years of Obama. Job creation, GDP gains, etc. were all off the charts, while Obama has grown only debt, despair, and dependency.
Woe be unto the country that elects a president because "he mocks critical discourse." That nation will not long endure.
You can tell that the author is clueless when he refers to the "highly educated" as being part of a "culture of critical discourse." In fact, as evidenced by the "safe spaces" requests of college students and the lack of tolerance of other views, so-called "higher education" is more accurately denominated as closed-minded, insular education. See for instance, this summary written by Ted Diadiun dealing with censorship advocated by liberals.
JD
JD
1
Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal? -It's a boon for the Democrats, though they need to be alert to its dangers. Gary Matter - NYT.
If you were truly liberal you would be a boon to the Libertarian Party or second the Republican Party. If you were truly educated and liberal you would never support public policy that voids your natural right to freely contract for your own benefit with individuals or companies of your own choosing like health care, housing etc. Or, something as simple as a bake shop.
It seems to me there is much confusion when one can not tell the difference between liberalism and authoritarian social engineering.
Liberal would be foremost a freeman. A noble, tolerant, generous person. Which is not easy to be but, something we should all strive to be ?
If you were truly liberal you would be a boon to the Libertarian Party or second the Republican Party. If you were truly educated and liberal you would never support public policy that voids your natural right to freely contract for your own benefit with individuals or companies of your own choosing like health care, housing etc. Or, something as simple as a bake shop.
It seems to me there is much confusion when one can not tell the difference between liberalism and authoritarian social engineering.
Liberal would be foremost a freeman. A noble, tolerant, generous person. Which is not easy to be but, something we should all strive to be ?
2
I would be careful not to become too mired in thinking of the group being described as Democrats. I suspect the group is voting for the viable candidate who is "least bad" more often than not.
Conservatives seem to do well in Kansas. That's right, Folks, Kansas.
1
SLECERRT---socially liberal, economically conservative, environmental realistic, religiously tolerant---need a new party, PhD or not.
2
We are NOT so liberal! Just the dumber ones.
1
Ummmm....because they're smarter?
It's because smart people simply can't be Republicans, who base everything on ignorance and stupidity.
3
Speaking of Harvard professors...
"[An article by a] Harvard economics professor ... was wildly rejected by the majority of commenters. His sin? Thinking outside the typical liberal box."
His sin probably wasn't thinking outside the box, but rather writing about what he was thinking.
About six months after graduating from law school (Harvard), I returned to my old neighborhood and ran into little Tommy, a 6-year old kid who'd always hung around with Jimmy, a young black kid about the same age. Both kids had fathers who were young Harvard professors, social sciences, and mothers who were a Montessori teacher and a psychotherapist. "Where's Jimmy?", I asked Tommy.
Tommy's answer:
"He doesn't live here any more. He went back where he belongs."
"[An article by a] Harvard economics professor ... was wildly rejected by the majority of commenters. His sin? Thinking outside the typical liberal box."
His sin probably wasn't thinking outside the box, but rather writing about what he was thinking.
About six months after graduating from law school (Harvard), I returned to my old neighborhood and ran into little Tommy, a 6-year old kid who'd always hung around with Jimmy, a young black kid about the same age. Both kids had fathers who were young Harvard professors, social sciences, and mothers who were a Montessori teacher and a psychotherapist. "Where's Jimmy?", I asked Tommy.
Tommy's answer:
"He doesn't live here any more. He went back where he belongs."
Science PhDees who are attracted to the pharmaceutical industry are a Republican voting block. Mr. Gross needs to do a bit more spade work.
Half the people i've met with PhDs are screaming idiots.
Spending half your adult life (or more) on a college campus doesn't necessarily make you 'smarter'
It *does*, however, inculcate people with a bubble-world mentality, and consequently you get a lot of people who think exactly the same way.
Spending half your adult life (or more) on a college campus doesn't necessarily make you 'smarter'
It *does*, however, inculcate people with a bubble-world mentality, and consequently you get a lot of people who think exactly the same way.
27
I thing that the highly educated should put their wisdom to use in the middle east. Move there and see if you can bring about peace and prosperity to those people. Help them. They need it. Show them liberalism and make them see it your way. Good luck on your journey.
1
I have a PhD, and I'm not liberal...
Ok, just kidding!
Ok, just kidding!
2
A real education tends to erode authoritarianism, which is the psychological basis of conservatism.
1
Why??? Because in todays politics liberals use facts and conservatives use belief. The more educated you are the more you rely on facts. As Paul Krugman says, "facts have a liberal bias."
3
I am a lawyer, my husband a doctor. We are far from liberal. Antonin Scalia was not a liberal. Perhaps the difference is you have to be highly educated AND have common sense as well to be conservative.
3
As a Conservative, I love this article, which could be retitled "Should Liberals Worry About Becoming TOO Smart?" The thesis alone provides the answer: rest easy, Liberals.
2
“Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?”
One answer: Often they’re not. They have exactly the same views as others; they just don’t seem to notice.
Here’s a good example:
Whenever I hear highly educated people criticize Donald Trump for his anti-Muslim remarks – as often they do, and should – I think of a joke told at a fund-raiser for my kids’ private school in San Francisco about a decade ago. The attendees fit the “highly educated liberal” stereotype perfectly.
Here’s the joke:
Danny was tired of LA – dishonesty, crime, danger. He decided to leave the rat-race behind one weekend, and drove his open-top sports car to a quiet resort in the mountains. As he pulled into the parking lot late Friday evening, attendants in crisp white uniforms came forward to park his car and take his luggage to his room. He glanced at the name tag of the first attendant who approached him, a well-groomed young man with a carefully trimmed beard. It read “Mohammed.”
Waiting for the punch line?
That was it.
The audience roared. If the attendant had been black, or the name tag had read Manuel, or Hymie – or if the joke had been told by Donald Trump – the audience would have squirmed and frowned. But the speaker was not Donald Trump, and the joke was about Muslims – fair game even for “liberals” back then.
And so the joke was very funny. The good liberals roared.
Do you suppose they recognized that they were not being good liberals?
One answer: Often they’re not. They have exactly the same views as others; they just don’t seem to notice.
Here’s a good example:
Whenever I hear highly educated people criticize Donald Trump for his anti-Muslim remarks – as often they do, and should – I think of a joke told at a fund-raiser for my kids’ private school in San Francisco about a decade ago. The attendees fit the “highly educated liberal” stereotype perfectly.
Here’s the joke:
Danny was tired of LA – dishonesty, crime, danger. He decided to leave the rat-race behind one weekend, and drove his open-top sports car to a quiet resort in the mountains. As he pulled into the parking lot late Friday evening, attendants in crisp white uniforms came forward to park his car and take his luggage to his room. He glanced at the name tag of the first attendant who approached him, a well-groomed young man with a carefully trimmed beard. It read “Mohammed.”
Waiting for the punch line?
That was it.
The audience roared. If the attendant had been black, or the name tag had read Manuel, or Hymie – or if the joke had been told by Donald Trump – the audience would have squirmed and frowned. But the speaker was not Donald Trump, and the joke was about Muslims – fair game even for “liberals” back then.
And so the joke was very funny. The good liberals roared.
Do you suppose they recognized that they were not being good liberals?
2
Many of us who are labeled "Liberal", which is often translated as "Anything Goes", would be better defined as "Progressive". A Progressive is one who realizes there is more to learn and when "learned" presses to incorporate this new understanding into their life and the life of their community. We don't accept Anything Goes. It is time for us to remove the word "Liberal" from our political lexicon.
3
What elitist garbage...
Why doesn't the article document or consider the rampant discrimination by universities against conservative/ Republican academics?
Why doesn't the article document or consider the rampant discrimination by universities against conservative/ Republican academics?
3
Your title appears to be a Zen Koan, like "why is water wet"?
3
We are not that different from other countries in the World . There is a backward America and then there is the most advanced country in the World . For example , in Iran you have the mullahs and you also have a freedom loving , progressive youth . It is not difficult to see where a prosperous , successful future lies . Should we follow the smart , educated people or should we follow the racist , xenophobic , hating , know nothing rabble ? .
4
Only a third of postgrads are "down the line" liberal?
Just goes to show you that a postgraduate degree isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Just goes to show you that a postgraduate degree isn't all it's cracked up to be.
This is not rocket science. As the left moved towards the center politically, the response of the right wing was to move even further to the right. So now the lefties are really somewhat moderate and the right is full of wingnuts. So, of course those with critical thinking skills ( the better educated and more intelligent ) will lean liberal. These days a liberal is person who can think and a conservative is either diumb or a fool. There is no republican intelligence. Sara Palin? Rubio? Ryan? Rep King? Sen sessions? Really? Now they lionize Trump? Oh, I forgot, Trump is very smart. He told us all himself and he never lies or exaggerates. Puhleese!
5
“The mind once enlightened cannot again become dark.” ~ THOMAS PAINE
5
I find it fascinating how all you "big-brains" read all the articles about climate change without ever questioning the accepted assumption that carbon dioxide is a prime cause, when no support for that assumption is ever given.
There is objective evidence on this issue. The IPCC, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which racks this phenomenon and won a Nobel Prize for this work in 2009, has it on its web page right now. In the previous four ice ages, going back 120,000 years, they find that the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere "trails the rise in temperature by hundreds of years."
Trails. Not leads, as it would have to do if it was a cause. Look it up.
You have big brains. You certainly wouldn't believe something as important as this without proof, would you? Well, here's proof.
You won't find it in the liberal press.
There is objective evidence on this issue. The IPCC, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which racks this phenomenon and won a Nobel Prize for this work in 2009, has it on its web page right now. In the previous four ice ages, going back 120,000 years, they find that the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere "trails the rise in temperature by hundreds of years."
Trails. Not leads, as it would have to do if it was a cause. Look it up.
You have big brains. You certainly wouldn't believe something as important as this without proof, would you? Well, here's proof.
You won't find it in the liberal press.
4
Asked and answered.
1
Liberal: I think, therefore I am.
Too bad there was not more discussion about how the Trump phenomenon fits into this picture.
1
Good education frees the mind and the soul from dogmatic propaganda..and a huge benefit of that release is empathy for others and the world..a little bit of this virtue can propel a person toward ideals above those of blind obedience to church or state and the demagoguery of hate.
Mr. Gross, nothing in your article answers the question you ask, "Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?" - - - The closest you get is "What explains the consolidation of the highly educated into a liberal bloc? The growing number of women with advanced degrees is part of it, as well-educated women tend to be especially left-leaning." But, um, you do not explain why they tend to be left-leaning. - - - And as for "Equally important is the Republican Party’s move to the right since the 1980s — at odds with the social liberalism that has long characterized the well educated . . .", well, that rather begs the question, no? And you say nothing regarding the cause and credibility of "the perception that conservatives are anti-intellectual, hostile to science and at war with the university." - - - The premise and headline are of real interest; if you get a chance, please follow through. - - - Thanks.
1
I find this statement amusing. As a supporter of Bernie Sanders my educational history is not the best. It is how you use your mind and how much common sense you have.
Man I barely made it out of High School.
Man I barely made it out of High School.
4
Simple logic using the basic "IF , Then":
If the highly educated are often liberal thus supporting many social issues to benefit the poor, the under privileged, etcetera, then why has poverty not only remained for 50 plus years but has even worsened under the liberal Obama Administration the past 7 + years?
Several possible answers come to mind:
1. Either they are not as intelligent as they aspire to be
2. Liberals really do not care for the poor, the minorities, etcetera and only see them in pawns to keep themselves in power (i.e. the Clinton's come to mind)
3. Perhaps all of the above.............
If the highly educated are often liberal thus supporting many social issues to benefit the poor, the under privileged, etcetera, then why has poverty not only remained for 50 plus years but has even worsened under the liberal Obama Administration the past 7 + years?
Several possible answers come to mind:
1. Either they are not as intelligent as they aspire to be
2. Liberals really do not care for the poor, the minorities, etcetera and only see them in pawns to keep themselves in power (i.e. the Clinton's come to mind)
3. Perhaps all of the above.............
5
As Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
7
Well, the more educated don't waste time with www.toptalkradio.com and other conservative outlets of hate, lies, and distortions. Also, they tend to have a more healthy attitude toward religion.
3
Is it possible that the academic intelligentsia is supportive of a big and powerful government because, to an increasing degree, that's who pay them? NIH, NEA, NSF, DOD, ARPA, etc. (look at a partial listing at "grants.gov") Not to mention the students wide use of federally guaranteed loans to pay the tuitions that just go up every year. Yes, wherever a pipe is played, the payer probably calls that tune. You can't very well preach small government when your livelihood depends on the government sending you other peoples cash !
8
Education is the antithesis of rigid ideology, right or left.
Critical thinking analyzes, and doesn't dismiss contrary evidence.
Critical thinking analyzes, and doesn't dismiss contrary evidence.
5
I'm fascinated by the comments, and the volume of "recommend"s that accompany every one that espouses an "us versus them" attitude.
In another context, the same attitude as black versus white or christian versus you-name-it, would cause the heads of "liberals" to explode.
Turns out the "smart people" don't like living among "stupid people" or maybe just people who don't share their views.
This is what 'highly educated" gets us.
In another context, the same attitude as black versus white or christian versus you-name-it, would cause the heads of "liberals" to explode.
Turns out the "smart people" don't like living among "stupid people" or maybe just people who don't share their views.
This is what 'highly educated" gets us.
2
Like my father (he had an IQ off the chart and created his own language when he was very young) I have both right wing views and left wing views depending on the subject matter. So I think this study is wrong. I think both the death penalty and abortion are necessary evils in our society. I have a graduate degree.
2
Are you truly advocating that liberals dumb down their discourse to be more appealing to the masses?
3
Free your mind and the rest will follow.
3
Since when does 'educated' mean 'smart'?
3
This is meaningless without far more specific definitions of terms. Is liberal the same as progressive? As Democrat? As socialist? Only if you collapse all these distinctions does the the idea of a "bloc" persuade. Look around at how divided "left-leaning" voters are now. I am not persuaded.
1
Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal - - - and so stupid?
Answer: Because they do not truly know Almighty God and thus have no true moral compass.
Answer: Because they do not truly know Almighty God and thus have no true moral compass.
1
I'm glad you brought this up. I grew up in KY in a very conservative Republican Christian family. I went to a local college, where I had the opportunity to meet and talk to people who were different than me. I also worked as a waitress and met a lot of people with different ideas there.
You can't hold onto old ideas that aren't true when you meet people who aren't at all what everyone told you they were. I met gay people, women who'd had abortions, atheists, and super hard working people who were on food stamps to feed their families. I had to adjust my views.
If I had just grown up on the farm, kept my secretary job for a Christian company, and kept close to home, I don't know if I would have had the chance to revise my limited (and untrue) views.
I'm so lucky I could afford to go to college by working temp jobs and waitressing. State funding was still pretty good back then. But the college I went to about 20 years ago has tripled its tuition over the years, and I don't know if I could have afforded to go or graduate debt free with the same circumstances today.
it opened my eyes to so much. I took it from there with the Internet and science channel: I was taught that evolution was a conspiracy theory by atheist scientists. I learned for myself this wasn't true. I was taught that atheists hate God. I know that isn't right either. I was taught that a "gay lifestyle" was a choice. Nope to that too.
I wish everyone could go to college affordably. I'll fight for it.
You can't hold onto old ideas that aren't true when you meet people who aren't at all what everyone told you they were. I met gay people, women who'd had abortions, atheists, and super hard working people who were on food stamps to feed their families. I had to adjust my views.
If I had just grown up on the farm, kept my secretary job for a Christian company, and kept close to home, I don't know if I would have had the chance to revise my limited (and untrue) views.
I'm so lucky I could afford to go to college by working temp jobs and waitressing. State funding was still pretty good back then. But the college I went to about 20 years ago has tripled its tuition over the years, and I don't know if I could have afforded to go or graduate debt free with the same circumstances today.
it opened my eyes to so much. I took it from there with the Internet and science channel: I was taught that evolution was a conspiracy theory by atheist scientists. I learned for myself this wasn't true. I was taught that atheists hate God. I know that isn't right either. I was taught that a "gay lifestyle" was a choice. Nope to that too.
I wish everyone could go to college affordably. I'll fight for it.
148
"...he thought the intelligentsia might be tempted to put its own interests ahead of the marginalized groups for whom it often claimed to speak." - Dr. Alvin Gouldner
Spot on.
Spot on.
1
Thanks for the advice, Professor Gross. Please forbear me for indulging my own disposition to critical discourse. If you want to win over Trump's uneducated white males you can critical discourse all you want so long as your criticisms are scathingly directed towards Trump's and the "under educated" white males' he professes to love, approved objects of hate; muslims and blacks. That's all the sociology you're going to need for that job.
You don't need a Ph.D to figure out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon.
6
Speaking generally, intelligent people whether they are formally educated or not, tend to take the broader view. It is not "I and mine," it is "We and ours."
5
Are physicians a counterexample? Engineers?
4
A liberal professor, from a highly liberal school, writes a Op Ed in a highly liberal paper, that liberals are better educated. This one caught me by surprise.
11
The article did not say liberals are more intelligent. The article stated that highly educated people tend to be liberal. Those two statements are different!
This is typical elitist far left navel gazing from the NYT. It doesn't rise to the level of ridiculous. Yes, the NYT "knows" that NYC leads the way in American values and culture. And they "know" the rubes in flyover country are stupid and need to be told what do and what to believe. In the real world the NYT is going bankrupt. They have lost in excess of $1 billion over the last few years. Yet somehow this is irrelevant to these wise, "knowing" liberals. Self awareness and introspection are clearly not left/liberal attributes. A little humility would seem to be in order for this writer and the NYT. But we are not holding our breath.
5
I find this comment typical of conservative communication. Namely, state a feeling which may or may not have anything to do with the discussion and in addition throw out a big number which is supposed to schlong an ideological opponent.
A simple google search uncovers the sheer ignorance of the commenter and reduces the comment to uninformed bile.
http://investors.nytco.com/m/#/Financial_Reports
The New York Times publishes its annual results. How anyone can come to the conclusion, after perusing the results, that the Times has lost "in excess of $ 1 billion over the last few years" is, perhaps, the subject of another study or article.
A simple google search uncovers the sheer ignorance of the commenter and reduces the comment to uninformed bile.
http://investors.nytco.com/m/#/Financial_Reports
The New York Times publishes its annual results. How anyone can come to the conclusion, after perusing the results, that the Times has lost "in excess of $ 1 billion over the last few years" is, perhaps, the subject of another study or article.
Very good article, but honestly, how could the modern political discourse be any less wonky than what we have in 2016?
"Steeped in science and expert knowledge, it embraced a “culture of critical discourse.”"
But, of course, that was a long time ago. Today, social status depends upon embracing a culture of credulous discourse: Caitlin Jenner was always a woman, Michael Brown was a victim of white racism, anyone concerned about how mass immigration helps billionaires and hurts working people is a xenophobe, etc etc ...
But, of course, that was a long time ago. Today, social status depends upon embracing a culture of credulous discourse: Caitlin Jenner was always a woman, Michael Brown was a victim of white racism, anyone concerned about how mass immigration helps billionaires and hurts working people is a xenophobe, etc etc ...
2
Anent my comment recently submitted about the liberal views of the highly educated, it should also be noted that, with few exceptions, every member of the WH media corps, which numbers between 72 and 92 "journos,"is a registered member of the Democratic Party, and often goes on to a cushy position in the Obama admin. Witness Jay Carney, a former journalist who went on to become Obama's press spokesman, and Mr. STENGEL, a staunch Dem.Party supporter and liberal while an editor at TIME who was appointed a close aide to Sec. of State Kerry--just two examples.
Gop thinking is like the dark ages, liberals are the enlightenment.
5
All the education in the world, but many of these liberal "elites" haven't got the remotest clue about the reality of the lives of those lower on the socioeconomic scale than their own cloistered strata. So you get the likes of Trump and Sanders. Lotta stupid people have college degrees, many smart people don't. And the Democratic party still just doesn't get it. But don't let that get in the way of assuming that you know better than they do where their own best interests lie.
2
You mean it wasn't the "Big Business" Republicans who had pushed for global trade and letting Wall St./the finance sector go all nuts?
1
I think, therefore I am (liberal).
6
Then, in addition to blocking motor voter and other tactics designed to derail the Dems, the Reps need to block higher education. Yet that conflicts with their desire to make $ off huge student loans. Ohhh what a moral conflict!
2
How nice to see the memory and work of Alvin W. Gouldner revived for contemporary analysis. He was one of the most perceptive sociologists during the turbulent but highly illuminating 1960s and 1970s. His book THE COMING CRISIS OF WESTERN SOCIOLOGY is a classic. "The Future of the Intellectuals..." was one of his last books and, like his others, highly prescient--as well illustrated here.
2
The argument and data is flawed, self-serving, and arrogant . This white, masters-degreed (MBA) female is intelligent, thoughtful, and deliberately conservative. Real pressing issues!
3
Because highly educated people are are smart and ethical?
2
Just because someone has a PH.D., they are supposed to be intelligent? Really? Some of the smartest guys I know only have a high school diploma. Where I worked for many years, the smartest guy was a black guy who drove the shuttle bus between the buildings. Our discussions with him over lunch were always enlightening. In fact, most PH.D's can't survive outside the college environment. The real world eats them up. All their experience comes from books and not from the field or real life. Thank god they get tenure or they would be on the bread line with the middle class who have lost their job due to the trade deals that the PH.D's negotiated.
5
Republicanism:
-religion.....hmmmm...
-guns....not....
-women.....not so nice....
-LGBT community.....being threatened on a daily basis....
-immigration....not so much....
--and on, and on, and on....
why would anyone with an analytic thought vote for them?
honestly?
because they do lie.....
;)
-religion.....hmmmm...
-guns....not....
-women.....not so nice....
-LGBT community.....being threatened on a daily basis....
-immigration....not so much....
--and on, and on, and on....
why would anyone with an analytic thought vote for them?
honestly?
because they do lie.....
;)
1
Given the way our politics work, these people (if they really exist) had better start putting their money where their mouths are.
This is all too airy-fairy for words. I'm surely a member of that "intelligensia" -- PhD in the physical sciences and near the end of an honorable-but-not-stellar career at it ... and this is all missing the point.
It is not a gift or some sort of luck to be highly educated. The people who achieve this do so through a great deal of work, often experiencing a lot of adversity in the process, and many moments when the temptations to give it up and go "get a real job" are ever-present. It means being relatively poor for years -- the only people who do this are simultaneously driven to do it because they really want to, and have a low need for money, what passes for status goods in our society.
The fundamental points of it are that "conservative" is mostly about property, and a tacit belief ... when you get right down to it ... that learning is not valuable, there is no need to discover ... indeed new thoughts are dangerous and to be suppressed. They are also far too egalitarian -- why anybody could have a thought! Oh my, we need to stop that!
When i was young I was taught by those old-school pocket-protector, white-shirt, black-tie guys -- most of them voted Republican then, but that was before it became party-of-stupid.
I personally don't know a Republican scientist, and I know a LOT of scientists.
It is not a gift or some sort of luck to be highly educated. The people who achieve this do so through a great deal of work, often experiencing a lot of adversity in the process, and many moments when the temptations to give it up and go "get a real job" are ever-present. It means being relatively poor for years -- the only people who do this are simultaneously driven to do it because they really want to, and have a low need for money, what passes for status goods in our society.
The fundamental points of it are that "conservative" is mostly about property, and a tacit belief ... when you get right down to it ... that learning is not valuable, there is no need to discover ... indeed new thoughts are dangerous and to be suppressed. They are also far too egalitarian -- why anybody could have a thought! Oh my, we need to stop that!
When i was young I was taught by those old-school pocket-protector, white-shirt, black-tie guys -- most of them voted Republican then, but that was before it became party-of-stupid.
I personally don't know a Republican scientist, and I know a LOT of scientists.
5
" Now that so many people go to college, Americans with bachelor’s degrees no longer constitute an educational elite. But the most highly educated Americans — those who have attended graduate or professional school — are starting to come together as a political bloc."
............
50% of students who GO to college, DO NOT COMPLETE a degree program. and only about 25% of post-HS adults have a BA or above--it gets thin at the top.
There was an interesting article in NATGEO Mar 2015 about adults changing their minds and THEY DON'T. SO if you have a PhD and are religiously conservative, that is how you are going to be. Not necessarily liberal, though one would hope that education provides an opening into the world that one doesn't get with a HS dipl. My suggestion would be "don't believe everything you think".
............
50% of students who GO to college, DO NOT COMPLETE a degree program. and only about 25% of post-HS adults have a BA or above--it gets thin at the top.
There was an interesting article in NATGEO Mar 2015 about adults changing their minds and THEY DON'T. SO if you have a PhD and are religiously conservative, that is how you are going to be. Not necessarily liberal, though one would hope that education provides an opening into the world that one doesn't get with a HS dipl. My suggestion would be "don't believe everything you think".
Years ago as I sat in a professor's office whining about my "C" grade, he laughed and said the dean told his staff to be kind to your "A" students because they will likely end up teaching beside you and very kind to your "C"students because they are more likely to be the ones who donate substantially to the University. Similarly, PHd's end up being liberals and us low-life BAs end up being conservative. But I can tell you that most everyone I know with reasonably comfortable retirements are conservatives. Most of us laugh at the self entitled elitists falling over one another to see who can one-up bashing conservatives meanwhile wringing their hands over how Trump can possible be in a position to have a great shot at being the next POTUS. Of course, they can solace themselves with the fact that they are better educated than the masses who don't know any better. I'll let you draw your own conclusions how much I care about someone's education vs. where they have ended up financially. And yeah, I have been a platinum donor to my alma mater so that it can churn out more liberals. How ironic.
3
There's no problem in the world that a good, modern Liberal can't chalk up to stupid Republican redneck bible-thumpers. Global warming? Caused by the dust kicked up by thumping all those old bibles, mostly! Kidnapped Nigerian children? Somebody thumped one bible too many down in ol' Kentucky! Police brutality, war, aging, money troubles, stains on your bathtub, overpriced organic produce, falls from height, loose fitting gaskets, twisted ankles? Argh!! Those dumb redneck bible-thumpers are at it again! They're climbing up my legs!
1
What is despicable is that some people think uneducated people are not qualified to vote.
3
"a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have “down the line” liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally.............in 1994 only 7 percent of postgrads held consistently liberal political opinions"
The reference to 1994 is interesting.....Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, followed by non-stop Clinton bashing, shutting down the government, Bush/Cheney, Iraq coupled with tax cuts, Obama, the Tea Party, You lie!, more government shutdowns, consistent party of NO for eight years and now Trump.
The question is why do only 33% of "highly educated professionals" find little or nothing of value in the GOP.
Intelligence, particularly critical thinking, anything resembling subtlety or nuance has long been a deficit rather than a plus in this country. Nothing new here.....the Alsop brothers named Adlai Stevenson an "egghead", Ike won in a landslide against him--twice. You can't go wrong in this country by dumbing down public discourse, it's the path to victory. Donald is clever enough to understand that and capitalize on it.
The reference to 1994 is interesting.....Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, followed by non-stop Clinton bashing, shutting down the government, Bush/Cheney, Iraq coupled with tax cuts, Obama, the Tea Party, You lie!, more government shutdowns, consistent party of NO for eight years and now Trump.
The question is why do only 33% of "highly educated professionals" find little or nothing of value in the GOP.
Intelligence, particularly critical thinking, anything resembling subtlety or nuance has long been a deficit rather than a plus in this country. Nothing new here.....the Alsop brothers named Adlai Stevenson an "egghead", Ike won in a landslide against him--twice. You can't go wrong in this country by dumbing down public discourse, it's the path to victory. Donald is clever enough to understand that and capitalize on it.
1
The main point is ignored: why are educated people liberal?
2
You should read Thomas Frank's new book Listen Liberal which is all about this "new class" and its politics. Draws on Gouldner's ideas, but also many others who have thought, researched and written about this.
1
Facts have a well-known liberal bias! Be honest. Objective analyze right-wing positions on bathroom use, war-mongering, coddling the rich and penalizing the poor and middle class. Smart? Nope.
While the pretence is true, the ground has shifted and "truth" is perhaps not...not as true.
Does this mean there's more truth to the Trump effect?
Does this mean there's more truth to the Trump effect?
1
Why should the better educated be more liberal? Easy. If one thinks about the word beyond one's own self interest, beyond petty tribalism and faux patriotism, there is no other conclusion that makes sense.
3
And yet, Trump is the one to brag about being "very bright" and going "to the best school."
At last we’re finally allowed to say ‘working class’. And beginning to allow ourselves to recognize that the working class as the enemy. Not because they’re rural, or Southern, or Evangelical, but because they’re working class—because they’re a peasantry that rejects modernity, because they exhibit the peasant cynicism that’s characteristic of their kind globally, because their world is one where women breed and men fight. If there weren’t people like them around—and voting—we’d be living in paradise.
And that is why I, as a member of that highly educated urban-coastal professional class, look for the obliteration of the working class—THROUGH SOCIAL MOBILITY, which is now in remarkably short supply in the US. That’s why I’m a liberal.
People who are economically insecure and marginal can’t afford to be liberal. And that is a very good reason to promote redistributionist policies: so that they can afford to be liberal, so that they can become us.
And that is why I, as a member of that highly educated urban-coastal professional class, look for the obliteration of the working class—THROUGH SOCIAL MOBILITY, which is now in remarkably short supply in the US. That’s why I’m a liberal.
People who are economically insecure and marginal can’t afford to be liberal. And that is a very good reason to promote redistributionist policies: so that they can afford to be liberal, so that they can become us.
3
Look, the answer is obvious. As one becomes more educated, and more intelligent, it becomes harder and harder to swallow the patently self-serving, self-deluding nonsense that is so-called Conservative "thought": "guns are good for you!" "Government is evil!" "Pollution=free economic growth!" "Corporations=people!" "God=amazing real, true discovery of bronze age people!" "Global warming=Massive conspiracy scientific hoax!" "Immigration=invading barbarian hordes!" "Oligarchy=free speech!"
2
I wonder whether this relationship actually begins with an affection or disaffection with Christianity. It seems to me that reform Jews adopted the liberal-education affinity some time ago. Christians may just be catching up.
Well, maybe. I consider myself liberal, progressive. I am a Sanders voter, have always voted Democratic, I'm way to the left of Clinton, and I have 3 degrees (engineering BS, MS and an MBA). But I really hate the whole open borders, one world fantasy that seems de rigeur for American and European liberals. We should control our immigration, period. Muslims and others must adapt to Western Enlightenment values, not the reverse. Women's rights are more important than allowing anybody to live wherever they please. And raising the minimum wage is great, but short-sighted and not nearly enough - we'll need a guaranteed income in the not too distant future. I would call that a mix, and frankly, Trump voters and Clinton voters will also have a variety of positions while picking the nearest acceptable candidate. No one is as knee jerk anything as the NYT.
