Richard Posner has a fascinating read:
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.Now, take a look at this chart; this is the share of the vote of those with post-graduate educations won by Democrats:
By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.
The 1980 figure is extrapolated based on Jimmy Carter's performance among all college graduates. Carter won only 35 percent of college graduates in 1980, but Democrats have generally performed better among those with postgraduate educations than those with "just" a college degree; we estimate Carter's share of the postgraduate vote was 40 percent. Other figures are taken from New York Times exit polling.
Obviously, this data is far from perfect: Having attended the University of Chicago, where there are plenty of booksmart people that you wouldn't consider particularly bright, I can tell you that the correlation between intelligence and educational attainment is considerably less than one-to-one. Still, Republicans have gradually been losing the egghead vote. I wonder how that translates into their ability to recruit strategists and "thought-leaders" who can work on the campaign, policy and media sides and help to lead them out of their current slump.
108 comments
I don't think Sarah Palin helped much to retain the intellectual vote.
So what your saying is the republican party is down to stupid white people!
It's only a matter of time before Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh chuck David Brooks out of the party, too.
How would the popularity increase of MBA programs since 1980 impact these numbers? Are Democrats winning more of an ever larger demo? Since 1980 are more people getting post-grad degrees changing this demo on a more fundamental level (conservatives aren't jumping to Democratic party but more Democrats are joining the ranks of post-grads)?
I'd like to see the percentage of people with post graduate degress who voted democrat versus the percentage of all voters who did. I think this would reveal quite a different trend. For exmaple, Obama got about 3% more of those with post-graduate degrees than Kerry, but he got 5% more than Kerry of all voters, so one might argue he did comparatively worse.
WV: Dachl, as in, I wonder what ol' Tom Dachl is up to nowadays.
The last Republican administration was so anti-government in its ideology that they aggressively dismantled their own departments. What is so incredible is that they did this without cutting spending.
They cut government until nothing was left but waste.
As a conservative who has a postgrad degree, I have to admit I'm tending more liberal these days. I'd still call myself conservative, but I don't feel that the right competes at the "intellectual" level anymore, with very few exceptions.
Some of the Right's would-be "thought-leaders" post comments on 538.com. That's not very promising for them.
It does seem to me that the days of the 'intellectual' conservative have passed, at least for now. There was a day when that was the heart of the conservative movement in the US (I am thinking about Buckley, and the movement in the 50s, even including Goldwater and his conservatism, which always seemed to be based on a level of intellectualism. I think it is a pity. It seems like the deafening cries of such blowhards as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter have rather drowned out a more thoughtful but convinced level of conservative intellectualism. It has I think meant that even not so moderate conservatives have been able to feel more comfortable in the Democratic Party, than in their natural home. (How are you by the way Arlen?)
I am not saying that all political thought has to be based on intellectualism, but I think the GOP has reached a point where they have almost totally rejected thought as a means of working out policy.
And aren't postgrads something like 3% of the electorate anyway?
Seems like a small sample to base a trend upon. Try to find numbers that show democrats do better among the non-retarded in general. I think that's the trend we're looking at here.
As a good example of the above phenomenon, see this essay Posted yesterday on Real Clear Politics. Conservatism's latest attack on "delisted" former spokesman David Brooks by one it's remaining "intellectuals" Eugene Volokh
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1241898670.shtml
C'mon -- conservative intellectual?
Since today is george Carlin's birthday, I assume you're reviving his old comedy act about "Oxymororons" (heavy on the "morans")
The skewing towards the Democratic party is even higher in those with a PhD.
first?
this is great news....
for JOHN MCCAIN!
Nate, the trend that you've noted here may be partly due to the continuing democratization (small d) of higher education. Obtaining a higher degree may be more routine and less a matter of established "elite selection" than it was in the past.
As a college teacher, it was and has been difficult to find Republicans for the last few cycles, so this was not a surprise. However, when you think about it, given the assumption that people with MBAs would tend to be Republican and doctors and others in the medical profession would be wary of the Democratic party proposals for major changes in health care, these findings are an very strong indictment of the Republican party and, as Posner indicates, the lack of reason.
Political discussion has never and never will be about who can win an intellectual discussion.
It is about the emotional issues of personal well-being, personal liberty, personal and national financial situation and how we feel about it. Finally, can the government keep us safe from threats both domestic and foreign.
I went to the University of Chicago, and I can tell you...uh, er...
Never mind!
I would be interested to if there is a rise in the number of doctors who are changing their political affiliation. Abortion, although cited, does not fully encompass the agenda of the right to life movement. The Schiavo case, stem cell research and the embracing of the pharmaceutical industry might drive many in the medical field away from taxation as their main voting criteria.
Another subsection worth evaluating would be the number of public school teachers and administrators who may have moved from the GOP and conservatism. No Child Left Behind and the creationism/evolution debate might move many inside public education away from modern conservatism.
In many respects, Ponser is correct. The GOP has embraced the "small towns/small business/small minds" club. Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin are both excellent examples of people who were educated in the "school of hard knocks" and who exemplify the new target of the GOP. When placed in the context of the rise of Mike Huckabee during the 2008 primary season, one can quickly see that Chuck Norris gains more traction with the GOP base than Milton Friedman.
William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the last century spoke to the true elements of Jeffersonian ideals in economics with a dose of Billy Sunday style morality. The consequence was the fact that many voters went with the party of progress symbolized by Teddy Roosevelt versus the party of popular outrage that Bryan represented.
Looking at GOP leaders, many come from sub-urban areas of the US. Boehner, Pence and Cantor in the House do not represent urban or even true doughnut suburban communities. Leaders in the Senate like Mitch McConnell also do not have wide appeal in the more populated areas of his state. The GOP governors who are the current focus for 2012 hail from states like LA, AK, and SC which are not the same as having CA, TX or FL as the bases for springboarding to the White House.
The GOP is placing itself in a demographic and intellectual box, where good "ideas" are going to be weighed against ideological outrage. Data, fact and results cease to matter to their base which is out of step with the feelings of a nation that is demanding pragmatism from its leaders now.
Uh...first!
And pshaw to those of you who don't like this game. I was skeptical too until I saw the opportunity to get in on it! 538 days til the 2010 election!
I would be more interested to know the trend of what percentage of postgraduates don't vote relative to the rest of the population.
you're right- the data is far from perfect. it's an interesting question to discuss.
in addition to what you have, i wonder what the levels of americans with postgraduate degrees have looked like over that same 28 year track. are there more "eggheads" out there or are there less?
