Right in --- Left out

[Zeno]

From the pages of Reason Magazine Aug/Sept 2004 issue p.13.


This is an interview with Adrian Wooldridge, from The Economist. Check out this book: The Right Nation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200203/qid=1092187481/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2568765-5196054?v=glance&s=books)


Q: Why do you suggest that the 2004 election could be the Democrats’ “last chance”?

A: One never wants to say never , but the Democratic Party is clearly a shadow of its former self. Democrats used to outnumber republicans by 2-to-1. Now they’re about evenly balanced, which is one reason Bush is able to be a more partisan figure. This should be a golden opportunity for Democrats. If they lose against a very partisan president dealing with a recession and a considerable problem in Iraq, who arouses enormous fury on the left, they will be in very serious trouble indeed.

Q: You note that the right-wing “noise machine” as David Brock calls it, was initially modeled on the left’s organization. How did the liberals fall behind?

A: There’s a good story [Heritage Foundation founder] Paul Weyrich tells where he goes to a meeting at Brookings and someone reads a paper demanding more government. Some one says, “Oh, I’ll write about this in the Post ,” and a Hill staffer says, “I’ll talk to my congressman about this.” There was a kind of perfect harmony across these different levels. To the extent that exists now, it’s on the right.

Partly it’s because on some big subjects, they’ve been proved broadly correct: Welfare reform was hugely demonized, but it seems to have worked. Partly it’s flair: If you pick up The Nation and set it next to The Weekly Standard , it’s clear that the Standard is a better-looking, more interesting magazine. There’s also a huge amount of brainpower on the left that gets absorbed by academia. Universities are such inhospitable territory for conservatives that they’re forced into the policy making process, into think tanks, into media.

Q: Why is the U.S. so different from, and so much more conservative than, Europe?

A: The U.S. was the first country founded as a commercial republic. So America conservatism was purely bourgeois, whereas in Europe it got tangled in the defense of feudalism and aristocracy, baggage American conservatives don’t have.

__________________________________________________ _____

Some comments and questions:

Does Wooldridge’s comments help confirm the ‘liberal conspiracy’? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Is the left furious simply because the right is now employing the tactics they used with such efficiency for so many years? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Note the last question and answer -- This confirms a statement by Zeno, The New Political Pundit of the Other Topics Forum, about American being free of the chains and draglines of sick and diseased Europe.


-Zeno: Right-wing Fascist, TV Repairman, and soon to be Dictator of all of North America. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Edit: One more thing, please comment on the 'brainpower' of the left 'that gets absorbed by academia.' /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[nothumb]

This is a very interesting interview. I think it's absolutely true that the right in America is kicking the poop out of the so-called left in terms of organization and publicity. What is left out is that the right is far more well-funded.

I think the part about America's conservatism being strictly bourgeosie sounds pretty materialist for a member of a center-right economic rag, but it's dead-on either way. If one were to take this statement a little deeper (and put a real lefty twist on it) I think one could argue that American traditionalism is anchored most of all by the promise of prosperity, non-interference and opportunity (and not, to any great extent, a particular moral or cultural ethos).

But I am really loaded right now, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

NT

[natedogg]

"One more thing, please comment on the 'brainpower' of the left 'that gets absorbed by academia."

Here's a take by Richard Dawkins on the so-called "brainpower" that gets absorbed into academia.

It's WELL worth the read.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

natedogg

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
But I am really loaded right now, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]


every discussion should include this phrase.

[Zeno]

That is a very good and amusing article. I have read it before and I think I may have posted a link to this same article sometime ago when I was poking fun at Postmodernists and their Saint: Jacques Derrida, The Chief Charlatan, Shaman, Corn Doctor, and Mountebank, that must laugh all the way to the bank with the profits from his vile drivel. He pipes and the bleating unthinking sheep follow.

As was so elegantly proved by Sokal.

It is best, perhaps, that the vaccum heads of the left corral themselves into 'The Academy' there to fight the long bitter battle against the likes of the little people, the ones that actually make their academic life possible. And so it goes on, round and round.

-Zeno

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a roommate in college (a few years ago now...) who was dating the president of the "Womyns Alliance", a rather hard-core feminist group on campus. They use the "y" in women because they didn't want any part of "men" in "womyn". Silly.