2
Oh for god's sake - what an elitist article; too funny and sheer nonsense. The study is the equivalent of the many bogus studies that claimed - White people were 'smarter' than Black people!
*People will also drop off the earth if they walk straight ahead for 3 days.
*People will also drop off the earth if they walk straight ahead for 3 days.
3
In the spirit of this essay, perhaps the entire article should be replaced with "Dumb it down Democrats!"
1
"...conservatives are anti-intellectual, hostile to science and at war with the university."
When Genesis conflicts with geology, botany, zoology, astronomy, with whom do you think conservatives, fundamentalists, et al. will side?
When Genesis conflicts with geology, botany, zoology, astronomy, with whom do you think conservatives, fundamentalists, et al. will side?
1
Wait--you mean that the process of becoming educated tends to make people more liberal? Does this mean that the GOP will stop whining about the "liberal elites" on college campuses brainwashing their little darlings?
Nah, then it would not be a conspiracy--or constitute a War on Conservatives (or Christmas or Religion or…or..)
Nah, then it would not be a conspiracy--or constitute a War on Conservatives (or Christmas or Religion or…or..)
How do you know what a working class person is like, what he or she cares about, dreams about, worries about? How many do you actually know? Are there any to whom you are close? If there are, do you think it's okay to talk about them this way? If there are not, how dare you?
1
This op-ed was too complicated.
2
I can't comment at the condescending UFO story by George Johnson, so I'll tell you both why the highly educated are so liberal: Little greenbacks. You stole my money in 2008, I want it back. I lived among you for 10 years and paid for those school uniforms, 80K in house taxes besides the exponential amounts to that Edward Jones kid who walked up my driveway. WTH ever happened to Edward Jones? I'd still be liberal if you didn't rip me off then go to Cancun with my money. What? It wasn't you? Oh. Then it was that Speaker Ryan guy and his friends. Sorry, they look just like you on a beach.
1
Recently I watched "Good morning America" thinking it was a show that was aimed at the educated classes. You know, a picker upper, a workout for the brain.
I watched well educated men and women, people who carried the show, being so utterly stupid and silly. No wonder a dumbed down county is more than ready for Trumpisme.
I watched well educated men and women, people who carried the show, being so utterly stupid and silly. No wonder a dumbed down county is more than ready for Trumpisme.
2
This is indeed rare in case of Muslims - no matter how educated they are they would still stick to their religion. People of other faith generally become less religious when they are educated.
What?? What is the basis for this opinion?
Some of the comments seem to suggest that only highly educated people should vote. What a crock. The uneducated have as much right as any cynical, ivy-educated snob to pick a president. If you can't see the value in that then you are not very smart.
2
Ummm... let's see... understanding breeds compassion for all beings?
1
It's an interesting phenomenon. But I don't think Mr. Gross nails it by ascribing it largely to gender diversity.
The highly educated are so liberal because they're taught to over-think everything, in an effort to deny chaos; and this militates to an urge to control, a central liberal theme. But economies grow most robustly not when they're managed in every aspect, as our government seems to want to do, but when they're allowed to evolve in ways that best serve the interests of the driving forces -- a sensible government sits on the sidelines and harnesses a rational but not excessive piece of the production all that interested activity generates, to support the public good; and concerns itself with telling business not how it must conduct itself but merely what it MAY NOT do.
The highly educated are disproportionately liberal also because college and university faculties are overwhelmingly liberal themselves, and they will naturally couch their communication of knowledge within ideological frameworks that support their own worldviews. This summons the chicken-and-egg question, but, frankly, I think we’re in a closed time-loop here where a steady-state reality is self-reinforcing. Kids being as generally manipulable as we know them to be, a lot of this distortion will stick.
Finally, the highly educated are disproportionately liberal because they’re taught that all human action must have a cause, and it can be countered; yet … some things just ARE, and always will be.
The highly educated are so liberal because they're taught to over-think everything, in an effort to deny chaos; and this militates to an urge to control, a central liberal theme. But economies grow most robustly not when they're managed in every aspect, as our government seems to want to do, but when they're allowed to evolve in ways that best serve the interests of the driving forces -- a sensible government sits on the sidelines and harnesses a rational but not excessive piece of the production all that interested activity generates, to support the public good; and concerns itself with telling business not how it must conduct itself but merely what it MAY NOT do.
The highly educated are disproportionately liberal also because college and university faculties are overwhelmingly liberal themselves, and they will naturally couch their communication of knowledge within ideological frameworks that support their own worldviews. This summons the chicken-and-egg question, but, frankly, I think we’re in a closed time-loop here where a steady-state reality is self-reinforcing. Kids being as generally manipulable as we know them to be, a lot of this distortion will stick.
Finally, the highly educated are disproportionately liberal because they’re taught that all human action must have a cause, and it can be countered; yet … some things just ARE, and always will be.
11
Seems you always come up with a way to denigrate liberals. It's really tiresome. ~~Yawn~~
1
Speaking as a liberal and highly-educated scientist, I tend to believe the highly-educated are more liberal because we are better connected to reality. So yes, we do indeed realize that some things just are, and that can be highly unfair - so it behooves us lucky ones to try to balance things out. As opposed to just, say, saying the people who just are minorities, or transgendered, or disabled, or whatever, are somehow evil and deserve to be treated harshly...not because there is any cause, but because that's the way things just are.
1
Next question: Why do conservatives hate conservation?
55
What's the punchline?
Oh, wait. I get it. Conservatives hate everything.
Oh, wait. I get it. Conservatives hate everything.
When I saw the headline of this story I just started smiling at how silly it was.
If we've learned anything from the likes of Donald Trump it's how repulsed a huge segment of our society is by the arrogance of the elite class and the media.
So here's an article that essentially says wisdom only comes to people with advanced degrees of education. Really?
As one old enough to remember the Viet Nam war era, there were some pretty bright people running that deal, and how did that turn out?
Fast forward to today we have one of the most erudite, articulate, well meaning leaders in the White House and he's leaving a Geo-political, racial mess for the next president to clean up.
So much for the praise of blanket PH.D. scholars I'm thinking.
If we've learned anything from the likes of Donald Trump it's how repulsed a huge segment of our society is by the arrogance of the elite class and the media.
So here's an article that essentially says wisdom only comes to people with advanced degrees of education. Really?
As one old enough to remember the Viet Nam war era, there were some pretty bright people running that deal, and how did that turn out?
Fast forward to today we have one of the most erudite, articulate, well meaning leaders in the White House and he's leaving a Geo-political, racial mess for the next president to clean up.
So much for the praise of blanket PH.D. scholars I'm thinking.
The challenge of the 'open mind' is that everything will fall out.
As a member of the class Mr. Gross is discussing, the most significant factor that drove me to the Democratic party was the rise of religious extremism in the Republic party. While the Donald is not a bible thumper, he has many of their characteristics, so the GOP is still the party of no-mind.
The liberal educated understand that society cannot thrive unless it is a team sport: The ever widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots is unhealthy. Think of the many powerful dynasties across the world that are now dust in the wind.
The liberal educated understand that society cannot thrive unless it is a team sport: The ever widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots is unhealthy. Think of the many powerful dynasties across the world that are now dust in the wind.
62
A "team sport" does not apply and force upon the participants, oppressive rules and regulations which strip them of their rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
A team sport, huh? All about Diversity and Inclusion, huh?
However, don't bother to try out for the team if you have a religious bent, if you own a gun of any type, if you abhor generational welfare, if you are low information, poorly educated, rural, southern, if you are not coastal, if you are an old white male, if you don't support wholesale historical revisionism, if you think individual responsibility and accountability are desirable qualities/aspirations, if you question the sanctity of "science", if you fly the American flag, repeat the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem. and on and on and on.
Some team you guys assembled.
However, don't bother to try out for the team if you have a religious bent, if you own a gun of any type, if you abhor generational welfare, if you are low information, poorly educated, rural, southern, if you are not coastal, if you are an old white male, if you don't support wholesale historical revisionism, if you think individual responsibility and accountability are desirable qualities/aspirations, if you question the sanctity of "science", if you fly the American flag, repeat the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem. and on and on and on.
Some team you guys assembled.
They seem to like The Donald because he has only contempt for the religionists in the Republican Party.
First of all there is the word "liberal." Increasingly more folks are using words like conservative,liberal,radical etc incorrectly. The word moderate is the better word for liberal but the bottom line is that moderates propose "moderate" change in a "new" direction. Reactionaries on the other hand want to go back to some magical past. But more education does in fact usually result in more wisdom and we find that life is more complicated . Example? Notice how Donald Trump appeals to the "less" educated voters! Who can really "oppose" lower taxes,a stronger military and make the US great again???
10
"But more education does in fact usually result in more wisdom and we find that life is more complicated."
Is life more complicated? Having worked with Engineers most of my life I have found that many people with degrees seem to lose the concept of simplicity. I had a Commanding Officer years ago who had a rubber stamp with KISS engraved on it. Whenever I or someone else complicated a an easy project he would send it back to us with the stamp.
Also lacking in many is what we used to call native intelligence, also known as common sense. Again, that's the result of one's education looking for the complicated solution because you've just have to use that formal education to solve the problem when you probably knew what to do when you were much younger. For the newly graduated person there is a need to prove competence, a mistake when you're surrounded by the technicians with 20 or more years of experience. Many years ago I went out on a problem that to me required a bucket truck to fix. I called in for one to be sent out and a 40 year+ supervisor who had once been a lineman laughed. "We never had bucket trucks when I was younger. Throw a lineman's hammer with a rope tied to it and shake the rope until the cables untwist." It worked.
There are no new problems. We need to work, eat and care for our families. Government has made it more complicated and you can't see through the fog.
Is life more complicated? Having worked with Engineers most of my life I have found that many people with degrees seem to lose the concept of simplicity. I had a Commanding Officer years ago who had a rubber stamp with KISS engraved on it. Whenever I or someone else complicated a an easy project he would send it back to us with the stamp.
Also lacking in many is what we used to call native intelligence, also known as common sense. Again, that's the result of one's education looking for the complicated solution because you've just have to use that formal education to solve the problem when you probably knew what to do when you were much younger. For the newly graduated person there is a need to prove competence, a mistake when you're surrounded by the technicians with 20 or more years of experience. Many years ago I went out on a problem that to me required a bucket truck to fix. I called in for one to be sent out and a 40 year+ supervisor who had once been a lineman laughed. "We never had bucket trucks when I was younger. Throw a lineman's hammer with a rope tied to it and shake the rope until the cables untwist." It worked.
There are no new problems. We need to work, eat and care for our families. Government has made it more complicated and you can't see through the fog.
@rws
“Who can really “oppose” lower taxes,a stronger military and make the US great again???”
1) I oppose lower taxes as do many of my colleagues. Our country, the USA, has one of the lowest taxations of any country. We NEED higher taxes to fix our crumbling infrastructure! The Civil Engineers of America Association state that we need $3.6 TRILLION for repair and replacement of highways, roads, bridges, airports, and harbors by 2020!
2) Our military NOW consumes a bigger budget than the next ten countries COMBINED! We have paid $1.6 trillion into the F-35 and it’s never flown even ONE combat mission! The USA’s number one export is weapons...weapons of war: fighter jets, bombers, ships, machine guns, tanks (M-Raps), cyber security. Congress keeps upping the military budget to pay for the defense contracts for their states. The southern states would be destitute if it weren’t for the military installations! Ft. Hood not only had 39,000 military personnel but it also employs ~10,000 civilians. The cities around Ft. Hood make their money and tax base off the fort...hotels, restaurants, car dealerships, housing, electronics.
We need to strip the military down to basics.
3)President Obama DID make America great again! Bush/Cheney left us in economic turmoil--an unemployment rate of over 10% and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month! And 2 unpaid wars. Obama has brought the unemployment rate down to 4.9% with 12 million new jobs-MOSTLY in the private sector. US is #1 now!
“Who can really “oppose” lower taxes,a stronger military and make the US great again???”
1) I oppose lower taxes as do many of my colleagues. Our country, the USA, has one of the lowest taxations of any country. We NEED higher taxes to fix our crumbling infrastructure! The Civil Engineers of America Association state that we need $3.6 TRILLION for repair and replacement of highways, roads, bridges, airports, and harbors by 2020!
2) Our military NOW consumes a bigger budget than the next ten countries COMBINED! We have paid $1.6 trillion into the F-35 and it’s never flown even ONE combat mission! The USA’s number one export is weapons...weapons of war: fighter jets, bombers, ships, machine guns, tanks (M-Raps), cyber security. Congress keeps upping the military budget to pay for the defense contracts for their states. The southern states would be destitute if it weren’t for the military installations! Ft. Hood not only had 39,000 military personnel but it also employs ~10,000 civilians. The cities around Ft. Hood make their money and tax base off the fort...hotels, restaurants, car dealerships, housing, electronics.
We need to strip the military down to basics.
3)President Obama DID make America great again! Bush/Cheney left us in economic turmoil--an unemployment rate of over 10% and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month! And 2 unpaid wars. Obama has brought the unemployment rate down to 4.9% with 12 million new jobs-MOSTLY in the private sector. US is #1 now!
1
Probably because better educated people are by and large better off financially and aren't therefore faced with the horrors their promoted policies produce. Those are for the poor to endure.
42
Are you referring to economic, social, or environmental policy? In the former case, if repeated trials demonstrate that liberal economics are failing to help the worst off, then this would be recognized and more conservative ideas supported. The fact that this has not happened demonstrates that what worked in 1800 does not work now because technology has changed how the economy operates. The pure free market was a nice idea, but it's as obsolete as the musket and horse-drawn plow. Regarding social issues, you may be right in that the decline of the nuclear family has led to more neglected and alienated children, but this should be offset by the benefits of not leaving the abilities of 50% of the labor force badly underused. On environmental issues, what you said is true only in the short term. Allowing unlimited depletion of common pool resources and unlimited pollution may be beneficial in the short run, but without government action to correct these market failures, the chickens will come home to roost when there are no more fish to be caught and is no more water safe to drink.
I do LOVE a good red herring!
A good education includes finance, governmental structures, and public policy.
It's not surprising that the "expert class' would support liberal government, who's mission is to use bureaucratic experts and programs to reform society. But they have failed. The wars on poverty and drugs have failed, as have efforts to promote equality, improve education and health care, and smooth economic volatility, Voters are fed up, and look to people like Trump and Sanders for a new approach to government. The real lesson, however, should be that top-down command and-control approaches just don't work. Bottom-up, evolutionary approaches produce more robust solutions in all fields. It's time to replace the hubris of experts with the wisdom of crowds -- aka dispersed intelligence, or markets.
29
where's the market in social values?
The war on drugs was a liberal endeavor? I've never thought of Richard Nixon as a liberal of any stripe.
An interesting comment. Though a mish-mash of competing ideas the seeds of critical thought are striving to push past the writer's ideology.
It is true that wars on poverty & drugs have failed, but misleading to put them side by side. The war on drugs was poorly conceived & in many ways implemented as a war on the poor, who were thus twice victimized: 1st by drugs ravaging their communities, & again by mis-guided authorities putting the victims in prison. A useful reminder of how these threads came together is the Iran-Contra scandal, where hi-up officials of our own government facilitated illegal importation of massive quantities of cocaine to fund illegal arms transfers to foreign governments & terrorists (oh, but they were OUR terrorists!)
The war on poverty has failed for other complex reasons, but many of these reasons also are rooted in the unfortunate racism systemic in American life.
To both these failures, the appropriate response is not a simple exclamation (celebration?) of "Failure!", but careful examination of what went wrong & how a better effort might be attempted.
The writer does better when he declaims command-and-control approaches in favor of the wisdom of crowds. C&C approaches are appropriately discredited, but crowd wisdom rises above mob action best when education is widely available. "Markets," are not magic, but can work wonders IF such is allowed. In America today the powerful rich rarely allow fair competition. Who can blame them? They'd lose!
It is true that wars on poverty & drugs have failed, but misleading to put them side by side. The war on drugs was poorly conceived & in many ways implemented as a war on the poor, who were thus twice victimized: 1st by drugs ravaging their communities, & again by mis-guided authorities putting the victims in prison. A useful reminder of how these threads came together is the Iran-Contra scandal, where hi-up officials of our own government facilitated illegal importation of massive quantities of cocaine to fund illegal arms transfers to foreign governments & terrorists (oh, but they were OUR terrorists!)
The war on poverty has failed for other complex reasons, but many of these reasons also are rooted in the unfortunate racism systemic in American life.
To both these failures, the appropriate response is not a simple exclamation (celebration?) of "Failure!", but careful examination of what went wrong & how a better effort might be attempted.
The writer does better when he declaims command-and-control approaches in favor of the wisdom of crowds. C&C approaches are appropriately discredited, but crowd wisdom rises above mob action best when education is widely available. "Markets," are not magic, but can work wonders IF such is allowed. In America today the powerful rich rarely allow fair competition. Who can blame them? They'd lose!
Given the penchant of the left to politicize everything and demonize, suppress and censor all opposing viewpoints on both a personal and professional level that those who wish to ‘get ahead’ in areas where democrats tend to congregate, one has to go along or be socially ostracized and professionally ruined. Such is the famous tolerance of the left.
Now for the equally infamous hypocrisy of the left they were the first to popularize the politics of personal destruction and have by honed it to a career killing, reputation destroying machine. Look at Hollywood. They will freely admit that if you are a Republican you will be quite lonely while starving because not only won’t you be able to find work, no one will wish to be seen with you. On today’s college campus, if you disagree with liberal orthodoxy you are tainted goods, branded a bigot and your grades will suffer.
It is the same everywhere the left has any authority. Try to obtain a government subsidy for a study refuting glo-bull warming and see how successful you will be. Disagree with the prevailing thought respecting any of the democrats favored groups, even as a sportscaster and the next day you are looking for work.
It is this type of intolerance and hypocrisy which has poisoned the well and made it appear that most of the highly educated are more liberal when in fact they are just more circumspect until they reach a level of success where they are safe from the forces of political correctness.
Rich in New Mexico.
Now for the equally infamous hypocrisy of the left they were the first to popularize the politics of personal destruction and have by honed it to a career killing, reputation destroying machine. Look at Hollywood. They will freely admit that if you are a Republican you will be quite lonely while starving because not only won’t you be able to find work, no one will wish to be seen with you. On today’s college campus, if you disagree with liberal orthodoxy you are tainted goods, branded a bigot and your grades will suffer.
It is the same everywhere the left has any authority. Try to obtain a government subsidy for a study refuting glo-bull warming and see how successful you will be. Disagree with the prevailing thought respecting any of the democrats favored groups, even as a sportscaster and the next day you are looking for work.
It is this type of intolerance and hypocrisy which has poisoned the well and made it appear that most of the highly educated are more liberal when in fact they are just more circumspect until they reach a level of success where they are safe from the forces of political correctness.
Rich in New Mexico.
53
oh, the smell of victimhood and grievance. so rightwing.
My my my, aren't we angry about some perceived slight we received while in a school. :p
The writer is confusing highly educated with common sense and logic. The academic world is run by Liberal-Leftists so no one should be surprised that many impressionable youth come out as brainwashed Liberals. Of course, the smarter ones, after experiencing life beyond the halls of academe, often evolve into conservatives. Those whose personal lifestyles are 'non-traditional' will, more often than not, remain Liberals because the Democrat party caters to these single segment voters by playing the appopriate 'card' calculated to get their votes.
25
"Common sense" is all too often antithetical to logic. "Common" indicates "popular" or "conventional". Progress requires uncommon sense.
Trying to fit into kiss up kick down pecking orders does create twisted people.
So, economists or earth scientists or engineers are liberal leftists? Funny.
More of those having PhDs, JDs, MDs, etc., oppose fundatmental facets of the New Deal than many would recognize. Sanders' policies are really no more than a rescusitation of FDR's and LBJ's central domestic policies. The class identified in this article has been split in support of Sanders, often more "neoliberal" than "liberal."
5
Being a critical thinker makes it hard to buy into the old racial and nationalistic prejudices. Although, I will say that there is still an aspect of bigotry in highly-educated liberals seeing themselves as superior to the conservatives out there. Everyone likes to feel that they are superior to someone.
27
In a nation where there is not just a gap, but a deep abyss separating its mythology from reality, the kind of inquiry into actual records and events one associates with the acquisition of knowledge would be cause enough in itself to radicalize any learner.
5
Yes, yes, I have two advanced degrees as well. And yes, I agree with many liberal principles.
But no, I don't agree with all of them. In fact, I embrace many conservative values.
I'll ask Liberals (and borrow from the Dowager Countess): does it ever get cold on the moral high ground?
But no, I don't agree with all of them. In fact, I embrace many conservative values.
I'll ask Liberals (and borrow from the Dowager Countess): does it ever get cold on the moral high ground?
31
I never claim to know what God thinks like conservatives who conserve nothing.
Your last question can be asked of many on both sides. I think the values are not as different as is played up - the problem is ideological rigidity, insisting on the same causes and the same solutions regardless of the actual situation.
I once read in a history book about the low countries in Europe that Socialism and Capitalism had been developed together, in those areas a thousand years ago, because they could not work without each other. Capitalism to create wealth and Socialism to make sure that those who actually did the work would share in that wealth.
21
From what I've observed, many of the highly educated are liberal in terms of "social values" - equal rights for women, gays, and so on. But when it comes to the nitty gritty of sharing the wealth, the values break down. This is the problem with the current Democratic Party and its current front runner for President. The Party abandoned its FDR roots during the (first) Clinton administration and has not gotten them back.
22
A fact. Liberals donate less to charities or church than Conservatives. Just look on line at tithes in the Liberal churches compared to the ones that left them.
I cannot think of a single Conservative I know who would have donated their used underwear to Goodwill as the Clintons did or the princely sum of $187 Biden gave to charity one year.
I cannot think of a single Conservative I know who would have donated their used underwear to Goodwill as the Clintons did or the princely sum of $187 Biden gave to charity one year.
I'd like to think I'd be a liberal without my Ph.D... But I'm sure at least part of the phenomenon is the rhetorical war the Republican party has been waging on education, the scientific method, and critical thinking in general for a half century. They're happy to speak the language of intellectual discourse in some elite corners, as long as they're discussing economic theories that support their policies... but when engaging the public they're constantly appealing to anti-intellectual attitudes. You can only do that so long before anyone with any education to speak of decides they aren't welcome.
27
". You can only do that so long before anyone with any education to speak of decides they aren't welcome."
Despite your education your grammar is lacking. It should read,
You can only do that FOR so long before anyone with any education to speak of decides YOU aren't welcome.
The ellipses should have been a period.
Amazing what can be done with just high school English.
Despite your education your grammar is lacking. It should read,
You can only do that FOR so long before anyone with any education to speak of decides YOU aren't welcome.
The ellipses should have been a period.
Amazing what can be done with just high school English.
Those folks think it is cool and sophisticated to hold simultaneous mutually contradictory beliefs, like Trump. It is a way to have their cake and eat it too.
Oh the left denies science as well. They are just more effective at totally denying the discussion of their failings. Read the "Blank Slate" or "The Bell Curve".
I am someone with advanced degree and also have deep religious convictions but those are private. I absolutely can't support a party or its leaders who don't believe in science, who think history of mankind is only a few thousand years old, and who believe in 'shoot first and ask later' philosophy. Simple as that.
49
There is no scientific evidence that God thinks at all, so you can spare yourself wasting time and effort on idolatry.
No mention in the article that 'the middle' in much more to the right than it used to be, making the highly educated more 'left' than they really are.
As for the rest, the example given is that the highly educated tend to favor a more equal distribution of income than does the average conservative, so I will riff on that. Advice in either direction is based on the rule of thumb that if there is no reward (which leads to greater inequality), there will be less striving and innovation and CONSTRUCTIVE risk taking, but if the distribution becomes too unequal (now) and the job ladder has narrowed (now) with few jobs in the middle, then economic activity tends to slow (bad for those higher up and lower down) and those at the lower end are constantly worried about making ends meet with no change in sight - neither too unequal a distribution or lack of rewards are good for society at large, poor or rich, but not having the middle to provide movement from the bottom (reward) is a key element that is overlooked; it is not attained by just increasing the minimum wage. That is what those who have experience thinking about these things see. Lay people asking for a more equal distribution, on the other hand, don't see all that even when greater equality is the correct direction to go in, just as lay conservatives calling redistributive policies socialist don't see the full picture even when greater rewards is the correct direction.
As for the rest, the example given is that the highly educated tend to favor a more equal distribution of income than does the average conservative, so I will riff on that. Advice in either direction is based on the rule of thumb that if there is no reward (which leads to greater inequality), there will be less striving and innovation and CONSTRUCTIVE risk taking, but if the distribution becomes too unequal (now) and the job ladder has narrowed (now) with few jobs in the middle, then economic activity tends to slow (bad for those higher up and lower down) and those at the lower end are constantly worried about making ends meet with no change in sight - neither too unequal a distribution or lack of rewards are good for society at large, poor or rich, but not having the middle to provide movement from the bottom (reward) is a key element that is overlooked; it is not attained by just increasing the minimum wage. That is what those who have experience thinking about these things see. Lay people asking for a more equal distribution, on the other hand, don't see all that even when greater equality is the correct direction to go in, just as lay conservatives calling redistributive policies socialist don't see the full picture even when greater rewards is the correct direction.
9
Well reasoned, and well said. Thank you.
Even when incomes are equal, some make much of them than others.
Another commenter, Sarah, put her finger on what bothers me about many comments here: They amount to "self-congratulation." Especially amusing are commenters who insist more education strips away biases. I suppose it does, but it simply replaces those biases with different biases.
45
If you consider reliance on evidence and logic a "bias"
Bias is inherent to experience.
I am biased against people who claim to know what God thinks because they are untrustworthy.
I am biased against people who claim to know what God thinks because they are untrustworthy.
What a depressing idea! Never learn anything! You'll be as dumb as you were before but in a different way! This kind of foolish equivalency is a poor attempt to defend ignorance as some sort of goal.
Funny. No discussion at all, despite the headline, why the highly educated are more liberal than the general population. Also no basis for arguing what appears to be the focus of this piece that such folks are any more liberal or any more unified in their political beliefs now than several decades ago. I do like the final takeaway, however, that is, that democrats shouldn't be too egg-headed, lest it alienate less-educated Dems. Give me a break.
19
I'm a lawyer, so I'm one of those "highly educated" voters, and it's pretty obvious why we tend liberal. One of the parties denies evolution and global warming, fights against equal rights for women and LGBT people, and in many other ways shows that it's targeting its positions at the most stupid and regressive elements of the population. Why would any intelligent person want to support that?
My "high education" has taught me humility and empathy. And my "high education" was in the real science of biology. Not the fake science of sociology.
The three most important things that I learned were: 1) How to say I don't know when asked a question about which I have neither education nor experience nor information; 2) How to listen to and respect what other people are saying; 3) How to ask pertinent questions.
Admitting that our ignorance both begins and ends with our current level of knowledge is the essence of education. Having enough imagination and curiosity to go behind, beneath, above and below what we "know" is the basis of being "highly educated."
We are after all fundamentally animal vertebrate mammal primate apes driven to crave fat, salt, sugar, sex, water, kin and habitat. Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln were as "highly educated" as Genghis Khan. The Khan is believed to have left his "smart" Y chromosome legacy in 16 2/3rds% of Asian men. But George and Abraham left none.
The three most important things that I learned were: 1) How to say I don't know when asked a question about which I have neither education nor experience nor information; 2) How to listen to and respect what other people are saying; 3) How to ask pertinent questions.
Admitting that our ignorance both begins and ends with our current level of knowledge is the essence of education. Having enough imagination and curiosity to go behind, beneath, above and below what we "know" is the basis of being "highly educated."
We are after all fundamentally animal vertebrate mammal primate apes driven to crave fat, salt, sugar, sex, water, kin and habitat. Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln were as "highly educated" as Genghis Khan. The Khan is believed to have left his "smart" Y chromosome legacy in 16 2/3rds% of Asian men. But George and Abraham left none.
4
While I think the professor asks a good question, the article's follow through is less clear. I have three major issues with this article:
First, the cause and effect relationships posed throughout the article have little supporting evidence. For instance, because more women are becoming post-grad scholars and women are more liberal is not an explanation of why post-grad scholars are more liberal. You just passed off the explanation to another category - women are liberal - but do not tell us why they are more liberal. Similarly, many competing explanations are not addressed. For example, post-grad scholars may be more down-the-line liberals because the Dem Party has begun to clearly articulate its message, thereby making it easier for people to follow down-the-line.
Second, social-liberalism's long-term interests may have as much to do with appealing to educated classes as appealing to the working-class. The educated classes are those who may mobilize and help articulate a message to the masses and they are a growing population. The working-class is in decline.
Third and most importantly, making moral appeals instead of scientific-rational appeals to voters is important for the Democratic left, but kowtowing to base Trump serves no interest but Trumps. Democratic leaders can not beat Trump at his game, he is the best at it. They can only beat him and prevent his growing support by standing by their liberal positions and wonkishly, morally, and passionately arguing for them.
First, the cause and effect relationships posed throughout the article have little supporting evidence. For instance, because more women are becoming post-grad scholars and women are more liberal is not an explanation of why post-grad scholars are more liberal. You just passed off the explanation to another category - women are liberal - but do not tell us why they are more liberal. Similarly, many competing explanations are not addressed. For example, post-grad scholars may be more down-the-line liberals because the Dem Party has begun to clearly articulate its message, thereby making it easier for people to follow down-the-line.
Second, social-liberalism's long-term interests may have as much to do with appealing to educated classes as appealing to the working-class. The educated classes are those who may mobilize and help articulate a message to the masses and they are a growing population. The working-class is in decline.
Third and most importantly, making moral appeals instead of scientific-rational appeals to voters is important for the Democratic left, but kowtowing to base Trump serves no interest but Trumps. Democratic leaders can not beat Trump at his game, he is the best at it. They can only beat him and prevent his growing support by standing by their liberal positions and wonkishly, morally, and passionately arguing for them.
3
ONE main thread holding together much of liberal thought and policy
recommendations tpday is the idea that a person's success is due greatly to forces beyond the individual's control. So we see attempts to help
the less privileged with better schools, healthcare, policing, housing,
legal reform, nutrition,etc, all aimed at eliminating the perceived injustices
the society places on the less privileged.These injustices are real.
The highly educated understand that and agree with reforming the culture but beyond that they know from experience that what determines success in life remains individual hard work and persistence . It is ok for others to blame the culture for their difficulties but the highly educated know the hard truth is that one must reject cultural excuses for failure to succeed and rely on their themselves to advance.
recommendations tpday is the idea that a person's success is due greatly to forces beyond the individual's control. So we see attempts to help
the less privileged with better schools, healthcare, policing, housing,
legal reform, nutrition,etc, all aimed at eliminating the perceived injustices
the society places on the less privileged.These injustices are real.