I would be more interested to know the trend of what percentage of postgraduates don't vote relative to the rest of the population.
FIRST!
As conservatism has come more to mean "social conservatism" rather than "economic conservatism," it is no wonder that intellectuals have refused to go along with a party entrenched in Evangelical Christianity.
John Judas and Ruy Teixiera's [i]Emerging Democracy Majority[/i] noted this trend two elections ago - the same scientists, engineers, architects, and other professionals that had been mainstream Republicans were being pushed out of the party by those with little to no education and the fervent belief that the Bible is the word of "god."
While the number of intellectuals (and people in general) in the GOP may be decreasing, the amount of stupidity is actually increasing with an exponential rate as moderate people leave the party. It will continue to increase until it reaches singularity with the only remaining member Rush Limbaugh. (I can't imagine what that'll look like, but it looks like it's definitely going to happen.)
THIS is proof positive why this party is dying out. NO alternatives, NO solutions, NO new ideas = policies that SUCK!!!
With all the chatter about torture, the healthcare debate (which doesn't include Repubs), and the bank bailout which their policies created; anyone notice how Cheney, Limbaugh, and Rove are now throwing Colin Powell under the train (f@ck a bus)?
Let's see, you have a retired Army General and former Joint Chief of Staff vs the chickenhawk triumvirate. Let's take race out of this, but do you wonder why the black vote went to Obama for 95%.
This all leads to the reason why college students aren't voting R. The talk radio dittoheads are no better than wrestling fans and their getting their daily fix from conservative radio and Fixed Noise, ie - entertainment and a cliff notes version of history and politics.
I hope to GOD that Barry O and the Chicago Four Horseman do NOT in anyway screw up for this party to somehow, someway take back over this country.
Please TURN OFF THE GODDAMN TWITTER from your web site
If I wanted to drain my intelligence away with that crap, I'd go there myself
Idiocracy would suggest that this is a good thing for the conservative movement.
I wonder if part of what is contributing to this trend is what I expect has been an increase in the number of individuals attaining a post-graduate degree over the last 30 years. Assuming that's the case, then the percentage of people with post-graduate degrees comprised by young people is growing. Since young people tend to vote more Democratic, it would make sense that the percentage of Democratic voters in the entire pool of post-graduate voters would be on the rise as well.
I consider myself a "Rockafeller Republican", which means a fan of Clinton's presidency economically speaking, and since 2000 goes by the name "Moderate Democrat".
So the paragraph prior to the one quoted in the article speaks to me highly:
"By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004."
Ditto on that, nothing good came of any of that, at all.
Republican leadership was supposed to focus on getting better returns for our investment in terms of government services and benefits, not intentionally breaking the government. Hell, a poor understanding that regulation by the government helps create and sustain free markets, and helps prevent market failure, almost broke capitalism itself.
Frist!
The Posner piece is worth reading, although I have my doubts about regarding W.F. Buckley as a serious intellectual. The comments, however, are astounding.
The Republican vilification of intellectuals and celebration of ignorance is perhaps the single most disturbing trend of the party in recent years. I had hoped that the likes of Sarah Palin (a certifiable dunce in the world of politics and a celebrant of feel-don't-think, for which she was/is venerated by the Republican base) and Joe the Plumber (the epitome of a "common dude" according to Republicans, but really just the antithesis of an educated, intelligent, thoughtful voter and citizen) would mark a pinnacle, but instead of embracing the intellectualism of the libertarian movement led by Ron Paul (bearing the torch of Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Mark Hatfield, Bob Taft, Friedrich Hayek, etc.), they have chosen to cannibalize it for its populist/activist tilt. They seem ignorant to, as most things, the hilarious irony of crusading for fiscal conservatism, sound money, and small government in the wake of the Bush administration they so ferociously defended and devotedly adored.
The Republicans have boxed themselves into a corner by pursuing this strategy. The only votes they'll be getting from now on are from ignorant voters. They have burnt their bridges to the citadels of reason, logic, and nuance in favor of embracing a fantastic certitude based on truthiness. That makes them simultaneously wrong, misguided, and impossible to argue with.
First??
Nate,
I worry about confounding variables here, either from age or socioeconomic status.
Aren't more people getting a post-graduate education today than 20 years ago? If so, then our the sample is getting younger, and we might just be seeing that young people vote for Democrats.
Similarly, aren't more poor and minority people getting post-graduate educations? And don't they vote for Obama?
I suppose all this doesn't nullify your point about making it hard to find "thought-leaders", but it does cause problems for the implication that smart people are naturally shifting to the liberal side.
Excellent post, Nate.
I remember the excellent works from the 1950s and 1960s dealing with history/philosophy, and the importance of well-thought-out and defensible political positions grounded in historical and economic theory. They were based on scholarship, historical analysis, and reason.
How far we have fallen (on BOTH sides of the spectrum) - but the Republicans seem to have adopted what Ayn Rand called the 'Anti-Intellectual' strategy for political discourse.
And it has brought them to precisely the place she predicted they would end up.
Well, both campaigns were run by guys without bachelor's degrees.
That said, this may be your best post-election post as it really does show the important marginalization of the republican party. Intellectuals make more money and, on average, are more influential than others, thus losing the "Buckley wing" of true conservatives is something that is both sad and troubling. True conservatism does have a place, but a true conservative really cares not one wit about social issues - and that is not the current repub party.
By the nature of how a modern democratic nation functions, to assert one's own "Conservative" nature is to reject the advancements of modern societies almost outright.
As cultures become more advanced, the inter-relations and inter-reliabilities that take place within that society become more and more complex...
For everyone to be treated fairly, control and regulation must be injected into the system in the form of laws to protect workers, sharing public expenses, safety nets, and education.
In other words, to be conservative is to essentially say, "I want us to share less with one another."
This seems, on the surface, like a very innocent, and reasonable thing to say, but, closely analyzing the deeper motives of people who claim to be conservative, we often run into the negative, ugly part of their philosophy.
That part being the one in which either a giant ego emerges, ala John Galt, "Those who own property are really the only important ones, from which the rest of society leeches..." or an unrealistic world-view that is excessively punitive to the helpless, ala "Welfare should be canceled, all schools should be privatized, etc etc"
These "extremes" are the seed from which MOST conservativism grows.
Surely, as logical beings, we must all realize that the roads we drive upon for profit and pleasure are shared, and monies must be distributed to maintain them... and surely we must all realize that the fundamental public structures wherein we are educated and our military managed are a burden that must be shared...
Conservatives too often say "No" to any form of change with only a highly hypothetical, and uncalculated end-result.