Anyway, she went off one day about how men sit with their legs spread apart because men feel the need to "cover more territory and spread out to show how large and masculine they are..." some BS like that.

I remember laughing and saying, "No, we sit with our legs apart because we have 2 nuts in a sack and it's rather uncomfortable to cross our legs the way womYn do..."

She then goes off about how buildings are designed to resemble penises "on a subconscious level".

WTF? I asked her if it would please the Womyns Alliance if we all became cave dwellers and dug massive caves in New York City resembling vaginas instead of building skyscrapers.

People are funny sh*t.

[Chris Alger]

The usual stuff from Mars that passes for conservative thought.

Howler no. 1: Although the Republicans emerged from 2-1 dogs in voter support, the Democrats are close to a "last chance" because they're at parity. If Kerry loses, the Democrats and all the "fury on the left" might just evaporate. (This isn't such a bad idea. An American civil war between the mentally unstable free market mousketeers and our twelfth century Jesus Christers [e.g., the core constituencies of the GOP], might be just what the world needs to survive.)

Howler no. 2: "Universities are such inhospitable territory for conservatives that they’re forced into the policy making process, into think tanks, into media."

So instead of puling down $50-70K teaching kids about how a bill becomes a law "they're forced" (original emphpasis) into TV, public office, billionaire-overfunded think tanks.

These guys can hardly get out a sentence without betraying the paranoia and braggadocio that constitute the real components of "conservatism."

[nicky g]

Funny article. However, it's talking about a certain segment of postmodernist philosophy, not all academia. Dawkins himself is an academic. The reference to the impossibility of conservatives working in academia today presumably refers to political science and economics, which don't tend to get too involved in Lacanian or Derridean theory. Unless you seriously believe that most stuff coming out of those departments is the sort of nonsense referred to in the Dawkins article, I'd say it says more about the direction conservative economic and political ideas are heading in than the nature of current academia.

[Cyrus]

"Right in --- Left out . One more thing, please comment on the 'brainpower' of the left 'that gets absorbed by academia."

So you think that this is about Right vs Left? And that the authors of that famous article, Socal and Bricmont, were out to expose the Left? Correct? Well, no. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here are the facts:

- Socal describes himself as "an unabashed Old Leftist", who wants the working class to stay focused on the issue of power relations in society and not get distracted by pseudo-intellectual offerings. Socal is explicit : "I never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class". (By the way, Socal, in 1985-86 taught Mathematics in a Nicaragua university.) [1]

- The wrath of the article's authors is directed this time towards the French deconstructionists. Not so much on account of their politics (of the Left), with which they have no argument, but against the misappropriation of scientific terms and language. In essence, what Socal and the others are trying to do is clear up the fog prevailing upon fashionable academia, about De-Constructivism and Post-Modernism. I would think that the Right would want Socal et al to fail in their efforts to strengthen the Left!..

- Here's another choice quote from Socal [2]: [ QUOTE ]
My larger target is those contemporaries who -- in repeated acts of wish-fulfilment -- have appropriated conclusions from the philosophy of science and put them to work in aid of a variety of social cum political causes for which those conclusions are ill adapted. Feminists, religious apologists (including "creation scientists" counterculturalists, neoconservatives, and a host of other curious fellow-travellers have claimed to find crucial grist for their mills in, for instance, the avowed incommensurability of scientific theories. The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time."

[/ QUOTE ]
Thus spoke Larry Laudan in his Science and Relativism, (1990). [3]

- More tellingly, the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, considered to be amongst the pre-eminent historians of our time, is also quoted thusly:
[ QUOTE ]
The rise of "postmodernist" intellectual fashions in Western universities, particularly in departments of literature and anthropology, which imply that all "facts" claiming objective existence are simply intellectual constructions. In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction. But there is, and for historians, even for the most militantly antipositivist ones among us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely fundamental! [4]

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you get the drift : Relativism (the notion that there is no "objective truth") might have gained prominence from Leftist French academia but is actually the primary intellectual weapon of the Right. The Right's wishful thinking and preposterous claims about creation, capitalism's eternal and axiomatic value, social Darwinism, etc. do not hold water when examined with a modicum of scientific robustness. The only saving way for the Right is to invoke subjectivism and extreme relativism - and have us believe on faith.