The highly educated understand that and agree with reforming the culture but beyond that they know from experience that what determines success in life remains individual hard work and persistence . It is ok for others to blame the culture for their difficulties but the highly educated know the hard truth is that one must reject cultural excuses for failure to succeed and rely on their themselves to advance.
4
Highly educated people must of necessity learn to challenge and question the existing rules and order. One does not become a PhD by parroting existing convention. The trail requires critique of what is today and the search for something which is better than that which already exists. Conservatism at its heart is support for the status quo versus accepting the risks of things which are different. It pursues caution rather than exploration or invention. People who have pursued higher education have already assessed that today is not good enough, there is something better to be learned.
14
Highly educated people must of necessity learn to challenge and question the existing rules and order. One does not become a PhD by parroting existing convention.
=========================
If you seriously "challenge and question the existing rules and order" while in school you will never get good enough grades to get your degree.
Most PhDs get their degrees by "parroting existing convention" and then just elaborating slighting on a minor point of order in the convention. Members of the committees that evaluate PhD dissertations are the ones who built and maintain the "existing convention" and aren't the least bit interesting in seeing their life's work seriously questioned.
=========================
If you seriously "challenge and question the existing rules and order" while in school you will never get good enough grades to get your degree.
Most PhDs get their degrees by "parroting existing convention" and then just elaborating slighting on a minor point of order in the convention. Members of the committees that evaluate PhD dissertations are the ones who built and maintain the "existing convention" and aren't the least bit interesting in seeing their life's work seriously questioned.
To address “Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?” requires a more comprehensive answer than is offered here. The obvious answer is that education gives a person more knowledge about more things, and, most importantly, more ways to evaluate that knowledge via critical thinking – the very thing that conservative states like Texas want to keep out of school curriculums. Education, particularly a liberal one (as in Liberal Arts), exposes one to a greater variety of the human condition and a more varied interpretation of human experience. Such an education leaves a person less susceptible to the superstition and rigid world views that often inhabit the conservative mindset. one that seeks simplistic answers to complicated situations.
But, a deeper consideration would require critical thinking, and for us to challenge the assumption in the original question and to ask: are the highly educated really liberal, or, better yet, are self-proclaimed “liberals” really liberal? The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that to call yourself a “Democrat” and by that to mean liberal is specious. Witness the highly educated Hillary Clinton calling herself a progressive. It is easy to be open-minded about say LGBT issues, but, it appears to be more difficult to be a true liberal about economic equality issues. Too many so-called liberals are elitists locked into a meritocracy view of society and less likely to criticize a system that entitles them to a privileged status.
But, a deeper consideration would require critical thinking, and for us to challenge the assumption in the original question and to ask: are the highly educated really liberal, or, better yet, are self-proclaimed “liberals” really liberal? The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that to call yourself a “Democrat” and by that to mean liberal is specious. Witness the highly educated Hillary Clinton calling herself a progressive. It is easy to be open-minded about say LGBT issues, but, it appears to be more difficult to be a true liberal about economic equality issues. Too many so-called liberals are elitists locked into a meritocracy view of society and less likely to criticize a system that entitles them to a privileged status.
7
Readers should follow the links and examine Pew's questions before granting this author's conclusions. Claims about trends to the left or right tend to overlook how findings such as Pew's are often better explained as artifacts of how the questions are asked, than by the purported finding.
A significant proportion of the questions Pew asks in the linked study are nearly impossible to answer on the conservative side if you are at all versed in the toolkit of critical thinking, whether you are conservative or not. The first question in scoring "ideological consistency" for example, asks whether government programs are "wasteful and inefficient". The choices are effectively between "always" and "sometimes", with the former scored as conservative, the latter liberal.
But it is almost impossible for a well-educated person, including my conservative friends, to agree to the first choice: The generalization is so sweeping, it is almost certainly false (one of the first fallacies a well-educated person learns to avoid). Had the question been more nuanced: "Government programs tend to be more inefficient than what they replace," my conservative friends would have agreed. And the question would have correctly identified them as conservative.
But as they stand, Pew's questions are often better measures of critical acuity than of political leanings. The result is that many highly educated people get scored as "liberal," even if they aren't, resulting in a false correlation.
A significant proportion of the questions Pew asks in the linked study are nearly impossible to answer on the conservative side if you are at all versed in the toolkit of critical thinking, whether you are conservative or not. The first question in scoring "ideological consistency" for example, asks whether government programs are "wasteful and inefficient". The choices are effectively between "always" and "sometimes", with the former scored as conservative, the latter liberal.
But it is almost impossible for a well-educated person, including my conservative friends, to agree to the first choice: The generalization is so sweeping, it is almost certainly false (one of the first fallacies a well-educated person learns to avoid). Had the question been more nuanced: "Government programs tend to be more inefficient than what they replace," my conservative friends would have agreed. And the question would have correctly identified them as conservative.
But as they stand, Pew's questions are often better measures of critical acuity than of political leanings. The result is that many highly educated people get scored as "liberal," even if they aren't, resulting in a false correlation.
17
Thank you for digging into the questions
Colleges may have changed, but there was definitely a knee-jerk "group think" when I was in school.
I met my first conservative shortly after starting law school (Harvard) in the early Seventies. A group called "Mass PIRG" (short for Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group) had persuaded Harvard to give $1 from every Harvard student's tuition to the group. That struck me as just fine at the time, but my new conservative friend strongly disagreed: "Give them $1 of your own money if you like, or $100. But why should I be forced to contribute to some group whose views probably are much different from mine?" (There was no dispute about that, by the way: The views of Mass PIRG on pretty much everything were much different from his.)
I recognized two things immediately from his remark:
1. His argument was persuasive.
2. I lacked the tools even to respond to his argument. Before then, pretty much everyone I'd met in college -- fellow students, professors, everyone else -- was either liberal or radical. I'd never even heard conservative arguments, much less had to respond to them.
Over the years, I've come to believe that there are good responses to many conservative arguments, but that others make very good sense. It wouldn't surprise me, however, to learn that life in many institutions of higher learning still passes in an unexamined "bubble." Occasionally I meet an old professor for whom time seems to have stood still for several decades
I met my first conservative shortly after starting law school (Harvard) in the early Seventies. A group called "Mass PIRG" (short for Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group) had persuaded Harvard to give $1 from every Harvard student's tuition to the group. That struck me as just fine at the time, but my new conservative friend strongly disagreed: "Give them $1 of your own money if you like, or $100. But why should I be forced to contribute to some group whose views probably are much different from mine?" (There was no dispute about that, by the way: The views of Mass PIRG on pretty much everything were much different from his.)
I recognized two things immediately from his remark:
1. His argument was persuasive.
2. I lacked the tools even to respond to his argument. Before then, pretty much everyone I'd met in college -- fellow students, professors, everyone else -- was either liberal or radical. I'd never even heard conservative arguments, much less had to respond to them.
Over the years, I've come to believe that there are good responses to many conservative arguments, but that others make very good sense. It wouldn't surprise me, however, to learn that life in many institutions of higher learning still passes in an unexamined "bubble." Occasionally I meet an old professor for whom time seems to have stood still for several decades
28
The argument of your conservative friend makes sense, but it is a slippery slope, like a lot of things. Why should he pay for public schools when he has no children? Or freeway maintenance if he drives on local streets or doesn't drive at all? After all, the government "forces" us to pay taxes for these things, and no one likes to pay taxes. There needs to be a balance and some reasonable debate, which unfortunately is not happening in our federal government (or here in TX) nearly as much as what happens at most universities, liberal as they are.
1
And now you know why union members dislike their unions. Their dues money is contributed to causes and politicians they would never support. The anger is even stronger in closed shops.
1
This is a good comment so far as it goes. It would have been more interesting, however, had the writer extended his comments on bubbles to the ground covered by another commenter who remarked that attitudes today are shaped not so much by education as by media exposure. Where ever you find them, bubbles of normative expectation define not only attitudes and orientation, but also day to day actions. In the case of our consumer society, these actions have profound implications not only for our fellow citizens in this, the "free-est country on Earth," but also for citizens of every other country, or even no country. And the implications, ecological and systemic in scope, do not stop at the boundary of our species.
Normative thought is powerful, potentially dangerous, and a regular feature of human society. Education and (possibly, but not always) the resulting critical thought is, at least so far as I know, our only tool for using this phenomenon to help us advance rather than following our earlier kin into the evolutionary dustbin.
Normative thought is powerful, potentially dangerous, and a regular feature of human society. Education and (possibly, but not always) the resulting critical thought is, at least so far as I know, our only tool for using this phenomenon to help us advance rather than following our earlier kin into the evolutionary dustbin.
In all honesty I'd like to propose that society's direction isn't today determined by education but rather, and much more, by our electronic media and entertainment. These media are directed not a bit by anything that might be called intellectual - heavens, no! - but exclusively by simple sales figures. Popular entertainment, immensely powerful, is overwhelmingly dedicated to the cultivation of a constituency with little or no measurable IQ; like most fast-moving vacuums it sucks in surrounding atmospheres, discouraging the thoughtful or constructive.
Now having delivered all this negativity, let's move on to better stuff: we have so many advantages in our electronics-dominated world, with more information available simply in our pockets-full of capability: the 20th century gave us electronics; perhaps the 21st can bring better utilization of the thing.
We speak of education but dedicate our exposure to training. Training is how, but education is why.
Now having delivered all this negativity, let's move on to better stuff: we have so many advantages in our electronics-dominated world, with more information available simply in our pockets-full of capability: the 20th century gave us electronics; perhaps the 21st can bring better utilization of the thing.
We speak of education but dedicate our exposure to training. Training is how, but education is why.
4
I like many liberal professionals with advanced degrees. But sometimes they sound very condescending. They are the ones moving into the cities and causing gentrification and pushing poor people out. They are the ones that self segregate into gated communities with people of similar salaries and interests and increasing income inequality in inner city neighborhoods. They are the ones supporting the elite and competitive higher education system that stress out their children. They think simply providing tax money will solve every problem. They may have good intentions, but sometimes they are just as narrow minded as the conservative they hate so much.
15
Gee, you must have visited Charlotte. There's no end of meanness here.
When I go to my other home near Camp Lejeune in a county that is 75% Republican the friendliness is refreshing.
When I go to my other home near Camp Lejeune in a county that is 75% Republican the friendliness is refreshing.
If you live in a gated community you're not a liberal. You're also not "moving into the cities." Try not contradicting yourself.
Theory is great for the professional class, but check out the public schools in San Francisco. You'll find that they've taken their children out stage-right into schools that cost $30 - $40K per year (with a few lower-income kids that meet some other racial or ethnic criteria designed to reduce their guilt or provide a safe experience of people unlike themselves socio-economically). Many so-called "liberals" are only such until they experience real costs. Mr Gross will find that the statistics show, at least in San Francisco, that liberalism doesn't extend to experimenting with their children. Drive around San Francisco sometime and try to avoid the faceless Google and Facebook buses that hermetically seal younger models of the highly educated classes away from the riff-raff on public transport. It's really, really easy to be liberal when the true marginal costs of that position is low and required for social acceptance into the class.
24
Phil Ochs said it best:
İ cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw
İ cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw
This is a relatively minor phenomena compared the resurgent progressivism of the young. Look at Hillary's popularity in the over 40 crowd vs the under 40 population - it's night and day. Both the less-educated and the young are fed up with the status quo, and Hillary's economic platform isn't exciting them, which explains why she's trying to morph into "the new Elizabeth Warren", something that strains credibility, to say the least.
The comfortable liberals will continue to be mollified by the current ersatz economic liberalism (AKA neoliberalism) being peddled by the media (eg., Krugman's "sweatshops are a good thing...a few percentage point increase in nominal tax rates is liberalism"), but the rest of the population is getting restless and ready to abandon their passivity, supporting non-establishment politicians who respond to their needs instead of the rich.
One other major error by the author: he correctly reports that the Republicans have shifted to the right - but ignores the fact that the DNC-Democratic party has moved into the ground formerly occupied by the Republicans, at least on economic issues. This is a truth that must remain hidden, for obvious reasons.
So long as the establishment analyses stray far from the realities on the ground, they're guaranteed to never see what hits them, and it has started already.
The comfortable liberals will continue to be mollified by the current ersatz economic liberalism (AKA neoliberalism) being peddled by the media (eg., Krugman's "sweatshops are a good thing...a few percentage point increase in nominal tax rates is liberalism"), but the rest of the population is getting restless and ready to abandon their passivity, supporting non-establishment politicians who respond to their needs instead of the rich.
One other major error by the author: he correctly reports that the Republicans have shifted to the right - but ignores the fact that the DNC-Democratic party has moved into the ground formerly occupied by the Republicans, at least on economic issues. This is a truth that must remain hidden, for obvious reasons.
So long as the establishment analyses stray far from the realities on the ground, they're guaranteed to never see what hits them, and it has started already.
10
Perhaps a fair question would also be, "Why is it that so many current small business owners, and those who have built large companies from scratch are conservatives?" I have a couple of family friends who grandfather built very successful businesses before his passing. He started with next to nothing and understood the principle of hard work and dedication leading to success. Fast forward two generations and his two grandchildren both have advanced degrees, both are miserable failures otherwise in life (surviving solely on their inheritance, and both are extremely liberal. Both also have spent excessive amounts of time in lightly liberal circles like academia, which has become a virtual echo chamber of elitist liberal thought, while also becoming increasingly hostile to opposing points of view. The entire premise of this article falls right into the smug and very undeserved attitude expressed by elitist liberals that they are "superior" in their judgements even though the vast majority of liberal initiatives lead to disaster for the nation. (subprime loans, etc.)
But please, keep listening to your elitist liberal echo chambers for just a few months more. Change is in the wind, and no one group in our society is more set for a serious fall than the liberal elite. This highly educated (3 advanced degrees) conservative will be enjoying every minute.
But please, keep listening to your elitist liberal echo chambers for just a few months more. Change is in the wind, and no one group in our society is more set for a serious fall than the liberal elite. This highly educated (3 advanced degrees) conservative will be enjoying every minute.
25
The "vast majority of liberal initiatives lead to disaster"? Subprime loans were largely the work of big banks trying to make more money and egged on by GW Bush and his "ownership society".
1
As someone who also has 3 advanced degrees and who has built (so far) 2 successful small businesses, I'd say... No, we don't necessarily turn into capital C conservatives. Certainly I'm more conservative than when I was much younger, but as a small businessman, I also see _quite_ clearly that my businesses prosper under Democrats and suffer (sometimes to the point of extinction) under Republicans. Perhaps if my assets were hundreds of times larger I would feel differently, but being decently far from even a modest (at least in my eyes) 10-million dollar threshold, I'm still a Democrat.
1
No liberal I know favors letting securities ratings agencies the rate securities fraudulently off any hook.
1
A premise of this essay is that the clutch of 'liberal' values actually aid those less liberal, less educated, less privileged. It does feed them high-tech food stamps--in place of the well-paid jobs that used to feed them. But Clinton's Democrats abandoned future food-stampers for a new plurality, by co-opting Republican economics while shifting their own base values from economics to identities. Now educated people take pride in educating more and more majors in gender-ambivilating, for example, rather than politics or economics. I've nothing against alphabetized identities or meritocracy, but the simple fact is that the Democrats' 'liberal' values don't serve their party base much better than the Republicans' 'conservative' values serve theirs. Only the educated can't see this clearly. Smugly assuming that educated elites serve larger interests than their own is as counterfactual as the comparable services of Republican elites. Trump is the Republicans' monster. Bernie is the Democrats' younger one. Their polls demonstrate that the more money you have, the happier you are with the status quo whether it's colored red or blue. Less money? All this is a two-tone crock, which the educated understand least.
4
A little more than a decade ago, I was studying for my doctoral candidacy exams. After a week of intense study, in a panic I met with my mentor, telling him that the more I studied, it seemed the less I knew. "Then you're doing it right," he replied wtih a smile. I didn't fully understand his comment then, but I do now. For a thinking person, everything learned sparks new questions, new possible points of view. And that is how it should be. I would argue that, very generally speaking, liberals tend to see issues in a more complex and nuanced light than do conservatives. A current example: people should use bathrooms according t,o their genitalia at birth. Many conservatives feel that this oversimplified rubric is sufficient for denying basic accommodations to trans people, whereas liberals see gender identity in a much more nuanced light. Even in a scientifically rigorous field such as physics, we learn that things are seldom what they appear to be. In my opoinion, this view lends itself to a more compassionate approach to civic life.
The word "education" comes from the Latin, meaning "to lead out." A good education should lead us out of our bubble of experiences and expectations into the wider world. For those wishing to avoid such a journey, there are places such as Bob Jones University, which will give you a degree while helping to calcify your world view according to theirs.
The word "education" comes from the Latin, meaning "to lead out." A good education should lead us out of our bubble of experiences and expectations into the wider world. For those wishing to avoid such a journey, there are places such as Bob Jones University, which will give you a degree while helping to calcify your world view according to theirs.
13
There is far too little comprehension of the terminology generally in use in the American political scene. As the root implies, liberal means "free" - as in freedom (liberty). Liberals are those whose education has freed them from traditional modes of understanding (ignorance and superstition). Conservatives are those who are cautious about the pace and scope of change. Many of the politicians, however, are neither. Trump and most Republicans are reactionaries - people scared by changes in society who want to reintroduce ignorance (religion, racism, xenophobia, etc.). They circle the wagons, dig in their heels, and imagine the end of the world as they are forced to accept equality among not only the races, but the sexes and the sexual orientations.
The author perpetuates the idea that liberal is the same as left-wing, when in reality, liberals can have views (such as mine) opposed to welfare, funding of the NEA, appreciation for the role of competition, supply & demand, etc. Liberal is not a political point of view, it is a state of education.
The author perpetuates the idea that liberal is the same as left-wing, when in reality, liberals can have views (such as mine) opposed to welfare, funding of the NEA, appreciation for the role of competition, supply & demand, etc. Liberal is not a political point of view, it is a state of education.
4
There is no liberal or conservative way to see things. Only the ignorant are so one dimensional.
To my eye the argument and POV on the matter is entirely false.
It appears you all forget that reagan/GOP invented this false distinction to act as cover for refusal to answer questions directly and dog whistle racism with a lot of prevarication & religion piled on top to prevent easy parsing of whatever the heck he was saying. If you want to see a contemporary example of the same thing look at Paul Ryans recent remarks after meeting with Trump. So many words and no content.
The “problem” is one of ignorance and the compensations that causes people to develop in a society where ignorance is seen as an opportunity to make money without regard for the harm it causes.
The ignorant adopt a stance of certainty and aggressive protection of that certainty as the main compensation. This is what Pols use to manipulate people. They adopt a POV based on what they have chosen to trust and then defend it as if they are defending a child.
If they had reasoned it out there would not be that reaction they would instead argue, using the argument that convinced them but mainly they would Listen and test the others argument to see if it works.
I’m not sure what “Highly Educated” intends I know many with degrees who are rather dumb and yet arrogant and unconscious of this fact. Apparently getting a degree does not involve getting an education that teaches one to think.
To my eye the argument and POV on the matter is entirely false.
It appears you all forget that reagan/GOP invented this false distinction to act as cover for refusal to answer questions directly and dog whistle racism with a lot of prevarication & religion piled on top to prevent easy parsing of whatever the heck he was saying. If you want to see a contemporary example of the same thing look at Paul Ryans recent remarks after meeting with Trump. So many words and no content.
The “problem” is one of ignorance and the compensations that causes people to develop in a society where ignorance is seen as an opportunity to make money without regard for the harm it causes.
The ignorant adopt a stance of certainty and aggressive protection of that certainty as the main compensation. This is what Pols use to manipulate people. They adopt a POV based on what they have chosen to trust and then defend it as if they are defending a child.
If they had reasoned it out there would not be that reaction they would instead argue, using the argument that convinced them but mainly they would Listen and test the others argument to see if it works.
I’m not sure what “Highly Educated” intends I know many with degrees who are rather dumb and yet arrogant and unconscious of this fact. Apparently getting a degree does not involve getting an education that teaches one to think.
3
My hypothesis about why the well educated are disproportionately liberal is rather different.
It seems to me that the well educated are experiencing a condition I call emapthallergy, which explains their high degree of liberalism (liberalism springs from high, or even excessive levels of empathy, in my view).
As I see it, empathy has evolved to inspire mutual help, thus strengthening society as a whole. However this sentiment can go haywire, as I believe is the case with modern liberalism.
Briefly, analogous to how the immune system, which has evolved for millennia under a high pathogen load, can become misregulated when that pathogen load disappears in today's sterile environments, causing the immune system to attack self-antigens (i.e. allergy), people's sense of empathy can also become misregulated when they attain a high degree of prosperity and live in a society with much fewer truly needy persons.
As the educated are also most secure, and because today's unprecedented prosperity has dried up the pool of needy people who could reciprocate help given to them, the sense of empathy, like the misregulated immune system in allergy, is attaching to targets like gay and transgender people, animals etc, which do not fulfill the mutual help evolutionary criterion for which empathy evolved.
This misallocation of empathy is causing malaise and decline of the west, in my view.
See http://tarkmarg.blogspot.sg/2015/12/the-rise-and-decline-of-west-why-and...
It seems to me that the well educated are experiencing a condition I call emapthallergy, which explains their high degree of liberalism (liberalism springs from high, or even excessive levels of empathy, in my view).
As I see it, empathy has evolved to inspire mutual help, thus strengthening society as a whole. However this sentiment can go haywire, as I believe is the case with modern liberalism.
Briefly, analogous to how the immune system, which has evolved for millennia under a high pathogen load, can become misregulated when that pathogen load disappears in today's sterile environments, causing the immune system to attack self-antigens (i.e. allergy), people's sense of empathy can also become misregulated when they attain a high degree of prosperity and live in a society with much fewer truly needy persons.
As the educated are also most secure, and because today's unprecedented prosperity has dried up the pool of needy people who could reciprocate help given to them, the sense of empathy, like the misregulated immune system in allergy, is attaching to targets like gay and transgender people, animals etc, which do not fulfill the mutual help evolutionary criterion for which empathy evolved.
This misallocation of empathy is causing malaise and decline of the west, in my view.
See http://tarkmarg.blogspot.sg/2015/12/the-rise-and-decline-of-west-why-and...
3
You're saying one of two things, either that needy people don't exist, or that transgendered people are unable of reciprocating empathy, both of which are absurd.
Children having children generally do so badly on prenatal care and early developmental child stimulation that their children become ignoramuses too.
So many generalities and so little to sink one's teeth into!
Still, I'm intrigued with the thought that educated brains rule; it gives me fantasies of a second Enlightenment. But that's a laugh.
We are now witnessing the fierce struggle of enlightened political thought (in the voice of Bernie Sanders) and the stolid old guard of the Democratic Party. Although Sanders is from the 1960's (as am I) and retains the idealism of those days (as do I), he uses that sensibility to see and speak clearly of the morass of today.
Although the tens of thousands who flock to Bernie rallies are young and yet to complete their educations, I would would think those of us who appreciate critical reading would best appreciate his ideas and are among the millions that have cast their primary votes for him and among the millions who were barred from voting in the exclusive Dem primaries.
I would hope the enlightened citizens of this country are out there ready to step into the intellectual void that is our political world.
Still, I'm intrigued with the thought that educated brains rule; it gives me fantasies of a second Enlightenment. But that's a laugh.
We are now witnessing the fierce struggle of enlightened political thought (in the voice of Bernie Sanders) and the stolid old guard of the Democratic Party. Although Sanders is from the 1960's (as am I) and retains the idealism of those days (as do I), he uses that sensibility to see and speak clearly of the morass of today.
Although the tens of thousands who flock to Bernie rallies are young and yet to complete their educations, I would would think those of us who appreciate critical reading would best appreciate his ideas and are among the millions that have cast their primary votes for him and among the millions who were barred from voting in the exclusive Dem primaries.
I would hope the enlightened citizens of this country are out there ready to step into the intellectual void that is our political world.
5
"I would would think those of us who appreciate critical reading would best appreciate his ideas"
Certainly true. That's why critical reading aficionados buy all their guns in Vermont and West Virginia, just as Bernie the Enlightened would want it so.
Certainly true. That's why critical reading aficionados buy all their guns in Vermont and West Virginia, just as Bernie the Enlightened would want it so.
Politics really is an exercise in futility foe educated people with combined verbal and mathematical vocabularies is a nation evidently addicted to Percocet because it stop people from thinking. (The drug is absolutely ineffective against pain in my experience.) Many Americans are afraid of smart people.
"...Americans who hold advanced degrees have grown more supportive of government efforts to reduce income differences...
__________________
Why is this statement true? Well...as so many other commentors here have pointed-out -- it's mostly b/c the "intelligentsia" have a great ability to think and analyze issues -- including our world societal problems.
This "income (and wealth) inequality," world-wide, is the biggest problem our species faces, IMO. That factor (almost) alone will determine if we save our planet -- or destroy it -- through global climate change and environmental pollution.
Poor people (the wealth-inequality class) are only trying to "survive" in their life -- to heck with everything else (including global climate and environmental issues). They see no real vested interest in the future. Why should they worry about saving our world.
A big day of "reckoning" is coming if we don't do something about this income/wealth inequality issue. Let's hope the "smart people" can lead the way to a solution.
__________________
Why is this statement true? Well...as so many other commentors here have pointed-out -- it's mostly b/c the "intelligentsia" have a great ability to think and analyze issues -- including our world societal problems.
This "income (and wealth) inequality," world-wide, is the biggest problem our species faces, IMO. That factor (almost) alone will determine if we save our planet -- or destroy it -- through global climate change and environmental pollution.
Poor people (the wealth-inequality class) are only trying to "survive" in their life -- to heck with everything else (including global climate and environmental issues). They see no real vested interest in the future. Why should they worry about saving our world.
A big day of "reckoning" is coming if we don't do something about this income/wealth inequality issue. Let's hope the "smart people" can lead the way to a solution.
3
In general, I think this is true, but as a tenured prof in the social sciences at a large public university, I must push back. In decades of academia, I have come across many PhD's on the left, but not many liberals.
We must be clear that "left" and "liberal" are not synonyms. Marx was not remotely on the same page as JS Mill, or even Rawls. A liberal mind is an open mind, and in my experience, this does not describe the academic left.
Like those on the hard right, those on the hard left can only talk to those who already agree with them. Try, for example, to convince someone on the academic left that since federal and state civil rights laws expressly protect the individual person against discrimination (and not only one gender and select races/ethnicities), strong forms of affirmative action in hiring cut directly against those laws. See what reaction you get. I predict that it will not be that of a genuine liberal, i.e., open to intellectual diversity, grateful to talk to someone who thinks differently, and willing to engage in an open, honest discussion, with the possibility of shifting one's views a bit.
I repeat, "liberal" and "left" are NOT synonyms.
We must be clear that "left" and "liberal" are not synonyms. Marx was not remotely on the same page as JS Mill, or even Rawls. A liberal mind is an open mind, and in my experience, this does not describe the academic left.
Like those on the hard right, those on the hard left can only talk to those who already agree with them. Try, for example, to convince someone on the academic left that since federal and state civil rights laws expressly protect the individual person against discrimination (and not only one gender and select races/ethnicities), strong forms of affirmative action in hiring cut directly against those laws. See what reaction you get. I predict that it will not be that of a genuine liberal, i.e., open to intellectual diversity, grateful to talk to someone who thinks differently, and willing to engage in an open, honest discussion, with the possibility of shifting one's views a bit.
I repeat, "liberal" and "left" are NOT synonyms.
131
Liberals I know generally believe that equal rights and equal voting power is affirmative action.
You make a very good point. A related statement would be "liberal" and "progressive" are not synonyms.
As someone with a degree in the humanities and three degrees in engineering, I find myself more and more at odds with the identity politics of the Democratic Party. I fully understand the frustrations of the white working class who feel abandoned by a party that seems to be concerned only with issues of gender and race.
On the other hand, the unrelenting attack on science and the disparagement of learning waged by conservatives make it impossible for me to support any party other than the Democrats. While I generally agree that government has in general become too large and too intrusive in American life, I can't bring myself to support a party that worships superstition and ignorance. So like many other Americans, I find myself somewhere in the middle, with no party that truly represents me.
On the other hand, the unrelenting attack on science and the disparagement of learning waged by conservatives make it impossible for me to support any party other than the Democrats. While I generally agree that government has in general become too large and too intrusive in American life, I can't bring myself to support a party that worships superstition and ignorance. So like many other Americans, I find myself somewhere in the middle, with no party that truly represents me.
111
What are you talking about? Do you really believe that the members of the so called white working class (a racist formulation, do you mean white members of the working class) are worse off than black members of the working class? Please. Do you think that affirmative action still exists? Just because Democrats were unable to save labor unions from destruction at the hands of Republicans doesn't make us guilty. Why did white members of the working class vote for the party that was determined to destroy labor unions? I'm thinking they wanted to believe that their success was purely by their own efforts, that they didn't need no stinkin' unions. Suddenly they realize that they're not doing so well but they blame Mexicans instead of the one percenters' and their party, the Republicans. Democrats didn't abandon the white members of the working class, a bunch of them abandoned us. In large part because of racism. The working class needs to become color blind & unify.
38
Well Gee around here Republicans believe in science. They use cars, planes and other things. What they don't accept and neither should you is the false science that says CO2 is so dangerous that expensive and untried actions must be taken. Surely you understand that science needs objective evidence, a good measurement system, and experiments (or models that predict accurately). Which climate science does not currently have.
Over 100 highly educated Democratic members of Congress just signed a bigoted letter maligning white men. How liberal is that?
7
I assume the "bigoted" letter Outside the Box refers to is the letter Democratic members of Congress sent citing the lack of diversity in the senior ranks of the Fed.
So this is bigoted against white men? Sad.
So this is bigoted against white men? Sad.
No idea what you're talking about. Suspect this is some horse manure you've heard from Limbaugh or some other liar. Next time give some specifics.
You should link an item like this. What did they do, call for tighter background checks on gun buyers?
Mostly because there is no choice. We don't have a viable conservative party. We need a new political party to represent the right.
7
Politics seems to be your religion. I am interested in it only because there is no other channel to negotiate social contracts.
Why? Are they liberal before they become educated? Is this an amygdala thing where liberals are less risk averse to postponing income to gain an education but conservative minds with enlarged amygdala seek early comfort through blue-collar jobs?
4
Maybe they realize enough IS enough and don't take that step from affluent to power hungry. Just my $.02 but would I know. I live on Social Security & a small union pension.
I think the amygdala hardly even registers on an fMRI of a reactionary's brain.
