Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal? (2016)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I'm not a member of either major party, but I'm tired of people labeling the left as the party of 'logic and reason' and the right as the party of stubborn, mindless tradition. Both party platforms are bent to suit political whims, so ultimately, both parties are laughably contradictory in their values.
There's plenty of rational reason on the right. If you don't agree, read Thomas Sowell and I bet you'll be forced to reconsider.
As a side note, why the hell can't I copy text from the article? Very annoying. Had to search for text in the developer console just to copy the quote above.
What I fail to understand is how so many republicans deny logic. It seems not that the left is the side of logic but that the right is on the side of illogic. They deny much of our understanding of evolution, climate science, criminology, sociology, and even economics.
Example: do all conservatives think climate change is a hoax? Maybe some uncritical, uneducated ones do believe this based on hearsay and because it's 'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed conservatives, from what I've seen, don't reject the science entirely. They question specific numbers and trends that make the case for climate change weaker than the liberal one.
So to clarify: conservatives are skeptical of specifics, while liberals accuse them of wholesale rejection.
What do you see on The Daily Show? The latter.
Example from the other side: are all liberals socialists? Maybe some uncritical, uneducated ones want outright socialism based on hearsay and because it's 'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed liberals, from what I've seen, don't want socialism. They have more nuanced views on social programs that, when better understood, are really just public welfare programs to promote equality of opportunity in a society with lots of excess capital.
So to clarify: liberals want reasonable social benefits, while conservatives accuse them of being radical socialists.
What do you see on Breitbart? The latter.
Neither side is innocent. But liberals have claimed a monopoly on the terms 'logic' and 'progressive' as well as virtually all of academia and mainstream media...so it's hard to fight back. Which is yet another reason Trump's win was so incredible & unexpected.
Please realize this is based on no hard evidence, just personal observation.
* Logical social conservatives (early childhood education plus libertarianism?)
* Pragmatic environmentalists (renewable power + GMOs to reduce pesticide use)
In short, people who like to think, even if they're on opposite "sides". Tony Blair predicts a vast political realignment of reason vs. populism.
Personally, I think we'll (eventually) see a consensus emerge around evidence-based governance, along with a post-scarcity attitude, but that's probably a century or two off.
This is what we get when one side gets to frame the debate. The whole debate on science and reason is framed by the liberals, so they get to decides the rules here. According to these rules, you need to look at 'scientific evidence' of things in order to form your opinions.
My claim has been that people form their opinion first, and then they look at the scientific evidence. Jonathan Haidt has done some work on this in his book righteous mind[1]. In addition to it, the concept of 'Mental Models' is another reason why either side accept 'proofs' or evidence for their opinion.
A simple example is the resurgent 'Flat Earth Theories'. Most of the people would reject any attempts to prove that the Earth is flat. Only a small minority of people who believe that earth is round, spend their time debunking and debating that Earth isn't flat.
To the rest of us, we don't even go around and say "There is some debate whether Earth is round" even though a group of individuals is very heavily advocating for it and writing pages and pages worth of material on it. Would a rational and scientific minded person just reject 'evidence' on it's face value? Apparently we do because that 'evidence' isn't really proper evidence. Saying that there is a conspiracy among the world authorities to claim that Earth is round isn't a proper hypothesis, not because it requires it doesn't sound feasible.
The same thing goes with why the right rejects what left deems as 'scientific evidence and reason'.
And I've seen plenty of non-sensical crap come from both sides... anti-gmo and anti-vaxxers for starters, not based in science and reason at all.
I'm sure he has some very compelling writings. But do you find his take on climate to be logical and reasonable? I do not.
He says public intellectuals create demand for their own work by exploiting their authority in one field to claim authority in others. Example he gives: Noam Chomsky. Genius in linguistics who exploited that fame to become a political commentator.
Does Chomsky's background in linguistics really give him any standing to be a political commentator? No.
Sowell is an academic economist. His specialty is social trends concerning topics like race, minimum wage, affirmative action, welfare, etc.
Should he really be commenting on global warming? No!
Check out Sowell's work on social issues and I think you'll find it more attractive (at least intellectually attractive, because you might disagree with it, which is totally okay).
Genius in linguistics who exploited that fame Wow. Name another famous linguistics academic who's exploited the fame we bestow upon linguistics academics.
Sowell has a sinecure at Hoover. He's a towering figure at ... ?
If you carefully reread my comment, you'll notice I didn't compare the two.
