Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I've never understood comments like this. If academics, the brightest and best educated people in America, are liberals, doesn't that actually say something very positive about liberal politics?

Let me preface by saying my statement does not apply to all well educated.

People can often study their way out of real context. Very much like too much government, people start believing idyllic versions of the world, and ignore the reality that humans have chaotic foibles. They move to a place where one can think that all problems have solutions if we just study one more variable. Academic studies have an important place in our society, but they are not the "best and the brightest" everytime. Many businesspeople(like bill gates), charitable people (sister theresa) and just everyday people who weren't for one reason or another did not choose college are as good, or better, and as smart or smarter, than the people who have chosen Academia as their life's pursuit and passion.

Respectfully, your very statement, that academics are the best and the brightest of this nation, points to -I believe- the condescending attitude the OP was possibly referring to. The concept that a life long pursuit of academic knowledge is more valuable than other forms of knowledge gained by toil, labor, corporate development, or even charitable acts is a false belief, in my opinion.

Life is fascinating, and each individual is worthy of respect and acknowledgement that they have a point of value to contribute. A man hammering away to earn enough to support 3 children may not know enough to argue Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland, but to his children he most likely is the best dang hammerer in their lives.

Sorry Lotus, again I respect academics, and think it is an important pursuit of mankind, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that it represents the best and the brightest. Some do, but some are just blowhards, like any other walk of life.

[Trample the Elderly]

I hear John Murtha died?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Let me preface by saying my statement does not apply to all well educated.

People can often study their way out of real context. Very much like too much government, people start believing idyllic versions of the world, and ignore the reality that humans have chaotic foibles. They move to a place where one can think that all problems have solutions if we just study one more variable. Academic studies have an important place in our society, but they are not the "best and the brightest" everytime. Many businesspeople(like bill gates), charitable people (sister theresa) and just everyday people who weren't for one reason or another did not choose college are as good, or better, and as smart or smarter, than the people who have chosen Academia as their life's pursuit and passion.

Respectfully, your very statement, that academics are the best and the brightest of this nation, points to -I believe- the condescending attitude the OP was possibly referring to. The concept that a life long pursuit of academic knowledge is more valuable than other forms of knowledge gained by toil, labor, corporate development, or even charitable acts is a false belief, in my opinion.

Life is fascinating, and each individual is worthy of respect and acknowledgement that they have a point of value to contribute. A man hammering away to earn enough to support 3 children may not know enough to argue Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland, but to his children he most likely is the best dang hammerer in their lives.

Sorry Lotus, again I respect academics, and think it is an important pursuit of mankind, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that it represents the best and the brightest. Some do, but some are just blowhards, like any other walk of life.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

The post to which I originally replied essentially flatly did say, "Don't listen to academics," and to that both you and I disagree. That was the context of my remarks.

I was not arguing that academics are better than others. While academia does attract generally intelligent and well-educated people, so do some other professions. Even more, as Gandhi did, I believe that there is no such thing as a better or worse job. All jobs are valuable. Put more personally, I have professor friends who become frustrated with me because I do not hang out with them enough, because instead I often prefer to hang out with what you called "feet on the ground" people precisely because of their opinions. Maybe growing up on a farm leads me to be this way. An example of my behavior in this regard is the Warpath, where few people are academics. What I said clumsily was not meant to elevate academics or demean non-academics.

So I apologize for how I put things. Let me rephrase:

When I go to see a medical doctor, I listen and follow. When it comes to medicine, his perspective is more educated than mine. He might not always be right but he will always have a more educated perspective than I have. And if the doctor is conservative, then a perspective which is more educated than mine is also a conservative one. In this scenario, I have to give a conservative credit for being on to something.

If I then try to translate this scenario, what I would see is that an academic economist has a more educated perspective than I do. He may not always be correct but he will always be more educated about economic issues than I am. Further, if he fits the stereotype of academics, he will be liberal. Therefore, in this scenario, an economic perspective which is more educated than mine will also be liberal. In this scenario, I have to give a liberal credit for being on to something.

And academia produces more than just economists. There are also political scientists, historians, sociologists, etc., for whom similar argument may be made.

So, if we refuse to listen to academic opinions simply because they are liberal, we are throwing away collective wisdom. Not all of our collective wisdom by far, but wisdom from an important source. Not wisdom which should always be followed, because there are other important voices, but wisdom still.

The poster who provided context for my previous remarks came from a position of refusing to listen at all in this way. The poster's position was that academics are liberals and therefore their perspectives are always invalid. Such a position diminishes our store of collective wisdom. This seems to me like having a diamond and just throwing it away. I don't get it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The post to which I originally replied essentially flatly did say, "Don't listen to academics," and to that both you and I disagree. That was the context of my remarks.

I was not arguing that academics are better than others. While academia does attract generally intelligent and well-educated people, so do some other professions. Even more, as Gandhi did, I believe that there is no such thing as a better or worse job. All jobs are valuable. Put more personally, I have professor friends who become frustrated with me because I do not hang out with them enough, because instead I often prefer to hang out with what you called "feet on the ground" people precisely because of their opinions. Maybe growing up on a farm leads me to be this way. An example of my behavior in this regard is the Warpath, where few people are academics. What I said clumsily was not meant to elevate academics or demean non-academics.

So I apologize for how I put things. Let me rephrase:

When I go to see a medical doctor, I listen and follow. When it comes to medicine, his perspective is more educated than mine. He might not always be right but he will always have a more educated perspective than I have. And if the doctor is conservative, then a perspective which is more educated than mine is also a conservative one. In this scenario, I have to give a conservative credit for being on to something.

If I then try to translate this scenario, what I would see is that an academic economist has a more educated perspective than I do. He may not always be correct but he will always be more educated about economic issues than I am. Further, if he fits the stereotype of academics, he will be liberal. Therefore, in this scenario, an economic perspective which is more educated than mine will also be liberal. In this scenario, I have to give a liberal credit for being on to something.

And academia produces more than just economists. There are also political scientists, historians, sociologists, etc., for whom similar argument may be made.

So, if we refuse to listen to academic opinions simply because they are liberal, we are throwing away collective wisdom. Not all of our collective wisdom by far, but wisdom from an important source. Not wisdom which should always be followed, because there are other important voices, but wisdom still.

The poster who provided context for my previous remarks came from a position of refusing to listen at all in this way. The poster's position was that academics are liberals and therefore their perspectives are always invalid. Such a position diminishes our store of collective wisdom. This seems to me like having a diamond and just throwing it away. I don't get it.

nice answer sir!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

nice answer sir!

Yours was a good and apt challenge, buddy.