Education opens the mind. More education opens the mind more.
19
That sort of depends on how you define "liberal". The mind is indeed opened when one defines it in the original Enlightenment sense, or for that matter, it's dictionary definition. That is a far cry from current American campus, media, and street "liberals" who, with their censorship and single issue fanaticism most resemble the violent child enforcers of the Cultural Revolution and Khmer Rouge.
8
You are free to make a fool of yourself here with no fear of anyone taking a hammer to your head.
I think I understand the argument. The well educated are liberal because we are trained in "the culture of critical discourse". And who defines "the culture of critical discourse"? Why, the New York Times, of course, with a little bit of help from NPR. So we well-educated critical thinkers understand that only low-brow, illiberal boneheads would oppose globalization, which, we have learned, is the tide that raises all ships. And only the selfish, uneducated, tea party lunkheads would think that our wealth should best be spent at home rather than "spreading democracy around the world".
Okay, now I feel better about myself and I'll move on to the next article.
Okay, now I feel better about myself and I'll move on to the next article.
10
It was your conservative buddies, Shrub, et al., who decided to "spread democracy," not liberals. Another conservative with only a glancing knowledge of reality.
P. Greenberg, you may be right about who defines the culture of critical discourse, and I don't doubt that there are plenty of lowbrow boneheads, not to mention tea party lunkheads, out there -- some of them in my family. However, I know of plenty of University of California-educated red-diaper babies who opposed globalization (it was futile: they might as well have opposed the industrial revolution) and high-tech executives and Stanford professors who oppose spreading democracy around the world. But most of us try to use those critical thinking skills we were supposed to have learned in college and, if trained at all in the sciences or philosophy, are open to revising our opinions on the basis of new, or newly-discovered, facts.
Now I feel better, too!
Now I feel better, too!
Republicans seem to be always lacking in intellectual pursuits while pandering to ignorance. California is an example of how a state dismisses Republican foolishness by overwhelming Democratic electoral victories.
5
California indeed has seen "overwhelming Democratic electoral victories" in recent decades (though let's not forget that Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and many other conservatives have been overwhelmingly elected here).
But I'm not sure it's fair to say that the voters who produced those overwhelming Democratic electoral victories are more highly educated than other voters. I wouldn't draw a conclusion either way about that but, if forced to, I'd say the opposite is more likely: Democratic voters in California tend to be largely of two types: (1) highly educated liberals; and (2) poor people, especially members of minority groups, who have very little education. Pretty much the same as everywhere else, in other words. In some states, those two voter groups add up to the majority; in other states, they don't.
By the way, I think you'll find that most people, in CA or anywhere else, don't think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans. They consider themselves independents, capable of thinking through issues on their own rather than simply following some party line.
But I'm not sure it's fair to say that the voters who produced those overwhelming Democratic electoral victories are more highly educated than other voters. I wouldn't draw a conclusion either way about that but, if forced to, I'd say the opposite is more likely: Democratic voters in California tend to be largely of two types: (1) highly educated liberals; and (2) poor people, especially members of minority groups, who have very little education. Pretty much the same as everywhere else, in other words. In some states, those two voter groups add up to the majority; in other states, they don't.
By the way, I think you'll find that most people, in CA or anywhere else, don't think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans. They consider themselves independents, capable of thinking through issues on their own rather than simply following some party line.
1
And an unsustainable economy.
Trying to disassociate "immediate experience " from education is a little disingenuous don't you think? Ok, I'll grant you that we did not personally experience all the things that were learned in school, but by learning about them, we were able to understand them, causing an expression and utilization of that trait most dear to social liberalism; empathy.
2
So, the thinking people are those who generally want the greater good for all. Too bad it takes an advanced degree to do the right thing.
3
What do you expect when 80% of the educators are liberal. I always laugh when the Democrats claim to be the "smart" party because they wouldn't win a thing without their base, blacks and hispanics. Two cultures who don't value education.
10
One problem with being liberal with the first amendment is that it allows idiots and racists to spew forth. Gunning who supposedly lives in California clearly has never interacted with a Latino family. If he had, it would be abdundantly clear that education trumps everything in their culture. Many risk death and deportation and sweat and toil to make sure the next generation can secure an education.
One thing I detest are people who speak without knowing what they speak of. I guess that is what had driven me away from the American conservative movement
One thing I detest are people who speak without knowing what they speak of. I guess that is what had driven me away from the American conservative movement
12
Completely wrong. Blacks and latinos value education as much as affluent whites. They know it is their ticket to a middle class life. Furthermore, many conservatives I know also value education. There is some agreement that it is important for everyone regardless of political persuasion.
3
Based upon your comment, I'll assume that you are not black or Hispanic and most likely white. Considering the high number of uneducated whites in the United States (in the millions) I will again assume, based on your logic, that white people, like you, also don't value education and are therefore stupid, which is the only reason you would dare to make such an asinine comment. As the great "conservative" Steven Colbert once said, reality has a liberal bias. Smart people are liberal because they are not stupid. It's that simple.
Well this study may confirm every conservative parent's worse nightmare: the liberal agenda is forced down son/daughters throat while away at college.
12
On the contrary. Intrinsic to that "liberal agenda" is the emphasis on looking at all sides of an issue, learning the basis of good science, and being able to rationally defend one's choices.
9
That's right. That's why Texas had to reject the teaching of "critical thinking" in the schools - afraid the kids might realize their parents were not too bright.
Jan - yes, a real science education teaches one to look at all sides of an issue. A modern education in the social 'sciences' or humanities teaches one to parrot the received wisdom of one's mentors and vilify as bigots, racists, homophobes or xenophobes anyone who dares point out inconsistencies or counterfactuals to whatever is currently fashionable among progressives.
It's amusing that the article states that Libersls have a culture of critical discourse, yet have no stomach for examining their own values.
19
Please do expand on this.
I'm trying to find Republicans with firmly placed goalposts here, but all I see are mirages.
I understand Alvin Gouldner why was concerned that "the intelligentsia might be tempted to put its own interests ahead of the marginalized groups for whom it often claimed to speak."
But I wonder what Dr. Gouldner might have thought of an obviously marginalized individual like Kim Davis.
But I wonder what Dr. Gouldner might have thought of an obviously marginalized individual like Kim Davis.
2
Marginalized? You're not "marginalized" because you are jailed after refusing to obey a valid court order. You're a law breaker.
Do you mean marginalized by her own bigotry? Oh that's right, "identity politics" are totally elitist, all gay people are upper class. No working class person is a pervert.
I lived in Silicon Valley as it was taken over by billionaires. They proclaimed their liberalism. Otherwise it would have been too obvious that they were this era's grasping rich.
17
So you are the other guy who noticed that. :)
Most of us liberal aren't billionaires. Presumably you knew that and yet...
Techies are remarkably blind to basics like the law of diminution at the margin and the need to apply negative feedback to complex system to avoid them going chaotic.
Above all, liberalism is submission to facts without denial.
Above all, liberalism is submission to facts without denial.
I don't know where I fit in anymore. I suppose that, having a JD I fit in with the more educated, but law school was anything but intellectual. I think of the Pal Simon lyric , substituting law school for high school,
I was liberal, in the sense of believing in fair play for everyone, from an early age. Certainly growing up Catholic in the 40's didn't exactly imbue me with a liberal bias. Maybe it was my father, the first Catholic to be admitted in Delaware, thanks to a Jewish lawyer.
I was taught that America stood for equal opportunity, no matter where you came from. Certainly WW2 demonstrated that.
I really don't get the whole Trump thing. Maybe we are that racist bunch of creeps like him. I don't believe it. My career as a bar musician ( law school didn't take) has me convinced that your average American are decent hard working people that are being ill served by the average politician. They are " mad as hell and are not going to take anymore". What happened to a fair deal for everyone?
Its not simple, its not black and white. I grew up Catholic , I know black and white.
Not every one should go to college; getting a meaningless degree is not the answer.
There is that liberal bias again, I can't help it. Its all gray, and leading people to think its otherwise is stupid.
I was liberal, in the sense of believing in fair play for everyone, from an early age. Certainly growing up Catholic in the 40's didn't exactly imbue me with a liberal bias. Maybe it was my father, the first Catholic to be admitted in Delaware, thanks to a Jewish lawyer.
I was taught that America stood for equal opportunity, no matter where you came from. Certainly WW2 demonstrated that.
I really don't get the whole Trump thing. Maybe we are that racist bunch of creeps like him. I don't believe it. My career as a bar musician ( law school didn't take) has me convinced that your average American are decent hard working people that are being ill served by the average politician. They are " mad as hell and are not going to take anymore". What happened to a fair deal for everyone?
Its not simple, its not black and white. I grew up Catholic , I know black and white.
Not every one should go to college; getting a meaningless degree is not the answer.
There is that liberal bias again, I can't help it. Its all gray, and leading people to think its otherwise is stupid.
9
The Republicans were never interested in a fair deal. Yet they got a lot of people to vote for them. Racism was a big part of that.
I always thought that people who knew things and knew how to think would be of course liberal. The reason is that a liberal perspective reflects the world as it is, not as some convenient fantasy like the conservative belief that helping people does not help people. People are conservative when they don't know the real actual world. btw NO ONE is educated if they are unread in Science, even liberals.
16
I was raised by Republican/Conservatives and I changed to the Democratic/Liberal side of the aisle. One big reason was that I observed that those who knew the facts leaned left and that attracted me. I wanted to be in aligned with facts and knowledge.
28
And you believe your simplistic answer bespeaks some universal truth.
I lean libertarian conservative, I'm highly educated, and I'm well read.
And I, probably more than you, align myself with facts. And common sense. And individual liberty. And sustainable economic theory that doesn't punish success and reinforce dependency among individuals and abstract "classes" of people.
I lean libertarian conservative, I'm highly educated, and I'm well read.
And I, probably more than you, align myself with facts. And common sense. And individual liberty. And sustainable economic theory that doesn't punish success and reinforce dependency among individuals and abstract "classes" of people.
Interesting. I never understood why my parents were so liberal since they'd grown up in small towns in the deep south. But they both attended graduate school and had degrees in engineering and nursing. My dad was an engineer at Lockheed and then an analyst in the Pentagon his whole life, yet in the 1960s subscribed to RAMPARTS and lots of other radical or very progressive journals. He was obsessive that there was a rational evidentiary way to figure everything out. I guess put that together and it explains their politics - and my own.
This is more insight into my folks than I've had in quite a while,
so thanks.
This is more insight into my folks than I've had in quite a while,
so thanks.
87
Perhaps some training in critical thinking may have something to do with it. The ability to put their own bias apart, even temporarily, when learning or making decisions.
5
Anyone who thinks Liberals are not 'biased' has not read through these comments.
I'm confused by the term "liberal". If the best educated - which by the time graduate school comes around means those most capable of being educated - collect around certain ideas of what would be the best course of action for society, why is that called liberal? It might be called smart. It might be called rational. It might be called..... you get the point.
3
It might be not be called "best course of action for society" by anyone but a Liberal.
What I find interesting are those comments here who attempt to refute the author's premise. The fact that the highly educated tend to be liberal is not refutable. That is why it is called a fact. My question to those who find this fact troublesome is what do you find hard to believe and why?
6
The highly educated have had more time to get brainwashed by liberal professors than their less educated fellow citizens.
7
This highly educated white woman just voted for Trump. Education does not equal smarts, and there is a school of hard knocks. This article and a lot of the comments are hard to read with the elitist assumption that being privileged and educated makes one so much of a better thinker than someone from the working class. Get out there and meet people not like you. Wow. My plumber and my housekeeper are smarter and harder working than the lot of you.
6
You inadvertently answered the question of why you voted for Trump. "Education does not equal smarts...."
That would apparently be true in at least your case.
That would apparently be true in at least your case.
1
The highly educated are busy and wealthy. Their jobs often do not give them the satisfaction they seek from life. Giving money to the poor tends to appease their consciences. They lack the time and often the stomach to reach out to the poor. Voting Democrat makes them feel good without getting their hands dirty. Liberalism is a shortcut to a good night's sleep.
1
It's good to see that cynicism is not dead in America.
1
Am I liberal because of my college degree and graduate work? I don't know but I do firmly believe that as I have gotten older, I have become more tolerant of liberal causes.
1
Does the author (and the studies he cites) mean to suggest that the unlettered are doomed to embracing conservative ideologies? Any studies out there? Where would he place grassroots, popular movements? By the same token, does he also mean to suggest that conservative parties are made up entirely of uneducated, anti-intellectual demagogues?
4
Try it the other way around: people who discover early on that they are liberal want and work hard to obtain a good education, so that they can help others. That describes my history.
7
There may be a reason the right attacks public education so vigorously. The people at the top of the Conservative party are not uneducated and they know who they can manipulate and control.
6
I'm amazed at how much this article seems to have brought out the worst in people. Usually I find I agree with a sizable fraction of the comments, but here I had to read through dozens of comments to find a single one that I could recommend. (I found it among the NYT Picks.) So many people patting themselves on the back and dismissing half the country as ignorant dupes. I'm a liberal, but the self-congratulation in these comments makes me sad, not proud.
16
It is the Liberal, educated beyond their ability, types that have brought us the underperforming public school systems we have today. Big on touchy feely issues but short on fundamentals.
12
That's easy: we understand that civilization is not a given, that's it's easy to lose and that it takes a collective (yes, I said "collective") effort to nurture it and move it forward. When one's thinking is clouded by dogma, visions of some old man in the sky, paranoia, an inferiority complex, an obsession with sex of and greed you've got yourself a modern American conservative and you can't fix stupid.
7
Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?
Because the overwhelming majority of Professors are leftists, therefore the "highly educated" (read indoctrinated) are, of course, liberal.
There, I answered the question in 1 sentence, no need for an entire opinion column on the subject.
Because the overwhelming majority of Professors are leftists, therefore the "highly educated" (read indoctrinated) are, of course, liberal.
There, I answered the question in 1 sentence, no need for an entire opinion column on the subject.
11
"The Democrats may find they need to give up a little of their wonkiness if they want resounding victories. It’s not in their long-term interest to be too much what Pat Buchanan once referred to as “the party of the Ph.D.s."
So by that reasoning, Donald Trump should give up his fortune to be more like the poor, uneducated that flock to him. No, I don't think Democrats need to give up analytical thinking and rationalism to appeal more to more people.
So by that reasoning, Donald Trump should give up his fortune to be more like the poor, uneducated that flock to him. No, I don't think Democrats need to give up analytical thinking and rationalism to appeal more to more people.
7
"Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal" ??? -- A loaded question, and one that is obviously not taking into consideration certain demographics; which ultimately renders this as a rhetorical question.
Case and Point: Dr. Gouldner's "new class", has somehow left out a very important aspect in this study -- namely that of highly educated non-White professionals.
And whether this is a conscious, or unconscious, or sub-conscious exclusion, it is something worth taking into consideration when attempting to evaluate the mass-appeal of Donald Trump to the American public.
Case and Point: Dr. Gouldner's "new class", has somehow left out a very important aspect in this study -- namely that of highly educated non-White professionals.
And whether this is a conscious, or unconscious, or sub-conscious exclusion, it is something worth taking into consideration when attempting to evaluate the mass-appeal of Donald Trump to the American public.
1
Why are the educated so "liberal"?
Because it's the religion of their class.
Don't think it's a religion? Ask them whether they believe that human beings have evolved, and thus differentiated, over the last 50,000 years on cognitive or emotional traits. Listen for the rationalizations of their dogma.
Because it's the religion of their class.
Don't think it's a religion? Ask them whether they believe that human beings have evolved, and thus differentiated, over the last 50,000 years on cognitive or emotional traits. Listen for the rationalizations of their dogma.
10
Why is it that you assume they won't resort to science and evidence? Is it because you have already made up your mind on a topic you know nothing about, and assume they will refute your made up position?
The liberal gene bypassed my wife and her multiple degrees. She thinks Trumps trumps the second coming.
3
The answer is because knowledge and enlightenment take you there. The Constitution is a liberal document. That's why some conservative judges, appointed by Republicans to the Supreme Court, become liberal once they get there and no liberal judges, once appointed, became conservative.
4
Liberals get a Big Idea like free college then call it quits. They of course know colleges are mismanaged and over administered because the read it here in the nytimes. Cost of colleges are at the point where the upper middle class can't afford it anymore. So now they want the tax payer to pay for it. Forget about getting cost of education under control. They do it in Denmark.
2
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair
"Well, who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
"There is always an easy solution to every problem - neat, plausible, and wrong." --H.L. Mencken
What better explains why the highly educated, who are trained in skepticism, curiosity, and close reasoning, who have developed virtually all of the technical innovations of the last thousand or so years, tend to liberals, believers in free thinking, and in improving the lot of all people, not just a few?
"Well, who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
"There is always an easy solution to every problem - neat, plausible, and wrong." --H.L. Mencken
What better explains why the highly educated, who are trained in skepticism, curiosity, and close reasoning, who have developed virtually all of the technical innovations of the last thousand or so years, tend to liberals, believers in free thinking, and in improving the lot of all people, not just a few?
4
So you think Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and countless other genius Anerican inventors were liberal? Sort of blows your cover as supposedly highly educated.
I guess the "Battle of the Overpass" where Ford sent his security force out to beat the daylights out of the communist leaning early UAW leaders was just a misunderstanding between liberals.
I guess the "Battle of the Overpass" where Ford sent his security force out to beat the daylights out of the communist leaning early UAW leaders was just a misunderstanding between liberals.
Isaac Asimov said it in 1980: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”"
7
Compare the ideas in this think piece with the recent piece about Ben Rhodes shepherding Whitehouse task force of hundreds of professionals towards making a recommendation that comports with Obama's intuition.
1
I think this is a fairly simple case: the GOP continues to use ideas that don't match up to evidence. For instance, supply side economics.
3
Reagan's supply sided economy started with far worse structural issues from Carter than what Obama inherited. He faced double digit unemployment AND double digit inflation. Yet in eight years Reagan created 20 million new jobs, rebuilt the military, put the Soviets on the edge of bankruptcy. His 1984, "Morning in America campaign ad was probably the greatest in history because it captured the newly restored confidence of our nation and the tremendous energy that brought to the economy. What has Obama accomplished other than massive debt, record numbers of people on handouts, record numbers out of the workforce, etc.?? The "malaise" of the Obama years feels very similar to those of Carter, when the America hating crowd (hard left) was last influential. There is a cure coming for that.
2
The purpose of a liberal education is to teach people to think for themselves.
Honestly.
It's the greatest pleasure we can have in this short life.
Honestly.
It's the greatest pleasure we can have in this short life.
6
Interesting that all of the notorious neo-Cons are all college grads, and many of them were former liberals (hence the "neo"). Including the lettered Ivy Leaguer - dullard George Walker Bush.
I'd say that what is instilled in this "new class" is the concept of Big State Social Engineering, regardless of political cant.
I'd say that what is instilled in this "new class" is the concept of Big State Social Engineering, regardless of political cant.
2
There's another fairly obvious reason why the highly educated are so liberal. Conservatives are, in my estimation at least, far more likely to embrace obvious falsehoods and are simply wrong about many things in the political sphere (e.g., climate change).
4
This piece could almost be considered a social experiment. The statistic that it is based on is that 1 in 3 "highly educated" people are liberal.
That means that 2 out of 3 are not. The rest of the article is spent attempting to explain this statistical anomaly.
A different publication might skew this completely differently: even among the most educated, only a third hold highly liberal views. In other words, a minority.
But this is the NYT, whose extremely liberal readers the article it as proof of their own intelligence and confirmation of their liberal attitudes. From the comments here, one would think the statistic was 99% instead of 33.
That means that 2 out of 3 are not. The rest of the article is spent attempting to explain this statistical anomaly.
A different publication might skew this completely differently: even among the most educated, only a third hold highly liberal views. In other words, a minority.
But this is the NYT, whose extremely liberal readers the article it as proof of their own intelligence and confirmation of their liberal attitudes. From the comments here, one would think the statistic was 99% instead of 33.
6
Liberals ain't what they used to be. Thomas Frank's new book is instructive:liberals protect their prerogatives and have abandoned 'the masses' just like the conservatives. The Clintons capitulated long ago to Wall St.And as far as the university is concerned, it is fighting a losing battle with the business model. The humanists are on the run.
1
Crucial corollary to this question: why are the highly uneducated so conservative? Conservatism, as a political movement, is defined by its hostility towards education. Please examine the comments section of any conservative publication, if you don't believe me. Q.E.D.
7
Perhaps the shift towards "liberal" policies among intellectuals is only pronounced in the United States, where our two parties have increasingly diverged on social and environmental views. The Republican party's outright refusal to acknowledge scientific research on a number of issues ranging from climate change to LGBTQ individuals show a desire to ignore the facts of modernity. "Liberal" views are the only choice if you possess a deeper knowledge of the world outside yourself.
2
Pretty simple. Highly educated people tend to be more liberal than undereducated people because it takes education to realize that what someone else does in their bedroom isn't your business.
3
I hope Nicholas Kristof has taken in Mr. Gross' article. His recent criticism of so called discrimination by the Academy against conservatives failed to take in the drum beat from the right condemning what higher education is about--patient collection of facts and applying critical thinking to what has been discovered. When you smear an entire professional class who, unlike many politicians, have made their careers the discovery of the truth, it is beyond idiotic to call for polluting the sciences, soft or hard, with so called scholars whose "facts" come from their politics rather than their politics emerging from the facts.
2
The ship of state has drifted considerably to the right over the past few decades. What we now call liberal was merely center of the road in the 70s. Reagan's conservatism, based on fallacious concepts like trickle down, is now called centrist most everywhere in the country.
4
Yet Reagans recovery, after the malaise and double digit inflation and unemployment of the Carter years, dwarfed the pathetic results achieved by Obama who has only set records in new debt and the numbers of people on government handouts.
According to an article earlier this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/business/economy/its-a-tough-job-marke...
the highly educated as defined here constitute less than 1% of the voting public.
Who cares what the highly educated think? Or how they vote?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/business/economy/its-a-tough-job-marke...
the highly educated as defined here constitute less than 1% of the voting public.
Who cares what the highly educated think? Or how they vote?
1
A lot of liberal social values are actually healthy for society as a whole. Cheap and available contraception and abortion keeps unplanned pregnancies down, which minimizes the need to care for unwanted children by society, and which allows women to take care of themselves. Gay marriage not only gives gay people the same benefits of marriage that are accrued to straight people, but married couples and children raised in married families, do better in society as a whole and bring stability to a community. Liberals are smart enough to avoid mixing their own view of what is moral, with what is good for society as a whole. It's called critical thinking and you learn that in college and beyond, when you are mature enough to handle complex topics.
6
Karen, As a highly educated liberal can you tell me exactly how an abortion is performed for a woman who is not already pregnant? The abortion does not prevent pregnancy, it is all about science right?
The highly educated are liberal because after 7 or more years of liberal brainwashing by liberal professors, surprise, the students are liberal. If one can slog through 7 years of that horse-hockey like I did, the end of my graduate studies were truly liberating.
3
It is not income inequalities that are the focus. We know that in our country we are wealthy enough to provide for food, housing and education for all. why is it not so then? Must we drag our politicians screaming and kicking into the modern world?
2
Because our wealth is created by achievers, while ever increasing numbers of people want to sponge off the success of others. When you destroy the premise that one can keep the fruits of their labor, you destroy the very engine that created our nation's wealth.
Because liberal bias in higher education weeds out almost all non- liberals. Therefore it is more difficult for non-liberals to obtain advanced degrees.
4
We can only hope this trend holds. The "conservative" gop has gone off its rails and lurches down a ravine of increasing fanaticism. A less angry, more reasonEd counter weight to liberalism is healthy. A good country might become great again.
2
This article does not actually address the question raised by its headline. Why, indeed, do those with higher education tend to vote on the liberal side? This piece only affirms that they do. Points off for the misleading title.
2
One must recognize that the highly educated liberals are great con artists. They rely on the least educated segments of society for their voting base. The highly educated liberal continually keeps their base angry and without logic just long enough to get a highly educated liberal elected. Once the election is over the highly educated liberal enacts policy to keep their rich and highly educated liberal friends in power by keeping the the huge voting blocks of poorly educated people subjugated and angry. Educated liberals use their knowledge to stir anger and hatred against those they do not like as well. Highly educated liberals have merely learned how to speak one doctrine while living their lives in a completely converse manner.
2
The highly educated are so liberal because as you learn critical thinking skills and using fact-based analysis you discover that everything conservatives say ("tax cuts help the economy, universal health care is socialized medicine") is pure fantasy.
Only an uneducated person believes what conservatives say.
Only an uneducated person believes what conservatives say.
3
Or you are indoctrinated by your leftist professors to ignore the facts. Reagans tax cuts, like those of Kennedy before him, INCREASED the revenues to the government, just as predicted. Try looking it up, and compare the Reagan recovery to that of Obama.
The challenge for Democrats proposed by Mr. Gross is to develop appeals to voters that will resonate with those not steeped in a culture of critical discourse. It would also seem to me that all measures to strengthen the lower middle classes are vital. A vibrant republic is dependent upon a well informed citizenry. A struggling family doesn't have the luxury of indulging in civic engagement or the time for political debates around the dinner table.
We also need raise the level of discourse through better civics education at the secondary level. The high school experience should help students master critical thinking, analysis and debate. The local media is also shameful. Many papers are now McNews tabloids, and broadcast news is nothing more than sensationalism. When is the last time you saw a detailed news report in your local media about legislation under discussion in your city hall? Unless it was a scandal in the Mayors office, probably never.
When people's lives feel more economically secure, they have the luxury to consider politics and policy. Perhaps that isn't in the interest of the 1%
We also need raise the level of discourse through better civics education at the secondary level. The high school experience should help students master critical thinking, analysis and debate. The local media is also shameful. Many papers are now McNews tabloids, and broadcast news is nothing more than sensationalism. When is the last time you saw a detailed news report in your local media about legislation under discussion in your city hall? Unless it was a scandal in the Mayors office, probably never.
When people's lives feel more economically secure, they have the luxury to consider politics and policy. Perhaps that isn't in the interest of the 1%
2
Well this is nice reinforcement for me as someone who has gone to grad school and for my first generation daughter and niece who have done the same. We never discussed politics when they were growing up but I was gratified to see these ladies and their friends go door-to-door for Obama. However, it is foolish to think liberalism is the purview of the highly educated. I have friends who have no college degree and are as liberal as anyone. Their intelligence informs their humanity. Thus I would rather think that more intelligent people tend to be liberal. You could not have a better contrast with the cerebral Obama and those who do not have the intelligence to serve the people who trusted them with their votes.
3
Liberal does not equal Democratic Party, only the Sanders part of it.
The other section pretends to be liberal, lead by Senator Schumer defends the privileges of the educated rich against the working class.
That Wall Steet wing includes Ms Clinton.
The other section pretends to be liberal, lead by Senator Schumer defends the privileges of the educated rich against the working class.
That Wall Steet wing includes Ms Clinton.
3
Are the highly educated more "liberal". Only if you count the English Lit faculty, sociology, poli science departments and their brethren, who make up most of down the line liberals, as highly educated. Scientists and engineers probably are not so parochial.
4
"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."
4
William F. Buckley, Jr
Unfortunately, our college campuses have become even worse, as they stifle any speech that does not align with the Left.
Unfortunately, our college campuses have become even worse, as they stifle any speech that does not align with the Left.
It's not that people who are highly educated are liberal.
Presenting the question that way you would think these people are liberal because of the education they got.
What does it mean by saying highly educated.
I assume highly educated is referring to an education that can lead to a PHD.
If this is so then you are implying liberals are smarter than conservatives.
I believe the best education is the one you get by experience (one you don't get in college) and these liberals may not be the smartest. .
Why are so many people who go to college to get higher degrees are liberal.
PHD's are usually given in fields where the individual feels they are doing it for the education and not because they are looking for a trade.
These people will get this higher degree in fields like English or history where there are few jobs because money is not a priority to them.
They graduate with this degree and when they can not find work do something else.
They convince themselves that having knowledge is more important than making a living.
People who have this attitude towards life will most likely will be liberal.
So the question you should have asked is now answered.
Liberals want knowledge and do nothing with it and conservatives get jobs so they can support themselves and end up paying taxes so the liberals can go to school.
Presenting the question that way you would think these people are liberal because of the education they got.
What does it mean by saying highly educated.
I assume highly educated is referring to an education that can lead to a PHD.
If this is so then you are implying liberals are smarter than conservatives.
I believe the best education is the one you get by experience (one you don't get in college) and these liberals may not be the smartest. .
Why are so many people who go to college to get higher degrees are liberal.
PHD's are usually given in fields where the individual feels they are doing it for the education and not because they are looking for a trade.
These people will get this higher degree in fields like English or history where there are few jobs because money is not a priority to them.
They graduate with this degree and when they can not find work do something else.
They convince themselves that having knowledge is more important than making a living.
People who have this attitude towards life will most likely will be liberal.
So the question you should have asked is now answered.
Liberals want knowledge and do nothing with it and conservatives get jobs so they can support themselves and end up paying taxes so the liberals can go to school.
Smart people tend to assume themselves fit to run other peoples' lives for them. What loathsome paternalism. Tending to untrustworthiness: No new taxes...You can keep your plan. Pride is sin. And those gated enclaves? Contrast that to God's empathy: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Can these smart folks, who can't balance the national budget (they keep promising more than they can afford to pay for), whose war on poverty has not reduced poverty, whose war on drugs has not sobered us--but now they make war on bifurcated bathrooms that have served us just fine since forever--respect us enough to let us make our own choices? I doubt if I could vote for Trump (my President, Jesus Christ rather libertarian), but they fully deserve him.
Can these smart folks, who can't balance the national budget (they keep promising more than they can afford to pay for), whose war on poverty has not reduced poverty, whose war on drugs has not sobered us--but now they make war on bifurcated bathrooms that have served us just fine since forever--respect us enough to let us make our own choices? I doubt if I could vote for Trump (my President, Jesus Christ rather libertarian), but they fully deserve him.
1
I think of myself as both well-educated and liberal. And like many well-educated and liberal people, I am fervently against things like racism. Of course, I live in a mostly white neighborhood, eat at restaurants mostly attended by white people, work in a place that is mostly white. I'm kinda like Bernie Sanders in that way - born into diversity, he moved to a state that is 95% white people. It's easy to be liberal when everybody thinks like you do, looks like you do, lives like you do.
Like me, most of my well-educated, liberal buddies are pro-environment. And a very large proportion of them drive SUVs or hybrid cars that aren't really "green," they just trade a fraction of gas emissions for batteries that turn into the worst kind of toxic waste.
Like me, most of my well-educated, liberal buddies are pro-environment. And a very large proportion of them drive SUVs or hybrid cars that aren't really "green," they just trade a fraction of gas emissions for batteries that turn into the worst kind of toxic waste.