Example: Public Health Care is rejected outright by conservatives, with a plethora of reasons that really cannot be analytically proven... even while the NEED for such a system can be proven simply by opening the body bag of someone who has expired from lack of care.
Such examples and even demographic samples will have no effect on the conservative mind, which will shoot back quickly that these corpses should have performed better in life in order to secure health insurance or the money to pay for services outright... but, this heady, top-level approach is easily proven unrealistic, as, children suffer from poverty and disease as well, and, many said conservatives right now themselves do not have health insurance due to the economic downturn.
I could go on for centuries about this, and how cold and senseless a society that allows a singular woman to spend $15,000 for a singular wedding dress to be used on a singular day can allow a family of 5 to lose their home just down the street from said ridiculous exuberance... but, to the ears of conservatives, it's just more "bleeding heart liberalism"... a catch phrase that can be pounded so loudly that even the screams of a million impoverished children can be drowned out only by a few fat old white "pundits".
http://www.judgex.com/ if you'd like to comment back in a format where the freedom of speech is utterly upheld and respected.
The U of C produced John Ashcroft. 'Nuff said.
Articles like this one on a site like fivethirtyeight.com are a bit frustrating. Nate seems more concerned with "declining numbers of intellectual conservatives" than the absolutely perilous state of programs such as Social Security and Medicare that affect millions of Americans. See link below:
Social Security, Medicare may run dry sooner Which begs the question: What are all of these increasing numbers of "intellectual liberals" doing to solve the dire problems this country faces?
Republicans are irrelevant, anti-intellectual, and have "Sarah the Plumber" as the face of their party. We get it, okay. Trust me. That point has been drive home over and over again, ad nauseum.
So again I ask, what does liberal thought have to offer to solve these problems? Bush is gone, and there are near supermajorities of Democrats in both houses of Congress. There is no potent voice for conservatives. We get that. Now, please talk intellectually about the problems we actually face instead of mocking a party that is fading from existence.
I swear, it seems like you just want to fiddle while Rome burns.
I don't see how the last sentence could be true. 40% of the post-graduate population is presumably plenty of people to have great ideas.
How does the loss of egghead vote compare to their loss of non-egghead vote? I.e. have their losses in the egghead demographic been greater or less than their losses in various non-egghead demographics?
Nathan, this is garbage.
First, you need to control for the overall election results - when the Rs win, do they win more or fewer of the graduate-degree voters?
Second, the data point that your graph depends on most, the 1980 election result, is the most suspect! Had it been over 60% the graph would look much different. What's the error bar on that point?
It's not that surprising when Republican party leaders continue to bad mouth and deny scientific findings on so many issues (stem cells, global warming, evolution) in support of their party ideology. I am worried, however, that the anti-vaccine crowd may be attracting quite a few Democrats. I don't of any good data on that, but it's just a hunch at this stage of the nonsense, social debate.
There IS no "intellectual" weight to conservatism at all.
"Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States."-- Phillip Agee.
"The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality.
Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as [Edmund] Burke.
Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters.
For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years."
The "intellectual underpinnings" of conservatism are nothing more than marketing props -- small government? Desirable because the rich can take care of themselves.
Government spending on social programs? Undesirable because the poor are unworthy and efforts to support them merely interfere with the Aristocracy of merit -- the rich and powerful are rich and powerful because they are more deserving. Like cream rising to the top.
I won't waste time bothering to argue these theories. You either believe in Democracy or not.
please don't feed the trolls. - especially on this one. :)
the gop has been steadily losing the college grad vote over the last 20 years...national journal had a cover story a few months back called "the diploma belt." they studied the 100 u.s. counties with the highest percentage of college grads...and obama won 78...they put the cumulative vote at 62%-38%...of the 22 that mccain won, over half were in the south + texas....overall, obama won college grads...he won the white college grad vote in the blue states...and got hammered badly in the south and the mormon zone..
Philip Agre's point about Conservatism = deference to aristocrats clears up virtually all contradictions between positions taken on economic issues:
Why should Conservatives for instance be so concerned about the Estate Tax which only affects less than 1% of the population? (couples dying with (net) estates worth over $7 million in 2009).
"A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories."
Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice."Thus, massive LYING by conservatives carefully inserted into the media becomes necessary: Nobody would care a fig about the Estate Tax if they understood that no middle-class person would ever have to pay it. (How many people do you know with NET worth over $3.5 million (individual) or $7 million (couple) -- and the Democratic Senate has recently voted to up this exemption to $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a married couple).
So, all the right-wingers screaming about this tax never bother to tell people -- YOU will NEVER have to pay!
Why not? Because it's irrelevant!
Taxing the rich is an "unfair burden" on those whose aristocratic social position is evidence of superior MERIT. It's "socialistic."
These same type "conservative" scoundrels in 19th century England were openly arguing that aristocrats deserved to rule because they are "better people."
Today, because of generations of our ancestors fighting for DEMOCRACY, which is the opposite of deference to Aristocrats, such ideas sound strange -- thus, they are subtly marketed as supporting the "middle class" even when this is clearly and demonstrably false.
The problem with this argument is the assumption that the number of graduates relates to the quality of intellectual argument. To take a counter example, in physics almost every intellectual breakthrough has been pioneered by a small number of people against a larger number of sceptics. This doesn't mean that I think the right has an intellectual leg to stand on, I just think the argument is poor!
why dissest-thou so our alma matter? sure, there are lots of booksmart u(c) alums who are tragically inept as far as the social requirements of everyday life are concerned, but I think as a bunch we're rather bright, almost without exception.
Great piece
Thanks!
Am I missing something here? Ever since the days of Adlai Stevenson, at which time the term was coined, I believe, everyone has *always* believed that the egghead vote was solidly Democratic. And now you say that the Republicans have been losing it!
Maybe we have to distinguish between liberal arts post grads and, say, engineering post grads, the former being Dems, the latter being Reps. Otherwise I don't know how to explain this....
I find the flat nature of 1996->200 very interesting - maybe 'No Child Left Behind' actually helped stem what would have otherwise been some losses? I know at least one person with a post-grad education that voted for Bush for that reason, only to get extremely disappointed by the actual results of said program.
Yeah, yeah... data not plural of anecdote, etc.
Conservatives have been told what to think ,for so long, that they have forgotten how to think.
Unless the Rush and Coulter, the king and queen of vulgarity and anti-intellectualism refrain from drowning out any voices of reason, your death spiral scenario will continue.