--Cyrus


[1] : An Afterword by Alan D. Socal (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html)
[2] : ibid.
[3] : ibid.
[4] : ibid.

[The once and future king]

Quick response.

1. French Post modernists are in general on the "left" but at the same time wish to do away with class politics, which is a classic feature of modernist ideas. Post modernist are especialy critical of Marx.


2. Post modernists do not discount the "existence of facts" but argue that given the nature of being that facts are the same as fiction in there interaction with human "consciousness".

[Ray Zee]

the fact that in general the smartist people tend to lean toward the left should give anyone pause to persure a hard line to the right.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that in general the smartist people tend to lean toward the left should give anyone pause to persure a hard line to the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people who are intellectuals in their field lack common sense or street smarts.

Many Phd's couldn't survive outside a University (or other institutional) environment. And you have to be liberal to be accepted by the leftist culture of the University. There are many closet conservatives who publicly pronounce left-wing political correctness, because they want to keep their jobs and get promoted.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Howler no. 2: "Universities are such inhospitable territory for conservatives that they’re forced into the policy making process, into think tanks, into media."

So instead of puling down $50-70K teaching kids about how a bill becomes a law "they're forced" (original emphpasis) into TV, public office, billionaire-overfunded think tanks


[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, no one holds a gun to their head and says you cant work in a university. But it is true to a large degree that the university environment is hostile to people with conservative views. Another point of general interest is that most college professors dont spend a lot of time teaching their classes, esp. in the undergad, lower level classes. A great deal of the their time is spent on research and writing .

At any rate I am not quite following your logic that this statement proves the [ QUOTE ]
paranoia and braggadocio that constitute the real components of "conservatism."

[/ QUOTE ]

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the fact that in general the smartist people tend to lean toward the left should give anyone pause to persure a hard line to the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people who are intellectuals in their field lack common sense or street smarts.

Many Phd's couldn't survive outside a University (or other institutional) environment. And you have to be liberal to be accepted by the leftist culture of the University. There are many closet conservatives who publicly pronounce left-wing political correctness, because they want to keep their jobs and get promoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there are cocaine abusing daddy's boys, who have never done anything for themselves. They narrowly get out of school, narrowly avoid the wars of their time, narowly avoid "working", narrowly avoid jailtime, and THEY are so lost in life they NEED to be "Born again" to find any direction or purpose. (other than utterly buttfucking their homestate of Texas...which is ironic when combined with the "born again")

These people (or person) tend to lack both "street smarts" and the ability to pronounce most basic words in the English language....and cartainly, without a doubt, will never be able to get a PHD, unless of course the University of Spoiled Brats start giving out degrees in "[censored] the entire world up the ass"...which I am sure the appropriate think tanks are working on.

Kudos to you for having the courage to respect and admire the most pathetic leader this country had ever had the misfortune of not quite electing.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Then there are cocaine abusing daddy's boys, who have never done anything for themselves. They narrowly get out of school, narrowly avoid the wars of their time, narowly avoid "working", narrowly avoid jailtime, and THEY are so lost in life they NEED to be "Born again" to find any direction or purpose. (other than utterly buttfucking their homestate of Texas...which is ironic when combined with the "born again")

These people (or person) tend to lack both "street smarts" and the ability to pronounce most basic words in the English language....and cartainly, without a doubt, will never be able to get a PHD, unless of course the University of Spoiled Brats start giving out degrees in "[censored] the entire world up the ass"...which I am sure the appropriate think tanks are working on.

Kudos to you for having the courage to respect and admire the most pathetic leader this country had ever had the misfortune of not quite electing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, way to totally avoid the substance of the point that GWB was trying to make. Instead, as many liberals do, you chose to resort a personal attack on the President and the poster. Kudos.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then there are cocaine abusing daddy's boys, who have never done anything for themselves. They narrowly get out of school, narrowly avoid the wars of their time, narowly avoid "working", narrowly avoid jailtime, and THEY are so lost in life they NEED to be "Born again" to find any direction or purpose. (other than utterly buttfucking their homestate of Texas...which is ironic when combined with the "born again")

These people (or person) tend to lack both "street smarts" and the ability to pronounce most basic words in the English language....and cartainly, without a doubt, will never be able to get a PHD, unless of course the University of Spoiled Brats start giving out degrees in "[censored] the entire world up the ass"...which I am sure the appropriate think tanks are working on.