Left and right aren't parties, and since left and right (also true of liberal and conservative; different names from different places for similar things) were first applied to political movements, the left has been the faction favoring science and reason as ideals and the right has been the faction favoring protection of pre-existing elites backed by appeals to tradition. That's fundamentally what the left/right distinction is, and always has been.
To the extent that's not applicable to some subsets of the groups currently popularly labelled left and right, it's because those subsets are mislabeled.
I think that would be news to every adherent to Austrian economics.
There are plenty of logical reasons why transparency (especially for non-living entities like corporations, and the government), less government interference (including subsidies, excessive IP and rider spending) and free markets can work better than the level of subsidies, insane tax codes and excessive spending all around that we have today.
I'm not such a hard liner as to say we don't need some spending... I fervently believe it's a critical role of the federal government to provide for a common defense and essential infrastructure. What is essential infrastructure and a common defense are debatable.
This is mainly because as far as our societal norms and economics in general, we can't afford to pay for everything for everyone via the government. If I had my way, I'd severely limit medical patents (compulsory licensing schedule), extension patents and copyright to sane levels. I'd implement dual-sourcing policy for all federally funded payments for prescriptions. I feel that copyright and patents are probably necessary, but not to the extent we have today.
I'd revise grant classifications, and probably remove some... also requiring results of more grant work be open. I'd also suggest funding for more open courseware selection for schools to the teacher level. I'd also push towards reducing DoE funding in favor of more localized funding.
In general I want to see solutions that reduce costs, abuse and government oversight, while having a chance of succeeding and leaning towards more freedom and NAP. This also means far more freedom to upstart businesses, and reducing the influence of businesses (non-living entities) on political elections.
The above are far from libertarian ideals, but the goal is to move in a sane direction. Not every right-leaning idea is absent of science and facts. And not every left-leaning idea (GMO foods are bad for you, vaccine injections cause autism, etc) are based in science and facts.
In principle I agree with you; there -are- plenty of rational, well educated conservatives. They may have great and rational reasons for being conservative (both on social and economic issues, among others). That's all well and good. I may or may not agree with their views, but I applaud their methods and thoughts at arriving to them.
Unfortunately - at least in the United States - these kinds of conservatives seem to be in the quiet minority within the modern conservative Republican party. If they were at the forefront, we wouldn't be seeing what we are experiencing today.
At least - I hope not.
Today's conservative movement looks nothing like what we usually think of conservative ideals from the past - in either thoughts, actions, or rhetoric. There are echoes, of course, but most of what we see today is that of partisan nationalistic authortarianism, with the conservatism you're describing being drowned out by the shouting of bigots, liars, and thieves.
The frightening part is that a large portion of our population seem to want this form of "government". They either don't see the danger, or ignorantly think it won't turn around and bite them in the end. There isn't any room for discourse or discussion on the pros and cons of any of the rhetoric or legislation. It's instead "my way or gtfo" governance.
It looks a lot like classical conservatism. It doesn't look a lot like the Republican Party during the early part of the late-20th Century political realignment where it was starting to become a conservative party but had to be careful with it's rhetoric to maintain unity because it still had a lot of Northeastern and West Coast moderates and even liberals, and is extreme compared even to the Republican Party's extreme during the late part of that realignment (e.g., under Reagan.)
But that's just because the realignment (which continued past Reagan, and was largely complete by the turn of the millennium) is now not only complete but also the party establishment has largely adapted to it being complete.
...and the people with those views tend to not win Republican primaries nowadays, and their views do not have much influence over Republican leaders in Congress.
We have in effect a two party system. Suppose on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is most left wing and 10 is most right wing, the average Republican is 7 and the average Democrat a 3. It used to be the the 6, 7, and 8s made up the overwhelming majority of Republicans, and the 2, 3, and 4s made up the overwhelming majority of the Democrats. The 5s would go R or D depending on the candidate and the particular issues of the day.
What about the 0, 1, 9, and 10s? These were the people that were considered too far to the left (0, 1) or right (9, 10) by the Ds and Rs, respectively. Nevertheless, because we are in effect a two party system they would often join the Ds or Rs, recognizing that joining a third party is largely equivalent to not participating.
So both Ds and Rs end up with a small extreme wing.
In addition to being effectively a two party system, we also have a fairly apathetic electorate. Few people make an effort to actually be well informed. Make a proposal that seems great in sound bites, and a lot of people will believe it is great, even if it does not stand up to serious analysis...because they don't pay attention to places that publish serious analysis.
