Moral panic over fake news hides the real enemy – the digital giants

I mean, yes, I would definitely say that that identity politics/bloc voting is problematic, from the perspective of "how do we best run a government?". It is also in many cases understandable, especially in the face of extant threats to a given polity. (In such a case, however, it is important to stress that "identity politics" is not the problem--the threat and disenfranchisement that led to the formation of an identity bloc is. Even for Trump voters, who I'll touch on momentarily.)

But from a social/messaging perspective, I think that it is less that identity politics discredits the left and more that white people (and it's mostly white people who have an axe to grind about identity politics) feel threatened by identity politics and thus by the left. The reactionary clumping of the Trumpist bloc of whites (as evidenced both by voting patterns and the frankly shameless xenophobic pandering by Trump and his surrogates in the campaign) is no less "identity politics", and is arguably more aggressive than the identity-focused blocs that have formed prior (it's a lot less aggressive to say "we should be able to get married" than it is to say "you should not be able to get married", get me?). But that's not castigated as "identity politics". I would submit that that's because white people don't think white is an identity, but the default.

Identity politics are fine, so goes the thinking, when it's your identity. In a society overwhelmingly dominated by white interests, fairness is gonna feel like you're losing. (This is the genesis of the notion of "privilege" in the first place, as I understand it.)

Let that sink in for a moment and then reflect on what conservatism even means.

On the other hand, I am mostly sympathetic towards conservative people. Most have been sold a bill of goods and were never fortunate enough to stumble across, or have delivered unto them, the structural education necessary to evaluate it one way or another. (This includes functionally-trade-schooled "engineers". The best thing that ever happened to me in my fundamental learning was having to take economics, philosophy, and sociology classes. The idea that a "Bachelor's of Science" can be granted with only minimal exposure to the humanities is near-criminal.)

Where my sympathy fails is when the proponents of that ideology wish to use it to harm other people. That is the chilly response that conservatism gets in academia and it must not be ignored: when you are the self-appointed standard-bearer of a worldview where women, gays, and minorities are second-class citizens, when you are the representative of a worldview that wants fewer people to be able to vote so you can win, when "root, hog or die" is accompanied by no end of policies to ensure that Those People don't get that middle option and only sometimes get the first--of course people are going to react poorly to you. Don't actively shit on other people and they won't shit on you back.

I think the problem is that you need to define what conservatism is to you. Otherwise it's hard to really have a discussion about the label.

He's defined at least partially what it is to him ("conservative movement that attacks facts because facts refuse to coexist with their ideology") and frankly it's a group I can see many rational people being negative about.

But if conservatism to you is just slightly right of center on most things, I don't think people would be very negative about them and I definitely can't see them having any more trouble than usual on a college campus. Their views are going to be challenged there but that's kind of the point of college. And if being challenged is too high a mountain for them, a career in science isn't going to work out.

But to the main thrust of your post, I've seen those characterizations of the left, too. I made those characterizations of the left. I was wrong then, and I was wrong precisely because I was evaluating the left positions based on postulates that were horseshit. Not that I would ever make criticisms based on those postulates, 'cause I knew those were loser arguments. It was not until I was able to broaden my horizons and learn a certain structural courage to challenge them that I realized that they were not just loser arguments because those principles were not well-shared but loser arguments because those principles were gross.

Even Reagan (who I view as kind of the beginning of this ideological rot in conservatism) was able to talk about fundamental principles of his conservatism. Whatever Trump's fundamental principles are, he speaks not to them. Nor does a Paul Ryan, for a more establishment conservative. My conclusion is that either those principles don't exist or they are repugnant enough that someone with savvy knows to run from them.

YM, of course, MV. You don't have to agree with me. But I believe, and believe strongly, that someone who does not have or does not speak to their principles, towards the points that orient their moral compass, knows that they are wrong.

There is no symmetry. 37% identify as conservatives, 35% as moderates, and 24% as liberals[1]. That leaves 4% for "other". So we're actually talking about 63% of the country being "non-crazy" or "non-propagandized", although I suspect that many self-identified conservatives despise what the Republican Party has become.