2
Why are the highly educated so liberal? Today, that's a circular question. The hard left (the people you call "liberal", though that's a misnomer as they don't have much interest in "libertas") has captured almost all the non-hard-science departments at what were formerly great universities like Harvard and Princeton. And they traffic in a brand of nonsense that mostly attracts only those already predisposed to believe nonsense.
3
What anyone knows, or can know, is only a tiny island in the incomprehensibly vast ocean of the unknown. But the more one learns, the larger that island becomes, and the longer the shoreline grows where one is in contact with the unknown.
And unless something is defective with one's wiring, the more one encounters the unknown, the more humble one becomes about the limitations of one's own knowledge.
And I don't know, but wasn't it Lao-tse who said that humility is the root of compassion (i.e., liberalism)?
And unless something is defective with one's wiring, the more one encounters the unknown, the more humble one becomes about the limitations of one's own knowledge.
And I don't know, but wasn't it Lao-tse who said that humility is the root of compassion (i.e., liberalism)?
2
I would question whether those with advanced degrees in Women's Studies, Creative Writing, Astronomy, Engineering, and Business are equally liberal. I would also question whether they are liberal in the same way. There is a branch of liberalism that is very irrational. They are the left wing version of the Tea Party, FOX News, Glenn Beck, etc. They tend to attract people who are heavily into identity politics. It is much less intellectually rigorous to get a PH'd in Women's Studies or Ethnic Studies then in Medicine or Physics.
There is the liberalism that believes in evolution over creationism. Then there is the liberalism that believes there is a constant war on women, that their is a holocaust on black males by the police, that it is xenophobic to inforce immigration policy, and it is Islamaphobic to think there is any need to be concerned more about Muslims than Buddhists.
There is the liberalism that believes in evolution over creationism. Then there is the liberalism that believes there is a constant war on women, that their is a holocaust on black males by the police, that it is xenophobic to inforce immigration policy, and it is Islamaphobic to think there is any need to be concerned more about Muslims than Buddhists.
1
Remember that what you believe depends on what you're exposed to. What I view as a small issue, might be life altering for you. I think the goal of liberalism is to get to a place where there is a national standard of living- where we you don't have groups of the population exposed to traumatic environments that cloud their judgment. You, as well as others, seem to imply that people enjoy being angry and outraged- regardless of how much power or attention they may get. The only reason I can think why you would think that is because of all the white racists with money, land, and power who still find a reason to be angry at everyone else.
It's important to note that what constitutes "liberal" in the United States is not really all that liberal compared with other highly developed nations. In the European context, and particularly in Scandinavia, American liberal values are mainstream and even somewhat right of center.
3
IMO, not being educated makes people fearful; they will not look for answers to things they don't understand, therefore they will make emotional choices.
We inherited a Puritanical heritage that claims you are not better than anyone else; anyone with an education is seen as uppity. The tragedy, and it may become a devastating one, is that our form of government can only function with an educated populace. Maybe November will be a turning point and wisdom will win.
We inherited a Puritanical heritage that claims you are not better than anyone else; anyone with an education is seen as uppity. The tragedy, and it may become a devastating one, is that our form of government can only function with an educated populace. Maybe November will be a turning point and wisdom will win.
2
Societies with these types of cultural and political divisions suffer endless conflict and paralysis. Perhaps it's time to break up the U.S.. We seem to already moving quickly in that direction.
1
I long for the days
before William F. Buckley's
homophobic rant.
I must continue on past the haiku. Best of Enemies showed what true discourse used to be, and this is what the country needs. The better question is, how did the Conservative intellectual become an endangered species? Perhaps the homophobic rant revealed all. Too bad.
before William F. Buckley's
homophobic rant.
I must continue on past the haiku. Best of Enemies showed what true discourse used to be, and this is what the country needs. The better question is, how did the Conservative intellectual become an endangered species? Perhaps the homophobic rant revealed all. Too bad.
1
I think the answer's in your question although not as much in the story, except to say, "well(obviously) post-grads and PhD's like logic and critical thinking etc." The main thrust is we have to,find a way to speak. to frame the national debate even more appealingly than Karl Rove and the Republicans do, so that non-grads feel equally cared for and spoken too with regards to their needs. Liberals try to do that as it is part of our platform indeed to care about the others in our world, and much more so than in the Republican platform. Why this isn't obvious is because Karl Rove, debate framer. Where we got "death tax" etc.
Joey Romm has written a good book on rhetoric for explaining climate change as well as the book Cool Companies, a get-to-the-point reader for busy CEO's, which turned out to be effective. A lot of people in business and the military knew/know global climate change was the biggest threat and also that retrofitting factories would save them money. And this, way before the present era of sci-doubters.
We knew all about climate change in the 80's. Joe was writing books even then and a more dense business book by him is Lean, Clean Companies, which you. can find in the Columbia business school library. Answer's in the question!
Joey Romm has written a good book on rhetoric for explaining climate change as well as the book Cool Companies, a get-to-the-point reader for busy CEO's, which turned out to be effective. A lot of people in business and the military knew/know global climate change was the biggest threat and also that retrofitting factories would save them money. And this, way before the present era of sci-doubters.
We knew all about climate change in the 80's. Joe was writing books even then and a more dense business book by him is Lean, Clean Companies, which you. can find in the Columbia business school library. Answer's in the question!
1
It amounts to brainwashing.
There are many autodidactic intellectuals, prior who weren't told what to think and how to reason the the prescribed fashion - self thinkers who just figure things out as they go and consume all available political and philosophical resources without an imposed ideological backdrop environment. These almost universally wind up libertarian.
There are many autodidactic intellectuals, prior who weren't told what to think and how to reason the the prescribed fashion - self thinkers who just figure things out as they go and consume all available political and philosophical resources without an imposed ideological backdrop environment. These almost universally wind up libertarian.
1
You know, it should be kept in mind that the highly educated do not actually have homogenous intellectual positions. So when anyone wants to point out that college graduates "respect science" and "deal with facts", it should be kept in mind that the very humanities departments which produce the best examples of bien-pensant professional liberals--also produced the criticism of scientific facts as politically motivated. Unless I am out of touch, names like Latour and Foucault still give off a whiff of sacred transgression for PhD holders? And indeed, many of the sacred names for a modern liberal (Marx, Freud, Nietzsche) were anti-liberal. So let us not pretend that our enlightened children of the 60s have thought through their own contradictions to arrive the sublime insights of...the Democratic platform in the year 2016.
2
Some years ago I spotted a bumper sticker that read: "We all do better when we all do better;" a statement which expressed---to me---the very essence of liberalism. Maybe the more education one receives, the better one appreciates the wisdom and insight of this maxim.
7
Numerous studies show that conservatives are more authoritarian and traditional. Liberals value individualism and thinking outside the box. As a young person, which personality type would go to graduate school to expand their horizons and which one would get married and start birthing babies. As my kids have reached young adulthood, I see this constantly repeated among their peers.
2
Suspect that education lets one vault over the darwinian mess lower on the socioeconomic scale, but education alone doesn't vault one all the way up to compete with or enter into the plutocrat level.
Although claims of liberals intolerance have been recently raised, even in these pages, liberals are more tolerant than they’re given credit for, and considerably more tolerant than conservatives. Maybe what it comes down to is that liberals are intolerant of intolerance. According to a 2010 Stanford poll, almost half (49%) of Republicans but only one-third of Democrats would be “somewhat or very unhappy” if their children married someone of the opposite party. A 2014 Pew poll reinforces these findings: half of the “consistently conservative” want to live where most people share their political views, but barely one third (35%) of the “consistently liberal” have similar wishes. By a 63-49% margin, more of the consistently conservative say most of their friends share their political views. Nearly one-fourth of the consistently conservative (23%) would be unhappy if an immediate family member married someone of a different race, but a mere 1% at the opposite end of the political spectrum. As the Pew poll shows, the proportion of conservatives varies little by educational level, but the proportion of liberals steadily increases with more education, as this column indicates. Perhaps it is because the highly educated look at a broader array of evidence, and spend less time in the echo chambers of the like-minded.
1
"What explains the consolidation of the highly educated into a liberal bloc?"
An important explanation, missed by this piece, is the increasing denial of reality by the right wing. Highly educated people tend to have a problem with that.
An important explanation, missed by this piece, is the increasing denial of reality by the right wing. Highly educated people tend to have a problem with that.
3
Whether or not we agree that liberalism is more consistent with facts and science, we can almost all agree that mainstream conservatism has gotten more inconsistent with facts and science over the last couple decades. I think that that, by itself, does a fairly decent job of explaining the relative change in educated liberalism, even if it doesn't speak to the absolute levels.
2
I am surprised that anyone is reaching this conclusion only now. This is the reason Al Gore lost. Unfortunately for the poor guy, he had trouble hiding the fact that he was intelligent. There was a news report at the time which left me dumbstruck. A big banker said that he wanted to beat up Gore because he reminded him of the smart kids in grade school whom he did beat up.
The right wing today loathes the well educated so much that they insist on doing the opposite thing, even if it means shooting themselves in the foot. This is how they are on the verge of electing a foul boor who defecates from his mouth. If he gets elected, of course, many of us will also have been shot.
The right wing today loathes the well educated so much that they insist on doing the opposite thing, even if it means shooting themselves in the foot. This is how they are on the verge of electing a foul boor who defecates from his mouth. If he gets elected, of course, many of us will also have been shot.
1
How about because it is Right to be so?
I am a product of the white working class. My parents espoused all the attitudes of that group today; my mother less so than father. Thanks to Sputnik, I worked hard while earning a college degree slowly.
I look at the these white men who despise Pres. Obama, due to bigotry and dislike Hillary because she is a pushy, very smart woman. Trump is an Icon to them; great slogans, hot women to have sex with, simple answers to complex issues; he makes them feel good. They will come out and vote for him. Will they vote down the column and in the 2018 elections?
Will their wife's follow orders & vote for Trump, as their husbands will?
I fit Gross's profile 75% of the time because I believe in it.
I am a product of the white working class. My parents espoused all the attitudes of that group today; my mother less so than father. Thanks to Sputnik, I worked hard while earning a college degree slowly.
I look at the these white men who despise Pres. Obama, due to bigotry and dislike Hillary because she is a pushy, very smart woman. Trump is an Icon to them; great slogans, hot women to have sex with, simple answers to complex issues; he makes them feel good. They will come out and vote for him. Will they vote down the column and in the 2018 elections?
Will their wife's follow orders & vote for Trump, as their husbands will?
I fit Gross's profile 75% of the time because I believe in it.
The easiest way to avoid working is to stay in school and become "educated". Once you get a PhD, your typical choice is to become a professor or do research. Neither is very hard. The "highly educated" in the 1400's thought the world was flat. Yet a non-scholar - Christopher Columbus - proved them wrong. At my company, none of the upper management or high-performing sales reps have higher than an MBA, yet we've been remarkable at transforming our market segment to adapt to the new economy. We demonstrate how the economy works, allowing professors to profit from analyzing our methods, without the risk-taking. Which is why true labor is held in such disregard by liberal "intellectuals".
1
Highly educated liberals are motivated by two factors. Either they have no business/real world experience or they act from guilt (of wealth/success)
5
Answer:
Because in order to be highly educated they attend institutions of higher learning in this country which indoctrinate them into far left thinking and cut them off from alternative views while they are still young and impressionable. The entire country pays a price for this form of education.
Because in order to be highly educated they attend institutions of higher learning in this country which indoctrinate them into far left thinking and cut them off from alternative views while they are still young and impressionable. The entire country pays a price for this form of education.
4
I'm not sure why this phenomenon should be so mysterious.
Conservatism is largely, as its name suggests, an exercise in maintaining an inner collective belief-and-idea world that makes the power arrangements of generations past necessary, moral, and even inevitable. In short it functions as a highly selective filter on details of reality so that no "troublesome" counterfactuals actually make their way up to the attentional surface of too many people's minds.
So pick any selective (and now offensive) simplification and characterisation of the past. Let's say in the mid 19th century how the Irish were routinely portrayed as inherently violent, degenerate, and hyper sexed, not fit to associate with "real" humans (hence the sign in store windows NO DOGS OR IRISH ALLOWED). Somehow subversive tidbits of reality managed to slip past the carefully managed mental culture wall, and sometime in there, the Irish were (grudgingly) allowed into The Club of the White, but firmly instructed to lock the gate behind them.
Value, as we insist on perceiving it, derives directly from scarcity. (So if too many "people" can get health care, then my being healthy becomes a devalued state of being . . . somehow.)
A frequent side effect of reading too many books, consorting with too many people who stubbornly refuse to BE our stereotypes of them, and becoming habituated to wrestling with complex questions about a complex world, undermines reductionistic traditional views.
Seems obvious.
Conservatism is largely, as its name suggests, an exercise in maintaining an inner collective belief-and-idea world that makes the power arrangements of generations past necessary, moral, and even inevitable. In short it functions as a highly selective filter on details of reality so that no "troublesome" counterfactuals actually make their way up to the attentional surface of too many people's minds.
So pick any selective (and now offensive) simplification and characterisation of the past. Let's say in the mid 19th century how the Irish were routinely portrayed as inherently violent, degenerate, and hyper sexed, not fit to associate with "real" humans (hence the sign in store windows NO DOGS OR IRISH ALLOWED). Somehow subversive tidbits of reality managed to slip past the carefully managed mental culture wall, and sometime in there, the Irish were (grudgingly) allowed into The Club of the White, but firmly instructed to lock the gate behind them.
Value, as we insist on perceiving it, derives directly from scarcity. (So if too many "people" can get health care, then my being healthy becomes a devalued state of being . . . somehow.)
A frequent side effect of reading too many books, consorting with too many people who stubbornly refuse to BE our stereotypes of them, and becoming habituated to wrestling with complex questions about a complex world, undermines reductionistic traditional views.
Seems obvious.
Gouldner's idea of class was Marxist: The ownership of the means of production allowed capitalists to exploit the workers' labor power. With the rise of a new knowledge economy, Gouldner argued, intellectuals would become indispensable for the capitalists and hence transform into a powerful class in their own right. If you're Marxist, that's a compelling argument. If you are not, things look a little bit more complex.
First off, most American academics are not "left" by international standards. They are classical liberals like most of their colleagues in Western academia and they have been since the early nineteenth century, at least in secular institutions. The reason that most of them are now Democrats is that the Republican party is no longer a home for even the most conservative classically liberal thinkers. If jurists like Posner and Roberts are perceived as traitors to their people, you really close the party to anyone but ideologically blind hacks.
As it so happens, I know many academics with dual citizenship. Many of them vote Tory or Christian Democrat in Europe but are staunch Democrats over here. If there were still Rockefeller Republicans I'm pretty sure that much fewer academics would be stand up for "left-of-center" policies, many of which aren't actually left-of-center in most of the developed world.
First off, most American academics are not "left" by international standards. They are classical liberals like most of their colleagues in Western academia and they have been since the early nineteenth century, at least in secular institutions. The reason that most of them are now Democrats is that the Republican party is no longer a home for even the most conservative classically liberal thinkers. If jurists like Posner and Roberts are perceived as traitors to their people, you really close the party to anyone but ideologically blind hacks.
As it so happens, I know many academics with dual citizenship. Many of them vote Tory or Christian Democrat in Europe but are staunch Democrats over here. If there were still Rockefeller Republicans I'm pretty sure that much fewer academics would be stand up for "left-of-center" policies, many of which aren't actually left-of-center in most of the developed world.
2
it's simple:
the vast majority of highly educated people are wealthy, mainly by birth.
they feel guilty of that fact.
to assuage that guilt, they adopt liberal views,
assuming that will show them to be concerned
with the poor and downtrodden.
if only their concern helped the poor and downtrodden!
it doesn't.
the vast majority of highly educated people are wealthy, mainly by birth.
they feel guilty of that fact.
to assuage that guilt, they adopt liberal views,
assuming that will show them to be concerned
with the poor and downtrodden.
if only their concern helped the poor and downtrodden!
it doesn't.
3
The Democrats tell the un-college educated the truth at times, while the Republicans tell them what they want to hear. The Democratic Intelligentsia is more fact based where as the Republicans are more emotion based.
The problem for Democrats on this issue is that their leaders, including and especially Obama, have all but stated that unless you get a college education, you will be left behind, and for those that get left behind we will try to provide a welfare state to take care of you including higher minimum wages, subsidized healthcare, etc., which the data bears out. The Republicans tell the un-college educated that unlike the Democrats providing you a welfare state, the free market will provide you with good paying vocations with lots of opportunities, appealing to emotion, but not based on any factual evidence of support.
The problem for Democrats on this issue is that their leaders, including and especially Obama, have all but stated that unless you get a college education, you will be left behind, and for those that get left behind we will try to provide a welfare state to take care of you including higher minimum wages, subsidized healthcare, etc., which the data bears out. The Republicans tell the un-college educated that unlike the Democrats providing you a welfare state, the free market will provide you with good paying vocations with lots of opportunities, appealing to emotion, but not based on any factual evidence of support.
It's clear enough that education must be THE priority of Democratic party. Well-educated people are generally liberal because they have investigated (in their education) the arena of ambiguity, in all matters, and come to realize that society is a complex place. On the other hand, conservatively-inclined thought is formed mostly from reaction and a desire to avoid the hard work of negotiating those ambiguities that are facts of life.
(And in an article absent a mention of Hilary Clinton, what do you get? The usual rabble of Bernie-or-Busters dragging her into the conversation because they still can't get over the fact that their candidate lost, not that Clinton's policies are generally cut from the same cloth. Yep, Blame Hillary. It's getting really stale, gang, listening to the ol' Susan Sarandon-prescribed talking points.)
(And in an article absent a mention of Hilary Clinton, what do you get? The usual rabble of Bernie-or-Busters dragging her into the conversation because they still can't get over the fact that their candidate lost, not that Clinton's policies are generally cut from the same cloth. Yep, Blame Hillary. It's getting really stale, gang, listening to the ol' Susan Sarandon-prescribed talking points.)
1
Unusual piece because it did not argue that perhaps people who get advanced degrees enter into their studies as already Liberals.
When the advanced-degrees Liberals begin to realize they hold political views similar to those of the less educated, the snobbishness that characterizes some educated people may force a recalibration of political leanings.
When the advanced-degrees Liberals begin to realize they hold political views similar to those of the less educated, the snobbishness that characterizes some educated people may force a recalibration of political leanings.
1
Liberal? As in the classic definition of the word - including such things as "being favorable to progress or reform, as in political and religious affairs", "having views advocating individual freedom of action and expression", "free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant" - and, to top it off, "characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts"? (This comes, not from my head, but the Random House Webster's College Dictionary.) Given what's been happening on many a U.S. campus, I would guess that a LOT of people would beg to disagree. And, of course, there are the mega-bosses who've graduated from (or at least, in the case of a certain well-known chap whose initials are M.Z., attended) one of these, and when it comes to hiring, they are the very model of liberality. All you need to have is the right diploma and be a campus 'Greek' type (in the case of our fancier white-collar firms) or a trendy hipster (as in Silicon Valley and other concentrations of high tech) and you're, well, possibly 'in'. For a while, anyway. Maybe.
If this is 'liberal', then I'm a giant squid.
If this is 'liberal', then I'm a giant squid.
"He thought the intelligentsia might be tempted to put its own interests ahead of the marginalized groups for whom it often claimed to speak."
And we have without a doubt seen that unfold as we've seen almost no progress on the major problems that ails our nation, while seeing tremendous progress on the issues that concern the elite.
And we have without a doubt seen that unfold as we've seen almost no progress on the major problems that ails our nation, while seeing tremendous progress on the issues that concern the elite.
1
While my personal beliefs would fit into the "Liberal" slot, I have no illusions about the sainthood of Democrats. FYI: I am a Registered Democrat. If you want to see left-wing fascist behavior just visit any American university and see how many Republicans are in the English department.
Democracy demands dissent. And, in fact, Liberals and The Right are both guilty of shredding the Constitution. Either we have free speech in this country or we don't. Liberals can be just as dangerous as conservatives-- they can shut down free speech rights in a New York minute. The Hard Left and The Hard Right do not protect democracy one iota.
So the problem for the people is that both mainstream liberals and conservatives are so married to their respective agendas, that they don't listen to one an other. When that happens, the people always lose.
And while I believe that liberal democratic thought is always the goal, it only works if it doesn't alienate people to such an extent that they jump into the arms of Donald Trump, and support The Hard Right. Just google "former Democrat for Trump" if you don't believe me.
But, out of respect to the Goddess of Democracy, a lot of what Trump says, even though it's highly inflammatory, absolutely speaks to the rage of the people.(Illegal immigration in exchange for votes etc.) Democrats...Trump is the blood on your hands.
Democracy demands dissent. And, in fact, Liberals and The Right are both guilty of shredding the Constitution. Either we have free speech in this country or we don't. Liberals can be just as dangerous as conservatives-- they can shut down free speech rights in a New York minute. The Hard Left and The Hard Right do not protect democracy one iota.
So the problem for the people is that both mainstream liberals and conservatives are so married to their respective agendas, that they don't listen to one an other. When that happens, the people always lose.
And while I believe that liberal democratic thought is always the goal, it only works if it doesn't alienate people to such an extent that they jump into the arms of Donald Trump, and support The Hard Right. Just google "former Democrat for Trump" if you don't believe me.
But, out of respect to the Goddess of Democracy, a lot of what Trump says, even though it's highly inflammatory, absolutely speaks to the rage of the people.(Illegal immigration in exchange for votes etc.) Democrats...Trump is the blood on your hands.
2
Far right-wingers who have inexplicably dubbed themselves "conservative" (they are not) see the presence of women in - well, anywhere- as a threat.
"What explains the consolidation of the highly educated into a liberal bloc? The growing number of women with advanced degrees is part of it, as well-educated women tend to be especially left-leaning."
Which means they are acting in their own self interest, with a little social justice thrown in. REAL conservatives recognize that.
"What explains the consolidation of the highly educated into a liberal bloc? The growing number of women with advanced degrees is part of it, as well-educated women tend to be especially left-leaning."
Which means they are acting in their own self interest, with a little social justice thrown in. REAL conservatives recognize that.
Almost everybody deems 'critical thinker' as a person who agrees with them; e.g. a flat-worlder views anybody who thinks the world is round as a non-critical thinker. So, the article and many opinions expressed are circular thinking (no pun intended). Intellectuals are not necessarily liberal because they're critical thinkers (nor are the uneducated largely conservative because they're critical thinkers). So, the question remains, what makes education move people to the left, and how to explain the exceptions ... i.e. those rare PhD's on the far right?
Why? Because most institutions of higher indoctrination (sorry, I meant "learning") have faculties that are heavily liberal-to-radical. That was not always the case here or elsewhere, but is a direct consequence of the radicalization of our colleges & universities in the 1960s.
3
As a holder of advanced degrees, I can assure you that evidence and logic are valued among the highly educated in as far as they can deliver what the individual desires. If they cannot, they are dispensed. Appeals to authority abound. You also should not discount the academic's fairly extraordinary capacity for self-deception and group think. Finally, expertise in one very narrowly defined academic subject meaning expertise in social and political matters is another widely held academic presumption.
2
It's very strange to me - a generally well-written article, but with an extremely discrediting flaw: a Sociologist uses the terms "Democrat", "liberal", and "left", all to refer to the same thing? Really? I would place a high bet that very few Sociology professors would get away with this, in a scholarly article.
In fact, I think it's common knowledge that Democrats have drifted to almost "center", certainly with Bill Clinton. "Liberal", as well as "Conservative" have lost their meaning, at least in terms of their traditions. And "left"? Please. Noam Chomsky may be the only functional leftist alive.
I would suggest removing any use of "liberal" and "left", and leave it to the Democratic political party, to which many highly-educated US Citizens gravitate. Perhaps if you draw a distinction of the Democrats of the past - the unionists, like Eugene Debs - then there might be something in interest in contrasting this kind of publican, activist Democrat, to the facebook "intelligentsia" (another funny word to use in this Century). Or better, contrast the Leftists of the past (except for poor Chomsky, who is still alive, and lonely), who were scientists and intellectuals, to the scientists and highly educated (I refuse to call these "intellectuals") of today, who are clearly NOT Leftists, rather, Centrists.
In fact, I think it's common knowledge that Democrats have drifted to almost "center", certainly with Bill Clinton. "Liberal", as well as "Conservative" have lost their meaning, at least in terms of their traditions. And "left"? Please. Noam Chomsky may be the only functional leftist alive.
I would suggest removing any use of "liberal" and "left", and leave it to the Democratic political party, to which many highly-educated US Citizens gravitate. Perhaps if you draw a distinction of the Democrats of the past - the unionists, like Eugene Debs - then there might be something in interest in contrasting this kind of publican, activist Democrat, to the facebook "intelligentsia" (another funny word to use in this Century). Or better, contrast the Leftists of the past (except for poor Chomsky, who is still alive, and lonely), who were scientists and intellectuals, to the scientists and highly educated (I refuse to call these "intellectuals") of today, who are clearly NOT Leftists, rather, Centrists.
Amid all the self-congratulation on the part of liberal commentors, let me try to insert a reminder about inappropriate causal inferences. Instead of cheering that "We're liberal because we're smart, educated, and see the truth!", perhaps a less triumphalist admission of"We went to graduate school because we're liberal" might be at least as plausible an explanation.
3
What too many Americans refer to as 'Liberal' these days would simply be dismissed as 'ordinary' over here. Quite frankly, I've never seen the divide between American norms and European norms as large as it is today - despite our many, many problems here in Europe, as a collective entity there's a general will to be progressive - or, dare I say, liberal - here in a way that now seems impossible to imagine happening across the pond with our American friends.
Something... unfortunate happened to the American psyche after 9/11 - as good a jumping off point as any in the context of The Great Liberal Divide, which now appears to be a yawning schism within American society.
Looking in from abroad, all we endlessly see are people who, frankly, would be dismissed as nutjobs in Europe, and be swiftly booted out of public office - if they managed somehow to get elected to begin with - screaming 'Liberal!' at people who aren't half as radical and extremist as they are. Somehow, people claiming to hold 'conservative' values - yet who seem like dangerous fundamentalists to us outsiders - now brand anyone who won't join in with their bullying, homophobia, sectarianism, bigotry, racism, xenophobia etc as 'liberals'.
Worryingly, this particularly American repurposing of the L-word has now started to creep in over here, too; Rightwing Europeans have started to copy the American model, brand themselves as Conservatives, and brand/attack everyone else as liberals.
Most unfortunate...
Something... unfortunate happened to the American psyche after 9/11 - as good a jumping off point as any in the context of The Great Liberal Divide, which now appears to be a yawning schism within American society.
Looking in from abroad, all we endlessly see are people who, frankly, would be dismissed as nutjobs in Europe, and be swiftly booted out of public office - if they managed somehow to get elected to begin with - screaming 'Liberal!' at people who aren't half as radical and extremist as they are. Somehow, people claiming to hold 'conservative' values - yet who seem like dangerous fundamentalists to us outsiders - now brand anyone who won't join in with their bullying, homophobia, sectarianism, bigotry, racism, xenophobia etc as 'liberals'.
Worryingly, this particularly American repurposing of the L-word has now started to creep in over here, too; Rightwing Europeans have started to copy the American model, brand themselves as Conservatives, and brand/attack everyone else as liberals.
Most unfortunate...
5
Ah yes, a lecture from Ireland, where doctors let a woman die rather than let her have an abortion to save her life, because there is no separation of church and state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
I'm reminded of Churchill's comment, "Americans can be counted on to do the right thing...after they've tried everything else."
We seem to be in the "trying everything else" phase...but I back date it to Reagan; 9/11 just intensified our romance with stupidity. We've suffered a massive cultural regression since the Right took over the Government, and polluted the airwaves with the likes of hate-spewing know-nothing's like Limbaugh and his ilk.
Will we embrace the first true statesman to run for President since FDR, cling to a toxic paralytic status quo, or continue our race to the bottom?
Time will tell.
We seem to be in the "trying everything else" phase...but I back date it to Reagan; 9/11 just intensified our romance with stupidity. We've suffered a massive cultural regression since the Right took over the Government, and polluted the airwaves with the likes of hate-spewing know-nothing's like Limbaugh and his ilk.
Will we embrace the first true statesman to run for President since FDR, cling to a toxic paralytic status quo, or continue our race to the bottom?
Time will tell.
The notion that student radicals are a gauge of the political sentiment of educated professionals is preposterous. While these anarchists were protesting, taking drugs and "feeling groovy", the real class of professionals was hard at work at their studies.
This column is based on a false premise. The time one spends in academia does not remotely align to more "highly educated." Spare me from the flat out factual fantasies promulgated by many of my colleagues with graduate and professional degrees. There is a zero sum relationship between the time spent on campus vs in the real world. Some of the sharpest people I know muddle through highly successful lives armed only with a bachelor's degree,
2
I've worked in high tech most of my life, and on the other side of the coin engineers, graduate engineers included, tend to be more conservative than the general public. Most of the 'creation scientists' are engineers. I tend to be more liberal than most of my engineer coworkers, which I attribute to having initially worked in basic science. I don't believe that the amount of education in itself makes people more liberal, it is the type of education. I've come to this view after seeing engineers with graduate degrees state that they believe in creationism, which was just for starters.
http://machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers
http://machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers
I tend to think of Democrats as the party of rationalism and humanism: educated people engaging in rational discourse to inform policy and help the many live good lives. Republicans explicitly reject rationalism. In their world view, everything, even rational conclusions, eventually come down to a leap of faith if you dig deep enough (think of the child endlessly asking why?). Preserving community is important to Republicans, and they fight real and existential threats to that. The San Bernardino shootings shook Republicans, because they were shocked when someone in the community who they thought were friends turned on them; this required a response against those people. Democrats, in contrast, looked at the larger problem, gun violence. For Republicans, policy is informed by faith and community.
47
Your thinking is faulty. Democrats believe in the lie of government as a servant of the people and the solution to all desires. Republicans generally know that this is false. See all the Republican run states for objective evidence and those Democratically run cities or states for failure, see Chicago for a great example. Dems are corrupt!!!
Wow, where to start. Highly educated people have spent more time being programmed by the education system. I recall one highly educated liberal professor who did not teach her subject but rather singled out white males and berated them because they were the source of every societal and natural calamity. The same liberal professor claimed that any student in the classroom who was trying to earn a degree for career purposes should exit the classroom immediately because a trade school would be readily available and college was merely an exercise in learning. Learning liberal tripe i suppose. The same professor went on to pontificate that babies and young children should not be allowed anywhere in public because they disturbed the professors sensibilities. When asked questions about the supposed subject in the class this writer was asked to leave the classroom and drop out because the agenda was not the subject at all but merely political programming. By the way the subject was foreign language. The administration in the university replied to my inquiries witha shrug and stated that the highly educated liberal did not have to teach the class but was free to participate in her indoctrination.