The Rs managed to effectively lose control of their party to the 9 and 10s. They came along at the right time (when there were serious economic problems that had people very worried) for that apathetic electorate to be particularly receptive to bold messages, and quite uninterested in hearing any real analysis that might show that there was nothing behind the message.
However, it is worth breaking down what it means to be liberal or conservative.
It is odd that if you tell me an American's opinions on guns, I can give an above-chance estimate of their opinion on immigration, or abortion.
The real question is, why are liberals so liberal?
If that were the case, then (in answer to the article), one would need just one liberal view that the highly educated can agree with (for instance, lower cost of higher education, lower debt on students), and then you would get the other views along with them.
What consists of essential infrastructure is up to some debate, I might be convinced that education is, roads are, internet is (communications), electricity is... but not too much else. I feel that healthcare and other social welfare programs could lean towards family care requirements, which would allow for much lower costs for everyone else that doesn't have family for care.
I'm not hardline either, I'm open to pragmatic options for many things... but the direction should be towards freedom and not away from it.
FWIW, I believe the official platform of the Libertarian Party includes open borders.
For example, I suspect overly generous welfare programs are corrosive, and I reckon abortions to be infanticide. But I also think it's insane to ignore environmental, labor, and consumer concerns just in favor of big-business's interests.
So I have to wonder: are people's views really so clustered as we imagine? And if so, would that stay true if the major political parties were unable to advertise for a few years?
Jokes aside, it might be advertising, but I don't really know. I suppose if we consider news sources to be a form of advertising, that might be a reason.
I tend to not have many hard views, but lean towards options that lean towards freedom, while having a chance of enough populism to move in that direction successfully. Hardline actions rarely succeed in terms of getting into policy or law.
Highly educated people spend more time around other highly educated, and likely richer people, creating an environment where you view almost everyone as inherently good, and trustworthy.
Less educated people spend more time around other less well educated, and likely poorer people, creating an environment where you view more people as potentially dangerous.
I've been watching The Century of the Self recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
My political leanings tend to be pretty moderate. I used to think of "liberal" as someone for changing society faster than a "conservative", but with the two major political parties in the US today using fast legal changes to inflict the most damage on the party not in power my definitions of those two words do not hold, either.
I do not think that either major political party in the US represents my interests, nor I do not expect that to change anytime soon.
It just so happens that most highly educated people get their initial priori set from the institutes of learning that have increasingly become sounding chambers for liberal ideologies. So its no surprise that it takes a preponderance of evidence to migrate those views back towards a neutral reality ( if in fact reality is neutral ). A similar situation can be established for rural and uneducated people. They get their priori set from their parents and peers who have a very distinct view of government and governance. All the other talk I see of reasons for the homogenization of the educated class into a specific political view just reads like chest thumping to me.
> The Democrats may find they need to give up a little of their wonkiness if they want resounding victories. It’s not in their long-term interest to be too much what Pat Buchanan once referred to as “the party of the Ph.D.s.”
Yeah, about that...
This seems like the main reason. Republicans have attacked the importance of education, trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" instead of the traditional intellectual betters that the left would rather see running the country. Education is often a transformative experience that becomes part of your identity and when your identity is attacked, you react tribally and defend your tribe.
The interesting thing is that I see both sides wanting to make their sides feel superior through what they value as important. Democrats view that every race, gender and life choice is equally valued means that the most intelligent and most educated will naturally rise to the top and feel most important. The Republicans message of anti-intellectualism, racism, sexism, homophobia and such will make a whole different group of less educated people feel superior. But both groups have an underlying need to feel superior to others. That seems endemic to our species. It's just that as access to education increases, the educated are now a large enough bloc to use that attribute to satisfy that deep-seated need.
Yeah and that's nothing but accidental properties of their candidates. It's like how almost all Presidents have good hair(ok after this election I should say 'not bald'). Is being not-bald an essential property of being the President? No, but if the other side keeps putting up candidates who are bald and your guys all have good hair, then you will talk about how your candidate appears more 'trustworthy'.
I was born and grew up in Bakersfield, California - redneck central (well, oakie); while I don't have a real degree (due to bad choices as a younger individual, among other reasons), I don't consider myself unintelligent, and I hope that my posting history here also reflects this.
Like many here, I'm a self-learner, and a software developer. I enjoy electronics and robotics as hobbies. I'm currently working on a Udacity nanodegree in self-driving car technology. I have past experience in ML/AI tech. I could go on but I won't.