It's too bad, to be honest. Intellectual debate would be welcomed. But for many of the remaining, or at least the vocal ones that have taken over, it comes down to you kill millions of babies every year and America is about oil wells everywhere and hey look how cold it is outside, no way warming is happening.
It seems to be for many of the remaining vocal ones, going to University somehow makes you a liberal elite. I always thought going to University is what helps out country stay competitive, but maybe I'm wrong?
The failure of Republicans to come up with compelling conservative intellectual arguments is a failure that will not serve America well.
In the short term, it will lead to the complete dominance of liberal arguments over the conservative. In the long term, it could lead to overreach by the Democrats as liberals, with no opposition to speak of, propose policies that are too far left for the American mainstream.
Perhaps some conservatives will see that they actually have a fair amount in common with our pragmatic President and will stop being the knee-jerk party of "No." But until that happens, observe the electoral walloping that will come with the next congressional elections.
Some of this is generational shift. You're seeing the youngest boomers and early reactives becoming steadily more Democratic as they realize they were screwed on all those things they were promised for getting their education...
Well, when conservative pundits, such as the intellectual's anti-intellectual, DOCTOR William Bennett, go on anti-intellectual rants on television, and the stupid people are believing what they are hearing. Well, what do you expect?
JBN said
Political discussion has never and never will be about who can win an intellectual discussion.
It is about the emotional issues of personal well-being, personal liberty, personal and national financial situation and how we feel about it. Finally, can the government keep us safe from threats both domestic and foreign.
--------------------
Can't believe I am saying this, but in some ways JBN is not wrong. The problem is that the emotional part of politics is at its best when its matched to the intellectual. The strength of Obama's campaign, especially at the beginning, was in being able to marry the intellectual to the emotional. Palin appeals to the emotional but lets be honest, has no play at all with the intellectual.
I guess in some ways what voters are after is the answer to two questions. Does the politician understand my problems? (Emotional) And Does the politician know how to help my problem? (Intellectual) Without being able to answer the first how can a politician answer the second? (Hence the voters distrust of overly intellectual candidates) but if a politician can't address the second question, whats the point of being able to address the first?
When I look at Republicans today, I keep thinking of that shrewd old comment out of the old Soviet Union or Eastern Europe: (Republican) party members may have intelligence, loyalty, and integrity, but they cannot have more than two at the same time.
If they are intelligent and loyal, they have no integrity; if they are intelligent and have integrity, they cannot retain loyal to the party; if they are loyal to the party and have integrity, they must not be too bright.
It feels like this inconsistency is what Judge Posner is really grappling with -- although he hasn't quite figured it out yet. To grow, the Republicans (or whatever the successor party is called) has to find principles and beliefs that allows them all three at the same time.
Nate…
I have to agree—kak the Twittering. It’s mostly used by people anxious to share the bons mots that occur to them throughout the day, not for real communication.
Casual Observer…
You are merely parroting mindless GOP drivel. Social Security can be fixed overnight by removing the cap that currently keeps people who make over $97k per year from paying their fair share. If this cap were raised to $150k, SS would be solvent through the middle of the century. If the cap were eliminated, i.e. everybody paid his fair share, not just the poor and middle income earners, SS would be solvent forever.
The latest in conservative inanity, brought to you by Fucks News, of course…
From an evidence-based point of view, there's only one rational way to promote policies -
A) Accurately describe what the results of the policies will be. This is an objective endeavor.
B) Argue to a sufficient number of people that those results are beneficial. Whether something is beneficial or not is subjective.
The record of conservative policies is dismal, relative to results that most people perceive as beneficial.
If you consider making most people work harder and longer for less, poor public health, unaffordable higher education, frequent wars that drain common resources and kill and maim a fair number of younger, less affluent people, disdain for civil rights, and an ultimately unsustainable approach to the environment, to be beneficial, then conservative policies can be justified intellectually, because they either explicitly or implicitly lead to these outcomes.
Some people do see all of this as beneficial, as long as they themselves benefit. (And in some cases, the benefit may not be material, but merely the desire to make things even more negative for some other group of people.)
However, the number of people who think that these outcomes are beneficial is small and shrinking.
So for thirty years or so, conservatives have been, in essence, claiming that their policies will lead to outcomes that will be perceived as beneficial.
The more the evidence mounts, the harder it is to keep that up.
You are merely parroting mindless GOP drivel....Hah! You need to get out of Fantasy Land. So that's the cure for any deficit-related problem? Just uncork taxes. Then the exploding deficit isn't a problem either, right? Hell, if SS isn't a problem, then there's no way the federal budget is either, right? All we need to do is jack up the top marginal tax rate to what, 90%, and all our problems are solved, right? The budget is balanced and our problems are solved forever, right?
Give me a break!
The latest in conservative inanity, brought to you by Fucks News, of course…Two things.
A) Don't know why you use this to take a pot-shot at Fox with vulgarity. It's news. Their reporting it. I'm sure the other networks will as well. It has nothing to do with their organization. And,
B) What would you have said if students were making a similar gesture as an open protest to President Bush when he was in office? Would that have been "inanity" as well? Or a brave gesture in an expression of free speech?
Don't ever accuse me of parroting material or "GOP talking points" ever again. Ever.
Casual Observer -
Hah! You need to get out of Fantasy Land. So that's the cure for any deficit-related problem? Just uncork taxes. Then the exploding deficit isn't a problem either, right? Hell, if SS isn't a problem, then there's no way the federal budget is either, right? All we need to do is jack up the top marginal tax rate to what, 90%, and all our problems are solved, right? The budget is balanced and our problems are solved forever, right?
Give me a break!Making the social security tax less regressive as a very simple solution, which would have relatively little impact on upper marginal tax rates.
As for the deficit in general, a 90% top marginal tax rate, beginning where the current top marginal tax rate begins, would be a terrible idea.
However, adding a new upper margin somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million a year, and/or increasing the top marginal tax rate somewhat, would both be reasonable.
A) Don't know why you use this to take a pot-shot at Fox with vulgarity. It's news. Their reporting it. I'm sure the other networks will as well. It has nothing to do with their organization. And
B) What would you have said if students were making a similar gesture as an open protest to President Bush when he was in office? Would that have been "inanity" as well? Or a brave gesture in an expression of free speech?I think Fox News deserves all the potshots it can get and more. However, I do agree that the students are engaged in a gesture of free speech.
I strongly support their right to protest Obama's visit, and in fact, no-one seems to be trying to prevent them.
The video was creepy, but also free speech.
Don't ever accuse me of parroting material or "GOP talking points" ever again. Ever.Seriously, what is it with the constant excessive anger from the right on this blog? Claims about the supposed SS deficit are a GOP talking point.