I have never met a highly educated liberal who did not use every trick in the book to avoid taxes or get the best bargain on goods made by slave labor. I have never met a highly educated person who chose to live their life as they preached.
I have never met a highly educated liberal who did not use every trick in the book to avoid taxes or get the best bargain on goods made by slave labor. I have never met a highly educated person who chose to live their life as they preached.
2
I used to tell my Ph.D. students that what that degree should give them is an ability to think. It's not just to be the greatest ceramic or lithic (stone tool) analyst and get a teaching job at Berkeley or Harvard, or a public university somewhere, but a grand ability to think on your feet, quickly and resolutely. That ability makes it very difficult in the absence of some strong ideological background (read evangelical Christianity) to think is a prescribed and circumscribed manner, and creates a desire to examine an argument, discussion, or media scree.
We have destroyed that part of K-12 in most of this country, evidently mainly in the South and the old Rust Belt, that gave children in the previous generations that ability to think critically. I taught scientific archaeology at UC, Berkeley, and over the 23 years I was there, I would ask the mainly California educated students, some of the brightest in the country, if they discussed evolution in their high school classes. From 1990 to 2013 the number that said yes, decreased markedly (not a statistically defensible sample). This is a glance at the problem. The broadly based education that I received in K-12 in California in the 1950s, just isn't there now, for a variety of reasons.
So, while we highly educated are liberal thinkers because we can and actually deseir to think, those with only a K-12 or less education are not trained that way. There are other reasons, but that is a basic one.
We have destroyed that part of K-12 in most of this country, evidently mainly in the South and the old Rust Belt, that gave children in the previous generations that ability to think critically. I taught scientific archaeology at UC, Berkeley, and over the 23 years I was there, I would ask the mainly California educated students, some of the brightest in the country, if they discussed evolution in their high school classes. From 1990 to 2013 the number that said yes, decreased markedly (not a statistically defensible sample). This is a glance at the problem. The broadly based education that I received in K-12 in California in the 1950s, just isn't there now, for a variety of reasons.
So, while we highly educated are liberal thinkers because we can and actually deseir to think, those with only a K-12 or less education are not trained that way. There are other reasons, but that is a basic one.
105
Come now you need a PhD to think? How foolish. You need that PhD to learn how to do some research and teach college. It is mostly worthless for most people.
15
Related to this is my anger at the number of abstruse, polysyllabic words that Chris Hayes uses when discussing important topics on MSNBC. Bernie makes his speeches powerful with simple, easy-to-understand language and clearly progressives can do that as well, should do that as well.
If I were working on the Chris Hayes show, I'd fine him five dollars every time he used a much more difficult word when a more easy-to-understand word was available.
Also, somewhat related to this as well is a thought I have about righteous anger.
I wish more progressive spokespersons would show their righteous anger -- as Bernie does -- about the callousness of the national Republican Party and their leaders. Sure seems to me that anger often labels things as important. If we aren't angry about the inequities in the world, along with unnecessary pain and also about the people preventing us from solving problems and helping others, then we are serious about solving problems.
If I were working on the Chris Hayes show, I'd fine him five dollars every time he used a much more difficult word when a more easy-to-understand word was available.
Also, somewhat related to this as well is a thought I have about righteous anger.
I wish more progressive spokespersons would show their righteous anger -- as Bernie does -- about the callousness of the national Republican Party and their leaders. Sure seems to me that anger often labels things as important. If we aren't angry about the inequities in the world, along with unnecessary pain and also about the people preventing us from solving problems and helping others, then we are serious about solving problems.
3
Liberals dominate the social sciences, which is not very scientific. One would expect to find a more even political distribution in business and economics. Finally, liberal theories have stronger appeals because they are deemed more humanistic. That doesn't make them more correct but it does make them more believable.
2
You are right!
1
The Liberal vs. Conservative dichotomy is not as helpful as some think. What if we think of the un-schooled, non-intellectual unhappiness with the country and its politics, to use a quote taken from a recent Times movie review, as: "A protest against the standardization of feeling, against the widespread attempts--scientific, governmental, commercial, educational--to manage matters of the heart according to rational principles."? This gives the whole "critical discourse" thing a whole different flavor, don't ya think? Or perhaps it prompts us to think a bit more seriously about Max Weber and where the academic world fits in the great scheme of things. Raising the question of how one "manages" those things called "matters of the heart"--offering critical discourse as the solution to that problem seems a bit beside the point. Maybe the academic world isn't the "solution" to the problem.
The highly educated tend to be more liberal because their views on knowledge and reality are shaped by scientific positivism. Their rely on mathematical aggregates to understand a complex world of human connections that is unlikely to be captured by a formula. They think of man and society as parts of a machine that can be engineered for the interest of the greatest number. But mostly, they fail to ask fundamental philosophical questions. Why shouldn't man live independently from the machine ?
1
Please read carefully!
"Last month, the Pew Research Center released a study showing that nearly a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have “down the line” liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally. An additional quarter of postgrads have mostly liberal views."
Restated: Nearly four-twelfths of those who went to graduate or professional school have "down the line" liberal views. An additional three-twelfths of post-grads have mostly liberal views. So nearly seven-twelfths have consistent or mostly liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters. This implies that five-twelfths of post-grads do not have at least mostly liberal views. So the balance is 58.3% mostly liberal, 41.7% not mostly liberal. A liberal tendency. But overwhelming? The highly educated are "so" liberal, perhaps relative to "mere" college graduates, high school graduates, or people without high school diplomas. But far from "always" liberal.
Those with postgraduate degrees are 12% of the population. 7% of the population are post grads with at least mostly liberal views. These people may have influence. But so does the 5% who don't have mostly liberal views. The liberal influence may not be overwhelming, or in fact not neutralized. Look at "liberal" vs "conservative" elected officials at federal and state levels. Educated liberals may punch below their weight.
"Last month, the Pew Research Center released a study showing that nearly a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have “down the line” liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally. An additional quarter of postgrads have mostly liberal views."
Restated: Nearly four-twelfths of those who went to graduate or professional school have "down the line" liberal views. An additional three-twelfths of post-grads have mostly liberal views. So nearly seven-twelfths have consistent or mostly liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters. This implies that five-twelfths of post-grads do not have at least mostly liberal views. So the balance is 58.3% mostly liberal, 41.7% not mostly liberal. A liberal tendency. But overwhelming? The highly educated are "so" liberal, perhaps relative to "mere" college graduates, high school graduates, or people without high school diplomas. But far from "always" liberal.
Those with postgraduate degrees are 12% of the population. 7% of the population are post grads with at least mostly liberal views. These people may have influence. But so does the 5% who don't have mostly liberal views. The liberal influence may not be overwhelming, or in fact not neutralized. Look at "liberal" vs "conservative" elected officials at federal and state levels. Educated liberals may punch below their weight.
1
The article is narrowly focused on the assertion that people with post-graduate educations hold liberal viewpoints at a rate that is triple the rate for the general population. Your math might be technically correct, but misses the point.
1
Tom, it seems like you wish to ignore the math, the facts, and promote an unsubstantiated theory. It must be quite convenient for liberals to tout science and numbers when it suits them but discard those very facts when it is emotionally and politically convenient.
As a Democrat, I encounter daily the Achilles heels of my well-educated colleagues:
1. Smugness about a Hillary victory in November. She is almost certain to face a Republican-dominated House and lack enough Senate Democrats to overcome Republican filibusters. Result: continued gridlock in Washington, with Hillary sharing the public’s anger. Democrats also underestimate the implications of Republican control of State governorships , legislatures, and local governments. Republicans won’t be humbled by a Democrat in the White House.
2. A blinkered view that sees Trump’s supporters as just a bunch of ignorant redneck philistines and fails to understand their economic suffering.
3. Pablum policies and disastrous messaging. Democrats have been unable to fashion the policies, much less the message, that shows they have solutions to America’s economic doldrums. Trump’s candidacy probably has increased Democratic complacency. He’s such a disaster, Democrats can defeat him without addressing America’s systemic economic problems. Democrats are eloquent at preaching to the choir, clueless about broadening their support.
4. Net result: Democrats on a death spiral. The more obstructionist Republicans become, the more infuriated we smart Democrats become, and the more we tell our fellow Americans that they are just too stupid to see who’s causing the gridlock. But telling people over and over that they are dumb for voting against their own self-interests will lose, not win, votes.
1. Smugness about a Hillary victory in November. She is almost certain to face a Republican-dominated House and lack enough Senate Democrats to overcome Republican filibusters. Result: continued gridlock in Washington, with Hillary sharing the public’s anger. Democrats also underestimate the implications of Republican control of State governorships , legislatures, and local governments. Republicans won’t be humbled by a Democrat in the White House.
2. A blinkered view that sees Trump’s supporters as just a bunch of ignorant redneck philistines and fails to understand their economic suffering.
3. Pablum policies and disastrous messaging. Democrats have been unable to fashion the policies, much less the message, that shows they have solutions to America’s economic doldrums. Trump’s candidacy probably has increased Democratic complacency. He’s such a disaster, Democrats can defeat him without addressing America’s systemic economic problems. Democrats are eloquent at preaching to the choir, clueless about broadening their support.
4. Net result: Democrats on a death spiral. The more obstructionist Republicans become, the more infuriated we smart Democrats become, and the more we tell our fellow Americans that they are just too stupid to see who’s causing the gridlock. But telling people over and over that they are dumb for voting against their own self-interests will lose, not win, votes.
3
I grew up poor, but I was lucky enough to attend very good public schools. College was free or inexpensive. Republicanism isn't at its heart about dumb people. It's about very rich, very well educated people manipulating a political system to protect their money. That's why they very successfully have paid politicians to dumb down education, demonize the poor and any other population chosen just to distract people, and to make college too expensive for most Americans. It's about protecting their money.
The first Wall Street movie artfully stated what's behind all this greed. It's not about having enough money. There is never enough money for these people. Look at the Koch brothers who are ruining the country even as they look death in the face at their very advanced ages, because enough is never enough. They are addicts, and they and their ilk are destroying the country to feed their addiction for millions, then billions, then trillions. Politicians like Bernie Sanders rail against this trickle-down destruction of pouring money from the top into ruining education, demonizing groups of people solely as a distraction and then wrecking social programs. And Sanders is demonized for his apt position by the rich politician who gets the most money from Wall Street (and who now wants more money from Wall Street).
So The New York Times, trotting out the politics of "liberals" when it's really all about the money, forgets about the basic rule of journalism: Follow the money.
The first Wall Street movie artfully stated what's behind all this greed. It's not about having enough money. There is never enough money for these people. Look at the Koch brothers who are ruining the country even as they look death in the face at their very advanced ages, because enough is never enough. They are addicts, and they and their ilk are destroying the country to feed their addiction for millions, then billions, then trillions. Politicians like Bernie Sanders rail against this trickle-down destruction of pouring money from the top into ruining education, demonizing groups of people solely as a distraction and then wrecking social programs. And Sanders is demonized for his apt position by the rich politician who gets the most money from Wall Street (and who now wants more money from Wall Street).
So The New York Times, trotting out the politics of "liberals" when it's really all about the money, forgets about the basic rule of journalism: Follow the money.
6
Beautifully stated!
As a liberal with a PhD, I have to say that most commenters here have a view of conservatism that is a caricature bought and paid for by the GOP. The GOP version of conservatism, i.e. opposition to teaching evolution, against gay rights etc., is as far from true conservatism as possible and can be best characterized as know-nothingism. I wonder how many commenters would be so persuaded of the virtue of their anti-conservative beliefs, were they to imbibe the thinking of a true conservative like Burke.
1
Higher education does not equal higher intelligence. Many of the people I know who have pursued an education post college did so because they either couldn't get a good job out of college or because their parents were wealthy and they preferred the cushy university bubble and were scared to take responsibility for themselves in the real world. I love reading the NYTimes because it provides such different viewpoints than my own. However, with the exception of a few authors, I sometimes feel like it is an echo chamber. Liberals certainly seem to love diversity except when it comes to diversity of thought or opinion.
2
Totally agree! I find that the New York Times and the Washington Post seem to be centered on the idea of all liberal thought is gospel. Not so, and if it wouldn't be for fashion, gardening, travel, etc. I wouldn't keep my subscription to this newspaper, as I find few that can write from the point of view of all of the truth on any subject. The worst writing came out after the downtown of 2008, as the fact that our laws in America didn't have one against variable rate mortgage interest loans that were a given to fail after 4 years. Switzerland doesn't allow those type of loans according to my son who lives there. What this showed is that the average Congressperson and Federal Reserve were asleep at the switch, and not all that smart. I had a neighbor who worked for $10 an hour at a meat packing plant, and was losing his house to this type of loan. He had previously had a home equity loan, which he couldn't afford. However, he knew what kind of loan he had taken out. I, at least, found a lawyer who told me he could stay in the house for a certain period of time, but he was foreclosed on. No one from the local or regional bank came over to his house, and threatened him to take out this loan. Once, all these loans were bundled up and sold to Wall Street, these guys didn't know my neighbor from the average Joe. Not that I am in favor of Wall Street. I, however, had worked there when I was 20, and in politics so I had a lot more info about how all of this happened.
1
A very large proportion of women getting Master's degrees are teachers getting them in education-related fields - a phenomenon driven largely by the rigid incentive and compensation systems installed through teachers' union influence. This group (about half union members) does tend to be liberal.
Similarly, the large number of lawyers and relative shortage of doctors skews this result, as the latter tend to be more conservative and the former tend to be liberal.
Similarly, the large number of lawyers and relative shortage of doctors skews this result, as the latter tend to be more conservative and the former tend to be liberal.
1
The debasement of the Undergraduate Degree is also part of this.
The survey courses of the Freshman and Sophomore years of College used to be a time to open minds, expand horizons, challenge foregone conclusions and expose young adults to the wide world they were entering. That for the most part is not the case today.
Today at many schools the survey courses are ticket punching throwaway exercises in regurgitation of content sanitized so as not to offend.
As people become more informed as formal students or autodidacts they become more and more driven by factual data and less by beliefs handed down. The more highly educated not only become more liberal in their thinking they also become less religious. Superstition in the form of religion and Science cannot co-habitate without suspension of disbelief. Few serious scientists believe in talking snakes or Prophets that could hold the sun still for a battle.
The survey courses of the Freshman and Sophomore years of College used to be a time to open minds, expand horizons, challenge foregone conclusions and expose young adults to the wide world they were entering. That for the most part is not the case today.
Today at many schools the survey courses are ticket punching throwaway exercises in regurgitation of content sanitized so as not to offend.
As people become more informed as formal students or autodidacts they become more and more driven by factual data and less by beliefs handed down. The more highly educated not only become more liberal in their thinking they also become less religious. Superstition in the form of religion and Science cannot co-habitate without suspension of disbelief. Few serious scientists believe in talking snakes or Prophets that could hold the sun still for a battle.
2
To be "conservative" is to advocate for the status quo. In its purest sense, the purpose of a university education, whether in science or letters, is to acquire the tools to make the world a better place. That may not be every student's conscious goal, but that's how and why universities evolved in the first place. So the very existence of universities is anathema to conservative thought.
1
"Even higher-income advanced-degree holders have become more redistributionist..."
Words and messaging are at the heart of right-wing politics--think "Death Panels," "Tax and Spend," "Pro-Life" (I have yet to meet anyone who's "Pro-Death," as if that's the logical alternative). The reason for this is that these simplistic, emotional phrases are particularly effective with less-educated voters who can't or won't devote the brains to evaluate the nuances behind the issues.
You, the NYT, could do us all a huge favor and STOP using the term, "redistribution," as if that's the keystone of reducing income and wealth inequality. It's not, and only amplifies the right-wing playbook phrase, "They're out to take your money and give it to Those People." Robert Reich, in particular, clearly explains why we wouldn't need REdistribution if we didn't have such pervasive PREdistribution: All the rules, regulations, and business structures that favor the gilded class, channeling more and more money to those at the top of the economic ladder.
Did anyone notice that the Koch brothers, notably, have decided to sit out the presidential election and focus on all the senate, house, and other state and local campaigns? They recognize that the key to holding onto power, both politically and economically, is controlling the levers of business behind the scenes. Even highly educated voters have a hard time following the myriad back-room dealings that make PREdistribution so successful for them.
Words and messaging are at the heart of right-wing politics--think "Death Panels," "Tax and Spend," "Pro-Life" (I have yet to meet anyone who's "Pro-Death," as if that's the logical alternative). The reason for this is that these simplistic, emotional phrases are particularly effective with less-educated voters who can't or won't devote the brains to evaluate the nuances behind the issues.
You, the NYT, could do us all a huge favor and STOP using the term, "redistribution," as if that's the keystone of reducing income and wealth inequality. It's not, and only amplifies the right-wing playbook phrase, "They're out to take your money and give it to Those People." Robert Reich, in particular, clearly explains why we wouldn't need REdistribution if we didn't have such pervasive PREdistribution: All the rules, regulations, and business structures that favor the gilded class, channeling more and more money to those at the top of the economic ladder.
Did anyone notice that the Koch brothers, notably, have decided to sit out the presidential election and focus on all the senate, house, and other state and local campaigns? They recognize that the key to holding onto power, both politically and economically, is controlling the levers of business behind the scenes. Even highly educated voters have a hard time following the myriad back-room dealings that make PREdistribution so successful for them.
5
Yer Talkin Ta Dr. Edjucaton
To his credit, Professor Gross made no effort to equate -- or even correlate ... education and intelligence ... or even education and rational thought.
Not to his credit, however, he fails to distinguish between education and training. For sure, there is lots of training going on in America's medical, law, and business schools -- and, sadly, in schools of engineering as well -- but damned little education.
The good professor's thesis reminds me of the persistent, and mostly false, claim that when we send our kids off to college we subject them to four years of indoctrination by a cadre of left-wing liberals. Not so.
Sure, if your youngster majors in History, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, or one of several other disciplines (e.g., Mathematics and the hard sciences), s/he will have extensive interaction with left-wing, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, Prius-driving, do-gooder, progressive liberals. But just drop by the Department of Economics, the business school, and, at the graduate level, the medical or law schools, and the conservatives will be crawling out of the woodwork.
Professor Gross should go back to his drawing board, make distinctions between (1) education and training and (2) years in a college and knowledge of the world -- and throw intelligence in there somewhere -- and give it another shot.
P.S. And about undergraduate business training, I can only plagiarize, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
To his credit, Professor Gross made no effort to equate -- or even correlate ... education and intelligence ... or even education and rational thought.
Not to his credit, however, he fails to distinguish between education and training. For sure, there is lots of training going on in America's medical, law, and business schools -- and, sadly, in schools of engineering as well -- but damned little education.
The good professor's thesis reminds me of the persistent, and mostly false, claim that when we send our kids off to college we subject them to four years of indoctrination by a cadre of left-wing liberals. Not so.
Sure, if your youngster majors in History, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, or one of several other disciplines (e.g., Mathematics and the hard sciences), s/he will have extensive interaction with left-wing, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, Prius-driving, do-gooder, progressive liberals. But just drop by the Department of Economics, the business school, and, at the graduate level, the medical or law schools, and the conservatives will be crawling out of the woodwork.
Professor Gross should go back to his drawing board, make distinctions between (1) education and training and (2) years in a college and knowledge of the world -- and throw intelligence in there somewhere -- and give it another shot.
P.S. And about undergraduate business training, I can only plagiarize, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
2
Part of the difficulty I have with Repub ideas (particularly those coming from the Tea Party or Trump) is that they don't seem to see even two steps down the road.
Take, for example, the idea that defaulting on our debt will help our financial situation, or that paying less that full value on our bonds will benefit us. These ideas are horribly shortsighted.
Could it be in part that highly educated people have been taught to look at things more critically, consider the bigger picture, and carry ideas farther than the simplest next step?
Take, for example, the idea that defaulting on our debt will help our financial situation, or that paying less that full value on our bonds will benefit us. These ideas are horribly shortsighted.
Could it be in part that highly educated people have been taught to look at things more critically, consider the bigger picture, and carry ideas farther than the simplest next step?
6
I am an engineer, a real one, not a "software engineer", but a mechanical engineering graduate of a Tier One Texas state university. My primary fields of work have been in oil refining, chemical manufacturing, and environmental remediation. I do not recall any liberals in engineering, the management of refineries and chemical plants, the chemists in refineries and chemical plants, or among the highly skilled operators of the plants. I am reminded that P.J. O'Rourke's "ganga head poetry readers slumping out of Brown University" are considered "highly educated".
4
People make decisions emotionally, not factually. Neuroscience tells us that if you want to change someone's mind, start with emotional appeals. BOTH liberals and conservatives are emotionally committed to their conclusions.
Facts that contradict your emotions are ignored, denied, or you change the subject unless it is safe to explore alternatives at the moment.
Liberals are already emotionally committed to listening to science, which is why they become academics. Conservatives are more committed to authority, mystery/religion, "family values," etc. which is why scientific facts don't matter to them as much.
Experience is more important than science in becoming liberal or conservative.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&conte...
Facts that contradict your emotions are ignored, denied, or you change the subject unless it is safe to explore alternatives at the moment.
Liberals are already emotionally committed to listening to science, which is why they become academics. Conservatives are more committed to authority, mystery/religion, "family values," etc. which is why scientific facts don't matter to them as much.
Experience is more important than science in becoming liberal or conservative.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&conte...
2
Some observations:
Perhaps it is the highly educated that see through much of the con game that now passes for governance, thus their liberal views.
There is a simple logic to the idea that "a society is only as good as its weakest member," but when encouraged to point fingers at each other, it takes a more studious view to see where the true problems lie--with way too many elected officials and our overall political system.
Also, many highly educated people value knowledge over material wealth, thus we don't mind paying more in taxes for the betterment of society. We do, however, resent when they are used to fight stupid wars.
And now a question: if the highly educated are also highly liberal, why do Sanders' supporters, like myself, constantly get called stupid?
Perhaps it is the highly educated that see through much of the con game that now passes for governance, thus their liberal views.
There is a simple logic to the idea that "a society is only as good as its weakest member," but when encouraged to point fingers at each other, it takes a more studious view to see where the true problems lie--with way too many elected officials and our overall political system.
Also, many highly educated people value knowledge over material wealth, thus we don't mind paying more in taxes for the betterment of society. We do, however, resent when they are used to fight stupid wars.
And now a question: if the highly educated are also highly liberal, why do Sanders' supporters, like myself, constantly get called stupid?
4
The idea that more education correlates with more liberal than conservative views on a range of subjects is not surprising. The difference is the greater experience with factuality, a mature self-discipline which respects reality, not ideologies, prejudices, or superstitions. Conservatives show themselves at odds with factuality in believing in the non-existent (voter impersonation fraud), denying the very existent (climate change) and much at both ends and in the middle.
My only concern is with the advice to beware hi-faulting' talk to the less educated. I would agree that jargon and pedantry have no place in any communications--even professionals use them to impress. one another or to conceal an absence of real ideas--, but "critical discourse" without puffery or pretense should remain the standard of reasonable discussion. The dumbing down of discourse to make appeals to the less educated will be detected and rejected as patronizing. If you want others to be mature in their thinking and respectful in their discourse, then be mature and respectful in yours.
My only concern is with the advice to beware hi-faulting' talk to the less educated. I would agree that jargon and pedantry have no place in any communications--even professionals use them to impress. one another or to conceal an absence of real ideas--, but "critical discourse" without puffery or pretense should remain the standard of reasonable discussion. The dumbing down of discourse to make appeals to the less educated will be detected and rejected as patronizing. If you want others to be mature in their thinking and respectful in their discourse, then be mature and respectful in yours.
105
You have it backwards, liberals believe that their ideas work, conservatives have objective evidence that the market works.
The highly educated liberal (myself included) would do well add shutting up and listening to the process of critical discourse. We in the social sciences have a long history of helping by imposing upon and deciding for the marginalized and those on the lower rungs. We have wanted to bring about change but have made many assumptions about what those we seek to help need. The whitel blue collar workers who we view as voting against their interests (and I do agree they do) vote that way for a reason. We need to listen for that, to understand where it comes from and propose alternatives rather than impose them.
Excellent statement. 1
The answer is much simpler than this discourse promotes.
As people progress into the upper levels of any academic objective (or skilled trade for that matter), they are forced to think more for themselves and not accept what is told to them by their respective knowledge mentors.
Things are not "correct" or true, just because someone says so or one's "Faith" forces faithful and frankly blind acceptance.
Facts, science, logic and pragmatism begin to more often Trump (pun intended) one's internal tendencies to believe things one historically or emotionally wants to believe because one's educational discipline forces acceptance of things born out by reality, the physically obvious or the theoretically logical.
Conservatives by definition resist these influences and want to maintain their previous view of reality. They remember what they want that is good and forget or are blind to what is bad.
As one becomes more educated, the more likely one will embrace and work for change whenever the facts or the logic indicate it is needed.
This difference is reflected on almost all the social issues from abortion to religion, to civil rights, to immigration to the need for social support structures in any modern society and for a more optimistic, frankly pragmatic outlook for our future versus a constant desire to return to a time that never was, which is what too many of my Republican friends seem to be seeking, especially in Texas and most other "red" states.
As people progress into the upper levels of any academic objective (or skilled trade for that matter), they are forced to think more for themselves and not accept what is told to them by their respective knowledge mentors.
Things are not "correct" or true, just because someone says so or one's "Faith" forces faithful and frankly blind acceptance.
Facts, science, logic and pragmatism begin to more often Trump (pun intended) one's internal tendencies to believe things one historically or emotionally wants to believe because one's educational discipline forces acceptance of things born out by reality, the physically obvious or the theoretically logical.
Conservatives by definition resist these influences and want to maintain their previous view of reality. They remember what they want that is good and forget or are blind to what is bad.
As one becomes more educated, the more likely one will embrace and work for change whenever the facts or the logic indicate it is needed.
This difference is reflected on almost all the social issues from abortion to religion, to civil rights, to immigration to the need for social support structures in any modern society and for a more optimistic, frankly pragmatic outlook for our future versus a constant desire to return to a time that never was, which is what too many of my Republican friends seem to be seeking, especially in Texas and most other "red" states.
123
People who think about and study the current immigration issue deeply enough to know the numbers discover that the US has had too much immigration for the last 40 years. it really does take jobs from American workers. Since the millennium, there are an additional 9.3 million jobs, an additional 18 million immigrants, and an additional 16.5 million working age Americans. A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study found that the wages of Americans without high school diplomas had fallen 30% over the previous 15 years, and that half of that drop was due to the oversupply of cheap labor from mass immigration.
The average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise fourfold after arrival in the US. With immigration having added 72 million to the population between 1970 and now (including children born to immigrants--who, of course, would not be in the US had their parents not come here), that was close to a 40% increase in the population since 1970 (on top of a 48 million native increase). Pew projects another 88 million immigrants over the next 50 years--nearly one New York State equivalent of immigrants per decade.
The average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise fourfold after arrival in the US. With immigration having added 72 million to the population between 1970 and now (including children born to immigrants--who, of course, would not be in the US had their parents not come here), that was close to a 40% increase in the population since 1970 (on top of a 48 million native increase). Pew projects another 88 million immigrants over the next 50 years--nearly one New York State equivalent of immigrants per decade.
They do? As a person thinks for themselves they see the fact that government as liberals want does little to help our society and a lot to destroy it. Those are the facts.
As a person concerned about the promotion of hatred, blame, and violence in the public sphere, I started going back over human history with a friend.
It turns out that history is chock full of the strong taking advantage of the weak, individuals seeking advantage without caring about hurting others. Not a good conclusion, sadly.
In order to maintain this psychopathic disregard for ethics and caring for other members of our human family, the status of "inferiors" is degraded. Something like Nazis blaming their prisoners for being dirty.
Educated people in many cases are curious and interested in a range of thought, and try to understand their world. Working over time to absorb a variety of information builds understanding and tolerance.
In general, people who care about how things work and try to understand rather than reject otherness are going to end up on the progressive end of the spectrum.
Democrats, Bernie or Hillary, want to help others do well. Republicans are wed to an authoritarian model where those who have get more.
For me, the prevalence of disinformation about climate change is heartbreaking. The evidence, all around us, is just begging us to connect the dots, and there is a dedicated infrastructure of deception (Kochs, Exxon, and most of the Republican party) meant to keep people from opening their eyes and looking around them.
One more thing that might help is better international news coverage, and broader focus that the repetitive focus we now get.
It turns out that history is chock full of the strong taking advantage of the weak, individuals seeking advantage without caring about hurting others. Not a good conclusion, sadly.
In order to maintain this psychopathic disregard for ethics and caring for other members of our human family, the status of "inferiors" is degraded. Something like Nazis blaming their prisoners for being dirty.
Educated people in many cases are curious and interested in a range of thought, and try to understand their world. Working over time to absorb a variety of information builds understanding and tolerance.
In general, people who care about how things work and try to understand rather than reject otherness are going to end up on the progressive end of the spectrum.
Democrats, Bernie or Hillary, want to help others do well. Republicans are wed to an authoritarian model where those who have get more.
For me, the prevalence of disinformation about climate change is heartbreaking. The evidence, all around us, is just begging us to connect the dots, and there is a dedicated infrastructure of deception (Kochs, Exxon, and most of the Republican party) meant to keep people from opening their eyes and looking around them.
One more thing that might help is better international news coverage, and broader focus that the repetitive focus we now get.
11
I am a loss to understand the comment, or is it the affirmation, that liberals have removed themselves or have ignored the working class. Politically, what any person or group can do is to support measures that are promoted for the benefit of persons who live with economic difficulties. It is precisely what liberals have supported: from child care, to unemployment compensation, to health insurance, social security, adult educational training, immigration reform. It is to be noted that all of these programs require money from taxes which liberals are willing to pay.
I also wonder, as in the article, why introducing one's children "into a world of literacy, art and science" is an example of preserving its advantages. The formulation "there's ample evidence" sounds like a revelation of a hidden agenda.
I also wonder, as in the article, why introducing one's children "into a world of literacy, art and science" is an example of preserving its advantages. The formulation "there's ample evidence" sounds like a revelation of a hidden agenda.
9
Jobs not welfare. Most people want to take care of themselves. They want to make a decent living. Not a subsistence check.
2
I thought it was the function of the free market to provide jobs since as Republicans would want "government doesn't provide jobs". So, let's see the great corporations do their job. A government gives subsistence checks when the market fails in its primary function.
3
Now that is neither true, open minded, nor intelligent. Insulting the people around you does not bespoke brilliance but prejudice.
It's just the kind of thing that drives people who know they have worth away. Brain tests are just one aspect of intelligence.