Yet - I enjoy wrenching on vehicles on occasion, visiting junkyards and pulling parts, plus having a beer and burger now and again. I'm not one for sports, but if a game is on and you want to watch it, I'll watch along with ya. Would I prefer reading something a bit more "intellectual" or pursuing similar things? Sure - but that's only one part of me.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Let's go out shooting at the range, then afterward I'll help escort some women into PP (not that I've done either - but I am both for 2A rights and a woman's right to choose).
Not every person is two dimensional, and while I am certain you understand that, for some reason such understanding is in the minority it seems.
Intellectual prowess helps you run the country. "Like to have a beer with," doesn't.
And 'like to have a beer with' isn't' the same as charisma. The demographic of people one would 'like to have a beer with' overwhelmingly skews to people like oneself. In other words, it's a form of in-group signaling, and, ultimately, a soft word for prejudice.
You're forgetting your 2000 election cycle. It was the GOP and pundits that made the distinction between the two as a way to cover for GWB's lackings in comparison with Gore, who was seen as more intelligent but too stiff (the kind of person you wouldn't want to have a beer with). While my quote marks may not have been an exact quote, I was using them to signal that it wasn't my terminology...it was all over the news at the time.
Yes, the two are not mutually exclusive...that goes without saying. But that doesn't negate the fact that they've been played against each other in US politics for the past 17 years now as a way of undermining more intellectual candidates. You can see this in the ways that Obama carries himself. His mannerisms tend to signal basketball fan far more than they do constitutional law scholar. More so than any other President in recent times, he's tried to cultivate a sense of humor. It is, perhaps, the starkest difference you notice between him and Clinton, who was never really able to achieve that kind of down-to-earth image. This is not to suggest that Clinton is smarter or even that Obama isn't smart...quite the opposite. That while both are intelligent, it was Obama's ability to be seen as something more that allowed him to win. While I think he was every bit their equal or better intellectually, he won by out-beering McCain and Romney.
I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I feel that people on the extreme ends of each wing are crazy selfish and want everything their own way without considering anyone else. It's not just that the highly educated lean towards liberal, it's also that those who spend the time and effort educating themselves tend to be much more moderate than those on either end of the political spectrum. The more moderate Republicans tend to appear more educated. The more moderate Liberals tend to appear more educated. The highly educated appear to be more readily able to find common ground and compromise with one another than those who are not so highly educated.
I think it's quite possible we could see highly educated people become more conservative in the foreseeable future. Especially with all the comments about protests and social media shaming and crazy professors...
Social primates generally have collective senses of justice (if my friend gets a grape I should get a grape too). Even on a single-cell level self-sacrifice for the collective (slime moulds).
Of course, its totally possible to argue that these traits could be Libertarian traits too. Aren't we the only creatures on earth with government?
Also, collective justice isn't exactly something you want to appeal to in general. The mob might lynch you for being too annoying, for instance.
I wouldn't consider family or tribal preferences to be particularly cogent with the philosophy of Libertarianism, for instance.
A lot of Trump supporters are that way. They want endless liberty and greatness for American, but if you aren't American you can fuck right off -- you're lucky we don't just come take your country over.
From the other comments here, it seems we're all from the US, but I'd imagine if any Europeans chime in, they'll have a different take on the word liberal altogether.
"Why are parish school students so Christian". This is not to say that they viscerally believe in these qualities... oh nooo. It's just that if you want to play the game, you optimize for the environment (I may have picked that up from Alan Watts). Simple RL really.
Idiots, and loudmouths, on the other hand will get ostracized and have pots broken over their heads; one shouldn't be surprised if something one writes on a public forum will get one fired from school/work (may have happened to the younger me once). This is not the depressing thing though - no the depressing thing is that the rules of the game are never explained clearly. In this sense, the Western liberal dogma is essentially the Christian one of grovelling expiation. You know... one can be as bad in action, but words and "belief", expressed tirelessly over and over, are key to salvation [1]. Terrible, terrible messaging to the naive younglings.
This probably explains why some (generally poor) idiots in the Midwest send tons of money to "harvest Asia in the name of Christ" (well atleast to those in power), while jumping up an down to keep these "loved" people away from their neighborhood. Then there is the New Age movement, "meditating" and "yoga-ing" for "peace" "health" and "environment" (and lots of greens), while showing total disdain for the path [2]... Namast.. No, fk you!
All this facade gets really really tiring.
[1] The laity in much of Asia believe in very similar things to be fair... although they don't get bonked on the head with a book everytime they are out of line.