Anecdotal but telling. Several tenured conservative professors that teach in Carolina ACC schools told me that they voted for Obama, mainly because they were fed up with the GOP's anti-intellectualism.
Making the social security tax less regressive as a very simple solution, which would have relatively little impact on upper marginal tax rates.
Okay, if I'm going to be persecuted for "GOP talking points" that are supposedly misleading, then I'll fire back. It's misleading to say the SS tax is "regressive." It's a defined contribution tax towards a safety net, intended to be drawn upon later as supplemental income for retirement or in case of a disability. There's a cap to what you pay in because there's a cap on what you can draw out. It's that simple. The only reason someone with "wealth" might benefit more from the system is they are likely to be in good enough health to live longer and receive benefits for a longer period of time. All else equal, you get back a function of what you paid in. The rich don't "benefit" from its "regressiveness" because there's a limit to what they can draw. Remove the limit on what you pay, and it's only fair to remove the limit on what you can draw.
As for the deficit in general, a 90% top marginal tax rate, beginning where the current top marginal tax rate begins, would be a terrible idea.
I agree. It was a facetious comment.
However, adding a new upper margin somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million a year, and/or increasing the top marginal tax rate somewhat, would both be reasonable.
Now I do agree with this.
I think Fox News deserves all the potshots it can get and more.
I wasn't defending Fox per se, but I'm saying what was the point on a generic story like that where they're not flashing a partisan bias. If they're re-running tired old crap about Obama's birth certificate or some other Drudge-worthy crap, then yeah. But to drop an F-bomb as Pragmatus did on such an innocuous story seems pointless.
Seriously, what is it with the constant excessive anger from the right on this blog?
Not really angry, just trying to shut the opposition's line of attack down and stand up for myself that I'm not just parroting tired ideas.
Claims about the supposed SS deficit are a GOP talking point.
I disagree that the "supposed SS deficit" is not a problem if you'll agree to two things I maintain:
A) Calling it a regressive tax is a misleading Democratic talking point, and
B)There is the potential for dire unintended consequences if you divert all of that upper-tier income that is currently capped from private investment into the government's hands.
Or you could just simply say that you want the cap on paying SS taxes removed so long as the cap on what you draw out is removed as well. I'll take that too.
I didn't word that last part particularly well, but the gist was that I'll agree that the deficit to SS funding is not a problem if you'll agree to those other statements.
Otherwise, it very much is a problem. And I'm not parroting talking points. And you're a liar.
@ Casual Observer.
I don't feel the need to curse you or accuse you of being an idiot or anything... but I do think you are overly concerned about a very long term problem.
Pragmatus, despite his choice in caustic response, is correct that merely removing the cap on SS withholding would stablize SS forever. Most people in this country are comfortable with progressive or flat taxation, and the extremely regressive nature of the SS and Medicare witholdings are kind of obscene from most people's perspective.
Right now the trust fund looks worse than last year because millions of people have lost their jobs and aren't paying in... so the fund is losing billions. That said, if we can get the economy turned around, then the SS fund will begin to grow again for at least 10 years or so. There's plenty of time for very mild corrections to solve this.
Medicare is far more scary, and absolutely requires overhauling the health care system at large. Many of the cost-saving mechanisms, and focus on prevention, that the administration is pushing for in their health care plan will help... but we are, at some point, going to have to look at how much we are prepared to pay to keep a person alive another few months... and make some tough decisions.
As for the budget deficit, that is supposed to be paid down when the economy is healthy, and driven up when the economy needs stimulus health. This is very widely accepted economic theory, and now's when we're SUPPOSED to be generating debt. We were supposed to be paying off debt over the last 8 years, and the previous administration completely failed... but that's no reason to not generate debt now. We need to stimulate the economy or we'll never hope to get our finances in order.
:)
Casual Observer
I was apparently writing my post when you posted yours... so I'll address your contention that the SS tax isn't regressive.
SS has been posting significant surplusses since 1983. These surplusses were - as of last year - expected to continue to 2020... that number would have gone down now, because of the terrible job loss, but the surplus itself hauled in ~1.3 trillion dollars during the last administration. That money was used as part of the official budget - ostensibly "borrowed" but actually taken in return for "special" treasury notes that cannot be publicly traded like normal U.S. bonds.
Essentially, since 1983, the SS trust fund has been a portion of the regular tax burden for the general budget.
The frantic rhetoric surrounding the SS fund revolves far more around 2011, when (prior to the current economic collapse) it was predicted the SS surplus would begin to reduce... because that would affect the general fund as a lessoning of an additional tax revenue.
There is little to no likelihood that the SS bonds will ever be paid. SS will be restructured, either by increasing retirement age or increasing the withholding, to ensure continued surplusses... because it has become institutional to use those surplusses for the general budget.
Therefore, capping the witholding is merely a regressive taxation.
Nate: You can't measure conservative "ideas" by measuring the number of Republican voters with post-graduate degrees. The two simply don't equate!
Since the Republican party represents mostly the interests of the top 1% there might, for instance be many rich Republicans who care NOTHING for the ideas of the Republican party, but vote for it out of self-interest.
Those with graduate degrees might correlate well with economic elites since most multi-national CEOs for instance have such degrees.
There is little to no likelihood that the SS bonds will ever be paid. SS will be restructured, either by increasing retirement age or increasing the withholding, to ensure continued surplusses... Increasing the retirement age only hurts the poor who most rely on SS income. They generally don't live as long and will be delayed that much longer before they can receive benefits in old age. It doesn't matter to the middle to upper-middle income folks who don't need it for survival but it serves a good supplemental purpose. Raising the witholding has consequences, I'm telling you. And again, I ask, are you willing to raise the withdrawal limit by a commensurate level or percent.
Therefore, capping the witholding is merely a regressive taxation.
It's only "regressive" in the strictest sense that what you pay in, as a percent of your income, goes down the higher your income is because there's a cap on the tax, currently a little more than $100K per year, beyond which is zero tax liability on social security.
HOWEVER, as I've been trying to say, that's remedied by the limit that one can draw out of it later. Point being, what if you were to exclude an antire group of people, let's say anyone with a net worth of more than $2 million dollars in 2010 and index it with inflation, and say they can't draw SS benefits even though they paid into it for several years. It would still be a "regressive tax", but would it really be fair for them to have paid tens of thousands of dollars into it and not ever see a dime of it? I realize some taxes are redistributive by nature, and that's okay in some instances, but this would be a complete redirection of income by the government from one group of people to the other.