Kudos to you for having the courage to respect and admire the most pathetic leader this country had ever had the misfortune of not quite electing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, way to totally avoid the substance of the point that GWB was trying to make. Instead, as many liberals do, you chose to resort a personal attack on the President and the poster. Kudos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm sure Noam Chomsky pretends to be liberal so he can keep his tenure. His "point" as you call it is meaningless drivel.

And anyone running around pretending to be GWB is not going to get many positive responses from me. I believe, strongly, that it is the same as using the name Farrakhan as a handle, and being suprised if sometimes you get a response that is not positive.

I'm not sure you have heard, but besides right wing america, the other 6 billion people in the world either hate the man, or just openly laugh at him. I do both, and I'm ptretty damn close to that for his supporters as well.

Call me what you want, but "liberal" is not accurate.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm sure Noam CHomsky pretends to be liberal so he an keep his tenure.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Chomsky is a real leftist kook, but I bet some of his colleagues pretend to agree with him to stay on his good side.

He is a good example of someone smart in his field (Linguistics) who has no real clue outside of his field (politics and foreign policy).

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm sure Noam CHomsky pretends to be liberal so he an keep his tenure. His "point" as you call it is meaningless drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still missing the point (deliberately in this case I believe, as I am quite sure you dont believe that any of us think that a person who is as virulently liberal as Chomsky is just pretending). The point is not drivel. Typically, most university cultures are overwhelmingly liberal and it isnt hospitable towards conservative viewpoints. I dont think it is drivel to point this out or the fact that many college professors wouldnt have much success outside academia. Why is that drivel?

[ QUOTE ]
And anyone running around pretending to be GWB is not going to get many positive reponses from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well finally some honesty on the real reason to why you even bothered to reply to the post. I agree, the GWB bit can be tiresome at times /images/graemlins/smile.gif but if you are going to reply, at least reply with some semblance of an argument rather than a rant full of insults. Otherwise why bother to answer?

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people who are intellectuals in their field lack common sense or street smarts.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the way it always is with people that have such specialized training. People getting doctoral degrees must know a hell of a lot about a fairly narrow subject. As a result they are not at all well rounded for the most part. Obviously there are exceptions to this. It is similar for many scientists. If you went to a company or agency designing missiles and other rocket systems you would find that the people there are lacking what you call street smarts.

[nicky g]

" dont think it is drivel to point this out or the fact that many college professors wouldnt have much success outside academia. "

But that's their job. Most people wouldn't be very good at jobs outside what they've been trained to do.

To say that Chomsky has "no clue" about politics or foreign policy is ridicuous. You can disagree with him as much as you like, but he clearly knows a lot about the subject. I think Wolfowitz's opinions on such subjects verge on teh insane but I wouldn't say he has no clue.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Ray,

"the fact that in general the smartist people tend to lean toward the left should give anyone pause to persure a hard line to the right."

If you had written "in general smart people tend to lean toward the left" I would pretty much agree, but I don't agree with "in general the smartest people tend to lean toward the left".

I would bet that mathematicians, physicists and many high-tech engineers are, on average, considerably smarter than those professors writing theses on things like postmodernism. I'd also bet that they don't, on average, lean much to the left. If anything, hard science types strike me as being a bit conservative.

My take is that people gifted with considerable intelligence often tend to lean left whereas those gifted with extreme intelligence often tend to be rather conservative. Of course that is just my impression, and exceptions abound.

[elwoodblues]

Exactly. That's why I support GWB. He has street smarts because he grew up on the mean streets of New Haven Connecticut. His family struggled to put him through school and he owes his success solely to his own hard work.

What he lacks in book smarts, he makes up for with smart friends.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm sure Noam CHomsky pretends to be liberal so he an keep his tenure.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Chomsky is a real leftist kook, but I bet some of his colleagues pretend to agree with him to stay on his good side.

He is a good example of someone smart in his field (Linguistics) who has no real clue outside of his field (politics and foreign policy).

[/ QUOTE ]

The tone of your response implies that perhaps you know more about foreign policy and and politics than Noam.

I'm just curious, do you know more about these issues than he does?

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
He is a good example of someone smart in his field (Linguistics) who has no real clue outside of his field (politics and foreign policy).