[2] acharya: "Guru" lit. he who walks the path
One, academia (for many reasons) tends toward liberal group think.
Two, interestingly, many of the most intelligent and successful (especially self made) people tend to be libertarian or conservative.
Your business benefitted from having your employees educated (at least K-12), being protected from crime by all levels of law enforcement, being protected from foreign invasion by the military, being protected by fire by the local fire department. Your goods can be shipped via roads built and paid for by the government. Etc. No man is an island.
How can we discuss where the term is used inappropriately without discussing what the term means?
Once you are not working class, you'll gradually become very out of touch with working class issues and perspectives. It's nearly impossible to see life as an ongoing, harsh competition where everyone is hustling each day to survive, when you aren't living that way. You become liberal instead, like all your friends, and espouse egalitarianism and socialism.
Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative. They are competing for a paycheck every day of their lives. They have no extra money to give away, period. Handouts for people they consider to be lazy disgust them.
The upper class remain liberal. Harsh competition is just so low class, isn't it? So primitive, so gauche. Why can't we all just work together for a greater good? Handouts for the poor only help the most vulnerable among us. How could you be against that?!
It's an intractable polarization, in my opinion.
Also do you consider unions to be liberal?
Different priorities. A lot of astronauts and NASA scientists don't believe in anthropogenic nature of climate change. Are they backward, anti-reason, anti-science religious individuals? Perhaps you can help me understand why?
>Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative.
This flies in the face of the facts surrounding who voted for who in the last election - if you consider Democrats to be liberal. What different priorities do you feel the generally worse-off working class minorities in America have?
The long- (since at least Clinton's "Third Way" politics in the early 1990s) dominant faction (and the one whose standard-bearer won the nominating contest) of the Democratic Party is center-right.
While that's less right-wing than the Republican Party, the Republican nominee was a political outsider that deliberately—alongside some fairly explicit endorsements of some far-right and extreme nationalist positions, to be sure—largely adopted vague language filled with direct appeals to liberal values and interest groups, and specifically targeted those dissillusioned by the progressive defeat by the center-right faction of the Democratic Party. (This kind of ambiguity and rhetorical gesture to the left has substantial precedent from the authoritarian right.)
Source?
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-clima...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2814701/I-sce...
Remember my question isn't, "Since these NASA scientists say that Climate change isn't real, therefore it isn't real". So don't try to answer THAT question.
Quote me please
1) I just reject this, plenty of smart people are trapped by lifes circumstances.
2) If you grew up working class, you will probably always feel a tinge of that no matter how far out of poverty you grow. Class may grow out of differences in wealth but it's tendrils reach into all sorts of other areas including politics.
3) There are tons and tons of upper class conservatives.
> Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton.
https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-...
>>> On this issue, the views of the highly educated are now similar to those of groups with much lower levels of education, who have a real material stake in reducing inequalities. Even higher-income advanced degree holders have become more redistributionist, if less so than others.
One of the benefits of higher education is access to higher income. As a person reaches a certain level of income, his or her ability to entertain broader issues and discussions tends to become more and more disconnected from the impact of the policies that such issues would derive into. So it is easy for a liberal to say that "coal mines need to be put out of business," while sipping a late at a San Francisco coffee shop instead of being a poor miner in Kentucky. Or the liberal can say "we need more Somali immigrants" from the comforts of the New York apartment and not the small community in St. Cloud Minnesota.
So the answer for many liberals is that they are liberal because they can afford to be.
Now, social liberalism has given us interesting discussions and expanded the rights of the population at large. Think inter-race or gay marriage, for example. So in these cases, these educated elites have been able to articulate how these changes for the most part do not affect the rights or life style of others.
On the other hand, liberalism has also advocated for expanded role of the federal government without helping really address economic disadvantages in certain communities. I wonder if there is data to support the conservative notion that liberals are not job creators. It seems that there is a stereotype of the liberal elite as a person who has benefitted from cushy jobs in media, press or higher education.
The article "The smug style in American liberalism" is a good read for those interested: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...
The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population that does not value liberty and the responsibilities that liberty conveys. Obviously that is also a generalization, so it would be interesting to write an article about "Why are the Highly Educated so Conservative?" or as another commenter mentioned here "Why are the Conservatives so Conservative?"
Perhaps liberalism is a job creator for the kind of people who tend to be liberals.
> The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population that does not value liberty...
Which is really ironic, since the original meaning of the word "liberal" was "in favor of liberty (in the form of the freedom of individuals)".