The point I'm trying to make is, in spite of my little rant, calling it a "regressive tax" without saying anything else doesn't tell the other side of the story (about withdrawal caps and threats to nullify withdrawals to wealthy people period) and obfuscates the point about the program's pitfalls.
Casual Observer -
Okay, if I'm going to be persecuted for "GOP talking points" that are supposedly misleading, then I'll fire back. It's misleading to say the SS tax is "regressive." It's a defined contribution tax towards a safety net...That's actually an interesting point (not the "persecuted" part, but the part about the SS tax). Currently, the SS system is more or less a true "insurance" system, albeit an involuntary one.
A good system, too, but medical science caught up with it, and people are living far longer than was expected when it was designed.
I do, in fact, favor that higher income people (a group I belong to, for full disclosure) contribute relatively more, yet only withdraw up to the same limit.
I guess the most logical way to say it is that I favor that it more or less remain an insurance system, but with an overt element of "welfare" added, in the form of collecting the tax on some or all of the income of higher earners, even though they won't get extra benefits.
Whatever happens, we aren't going to let elderly people starve or be denied medical treatment (I desperately hope).
The SS system is already developed, familiar, and actually fairly efficient. Rather than dump it and develop a new system to assure income for the elderly, why not add the extra revenues needed to keep that system solvent? We'll need to do something.
(I'm opposed to "privatizing" it. That would either mean allowing people to choose whether and how to save without guidance - defeating the point of the system and necessitating a new welfare program for the elderly - or operating it the same way, but throwing some pork to those lucky enough to "manage" the money, which amounts to the needless introduction of a middle man at taxpayer expense.)
Not really angry, just trying to shut the opposition's line of attack down and stand up for myself that I'm not just parroting tired ideas.I can see that it's annoying to be accused of that. However, I'm going to say that "persecuted" is far too strong a term.
A) Calling it a regressive tax is a misleading Democratic talking point, andI'd gladly admit that if I could find a Democrat who would admit that it is regressive :).
B)There is the potential for dire unintended consequences if you divert all of that upper-tier income that is currently capped from private investment into the government's hands.Yes, that would be very bad, and I adamantly oppose diverting all or even most private investment into government's hands. I'm strongly in favor of private investment - just also in favor of a humane society the provides everyone with their basic needs and the opportunity for education and advancement.
Making people continue to contribute the same low percentage of their income to the social security system would certainly not wipe out private investment.
I don't favor anything that would wipe out free markets, private investment, or the like. They haven't been wiped out in Canada, Australia, Western Europe (where many countries have much stronger economies than that of France, not that France is such a bad place to live), or developed Asia.
I would say that the title is a gross error. The conservative intellectual still exists. The intellectual Republican is what is in decline. A political ideology does not necessarily equate to a political party.
Well, what was the old cynical saying: "you can't go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"?
that judgment goes entirely too far & it's also far too smug to say the GOP is the party of the less intelligent, & for that reason they are fading out.
after all, even w/ a campaign of epic stupidity; sailing into a headwind of record low approval ratings for GWB; etc; McCain/Palin still got close to 1/2 the votes.
Prejudice and ideology apparently still have great potency w/ US voters, even against the evidence of reported facts and their own personally observed economic predicaments.
Extremist right-wing ideology captured one of the two great political parties; is now positioned to attack, undermine, and frustrate implementation of any progressive agenda; and has a lock on means of mental reproduction. With their own networks, flack squadrons, PR empires, etc, they've managed to shape popular attitudes to reject core progressive or liberal values.
Cugel: But if they're voting for the party out of self-interest, then doesn't that mean that - at least - they're ideologically aligned on the important grounds (in this case, economic/fiscal issues)?
I mean, for example...if you're voting for the Republicans because you want to pay lower taxes, isn't that part of your ideology?
Reading the comments for a while, I know you're a staunch progressive. But I don't think that people will vote AGAINST what they perceive to be their interests - especially high wage-earners. (I will debate the merits of what is REALLY in a particular voter's best interest - voters may hold their own biases.) And while it's very rare (if not entirely impossible) that a voter and a policymaker will agree on everything, I think generally voters will prioritize. Whether it's social issues (for example, many Hollywood liberals) or fiscal issues (why New Jersey, for example, is actually red for $150k+ earners in general, as are many other "blue" states), they'll pick and choose.
tl;dr - Maybe they have different priorities from you.
On the May 7 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Steyn said of Obama's condiment selection: "He's amazing, Obama. This coverage -- he's a regular guy. He eats a hamburger with Dijon mustard -- Dijon mustard. John Kerry couldn't get away with that stuff, but he makes it seem like just like a regular thing to do. Now there's -- I see that some of the left-wing commentators are saying, 'Why are people making a fuss about the Dijon mustard?' but that's just an example of the way Obama is able to enlighten us." Later in the program, Steyn stated: "I deeply resent Barack Obama crashing in as the Grey Poupon spokesperson, because that has been the lifesaver for non-American voiceover artists in this country for years -- getting the gig doing the Grey Poupon voiceover." He added: "[I]f you can't outsource Grey Poupon to foreigners, what can you outsource? And instead now he's apparently the big Grey Poupon spokesperson, putting it all -- putting it all over his hamburger. Barack Obama -- that was -- what was that? That was yesterday, Barack Obama had a hamburger. I don't know what he may do today to prove -- to pass for human."
Listening to Rush Limbaugh is like listening to a garbage disposal with a spoon stuck in it.
As a southern white American male (notice I only capitalized one of those adjectives) with a post-grad degree (science not art), I think I have become more conservative over the last several years.
It's an interesting discussion, but I don't think much can be made of it because post-grad degrees are not what they used to be. The words 'master' and 'doctor' used to mean something.
How would the popularity increase of MBA programs since 1980 impact these numbers? Are Democrats winning more of an ever larger demo? Since 1980 are more people getting post-grad degrees changing this demo on a more fundamental level (conservatives aren't jumping to Democratic party but more Democrats are joining the ranks of post-grads)?
I am not sure that an MBA should be considered to be a graduate degree, nor are many of those who have one intellectual.
Hell, I know HS seniors who could go straight into an MBA program.
Granted, I am biased against businessmen, but I can count on hand, the number of intelligent MBA students, and those holding the degree, and I have met a fair number of them.
There is a reason lazy frat boys and jocks go the business route.
"There is a reason lazy frat boys and jocks go the business route."I think the "lazy" ones are going after so-called degrees like sociology.
I'm one of those "lazy frat boys", but got a post-grad science degree.