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky has forgotten more about the forced industrialization of Soviet society than you've ever known about any country on Earth. You don't have to agree with him, but the man has a breadth of knowledge in terms of facts, statistics and geopolitical trends that is simply astonishing.

People think he's a total nut, but despite being an anarchist he can actually discuss and analyze government policy and liberal economics better than most so-called authorities on the subject.

NT

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you have heard, but besides right wing america, the other 6 billion people in the world either hate the man, or just openly laugh at him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you do love gross generalizations.

[ QUOTE ]
Call me what you want, but "liberal" is not accurate

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies, I can understand how it would be insulting to be called a liberal. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

Yeah, but who really cares what the chess club geeks think? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
People think he's a total nut, but despite being an anarchist he can actually discuss and analyze government policy and liberal economics better than most so-called authorities on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

NT,

I havent read much of his stuff, but from what little I have, I do have a grudging admiration for his intelligence and ability to present his viewpoint. I need to read more of his stuff before I make a final decision on my opinion of him.

Chris

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but who really cares what the chess club geeks think? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I resemble that! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Zeno]

My post, at least, is getting a good discussion going. My intent. I fully understand Dawkin’s points and his support of Sokal's 'Prank". And indeed my own objections to much of the postmodernist movement is the along the same lines. The article was not so much about politics as about the disingenuousness of many authors that ply the waters of the postmodern world.

As to ‘The Academy’ this has been, and will continue to be a contentious issue. There is, of course, much useful thought, ideas, and research done at academic institutions by remarkably bright and intelligent people. I speak here frankly, as I was once one of those academics that did research. But there is also a lot of balderdash done by many mediocre and, paradoxically, bright people. And this means all fields of endeavor, including science, as cold fusion proved. A perusal through many academic journals and papers is amble proof of this. Do you wish to do a search and post the gibberish? Or should I?

In a recent post I asked about your, seemingly, either or stance, pro or anti, black or white views. Relate that to my post and my comments here. In most human institutions and endeavors there is usually a mix of good and bad and all the in-between: well done and sloppily done, excellent research and bland undertakings that reveal nothing much of substance - So to with politics, business, and science and so to with ‘The Academy’.

But you already know this, right?

I enjoyed your post a great deal. Thanks.

-Zeno

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that in general the smartist people tend to lean toward the left should give anyone pause to persure a hard line to the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got any stats? Proof? Evidence? Without that this is nothing more then prejudice.

What are your standards for smart? Educational background? I had a professor, from Berkeley, that once told me there was little correlation between grades and accomplishments when it comes to science, as well as numerous other fields of study. Einstein is a perfect example of that. So do you include success as a measure of being smart or not? If your going to post a comment as obtuse as this you should back it up with some hard evidence.

Other wise you might as well say "Asians are superior to all other humans because their brains are bigger and blacks have the smallest brain so they...."

While the brain size difference is true, and not insignificant between races I must add, it doesn't correlate to jack squat when it comes to success, inventions, discoveries, Nobel prizes, or having a country that has a decent standard of living.

So if you are going to make a comment as offensive as "My way of thinking is better than yours", I suggest you back it up. Ray Zee I can't believe a man of your stature would make a comment like this.

[lu_hawk]

I think you have a point there, but I also think that the libertarian party is starting to make much more sense to a lot of those intelligent people that lean conservative.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you have heard, but besides right wing america, the other 6 billion people in the world either hate the man, or just openly laugh at him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you do love gross generalizations.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wishful thinking sir. The man is hated around the world, it's not just the French.

I'd rather be called "liberal" than ever have to face the world and say "I voted for GWB".

[The once and future king]

"Einstein is a perfect example of that"

Do you think Einstein would support Bush ?

[vulturesrow]

Hawk,

Libertarians have some good ideas, but Im not comfortable with a party that is essentially ok with things such child pornography.

Garbonzo:
[ QUOTE ]
Wishful thinking sir. The man is hated around the world, it's not just the French.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you take an typically liberal debating tack, that is you make a point that is a) impossible to prove or disprove and b) has no real relevance. However I have to applaud you on your success at completely steering the discussion away from original point that GWB made in his post. Again, kudos. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather be called "liberal" than ever have to face the world and say "I voted for GWB".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you have made your pathological hatred for Bush quite clear /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[elwoodblues]

I suspect this was more a comment on the right-wing hysteria about "liberal academia." The hysteria begs the question --- Does "Liberal Academia" stem from the fact that those who are more studied/learned in different areas choose liberal over conservative ideals, or is there some institutional biases that create a false liberal academy?