It's just the kind of thing that drives people who know they have worth away. Brain tests are just one aspect of intelligence.
2
Oh dear, this was meant to be a response to a person who claimed dumb people were 1000:1 in the USA. Comment system glitch. Sorry.
Yes and mostly No, Mr Gross -- and largely because you make far too many broad generalizations about a very very large group of highly educated people living and working in the USA,
As someone over-educated and privileged and surrounded by PhDs for a few reasons, I can tell you that most of us are not uniformly liberal, or uni-vocally liberal. We are not one big happy group of like-minded people from the 60s as you seem to suggest. That is so simplistic it really rubs me the wrong way.
In my typical day, I observe plenty of conservative statements made on every topic -- some of those statements startling in their conservatism -- by wealthy connected PhDs that PEW foundation might look at quickly and label "liberal." It is more far nuanced than that.
10
I agree. I have several college degrees and I am a conservative and a Republican. I am tired of the 2% trying to shove their ideas and beliefs down the throats of the rest of the population.
1
You read a lot into the article. Go back and read the words without adding your own.
I am convinced that it is more of an issue related to faith in God , than it is to liberal vs conservative. Liberals are composed primarily of people who oppose religious faith. Conservatives are composed primarily of people with religious faith. It has nothing to do with levels of education. Find me someone who abhors the idea of worshiping a God and I will bet that on political issues they lean left. Find me someone with strong faith in God and I will bet that on political issues they lean right.
3
Well you are certainly wrong on that last point. As a practicing Christian, I am a member of a community of people who are thankful for what we have and mindful of the fact that we are called to help those among us who are less fortunate, to be loving to all, not just to those with whom we agree, to be good stewards of the earth, and to be inquisitive and thoughtful as we decide complex issues. My friends, both religious and not, accept scientific reality on matters of climate change, evolution, etc. They understand that if we are to preserve a society in which we have the opportunity to prosper then we need to maintain a level playing field and take steps to mitigate widening income inequality. And more generally, we need to learn to see the good in others.
This is not the fanciful musing of some doe-eyed liberal. I am an engineer, a former Army officer, and a pragmatist. The kinds of things that the modern Republican Party (a party to which I belonged) has come to stand for are in my view impolitic, uncharitable, and dangerous. Please stop lumping all Christians into the same narrow-minded conservative camp. I invite you to take a step back and re-read the New Testament as if for the first time, not line by line but thematically. See what Christ emphasized. I think you will find that the message is quite clear. He was far less concerned with laying down rules about whose we loved and so forth than he was about insisting that we be generous in spirit.
This is not the fanciful musing of some doe-eyed liberal. I am an engineer, a former Army officer, and a pragmatist. The kinds of things that the modern Republican Party (a party to which I belonged) has come to stand for are in my view impolitic, uncharitable, and dangerous. Please stop lumping all Christians into the same narrow-minded conservative camp. I invite you to take a step back and re-read the New Testament as if for the first time, not line by line but thematically. See what Christ emphasized. I think you will find that the message is quite clear. He was far less concerned with laying down rules about whose we loved and so forth than he was about insisting that we be generous in spirit.
Here in Ireland - a place which many foreigners still think of as some religious bastion against the godless ways now sweeping the West - many Irish people would indeed still identify themselves as religious in some way.
As part of that, some of the most religious people in Ireland are also some of the best-known public figures here.
And, as part of that, they're shouting out loud and clear from the Left, as the likes of Sr Stan, Fr Dan Joe, Fr Peter McVerry, Fr Brian Darcy, and a rake of other well-known figures from a range of religious orders, have a very loud, very popular voice that veers Left in most things.
Ireland's housing crisis. Our current homelessness crisis. Income inequality. Treatment for drug addicts. Resources to fight addiction. More inner city supports. Greater taxation on the rich. Much greater taxation for corporations. An end to international hug tech firms running money trains through Ireland. Need I continue?
These, and many other topics - including support from a number of such figures last year for Marriage Equality, IE Gay Marriage, which the Irish electorate voted for with a 2/3s majority last year (yes, those self-same religious citizens) - see the faithful and the faithless alike align.
While religion appears to poison aspects of American politics just as much as in other countries that America is battling with, people with strong faith in other countries don't necessarily let it dictate their lives, views and voices.
As part of that, some of the most religious people in Ireland are also some of the best-known public figures here.
And, as part of that, they're shouting out loud and clear from the Left, as the likes of Sr Stan, Fr Dan Joe, Fr Peter McVerry, Fr Brian Darcy, and a rake of other well-known figures from a range of religious orders, have a very loud, very popular voice that veers Left in most things.
Ireland's housing crisis. Our current homelessness crisis. Income inequality. Treatment for drug addicts. Resources to fight addiction. More inner city supports. Greater taxation on the rich. Much greater taxation for corporations. An end to international hug tech firms running money trains through Ireland. Need I continue?
These, and many other topics - including support from a number of such figures last year for Marriage Equality, IE Gay Marriage, which the Irish electorate voted for with a 2/3s majority last year (yes, those self-same religious citizens) - see the faithful and the faithless alike align.
While religion appears to poison aspects of American politics just as much as in other countries that America is battling with, people with strong faith in other countries don't necessarily let it dictate their lives, views and voices.
Or is it that conservatives gravitate to mythology to explain what their less intellectual minds can't comprehend?
2
I am uncomfortable with the term," highly educated,' and then the words, "so liberal," because I don't necessarily think that highly educated means highly intelligent. I find that the members of Congress over the years, and the Federal Reserve have been incredibly stupid. I, also, don't find the words, "so liberal," to have any relation to reality or common sense, but rather an indifference towards holding females responsible for not bringing children into the world if they can't afford to raise them, not using contraception to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, and the idea that the brain Is so undeveloped that until the age of 30, no one can control their behavior(arson, drugs, drunk driving, murder, rape, robbery,, etc. For me, these words ring shallow, in a world that has descended into, "A Liberal, Ignorant Morass!"
4
Overthought.
In general, the educated and constantly exercised mind of 'scientists, engineers, managers,...' weeds out ideology, conspiracy, and even self-interest in favor of the rational best answer. The objective is a just, prosperous and conflict-free society that will bring happiness to our children, and our children's children, whose situation - abilities, circumstances, sexual disposition, etc - we cannot know. To the 21C mind, amassing and analysing evidence from right and left... the answer lies on the left.
In general, the educated and constantly exercised mind of 'scientists, engineers, managers,...' weeds out ideology, conspiracy, and even self-interest in favor of the rational best answer. The objective is a just, prosperous and conflict-free society that will bring happiness to our children, and our children's children, whose situation - abilities, circumstances, sexual disposition, etc - we cannot know. To the 21C mind, amassing and analysing evidence from right and left... the answer lies on the left.
11
I'm not so sure the Democrat party wants to embrace redistributionist ideas. They seem much more comfortable with the neoliberalism of Third Way politicians like their presumed standard bearer than the Democratic Socialism of that pesky guy from Vermont who keeps talking about the .1%. They seem much more comfortable with the hedge-fund donor base than the small bore contributors who are funding that guy from Vermont. They seem much more comfortable with MBAs than Ph.Ds.
7
The "Democrat party"? Don't make it so obvious, WF.
The truth and facts have a liberal bias. Most people with any sense cannot stand the cognitive dissonance it takes to be a conservative, and conservatives are much more able to compartmentalize their thoughts in order to hold incongruous views. It has been well-documented but not widely known the right wing has been trying to dumb down education in order to keep workers more compliant and willing to accept difficult work conditions for lower pay and also keep them from understanding how dumb their positions are.
34
"...the Republican Party’s move to the right since the 1980s." Bingo. Nixon would be a Democrat today. Simple as that. Today's Republicans do not offer anything substantial to the people except empty promises of a return to the past glories of Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best, which would mean marginal tax rates of 90% and affordable public education. The No-Spin-Twilight-Zoners have forgotten how they retired with a nest egg and raised a family on one income and an annual vacation to Disney World. The modern GOP has built a hypocritical coalition out of archaic social/family "values" and entitlements for the 1%. Even the 1% is starting to realize that the stock price of pitchfork manufacturers is going up.
It's not about education. It's about intelligence, ethics, and reality. Smart people see that the GOP doesn't make any sense. Ethical people see that the GOP is horribly amoral. Reality seekers see that the GOP is based on a mirage. The correlation with people with Ph.D.s is for lack of better data on better indicators.
It's not about education. It's about intelligence, ethics, and reality. Smart people see that the GOP doesn't make any sense. Ethical people see that the GOP is horribly amoral. Reality seekers see that the GOP is based on a mirage. The correlation with people with Ph.D.s is for lack of better data on better indicators.
42
I remain in the Republican Party because of the damage the Democratic Party has created for our country. We are not in a better place today due to abortion on demand, escalating out-of- wedlock births, and now the requirement that all sexes be given the choice of using the restroom they so choose. The public schools are falling apart with the children running and ruining them. There is violence and very little learning takes place. This is just a partial list of the ways our country is failing.
I am college educated and have an advanced degree and yet still I am a Republican. Why is that? I do not like the direction our country has been going since President Obama took office. He has been the most liberal president in history and this is frightening. If President Kennedy were alive today, he would be a Republican, no doubt. He would not recognize our country and would be astounded.
I am college educated and have an advanced degree and yet still I am a Republican. Why is that? I do not like the direction our country has been going since President Obama took office. He has been the most liberal president in history and this is frightening. If President Kennedy were alive today, he would be a Republican, no doubt. He would not recognize our country and would be astounded.
44
I remain in the Democratic Party because of the damage the Republican Party has created for our country. We are in a better place today due to abortion on demand and now the requirement that all transgenders be given the choice of using the restroom they so choose. The public schools are falling apart with the Republican politicians increasingly running and ruining them. There is violence from the gun toters and very little learning takes place. This is just a partial list of the ways our country is failing.
I don't have an advanced degree and yet still I am a Democrat. Why is that? I do not like the direction our country has been going since congressional Republicans took charge. They have been the most reactionary in history and this is frightening. If President Theodore Roosevelt were alive today, he would be a Democrat, no doubt. He would not recognize our country and would be astounded.
I don't have an advanced degree and yet still I am a Democrat. Why is that? I do not like the direction our country has been going since congressional Republicans took charge. They have been the most reactionary in history and this is frightening. If President Theodore Roosevelt were alive today, he would be a Democrat, no doubt. He would not recognize our country and would be astounded.
25
If Barack Obama is the most liberal president in history, I am the Easter Bunny. Liberals are angry at Obama because of his moderation and lack of ideological purity. It is true, though, that JFK would not recognize his party today. And Dwight Eisenhower would be appalled by the reactionary element that has taken over the Republican party and that he described as an extremist splinter group.
11
As an independent, I tend to agree. Just read the comments in the NYT compared to those in WSJ for evidence of liberal vs conservative ability to for more than basic writing skills. However, I think the author has overstated the case a bit.
Earlier this week the NYT had an article from a Harvard economics professor that was wildly rejected by the majority of commenters. His sin? Thinking outside the typical liberal box.
Conventional conservative and liberal thinking are both getting long in the tooth. Highly educated people, if they haven't gotten too lazy, should re-examine their positions, not to abandon them, but enhance them. They should start to engage in more convergent thinking rather than the divergent thinking that characterizes both the left and right. Then for example, they could appreciate the value of what the good professor from Harvard had to say.
The danger I see from the highly educated is not so much protecting their own as the author here fears, but of being self-satisfied that they know it all. Hmmm? Just like the conservatives.
Earlier this week the NYT had an article from a Harvard economics professor that was wildly rejected by the majority of commenters. His sin? Thinking outside the typical liberal box.
Conventional conservative and liberal thinking are both getting long in the tooth. Highly educated people, if they haven't gotten too lazy, should re-examine their positions, not to abandon them, but enhance them. They should start to engage in more convergent thinking rather than the divergent thinking that characterizes both the left and right. Then for example, they could appreciate the value of what the good professor from Harvard had to say.
The danger I see from the highly educated is not so much protecting their own as the author here fears, but of being self-satisfied that they know it all. Hmmm? Just like the conservatives.
3
I would like to add another reason why the more educated are often identifying with liberal views: At least in the last few decades, the arguments of the republican right on taxes, spending, and social issues, and virtually all other points have been intellectually so flawed that it is painful to watch for anyone who is trained in logical thought. So there was nowhere else to go, but left.
9
Today the main difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals tend to want to tell me what they can do with my earned income and conservatives want to tell me as a consenting adults what I can do with my body.
Both groups love using the government for their own interests, and getting paid with taxpayer dollars. Which I call the Machiavellian mindset. The ends justify the means.
The question I have is, as the middle class disappears, will old fashioned values often attributed to conservatism, like people helping each other much like the Amish, LDS/Mormons do become the norm, and will liberalism still be called liberalism or will it be more libertarian?
Both groups love using the government for their own interests, and getting paid with taxpayer dollars. Which I call the Machiavellian mindset. The ends justify the means.
The question I have is, as the middle class disappears, will old fashioned values often attributed to conservatism, like people helping each other much like the Amish, LDS/Mormons do become the norm, and will liberalism still be called liberalism or will it be more libertarian?
3
This is so simple. The essence of education is to recognize that the world can be seen from multiple perspectives. That is a major tenant of liberalism, whereas conservates hate the idea that there are perspectives other than theirs. What is particularly telling is the surveys from around 12 years ago showing that university faculty in the hard sciences and engineering, fields with no political content, were overwhelmingly liberal. You can't make a new discovery in physics if you cant see things from an original perspective.
9
Anyone who believes that Liberals 'recognize that the world can be seen from multiple perspectives' need only read the majority of comments here to be disabused of that notion.
1
The more people read, especially about other cultures and lifestyles not quite like their own, the more empathy they develop for those folks. Think about liberal policies and conservative policies, and try to figure out which ones show more empathy. It doesn't take a very intelligent person to know that he wants to keep more of his paycheck. It also doesn't take intelligence to believe in the extremities of religion--in fact, it requires the opposite. Same with science--smarter people see it as a key to better life, while the ignorant see it as an evil, or, at best, a necessary evil.
5
I think for the most part, the highly educated had to work hard and pay a lot of money to earn their educational degrees and hopefully, in the process developed empathy for people, an empathy that doesn't seem to exist in Republicans. This leaves the Democratic Party as a political party option--unless these highly educated Liberals want to start another party, something that Tea Party folk should have done rather than co-opt the Republican party.
4
If the highly educated are worried about climate change then why are the airports packed? Why do phd's think it is ok to fly to a climate change conference?
Because the educated opinion brings with it a sense of immunity, exclusivity and entitlement. It's the hypocrisy of not practicing what is preached that dooms any influence that they feel is their due. The sanctimony and hubris of their own lifestyles betrays the scare mongering.
Coal is terrible but jet fuel is fine. Right.
Because the educated opinion brings with it a sense of immunity, exclusivity and entitlement. It's the hypocrisy of not practicing what is preached that dooms any influence that they feel is their due. The sanctimony and hubris of their own lifestyles betrays the scare mongering.
Coal is terrible but jet fuel is fine. Right.
15
There's a perfect example of RW anti-intellectualism. No matter how many times climate science deniers repeat it, this is a childish fallacy. If Al Gore drove an A1M1 Abrams to the corner store, 3X/day, the findings of climate science would not be affected one whit.
3
Perhaps the reason so many people who have higher education are liberal is because the institutions they are graduating from are lacking political diversity. True, dialectical conversation requires two propositions to be debated over, something very likely to split along political lines. If you lack one side of the argument how can you possible expect people to come out of America's institutions politically diverse? Simplyput, It's brainwashing. Maybe an affirmitiave action for political leanings would be benificial, though I would never expect liberals to get up in arms defending conservatives. How noble
6
Or perhaps the ideas of modern US "conservatism" simply fail to withstand intellectual inspection.
If you seek examples of brainwashing, look to the Right. Conservatives are taught that they must reject evidence, science, and reality else be rejected by the conservative tribe. Anti-intellectualism is enforced. That's brainwashing.
If you seek examples of brainwashing, look to the Right. Conservatives are taught that they must reject evidence, science, and reality else be rejected by the conservative tribe. Anti-intellectualism is enforced. That's brainwashing.
2
Don't forget Fox News.
Commenters are quick to use climate change as an example of educated liberals relying on facts and science, in contrast to conservatives. But what about GMOs? On that topic, liberals choose to ignore the science while the conservatives honor the research.
Neither liberal nor conservatives have a corner on the truth. The arrogance of liberals, displayed in the comments on this article, is what turns people off. We ain't as smart as some of us think we are. We helped to create Trump, and we still don't see it.
Neither liberal nor conservatives have a corner on the truth. The arrogance of liberals, displayed in the comments on this article, is what turns people off. We ain't as smart as some of us think we are. We helped to create Trump, and we still don't see it.
15
Everyone has their blind spots where ideology trumps data. With many conservatives, climate change is one of them. With many liberals, welfare benefits are one of theirs. We have had over 50 years since the War on Poverty was declared, and it seems that poverty is winning, since the official poverty rate is just about the same after all that time. Yet the left still insists that doing more of the same things we have done for those 50 years will solve the problem. Sounds a lot like the right's take of climate change, doesn't it?
It's not true that the Left rejects science in other fields just as the Right does. Rejection of GMO's and vaccinations and other examples of anti-science are much less correlated with ideology than climate science denial and evolution denial. False equivalence.
I'm unsure of your point regarding Trump. You seem to imply that the Left shares substantial blame for the Trump phenomenon but I see no supporting argument. I think it's clear that Trump is the result of decades of the Right's strategies. Those include appealing to bigotry as a political strategy and cultivating ignorance and an alternate reality among the RW masses to gain their support for policies favoring corporations and billionaires.
I'm unsure of your point regarding Trump. You seem to imply that the Left shares substantial blame for the Trump phenomenon but I see no supporting argument. I think it's clear that Trump is the result of decades of the Right's strategies. Those include appealing to bigotry as a political strategy and cultivating ignorance and an alternate reality among the RW masses to gain their support for policies favoring corporations and billionaires.
“...those who went to graduate or professional school have “down the line” liberal views...,whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally...These numbers reflect drastic change: While professionals have been in the Democratic column for a while, in 1994 only 7 percent of postgrads held consistently liberal political opinions."
As one of those "highly educated" liberals (BTW, there are plenty of folks I have met with advanced degrees that I would never define as "highly educated"), I cringe reading that I have been in the "Democratic column for a while" now.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- I have never voted for a Democrat since I began voting precisely because there is nothing "liberal" about the party. As Gore Vidal often put it, what we have in this country is a one-party system with two right wings. Many of my highly educated colleagues are no doubt reading this and scratching their heads over the incredibly narrow political spectrum and worldview this editorial presents.
Instead I think the question that should be asked is why so some "highly educated" professors (such as the author of this piece) buy into the the myth that there is a major, substantive philosophical difference between the two parties. I regret to inform you of this, but they are both under corporate oligarchical control. See Ms. Clinton’s speech before Goldman Sachs….oops, I guess you can’t see that. Not to mention all of those wars she has backed.
Some liberal.
As one of those "highly educated" liberals (BTW, there are plenty of folks I have met with advanced degrees that I would never define as "highly educated"), I cringe reading that I have been in the "Democratic column for a while" now.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- I have never voted for a Democrat since I began voting precisely because there is nothing "liberal" about the party. As Gore Vidal often put it, what we have in this country is a one-party system with two right wings. Many of my highly educated colleagues are no doubt reading this and scratching their heads over the incredibly narrow political spectrum and worldview this editorial presents.
Instead I think the question that should be asked is why so some "highly educated" professors (such as the author of this piece) buy into the the myth that there is a major, substantive philosophical difference between the two parties. I regret to inform you of this, but they are both under corporate oligarchical control. See Ms. Clinton’s speech before Goldman Sachs….oops, I guess you can’t see that. Not to mention all of those wars she has backed.
Some liberal.
8
It depends on your perspective. From the far left everything else is on the right and from the far right everything else is to the left.
I don't think that makes us right with the center. I think we're just left with the center.
Sanders, Clinton, or Trump, I suspect Vidal would have found them all easy targets. But right now I would love to hear Joan Rivers rip into them. Both took no prisoners.
I don't think that makes us right with the center. I think we're just left with the center.
Sanders, Clinton, or Trump, I suspect Vidal would have found them all easy targets. But right now I would love to hear Joan Rivers rip into them. Both took no prisoners.
1
There is another facet of this discussion, which, though perhaps a drift from the immediate subject at hand is relevant. People with higher degrees tend to earn more money; people of higher tax bracket tend to oppose redistribution. When the author refers to the "highly educated", is he reffering to financiers with masters in subjects such as business administration or accounting? or is he referring to those who pursued degrees more in the vain of liberal arts? The right is not without it's intellectuals; as we are seeing they are more and more isolated within their party.
1
The highly educated demonstrate liberality only by giving lip service and legal protection to favored minorities, but as I have long said, and Thomas Frank, in his recent Listen, Liberal! has persuasively argued, they constitute a smug meritocracy that doesn't want its money to go where its mouth is, nor do they feel any solidarity with less educated working stiffs. They will not stand up for the rights of labor, even for the rights of their fellow Ph.Ds, the adjuncts who constitute the academic proletariat. Such "Liberals" we can live without.
6
Conservatism is about group values. It is about submitting personal interests to group interests. It is for example about keeping that job or not separating that spouse because of the children. It is also about safety - as you expect other people to do the same thing for you.
Traditionally the highly educated came from the upper class families that stressed such conservative values as a way to stay upperclass through the generations.
Most of the "new" highly educated lack that background. Their prospects are mainly contained in their education and that enables them to take distance from their roots. It is no coincidence that the neoliberal view of the economy is so popular among them: it discards any idea of collective action.
Traditionally the highly educated came from the upper class families that stressed such conservative values as a way to stay upperclass through the generations.
Most of the "new" highly educated lack that background. Their prospects are mainly contained in their education and that enables them to take distance from their roots. It is no coincidence that the neoliberal view of the economy is so popular among them: it discards any idea of collective action.
2
It might be that so-called "educated" people are inculcated with as much ideology and propaganda in the overwhelmingly leftist environment of colleges and universities as conservatives are in church and during target practice. No side has all the answers, and adopting a philosophy that assumes, a priori, to be correct without ever being tested in the field is foolish. Skeptical empiricism always beats political groupthink.
3
Or it might be that those who write "so called "educated" people" are displaying anti-intellectualism in the classic American tradition.
It's very telling that you think that adoption of liberal ideas is a product of dogmatic belief just like adoption of conservative ideas, instead of the result of intellectual processes.
It's very telling that you think that adoption of liberal ideas is a product of dogmatic belief just like adoption of conservative ideas, instead of the result of intellectual processes.
The highly educated are disproportionately liberal because they attain a higher level/ability to think critically. That is not to say that conservatives are unable to think critically. They can. But, they also have a propensity to resist change - the definition of conservative is not accepting or liking change or new ideas. So critical thinking isn't entirely objective with conservatives.
Liberals, on the other hand, are not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted. They are not as subjective in their analytical processes. They think outside the box more.
Of course that does not mean that liberals are disinclined towards self preservation. That kind of a "brain stem" function for everyone.
The biggest problem I see is that critical thinking is not taught with any sincerity in K-12. Perhaps if it were there wouldn't be such an aversion to facts by less well educated folks, both conservative AND liberal.
Conservative ideas and leanings aren't always a bad thing either. In some instances that may be what keeps us from extinction. It is just very unfortunate that the powerful fossil fuel industry supports political conservatives in exchange for promoting climate change denial. It is a travesty that politicians sell their souls and the future of the planet that their Christian God created to keep their jobs.
Liberals, on the other hand, are not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted. They are not as subjective in their analytical processes. They think outside the box more.
Of course that does not mean that liberals are disinclined towards self preservation. That kind of a "brain stem" function for everyone.
The biggest problem I see is that critical thinking is not taught with any sincerity in K-12. Perhaps if it were there wouldn't be such an aversion to facts by less well educated folks, both conservative AND liberal.
Conservative ideas and leanings aren't always a bad thing either. In some instances that may be what keeps us from extinction. It is just very unfortunate that the powerful fossil fuel industry supports political conservatives in exchange for promoting climate change denial. It is a travesty that politicians sell their souls and the future of the planet that their Christian God created to keep their jobs.
2
Very interesting essay. A danger for Democrats is that they cannot simply assume that they own the "Ph.D. vote." Although the highly educated have reliably voted Democrat/liberal for the past 30 years, that might be due to a lack of viable alternatives. The highly educated are strongly anti-establishment, and if the Democratic party ceases to represent them, they will be openly receptive to new and different political forces. The current political season, in my opinion, is revealing the clear signs of such a change.
2
Between us, my wife and I hold 5 advanced degrees. By basic emotional structure and temperament, we also value logic and evidence. Having said that, we are both moderate Republicans of long standing, both being over 70 years old.
That is, we are Republicans of the old school that the newly ascendant, ultra religious conservatives who do not represent. Yet, at the same time, we worked hard for years getting our educations, working at our jobs so that we do not want to see it given away to people who want it easy or who feel entitled.
This leaves us in between the Democrats with their push toward redistribution and the GOP where religious fundamentalism has alienated much of the population.
No wonder Trump came along.
That is, we are Republicans of the old school that the newly ascendant, ultra religious conservatives who do not represent. Yet, at the same time, we worked hard for years getting our educations, working at our jobs so that we do not want to see it given away to people who want it easy or who feel entitled.
This leaves us in between the Democrats with their push toward redistribution and the GOP where religious fundamentalism has alienated much of the population.
No wonder Trump came along.
7
@ Bill,
You say, "we worked hard for years getting our educations, working at our jobs so that we do not want to see it given away to people who want it easy or who feel entitled."
There may be some people out there who want it easy or who feel entitled. But have you watched the housecleaning people, ground maintenance people, roofers, and even teachers hard at work, barely able to make ends meet -- sometimes with several jobs for each breadwinner in the family? It is easy to scapegoat or to dismiss good policies on the basis of a small set of anecdotal evidence about lazy people. But seriously, calculate a minimum wage job's earnings and rent, automobile costs, food, health care, child-care (for parents who need to work), basic cable and phone service, utility cost, etc. Even double minimum wage often leaves the worker and their family in debt. Those are the people who would be helped by a higher wages, a better safety net (child-care, health care, better schools for children), and affordable housing. I haven't run into many slackers hanging around waiting for hand-outs. I do see a lot of hard-working people -- some perhaps needing better budgeting and protection from predators out to take their money (payday lenders are a good example). Check out "welfare reform." It not only eliminated much of the safety net for goof-offs, it also hurt some hard-working folks trying to make ends meet.
You say, "we worked hard for years getting our educations, working at our jobs so that we do not want to see it given away to people who want it easy or who feel entitled."
There may be some people out there who want it easy or who feel entitled. But have you watched the housecleaning people, ground maintenance people, roofers, and even teachers hard at work, barely able to make ends meet -- sometimes with several jobs for each breadwinner in the family? It is easy to scapegoat or to dismiss good policies on the basis of a small set of anecdotal evidence about lazy people. But seriously, calculate a minimum wage job's earnings and rent, automobile costs, food, health care, child-care (for parents who need to work), basic cable and phone service, utility cost, etc. Even double minimum wage often leaves the worker and their family in debt. Those are the people who would be helped by a higher wages, a better safety net (child-care, health care, better schools for children), and affordable housing. I haven't run into many slackers hanging around waiting for hand-outs. I do see a lot of hard-working people -- some perhaps needing better budgeting and protection from predators out to take their money (payday lenders are a good example). Check out "welfare reform." It not only eliminated much of the safety net for goof-offs, it also hurt some hard-working folks trying to make ends meet.
3
In regards redistribution, the Democratic party is where the Republican party used to be. It was Clinton who signed welfare reform in '96. Tax rates at the high end are near historical lows. You should wake up, smell the coffee, and vote Democrat. That's what I did.
Look, everyone, it's all very simple. Liberalism in both thought and spirit, has long been known to be the desired outcome of a proper education, no less so than intellect, wisdom, knowledge and judgment. Indeed, the capacity for free, liberal thought and political and ethical tolerance is in fact the crown which all true education ultimately aims. This is why they are called the Liberal Arts, after all, and not the "Conservative Arts." Only in distorted, bizarre, fun-house mirror, monstrous cases does education produce conservatives; in all known cases, true educatkon, where it has gone well, produces Liberalism. Logically, something has gone askew when education produces a Conservative, whether some hatred of the process of Education, or a hatred of the Educated (meaning: the Liberal). Now you all know that only the hatred of Education, and so the hatred of the Educated, and so the hatred of Liberals, produces Conservatism. Conservatism is a mere reaction to Liberalism, mere reactionary, vengeful hatred of the Liberal's education.
3
While well-educated people may as a whole be more likely to make better decisions than those who are less well informed, history has shown that even the well-educated and intelligent may make egregious errors in judgment, sometimes with catastrophic effects. The more highly educated also have been guilty of being supercilious in their relationships to those whose education is less than their own.
Yet, on the other hand, we don't want to champion the importance of philistinism either. When it comes to politics and the politics of human relationships, good judgment, good manners, and common sense are more important than the number of letters after your name, or how much education you've had. As the atom bomb has taught us, knowing things and knowing how to do them can be useful, but the proper stewardship of this knowledge and technology is something that is not taught in school.
Yet, on the other hand, we don't want to champion the importance of philistinism either. When it comes to politics and the politics of human relationships, good judgment, good manners, and common sense are more important than the number of letters after your name, or how much education you've had. As the atom bomb has taught us, knowing things and knowing how to do them can be useful, but the proper stewardship of this knowledge and technology is something that is not taught in school.
1
"Some of the draw of Donald Trump for white working-class male voters, for example, is that he does not speak in a 'culture of critical discourse'. Indeed, he mocks that culture, tapping into class resentments." I think you an many others misjudge Trump's appeal. I saw it early on. While all the other Republican candidates were essentially spouting the same ideology, Trump was offering something different. (1) Putting an end to the US being the world's policeman. Trump is stating what the working class troops coming home have been saying for years, war without end in the Middle East and elsewhere makes our country poorer, wastes money, does not resolve conflicts that often go back over 1000 years, & creates enemies for the US. And for what? Oil? No thanks, we've got plenty now & we're moving towards renewables. (2) Trade deals have done much to make other countries richer, & make multinationals richer, but have hallowed out American manufacturing, making the working and middle classes poorer. (3) Illegal immigration does take jobs away from Americans and depress wages for those jobs retained. The characterization that Trump supporters are white male is only half right. Many are female, many are people of color that have the same working class values as other Trump supporters. As a liberal with working class roots I will NEVER support Trump. But having observed the working take it on the chin for 30 years, I understand his appeal. The Democrats better have an answer for that.