[1] -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideolog...

Yes, but the question here is different: Has the proportion of conservatives diminished significantly? (tl;dr: Among 4-year colleges and universities in the U.S., according to one study, there has been a big change in New England but only a little elsewhere.)

And thanks for adding some actual facts to that discussion! Some thoughts on it, and a summary so that everyone doesn't have to read it:

The analysis is from Samuel Abrams, an apparently conservative[0] political science professor at Sarah Lawrence and the Hoover Institution. In looking up Abrams, I found an article that addresses his study plus other useful research and in a less biased way (the Boston Magazine article is titled "How Liberal Professors Are Ruining College" and mostly is anecdotes about persecution):

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-...

the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, ... conducts periodic surveys of faculty members and asks them, among other things, about their political views. Recent surveys have shown that faculty members are moving more to the left than has been the case in the past.

Abrams analysis is of the above data, and shows that the ratios are holding mostly constant in most of the country but in New England the ratio of liberal-to-conservative has shot up from around 5:1 to 28:1:

http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/li...

He found that region was the most significant factor, even controlling for institution type of discipline of faculty members.

Also of interest: The HERI data are on four-year college and university faculty members, and much research suggests that community college faculty members are more centrist than are their four-year colleagues. Remember that very many people attend community colleges, regardless of their relative prominence.

Still open is how much of that change is due to the country moving right and the definition of conservative changing; for example, much of Ronald Reagan's politics would be anathema to current "conservative" leaders. But again, many thanks; the research definitely informs the conversation.

----

[0] Abrams is identified as centrist in one article and conservative in another. The Hoover Institution is conservative, AFAIK.

The Family Research Council is a mainstream right-wing organization. A Republican who runs afoul of the FRC in a solidly Republican state is in danger of being challenged internal to the party. What The FRC Thinks matters a great deal to the discourse of the right.

Hell, I'll go one further: that I can criticize the insularity of parts of the left to hearing things they don't like is something that I could not do when I was of the right because then I was a RINO or a "bad Republican". I'm not a "bad liberal" because I make that criticism. I'm pretty normal. So there's a difference, and it's a difference of kind, and the conflation you're attempting to pawn off strikes me as mendacious.

Tbh, I think that is ultimately what we are dealing with - a very popular culture and ideology that eschews reason in favour of conformity.

Not a term that is regularly circulated in scientific discussion. More typically these are labels around subjects in which politics has involved itself. When politics becomes involved, the stakes become much higher as money and power are involved and it becomes in ones best interest to silence opposition often by any means because the opposing opinion now is a direct threat to your career, business etc. Whereas beforehand opposing opinion was just that, an opinion with no more power to influence change and not threatening.

We can see this precisely unfold with climate change. Prior to 1997 conservative and liberal views were more closely inline. However, 1997 was the first time a political solution was proposed that favored political world views of liberal vs conservative. All of a sudden now opinion matters and critics became more involved and vocal. I would suspect if the political solution favored conservative world views then the terms 'climate change deniers' would be originating from the right as opposed to the left. The left would have become critical if they felt the solution was an impact to their political world views.

http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-cl...

That's very common, if you talk to conservatives on campus.

Now, this isn't necessarily focused, intentional discrimination. It might just be the usual "it's hard to be a small minority" issue. The majority might be "only" as guilty as it is when it doesn't accomomodate other minorities.

But there is more - just look at what people say about conservatives in this very thread. They are a hated minority. Some of their peers are even open enough as to admit their bias in surveys,

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-...

Unfortunately, the nature of a country of three hundred million people means that you've got to scale, and Socratic dialogue doesn't scale.

Of course, we've had our educational system trashed, so I'm not sure that's an answer, either...

The Southeast alone has acres upon acres of rural settlements (okay, fine, towns) with low population-density; it would take a significant expedition to spread "opportunity" to a noticeable portion of that population.

I mean...you know what "RINO" is, right?

I find this hard to believe. Can you back up any of these claims?