Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
You argued against several things that I did not say.
I in no way intended to imply that other forms of work are not as valuable. I completely agree with your point on that one. I said nothing about the relative value of careers. Every academic needs someone to make their clothes, grow their food, keep their electricity on, and so on. So if any academic tells you that their job is the only worthy one, then that academic is wrong.
Further there certainly are many bright people who are not in academia. Academia does not have a monopoly on smart people.
But to become an academic requires a high level of education. This level of education can only be attained if you have some intelligence. Thus, although there are exceptions, academics tend to be bright and well-educated. That is all that I meant.
In the end, you actually argued my point. When it comes to running our country, don't we want to listen to the people who, as you put it, do know "Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland"? I'm not arguing that we listen only to them, but their voice needs to be taken into account, doesn't it?
Writing off the insights of people who know such things as "Keynesian or Smith" simply because they might be "liberal" (as the post which I first responded to did) seems like a foolhardy waste.
|
And I was not saying not to listen to academics, but that balance from the esoteric to the "feet on the ground" is needed.
The topic is why are liberals so condescending, I took your answer (paraphrased) as: if the best and the brightest are liberals that should tell you something. My point was that that argument or line of reasoning is an example of the condescension the OP is talking about. Admittedly I took a lot of tangents, but to answer the OP I believe many liberals are condescending because they see themselves as the best and the brightest, in some cases true, in others not so much.