3
Taking Global Warming as an example. Those within the higher levels of science understand the rigor that lends credence to such a scientific theory. It is without a doubt TRUE to those with this education. When one political part accepts the truth and one rejects it, those within the scientific community have no choice but to be exasperated.
The Republican party in its current incarnation is still a party of beliefs, religious or otherwise, which I will pass no judgement on as far as it goes, but only say that isn't the standard used in academia. For better or worse, one party examines, criticizes, and iteratively updates its view of the world in a search for truth while the other boasts unwavering bombastic egomania claiming to know absolute truths and to never be wrong. There is validity to both methods of defining authority, but those in high science only heed one appeal.
You can tell a scientist what is correct, but she will come back and ask why. "Because I said so" isn't an answer to her. "Maybe I'm wrong, let's look at the data" will resonate. That is not true of the general public. They oftentimes just want to have confidence that our leaders "know all the answers" inherently and never need to figure them out while admitting they don't know. The non-academia left appeals to the authority of the scientist as just knowing, while that very scientist would say he knows nothing other than how to capture and read valid data. The right only hears "he knows nothing".
The Republican party in its current incarnation is still a party of beliefs, religious or otherwise, which I will pass no judgement on as far as it goes, but only say that isn't the standard used in academia. For better or worse, one party examines, criticizes, and iteratively updates its view of the world in a search for truth while the other boasts unwavering bombastic egomania claiming to know absolute truths and to never be wrong. There is validity to both methods of defining authority, but those in high science only heed one appeal.
You can tell a scientist what is correct, but she will come back and ask why. "Because I said so" isn't an answer to her. "Maybe I'm wrong, let's look at the data" will resonate. That is not true of the general public. They oftentimes just want to have confidence that our leaders "know all the answers" inherently and never need to figure them out while admitting they don't know. The non-academia left appeals to the authority of the scientist as just knowing, while that very scientist would say he knows nothing other than how to capture and read valid data. The right only hears "he knows nothing".
1
I am a PhD and a professor. I have actually served on PhD committees of students doing at large scale atmospheric simulations. Yes, the basic idea of CO2 caused greenhouse effect is very true. But beyond that the simulated effects and fits to the 20th century are known by all to be highly iffy and have huge error margins. The real workers, e.g. the grad students, of course know this, but they are not running the propaganda machine.
And please note again, as somebody else mentioned, that liberals absolutely deny science when it fits their agenda: the science, which is about of the same quality as global warming extrapolations, says GMO crops are safe, but liberals ignore this.
It is this fact (yes, its a fact that they treat two scientific projections of similar dubiousness the exact reverse) that shows that articles like this are just more apologies for the failings in logic of the Left.
And please note again, as somebody else mentioned, that liberals absolutely deny science when it fits their agenda: the science, which is about of the same quality as global warming extrapolations, says GMO crops are safe, but liberals ignore this.
It is this fact (yes, its a fact that they treat two scientific projections of similar dubiousness the exact reverse) that shows that articles like this are just more apologies for the failings in logic of the Left.
1
I recall a study showing a strong correlation between being a fearful person and being a conservative. Highly educated people will be, hopefully, better equipped to understand the difference between possible and probable events, thus, making them more selective and rational in their fears.
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
4
I am supposedly highly educated (a PhD), and perhaps a majority of highly educated are liberal, but there are many conspicuously, so-called conservative leaders who are also highly educated and oh-so-pious. Take Ted Cruz. Everyone agrees that he is brilliant. The guy talked about carpet bombing the MIddle East. Look at W's pedigree. W is just a much of a Christian as Cruz, and look at the unspeakable suffering and death his war got us. Dick Cheney was no ignoramus. Look what all of his degrees got us. Ben Carson, extraordinarily skilled. Look at some of the ridiculous things he came out with. The Trumpster is highly educated, a graduate of the prestigious Wharton School of business. A high degree of education, and in fact a claim to be a holier-than-thou Christian (or any other religion for that matter) are no cure for dishonesty, arrogance, hatefulness, cruelty or greed.
3
Personally, being "a professional student" in the 70s and 80s, I would conclude that "a four year" degree and its worth, would depend on where it is earned. In other words, our colleges vary widely.
Furthermore, logical persons, such as a few leaders of hugely successful companies, are college drop-outs.
So generalizations tend to be worthless.
Furthermore, logical persons, such as a few leaders of hugely successful companies, are college drop-outs.
So generalizations tend to be worthless.
1
Are we more liberal? I, brought up in Indiana, came to an Ivy League college and left, 4 years later, to vote for Goldwater. So, after law school, I became the "fascist pig" of my Peace Corps training group.
Today, having lived in Brazil for almost 40 years, I am still, I believe, a "classical" liberal, i.e. one who believes that government should only do for people what they are incapable of doing for themselves. Adam Smith at his purest.
So, having lived in Brazil for 40 years, I now think that government funded health insurance for everyone is not "liberal" but "conservative" because it conserves the health of those who cannot, by any means whatsoever in a highly stratified society, pay for adequate medical health themselves.
Does that make me more "liberal" or more "conservative"? In the US, the answer is probably the former; in the UK, the answer is the latter.
Today, having lived in Brazil for almost 40 years, I am still, I believe, a "classical" liberal, i.e. one who believes that government should only do for people what they are incapable of doing for themselves. Adam Smith at his purest.
So, having lived in Brazil for 40 years, I now think that government funded health insurance for everyone is not "liberal" but "conservative" because it conserves the health of those who cannot, by any means whatsoever in a highly stratified society, pay for adequate medical health themselves.
Does that make me more "liberal" or more "conservative"? In the US, the answer is probably the former; in the UK, the answer is the latter.
1
If the conservative movement had not abandoned any pretense at attending to reality, then maybe those who practice and value critical thinking would not be so strongly liberal. How can any informed person espouse denial of climate change, the insertion of religious dogma into science education, or "trickle-down" economic theories that have been proven false over decades? It's too bad — we used to be able to have an honest disagreement with well informed people like William Buckley who had notions that we disagreed with but still lived in the known universe.
5
Highly-educated people are often kept off juries by defense attorneys because they tend to be "liberal." In this context "liberal" means that they are not usually fooled by emotional arguments or transparent attempts to deflect or minimize guilt. Defense lawyers get rich by removing from the pool of potential jurors anyone with advanced academic credentials because they prefer jurors who cannot follow a complex narrative and come to a reasoned conclusion on the merits of the evidence.
4
Not everyone who is highly educated has different interests from the poor. Many of us were once poor and want to help those like ourselves--even if it means our own children won't have an advantage. We are not rich but we are doing well. We are educated but started in community colleges, and how have several degrees and work in tech, education, and science.
Perhaps the missing link here is that when social programs work for people (as they did for me in childhood), those helped want to help others.
It's not so hard to imagine that.
Perhaps the missing link here is that when social programs work for people (as they did for me in childhood), those helped want to help others.
It's not so hard to imagine that.
292
And many of us want our children to live in a better country than we grew up in. Again, not too hard to understand.
The real problem is mostly government social programs don't help those that they serve, they help those that run them. Almost nobody has a problem helping, but everyone should have a problem with enabling a destruction of opportunity and dependence on the government for your life.
Both of us belong to that baby boomer post graduate scientist group and see our opinions on social and economic issues formed by our experience and our careers and training based on logical analysis, hypothesis testing and critical thinking. We can read and understand the scientific papers rather than rely on the press or an opinion maker to tell us the conclusions of a publication. We are old enough to remember seeing pictures of a river burning, the smog of the cities that burned your eyes and the pollution in our water that was finally addressed by a Republican administration working with a Democratic Congress. Now Republicans want to throw that all away in favor of the almighty dollar. Second, we saw the Republican party and conservatives in general move to the right on social issues during our lifetimes while our positions did not change. Third, coming from the bottom 20% before we obtained our education, we remember what it was like to be poor. All too many Republican politicians seem all too eager to pull the ladder up behind them and we don't see the Republican party as the party of equal opportunity. We remember when my wife was the first to get a PhD in her field of science at a large public university and what it took to overcome the odds. We see the Republican party as a denier of those opportunities, not the enabler of equal rights. Perhaps that is why we no longer are members of the Republican party.
24
A sensible answer. I have a 'white collar' job with a very professional title, but my company pays me quite badly. Still, if the government said they were going to raise my taxes by another 2 or 3% - and that doing so would verifiably help other people in society, such as the elderly, widows, or boost education, hospitals, the farming sector, and so on (and I say this as a gay atheist), I would totally accept that, and support it.
There are many groups of society who absolutely do need more support - including jobless people, and those marginalised in society - and my parents, both of whom were hard-working, community-focused middle-class people, doing their best to raise several children in the dirt-poor 1980s here, ingrained within us a strong sense of morality, hard work, honesty and community. To do the best we can for ourselves - but also to do the best we can do for other people, too.
That's why, even though I technically have an 'upper class' job, albeit with a very low wage, I'm agreeable to higher taxes that hit my pay, if it will demonstrably help others. Am I a liberal? Or just a citizen, supporting society, and all other citizens? More to the point, why isn't this a more common view within America's Darwinistic society?
There are many groups of society who absolutely do need more support - including jobless people, and those marginalised in society - and my parents, both of whom were hard-working, community-focused middle-class people, doing their best to raise several children in the dirt-poor 1980s here, ingrained within us a strong sense of morality, hard work, honesty and community. To do the best we can for ourselves - but also to do the best we can do for other people, too.
That's why, even though I technically have an 'upper class' job, albeit with a very low wage, I'm agreeable to higher taxes that hit my pay, if it will demonstrably help others. Am I a liberal? Or just a citizen, supporting society, and all other citizens? More to the point, why isn't this a more common view within America's Darwinistic society?
4
Humanoid, Aha, you may be a closet conservative. Your idea about paying taxes if they are "demonstrably" helpful is indeed born from conservative ideology that desires proof that money is spent on something factual instead of mythical and failing liberal social spending policies that by all measures have resulted in demonstrable failure and waste. The point is that you and your conservative detractors actually share a lot of common ground.
Maybe it has something to do with so many of their formative years spent under the tutelage and influence of college professors. In my experience, those who choose careers in academia are frequently driven by factors other than profit motive, and their research is often funded with government research grants. Those factors don't exactly align their interests with a conservative agenda, so it wouldn't be surprising for some of that to rub off on their students.
3
Ah yes, the "gov't research grant" meme. Science denier, I presume?
What makes me sad about the highly educated (of whom we have a surfeit in Greater Boston) is their tendency to be serious snobs toward the less educated.
They say they value and want to help the poor and less educated, but they don't, really. They view less educated whites in particular as presumptive racists.
They work really hard to keep affordable housing out of their wealthy enclaves, urban or suburban. The tension between the former suburbanites who moved into SOWA and, ugh, the homeless, substance abusing middle aged guys at Pine Street Inn (who were there first) is palpable.
They get so excited about the latest hot formerly poor or working class Boston neighborhood or formerly poor inner suburb (e.g. Charlestown, South Boston, Somerville or Quincy), they give nary a thought to the families their gentrification displaces. Poor blacks and Hispanics dread the arrival of coffee shops and yoga studios. The rich, educated liberals? Clueless and all to often heartless.
They say they value and want to help the poor and less educated, but they don't, really. They view less educated whites in particular as presumptive racists.
They work really hard to keep affordable housing out of their wealthy enclaves, urban or suburban. The tension between the former suburbanites who moved into SOWA and, ugh, the homeless, substance abusing middle aged guys at Pine Street Inn (who were there first) is palpable.
They get so excited about the latest hot formerly poor or working class Boston neighborhood or formerly poor inner suburb (e.g. Charlestown, South Boston, Somerville or Quincy), they give nary a thought to the families their gentrification displaces. Poor blacks and Hispanics dread the arrival of coffee shops and yoga studios. The rich, educated liberals? Clueless and all to often heartless.
8
Excellent piece. The assumption that all conservatives are low information idiots without an education or who don't think things through is not necessarily accurate. My husband has always been a conservative, though socially liberal maybe in a different sense than I am. He is not a racist. He has a science degree with a background in history and economics and some post-graduate courses from a well respected university. He believes that creation and evolution can co-exist. He is spiritual. He doesn't fit the stereotype. Nor do a lot of people. You can't put everyone in a box - left or right, and then condemn all those on the right who are white as racist idiots. I suspect that many people voting for Trump are not Trump enthusiasts, but they dislike Hillary and liberalism more. My husband voted for Bernie in the primary as I did for different reasons. Since we can cross-over, how we vote in the election remains to be seen. I also see many liberals who live in mostly white elite neighborhoods who speak for immigration, but do not want to live among the immigrants, who speak against racism, but do not want low income housing in their neighborhood. They will come into areas that have been gentrified, but will not live among the poor otherwise.
1
There is ample evidence that educating the heart requires experiences unavailable in the cloistered world of today's universities. Kindergarten to university, for most, is a möbius tautology. The views and values of any cloistered community are inherently deterministic ... enforced by exclusion. Ritual is necessary, and a priesthood, and a particular dialectic.
1
I don't much care for any political labels anymore.
Just want smart solutions and not interested in dogmatic nonsense that has no basis in reality.
So, for example, step right up and tell me how a personal tax cut for a billionaire or other ultra wealthy American benefits a single mom who works just to fall behind and whose kid's school is underfunded so that he falls into the same situation as her eventually.
Tell me how that tax cut benefits anyone who comes to a Trump rally.
Go ahead, tell me.
If those policies worked I'd be the first to support them.
It's not liberal or conservative anymore.
It's idiotic vs smart and the ability to make a rational, well supported argument (with real world examples) for your policies.
Boom.
That's it.
Just want smart solutions and not interested in dogmatic nonsense that has no basis in reality.
So, for example, step right up and tell me how a personal tax cut for a billionaire or other ultra wealthy American benefits a single mom who works just to fall behind and whose kid's school is underfunded so that he falls into the same situation as her eventually.
Tell me how that tax cut benefits anyone who comes to a Trump rally.
Go ahead, tell me.
If those policies worked I'd be the first to support them.
It's not liberal or conservative anymore.
It's idiotic vs smart and the ability to make a rational, well supported argument (with real world examples) for your policies.
Boom.
That's it.
Maybe the highly educated aren't liberals, but liberals highly educated? I'm very liberal and have become more liberal as I've gotten older and more educated. My parents were blue collar union member Democrats--hated Nixon. I voted Republican for a long time and finally started to shift as Republicans became more strident and intractable on social issues. Maybe I never moved, but the Republicans moved away from me.
Now I find myself a 1.5 Percenter with super liberal kids. A Bernie bumpersticker showed up on one of the cars after my not-old-enough-to-vote-yet daughter went to a Bernie rally. I'm happy they care more about their fellow man than I did at their age. I also find myself comfortable with the idea of paying more taxes to help the less fortunate and rebuilding American infrastructure, public transit, schools and libraries.
I think the essence of the educated liberal is that we have come to a place in life where we realize we're all in this together, are willing to share our good fortune, and believe that a rising tide should lift all boats. I think many on the right are purely selfish and only care about those who look like them.
Now I find myself a 1.5 Percenter with super liberal kids. A Bernie bumpersticker showed up on one of the cars after my not-old-enough-to-vote-yet daughter went to a Bernie rally. I'm happy they care more about their fellow man than I did at their age. I also find myself comfortable with the idea of paying more taxes to help the less fortunate and rebuilding American infrastructure, public transit, schools and libraries.
I think the essence of the educated liberal is that we have come to a place in life where we realize we're all in this together, are willing to share our good fortune, and believe that a rising tide should lift all boats. I think many on the right are purely selfish and only care about those who look like them.
4
So, are you OK with boys showering with your not-old-enough-to-vote-daughter?
These are the sorts of self-congratulatory NY Times pieces that make me nauseous. I am most certainly liberal. I have an MA, JD, and PhD from Ivy League and another top "Left Coast" school. That said, I am 32 years old. I have never truly had to work. I have held no "real" job. I hold no debt. I have substantial savings. Prattling on about the open-minded view the highly educated have of society is fine, but please acknowledge that for the vast majority of lawyers, doctors, and professors - their socio-economic backgrounds are not dissimilar to my own (sure, some carry debt - but if one thing surprised me in my years of higher ed - it's the number of people who carry no debt while pursuing these degree). It would be much, much hard to obtain that education and broadening viewpoint if you came from a poor family without assets or an understanding/emphasis upon education and advanced degrees.
Who knows - given a different roll of the dice, some Trump supporters might be hardcore Bernie and Hillary fans today.
Who knows - given a different roll of the dice, some Trump supporters might be hardcore Bernie and Hillary fans today.
2
The educated tend to be liberal because they are more likely to be enlightened. This applies to any field and does not require a degree per se, but it does require the adherence to the scientific method and the preference for peer-reviewed outcomes, or even educated guesses, and a separation of the emotional from the scientific observation.
1
Education introduces one to the tools necessary to discern and explain reality. Reality reflects complexity. One who is educated distrusts simple answers, dogmas, mythologies, and biases because they deny reality. To be educated is to be open to that reality in all its complexity, thus to be liberal.
2
My own experience of becoming highly educated - which happened a little later in life, so I got in about 40 years before the shift happened - is that higher education results in recognizing the distinction between a belief and what is actually happening, and the ability to objectively observe your subjective experience. I suppose I have strengthened the neural networks to my prefrontal cortex - I realize in the past my thinking just simply was not very deep and I had no ability to reflect. Also - those critical thinking classes - wow what an eye opener. I can now listen to someone and hear rhetorical devices and fallacies of thinking. I notice, that folks will often skip a few steps and sort of smush together beliefs. Luckily, I have also learned restraint and respect, thus being able to relate and align to all kinds of folks and sometimes even help add back the missing steps in their thinking. So grateful to have experienced this shift. I recommend it highly. I also recommend reading Dr. Carol Dweck's book MINDSET.
2
Political affiliation is more associated with socio economic standing and status than education.
It's easier to be liberal when you have money or more importantly have the benefits of money and financial assets, whether directly or indirectly.
When earning a living is a struggle or daily fight for survival, which it is for many, our tenancy to be liberal with our earnings and policies, diminishes dramatically.
And yes, liberal policy or liberal thinking does require financial and economic largess, whether on the part of private or government financed activities and programs.
It's easier to be liberal when you have money or more importantly have the benefits of money and financial assets, whether directly or indirectly.
When earning a living is a struggle or daily fight for survival, which it is for many, our tenancy to be liberal with our earnings and policies, diminishes dramatically.
And yes, liberal policy or liberal thinking does require financial and economic largess, whether on the part of private or government financed activities and programs.
4
So the highly educated can only be liberal? Got it. I defy that statement. I have three bachelor's degree, a master's degree and plan to go for at least one more M.A., possibly a law degree as well. After all this education, I'm still as conservative as before. The left's arguments for wealth re-distribution and nationalization of industry and resources don't wash. Ted Cruz was the most intellectual candidate for President. The left despises him because he argues with fact and logic and does so better than anyone else.
1
Here's one place where the traditional definition of "liberal" (believing in liberty and equality) and the currently misused definition of "liberal" (of the political left) really must be separated from each other. Of course education breeds respect for liberty and equality. It does not follow that education will turn people into Democrats and independents. The current incarnation of the Republican Party turns educated people into Democrats and independents.
5
Elite educational institutions grant degrees to profoundly ignorant people, many of them legacies who should not be there on merit. Remaining by choice in their bubble, most become "conservatives", driven by the need to protect their wealth and the elite status conveyed thereby. If nonsense, ignorance and denial of facts are the effective tools to achieve that end, they adopt them. It's easy. And, they join the "conservative" hustle.
As Isaac Asimov observed (still unfortunately true); “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
As Isaac Asimov observed (still unfortunately true); “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
4
Funny to see this cast primarily as class struggles. There's little of that at play. The two big drivers are 1) evidence/logic, as the article acknowledges and 2) simple self interest, not class dominance. The economic and science ideologies promulgated by the conservatives are truly toxic. This is not a debate between two sides. The educated are becoming liberal simply because we want the world to survive. 'Trump'ists can "mock that culture" (the tree huggers, PC freaks, moochers and nanny state) all they want--reality will eventually make liberals of us all. So, this article is mistaken. Actually it is "in their long term interest"...the long term interest of all of us. I hope it will not be too late.
1
"... a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have 'down the line' liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally."
This is another dangerous example of false equivalence, suggesting that "educated liberal" and "low information conservative" are to be equally respected. "Liberal views" on social matters happen to conform to the Constitutional guarantees of equality under the law. "Liberal views" on environmental matters happen to conform to the preponderance of scientific evidence and attend to the increasingly dire threats to life as we know it.
Bigotry and ignorance are not political positions. Oh wait . . . I forgot the presumptive GOP nominee.
This is another dangerous example of false equivalence, suggesting that "educated liberal" and "low information conservative" are to be equally respected. "Liberal views" on social matters happen to conform to the Constitutional guarantees of equality under the law. "Liberal views" on environmental matters happen to conform to the preponderance of scientific evidence and attend to the increasingly dire threats to life as we know it.
Bigotry and ignorance are not political positions. Oh wait . . . I forgot the presumptive GOP nominee.
2
Rambling as it is, your opinion piece fails to note two significant bits of complexity. First, in the past twenty years, American college campuses have seen the rise of conservative student organizations, such as the Young Republicans. Secondly, the rise of the educated class int he USA closely parallels the decline of religious practices. Adding these to points into the mix, it seems pretty clear to me that universities are doing their job; they are producing critical thinkers across the entire political spectrum, thinkers who arenot disturbed by the lack of blind faith.
1
The majority of posted comments don't reflect two data points cited in the top of this essay: "...nearly a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have 'down the line' liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally."
It doesn't require a PhD to figure out that if only a third of highly educated Americans have liberal views, 66% don't. Ouch. That should dampen all this self-congratulatory hoohah about how swell we smart folks collectively are. We're not united in our liberal views at all.
Combine that number with the fact that 90% of the rest of the country, blessed with less education, doesn't hold these views, and you see how far in the minority smartypants liberals are.
At some point, this being a representative democracy and all, we have to ask if we're not the ones out of step.
Or we could go the route of John Stuart Mill and suggest that educated people get more votes than uneducated ones. (Sound like Jim Crow to you? Me too.) Or adopt Edmund Burke's trustee position. Either way, we're substituting our ever-so-enlightened judgment for the majority's. And that's the risk.
I'm a first-generation college graduate and hold advanced degrees from Vanderbilt, Emory, and Harvard. My wonderful, less educated family aren't stupid, evil, or willfully ignorant. But a good number are going to vote for Trump. What they are is scared, and he plays that masterfully.
It doesn't require a PhD to figure out that if only a third of highly educated Americans have liberal views, 66% don't. Ouch. That should dampen all this self-congratulatory hoohah about how swell we smart folks collectively are. We're not united in our liberal views at all.
Combine that number with the fact that 90% of the rest of the country, blessed with less education, doesn't hold these views, and you see how far in the minority smartypants liberals are.
At some point, this being a representative democracy and all, we have to ask if we're not the ones out of step.
Or we could go the route of John Stuart Mill and suggest that educated people get more votes than uneducated ones. (Sound like Jim Crow to you? Me too.) Or adopt Edmund Burke's trustee position. Either way, we're substituting our ever-so-enlightened judgment for the majority's. And that's the risk.
I'm a first-generation college graduate and hold advanced degrees from Vanderbilt, Emory, and Harvard. My wonderful, less educated family aren't stupid, evil, or willfully ignorant. But a good number are going to vote for Trump. What they are is scared, and he plays that masterfully.
10
Top23's posting above illustrates, as you read between the lines, an aspect in the liberal mindset that I don't hear too much---jealousy. Many overeducated adults find that the books and classes that have been their lot in life don't transfer to a life of prosperity where the basic needs are easy but the luxuries--travel, fancy cars, jewelry, clothes, etc., are out of reach. My professor friends have ratty furniture, clunky cars, and travel only to give talks. Even fame is elusive, as they are all known to their intellectual constituency, but not to the public in general. Thus the fellow who starts a business at 22 and becomes a many time over millionaire by 60 has much more notoriety than the sociology professor with 3 PhDs. (And more money!)
If you have 3 PhD's better to work for the federal government and steal success from the "fat cats" than sit in your tiny office and write papers.
If you have 3 PhD's better to work for the federal government and steal success from the "fat cats" than sit in your tiny office and write papers.
We already have a segregated ruling class looks down their collective nose at the rest of us - in fact are outright hostile. The system benefits them at our expense then they go into denial when the public revolts. Is it any wonder Republican fat cats support Hillary - they are all the same.
Yelling racism, etc. is a delusion at the revulsion that is not aimed at say Mexicans but the mostly white upper educated ruling class as the New York Times pointed out in another report. Their social engineering and obsession with world events/control comes at the expense of the rest of us that fight illegal aliens for jobs, enter the army because we have no real opportunity and fight senseless wars-police actions for the elite, and even as the New York Times pointed out in another report many college degrees are worthless - ditto tech workers like myself replaced by cheap imported immigrants. I won't even go into the racism of affirmative action pushed by a white elite that is shielded from it. Now only certain college degrees from top institutions are worth anything and who gets in is heavily controlled. All I can say to these people is we serve in the military and have 200 million plus guns - I hope it never comes to that. The elite have created a bigoted class culture on steroids and they better for their own sake start living in the world the rest of us do or else.
Yelling racism, etc. is a delusion at the revulsion that is not aimed at say Mexicans but the mostly white upper educated ruling class as the New York Times pointed out in another report. Their social engineering and obsession with world events/control comes at the expense of the rest of us that fight illegal aliens for jobs, enter the army because we have no real opportunity and fight senseless wars-police actions for the elite, and even as the New York Times pointed out in another report many college degrees are worthless - ditto tech workers like myself replaced by cheap imported immigrants. I won't even go into the racism of affirmative action pushed by a white elite that is shielded from it. Now only certain college degrees from top institutions are worth anything and who gets in is heavily controlled. All I can say to these people is we serve in the military and have 200 million plus guns - I hope it never comes to that. The elite have created a bigoted class culture on steroids and they better for their own sake start living in the world the rest of us do or else.
4
The reason highly educated people are "so liberal" is that, as they say, reality has a liberal bent. Literal rocket scientists, computer scientists, physicists, and so on are not interested in dumb ideas generally. They are able to cut through the fog of misinformation, propaganda, and bad journalism. They use the scientific method for all things, including trying to determine politics. The common factor isn't really the education aspect, it's *intelligence.* Think of comedians, for example. They don't have college degrees at all (aren't required to, that is). But to be a good comedian actually requires a great deal of intellect. Think back over the past few decades at the really, truly great comedians and think what their political beliefs are? Why do you think the right was never able to have their own "Daily Show?"
20
they can't have their own "daily show".
the liberal ownership won't allow it.
conservatives have domination of
the talk show airwaves.
makes sense, "smart rich liberals" can pay for cable,
"poor ignorant conservatives" have to settle "free" radio.
the liberal ownership won't allow it.
conservatives have domination of
the talk show airwaves.
makes sense, "smart rich liberals" can pay for cable,
"poor ignorant conservatives" have to settle "free" radio.
1
This stereotype may have some validity, but it is also true that the majority of voters are white, Republican, and well educated, simply because they have the time to vote at their leisure, not having to go to the polls during rush hours. Many aren't able to go altogether, what with more than one job to subsist along with parenting responsibilities. I was and am a member of the "educated" class who for one brief shining moment of time felt that we were changing things, though these days we're just blamed for ruining the environment. I went to grad school right after college for two years, and then returned ready to continue changing the world, only to find out that all of my over-educated comrades had moved out to the suburbs, using their fine educations to prosper in the "real world." Ideologically they hadn't changed that much--they are the people the professor is writing about, but I was bewildered by the vacuum and so uneasily entered the real world, too, and once my nest was empty, have plunged back to "changing the world" again, but this time it's harder, much harder, because in the vacuum that followed the deluge of idealism, the conservatives were realizing the danger of activating philosophical ideals and stepped in, lured by the Powell Manifesto, which "worked." They succeeded in dumbing down the world, with Donald Trump their epitome, the most popular GOP candidate ever. No reason for bewilderment. Bernie has emerged with his late sixties values. More power to him.
5
Why are the highly educated so liberal (Democratic party rather than Republican) in the U.S.?
I can understand being liberal in social matters--having all types of people have opportunity (gays, women, minorities)--and environmental matters (high education is correlated with science, biology, evolution, ecology) but economic matters seem more tricky to understand--not to mention seeming blanket condemnation of the U.S. military. One would think the highly educated, being so scientific, would be aware that their high capacity for education is due to quite a large degree to genetic factors, high natural intelligence rather than a process of education or upbringing and they would be skeptical of extreme leftwing economics which is a leveling process or really anything which threatens a pinpointing of intellectual capacity in society and its elevation to its rightful place. And of course one would think the military would be supported as bulwark of democratic liberty in the world.
In short one would think the highly educated would be more centrist rather than right or left wing. But perhaps because the Republican party is so grotesque--a caricature of conservative values--the highly educated have no choice but to just consider themselves Democratic. And certainly we must hope the highly educated themselves are not just a caricature--themselves so indoctrinated with left wing perspectives that they are not so much educated as simply immersed in a quite relative view of life.
I can understand being liberal in social matters--having all types of people have opportunity (gays, women, minorities)--and environmental matters (high education is correlated with science, biology, evolution, ecology) but economic matters seem more tricky to understand--not to mention seeming blanket condemnation of the U.S. military. One would think the highly educated, being so scientific, would be aware that their high capacity for education is due to quite a large degree to genetic factors, high natural intelligence rather than a process of education or upbringing and they would be skeptical of extreme leftwing economics which is a leveling process or really anything which threatens a pinpointing of intellectual capacity in society and its elevation to its rightful place. And of course one would think the military would be supported as bulwark of democratic liberty in the world.
In short one would think the highly educated would be more centrist rather than right or left wing. But perhaps because the Republican party is so grotesque--a caricature of conservative values--the highly educated have no choice but to just consider themselves Democratic. And certainly we must hope the highly educated themselves are not just a caricature--themselves so indoctrinated with left wing perspectives that they are not so much educated as simply immersed in a quite relative view of life.
4
I wish that the author had broken down the data a little more. I'd like to see which degree holders fall where on the political spectrum. For example, in my lifetime, I have observed a shift in the political alignment of physicians. Thirty to forty years ago, they tended to be moderate Republicans. Now they are more likely to be Democrats. They are also more likely to be female and to be employees of a hospital or HMO as opposed to small businessmen in independent practice, which is no coincidence. We know that research scientists are much more liberal than the general public, with the exception of a few issues such as nuclear power and GMOs. Of course, some of us would argue that embracing GMOs is actually the liberal position, but I digress. What about lawyers, historians, economists, CPAs, and engineers with advanced degrees?