I think the "lazy" ones are going after so-called degrees like sociology.
I'm one of those "lazy frat boys", but got a post-grad science degree.
1. I am not implying all jocks and frat boys are stupid and lazy, just 95% of them.
2. Many people believe that an MBA is a path to riches, but given the non-intellectual nature of the degree and the countless low quality "schools" that offer it, the degree has been devalued. Of course an MBA from the top tier schools will have value but those students aren't the ones I was ranting about.
Richard Posner (as quoted by Nate) wrote...
The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.In my opinion, the first of the four failures Nate notes (the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives;) should not be included as a failure, but as a subset of two of the other three.
1. the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect is the inanity of thinking that whenever and wherever we send troops, we have thought out all the possibilities of what might happen - how many to send (intellect); what their mission should be (intellect); etc.; and
2. [F]iscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits as partially shown by sending our military into undefined conflicts (for what purpose?), with a resultant waste of lives and material.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
beavis said...
I am not sure that an MBA should be considered to be a graduate degree, nor are many of those who have one intellectual.
Wasn't one of little shrub's 'selling points' for voting for him in 2000 that if he were elected, he would be the first "MBA President"?
Anecdotal, but it helps reinforce beavis' comment 'nor are many of those who have one intellectual'.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
There is a conservative vision which makes some sense, but no one other than David Brooks can articulate it. An example would be that social programs not only overtax workers but actually fail to help those in need, most often by breeding dependency. There could be conservatives who actually want to help the poor and disenfranchised, but not with liberal programs. Today's conservatives don't make that argument, though. They blame the poor for their poverty and promote the virtue of greed and self-interest. It is no wonder that fewer are listening to this mean-spirited bunch!
Conservatives have been slowly telling us that more education is bad, that colleges are pits of liberalism, and that we should trust "common sense", as if it were opposed by "book learning".
To hell with them.
Off topic: I'll be joining Obama votes with Post Graduate Degrees on Monday when I get my MLS.
Thanks to fivethirtyeight.com for nearly derailing my Junior Semester of grad school with your overly interesting articles!
@Jack Farrell:
It's interesting that you should cite David Brooks as an exponent of an enlightened Conservative agenda. Isn't he on the wingnuts' hit list as insufficiently loyal to the cause? I would like to know what Brooks is proposing to replace the Liberal programs he says are failing.
You should recall that the old Democratic welfare program, AFDC, was replaced in the 1990's by the Republican-approved (and Clinton-signed) TANF, with its two-year lifetime limit on receiving assistance. I also remember a lot of ballyhoo about Enterprise Zones in the inner cities. Whatever became of that under Bush and Cheney?
Given that background, I'd like to know what Brooks has in mind to help the poor. Is it more of the same?
Thanks for the good laugh!
The "intellectual" underpinnings of conservatism were always clever PR, not actual thought processes. The Bush administration shrank certain aspects of the government; the parts that keep us from eating bad food, or being sold defective products, or getting scammed by financial agents.
Didn't work out well.
Anybody who wants to live in a frontier society is welcome to take to the woods with a bag of salt. Others of us, those who like civilization and feel that 10,000 years of strong preference for it has a good purpose which should be upheld, will continue to hold the Republican party, and their "ideas," in utter contempt.
Whatever the state of our academic achievements.
Beavis -
I have an MBA degree, as well as my doctoral degree.
It is highly possible to get an MBA, while learning nothing and doing very little work.
On the other hand, it is also highly possible to learn a lot.
It's sort of like undergraduate. It depends on what you make of it.
I was in a program that had flexibility, and majored in finance, with a second concentration in statistics.
How can anyone still think Sarah Palin is a viable candidate for 2012? In 2012 Sarah will be 48 and menopausal and therefore way too old for a VPILF or PILF.
The Republican candidate in 2012 is 100% cast-iron-plunger-certain to be Carrie Prejean:
* Carrie is blonde
* Carrie is 20 years younger than old Sarah the Crone
* Carrie is a CURRENT Beauty Queen
* Carrie can deliver California’s 55 electoral votes
* Carrie has nipple photos on teh internets
The Republicans are in no danger of losing the prepubescent boy demographic OR the White-shoes-and-Viagra old man demographic (currently the largest bloc of the Republican party).
this theme is old news. but i think i detect a change in the 2nd derivative of liberal intellectual thought. on issues like climate-change, for instance, libs are convinced they have science on their side. they can say "hey, we have a problem here." but when it comes to fixing the problem, they jump ahead to the religion of alt fuels. where is the science in supplanting the energy of hydrocarbons with that of wind and solar? where is the math? where is the intellectual rigor?
"Conservative Intellectual" is practically an oxymoron. Conservatives are more interested in religious extremism and economic ideology than in paying any attention to reality, science, evidence, or practicality. The fact that they still think global warming isn't real, and that Bush's economic policies were successful, in the face of obvious and abundant evidence to the contrary, is only the tip of the stupidity iceberg.
Conservative intellectuals are not dead, but I think the Republican party has forced them into hiding.
I blame this on Roveian "message control" measures. These were politically effective in that the public conservatives would parrot the same simple talking points as if with one voice. Genuine intellectuals simply do not do this: They think for themselves and often put together reasons that are far more subtle than Roveian slogans. This was once welcome in both parties: there was the fully-articulated position passed around among intellectuals, and then the "distilled" message for the soundbites. But Rove's Republicans were ordered to utter ONLY soundbites! Positions with more complexity were explicitly seen as "going off message."
So there is no space for an intellectual in a party with an atmosphere like this. This problem will only keep getting worse for conservatives as people get used to Obama's style. He is one leader who CAN communicate with intellectuals without alienating them.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are still trying to win the "message wars" and the "culture wars" - which may be their best short-term strategy, but it gives nothing to conservative smart people.
Smart people are not a huge percentage of the electorate, but they are disproportionately opinion leaders. Now that the Republicans abandoned them, their behavior will become even more hostile to educated people who appreciate subtlety in argument. It has gotten to a point where even brilliant conservatives can't defend the Republican party, and you don't have to be incredibly bright to realize when somebody is getting spanked in a debate. What I'm saying is that people in generally will follow the movement of intellectuals.
In general, the Republicans don't have a strategy for wresting away key demographics from Democrats. They need a arguments they can win, rather than unveiling Smoke-n-Mirrors 4.0: Now with more suburban wife appeal!
In my opinion, the Republicans dont suffer anything worse than third party splitting that plagued the Democrats in the 2000 elections. After the 2000 elections, and Nader's moderate causation of Al Gore's loss, the Democrats, and leftists generally, basically hated the idea of a third party. The tax cuts, and perhaps more importantly the Iraq War, disproved the general notion that was prevalent throughout Democrats in 2000, and perhaps 1996 that there was no difference between the Dems and the Republicans. After Bush's first four years in office, Dems wised up to the fact that this was simply BS. The fact that Nader was seen, not as a hero of consumer reports stuff etc. but as some crazy egomaniac who was dead set on getting hippies to vote for him so that the Republicans would win was a pretty important aspect of the Democrats current rise to power. The Republicans, at this stage, are going through pretty much the same thing. Until the Republicans start to hate on the far right, and say "look you egomanical A holes, we just want to balance the budget" they will have problems.
For Crist to run, I think, is a good thing for Democrats but not in a party sense, but in a country sense. Having sensible Republican opponents is good for the nation, even if the Democrats lose some power. Having Palin and that dude from GA is good for Democrats, because they are crazy, but generally bad for our country. Hopefully, the Democrats can remember to keep hating on the far left to keep enough power to control things, and the Republicans will start hating on the far right so that they dont have whackos as leaders. Then our country can truly move forward, leaving all the nut jobs to write countless and endless blogs about why our country is failing, all the while, while we are moving forward.
This is even more alarming for the Republicans than it looks. At the same time as this trend has been breaking to the Democrats there has been a large increase in the number of post-grads, and those post-grads reflect the general population much better than they did. Far from being limited to academics (left), doctors (right) and lawyers (name your price), there is now a vast swathe of professional jobs that require postgraduate education, including in the historically conservative business and public admin sectors. So as more conservative groups of the population have been getting postgraduate education, the Republican share has been plummeting, not rising.
You'd think they'd be worried.
It's not just anti-intellectualism. It's anti-competence and anti-science that gets feted in the GOP. I am a (liberal) business person who works in the field of construction. Nothing bothered me more than the elevation of "Joe the Plumber" as a GOP hero. The guy was NOT a plumber. I work with many smart people in the trades, many of whom start and run their own businesses. They get and retain their licenses, and pay their taxes, and run responsible businesses. Holding up some guy as a role model who is representing himself as a plumber, while not holding a license for the trade, acting as a sometime handyman, and not paying his taxes to me said, "we reward laziness and stupidity."
And that's just one example. My family's lone hard right member, who has several post-graduate degrees and had always voted GOP, refused to vote in the 2008 election because he was so appalled by Sarah Palin and the elevation of incompetence over smart thought in the GOP.
Who needs intellectuals when you’ve got Cheney, Osama (yes that’s Osama), etc.? But really Nate, must you cite POSner? If the “intellectuals” aren’t responsible for what conservatism hath wrought, then what good are they? What, they couldn’t keep their “party” away from emotion and religion? Damn, I thought those were their favorite political tools. Damn.
Things just got out of hand, hmm?
"""""""""""
That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising.
"""""""""""
No, those failures wouldn't be due to any prior “intellectual” superstars, would they? Do I have to make a list? The synchronous supernovae don’t have anything to to with the wrong solutions for the wrong time, eh? Time for inter-lecturers
to jump ship (but they’re still clinging to their baggage.)
And this inter-lecturer still won’t fess-up to “conservatism’s” failures. All four “blows” (more interllectual responsibiity dodging) are misleading. Let’s take a look:
-------------
* the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; - a responsible inter-lecturer would have to note the possibility the failure lies with those who chose warfare and their failure to address the root causes.
* the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; - a responsible inter-lecturer would note that this was more a substitution of self-interest for commonwealth. Inter-lecturers can be selfish too. Oh, by the way, is he implying that inter-lecturers don’t have will?
* a continued preoccupation with abortion; - so the dissident, conservative inter-lecturer could tolerate abortion opposition fer only so long? Tell me that story about integrity again?
* fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation. - Oh, but Mr. inter-lecturer, I thought that collapsing the guverment for private benefits was a conservative plank.
-----------
Damn, conservatives can’t even cover their asses adequately.
Yo! You booksmart or bright, educated or intelligent, inter-llectuals or eggheads have dropped the bombs, er I mean balls.
Thank god yer not lefty’s ;)
Cross-posted at None So Blind.
As a college student, I have to say that this is some of the best news I have heard in ages. Colleges are uniquely designed to suppress the Conservative tendencies of their students and are staffed by former flower children and socialist wanna-bes. Very few post graduate students have ever had a real job and it's unlikely they ever will. They live in a fairly land where they can spend their entire day pursuing esoteric research paid for by "the endowment." Professors, in many cases, are no different. They can talk your ear off and you can admire their "intellectual" prowess, but I highly doubt they are capable of much in a real world crisis. I'll take the support of people who understand that the world is still too complicated to break down and fit into nice, neat, rational categories.
So...I'm a tenured faculty member and department chair, three graduate degrees, and ~20 years experience in higher ed. My anecdotal experience has been that my colleagues (around the country, not just at my university) are overwhelmingly more progressive than the general public and overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Every campus I've been on has had a couple of "conservative intellectuals" who everyone respects and who generally hold their own in campus debates-- but they also universally reject the Republican party of GW Bush.
Our students, on the other hand, are probably majority conservative and often vote Republican (until 2008 at least). Those majoring in business are the most conservative by far; those in theology among the most liberal. I feel sorry for conservative students since they have so few public role models outside of Chamber of Commerce types. Most of them rely on Fox News for their talking points, so get shut down pretty quickly by their better informed counterparts.
I've long believed that education makes people more liberal. It also makes them smarter. You can make the connection for yourself, but since the party has been an anti-intellectual bastion since at least 1948 there's no reason to expect educated people to pay much attention to Republicans of any stripe.
Karl Rove didn't graduate from college....maybe that's part of their problem?
Decline of the conservative intellectual? Try the decline of the american education system and the intellectual in general...
I became a conservative in reaction to my father's loud Truman Democrat leanings. Then I got drafted, and lived (long story for a later post). Returned home home to become an anti-John Kerry Republican, who I saw as insulting us GIs. Then Reagan began to make me nervous, and my father became a virulent Reaganite. My father and I quarreled (it was automatic). My mother said that my father drove me back across the divide; that if he had never switched I would have been the opposite politically. I married a woman to turned out to be to the left of Mother Jones. I'm still married and have become a huge liberal. My son and I fought some, but not too much. He is also a liberal. My daughter is to the left of my wife. Lots of education, lots of financial success for both kids. The drift seems to be to the left.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
Post a Comment