Unrelated Anecdote:

My ultra-conservative father-in-law and I got into a debate/discussion one time. He said "only high-school graduates should be allowed to vote." My response (entirely tongue in cheek) "Why stop there, I think only PhDs, or the equivalent, should be allowed to vote. Let's have the most educated make the decisions."

That line of discussion hasn't come up since.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have a point there, but I also think that the libertarian party is starting to make much more sense to a lot of those intelligent people that lean conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that libertarians are smart, but I wonder about the common sense of those, who knowing the Libertarians have no chance of electoral success, would not prefer a conservative to a liberal as a second choice, and actually vote for that second choice for the sake of the country.

[MMMMMM]

"Libertarians have some good ideas, but Im not comfortable with a party that is essentially ok with things such child pornography."

Where are you getting this???

I don't believe it.

[nicky g]

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wishful thinking sir. The man is hated around the world, it's not just the French.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again you take an typically liberal debating tack, that is you make a point that is a) impossible to prove or disprove and b) has no real relevance."

Latin America has dismal view of Bush: poll (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mexico/1320.html)

World Views Bush as Ineffective Global Leader (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&amp;newsId=2004061400541 8&amp;newsLang=en)

"International survey respondents (excluding the United States) also support by extremely high margins John Kerry over George W. Bush in the upcoming November U.S. presidential election. "

America's Image Further Erodes; Bush, Not America Blamed (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=681)

not so hard to prove (or at least find strong evidence for).

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Howler no. 2: "Universities are such inhospitable territory for conservatives that they’re forced into the policy making process, into think tanks, into media."


[/ QUOTE ]


I cringed a bit when I read this also. The use of the word ‘forced’ is rather silly.

I do not think that the two authors of "The Right Nation" are paranoid individuals. Many authors betray cockiness when discussing their works. Sometimes it is just fluff and ballyhoo to help sell their books, sometimes it may be genuine I suppose.

-Zeno

[vulturesrow]

Certainly there is some some evidence that Bush is not liked. But my point is that he said "the other 6 billion people in the world hate or openly laugh at Bush" which is a statement which cant be categorically proved or disproved. but Ill concede the point that bush isnt well liked worldwide. The more important point I was trying to make is that the point has little relevance.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
"Libertarians have some good ideas, but Im not comfortable with a party that is essentially ok with things such child pornography."

Where are you getting this???

I don't believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a book a while back that made this point in regards to how libertarians regard laws on sexual activity. I wish I could remember more. Perhaps you could point to a resource that points out libertarian thinking on this issue? I havebeen unable to do so.

Chris

[MMMMMM]

Only site I know is www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org)

[Al_Capone_Junior]

nm

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
but Ill concede the point that bush isnt well liked worldwide. The more important point I was trying to make is that the point has little relevance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it might even be useful as a contrarian sort of indicator, since most people are usually wrong.

Also it is not surprising, because nearly the whole world is at least somewhat backwards compared to the USA. Just look at the U.N. if you want evidence of how ridiculous most of the world really is.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that in general the smartist people tend to lean toward the left should give anyone pause to persure a hard line to the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

smartest

[lu_hawk]

I doubt they accept child pornography. I am sure they have a more lax attitude toward regular pornography but there is no way any libertarian has ever said that child pornography should be legal.

I personally do lean somewhat conservative, at least on economic issues. But I disagree so much with the current social agenda going on now - pushing for the gay marriage ban, the prominence of religion, ignoring real science if it doesn't agree with poltiical goals - that I could never vote to re-elect the current administration.

[Cyrus]

"In a recent post I asked about your, seemingly, either-or stance, pro or anti, black or white views. Relate that to my post and my comments here. In most human institutions and endeavors there is usually a mix of good and bad and all the in-between: well done and sloppily done, excellent research and bland undertakings that reveal nothing much of substance - So too with politics."

I agree about the politics : We should not adopt Manichean positions (ie either-or) in politics. That's one tough cookie on its own!

But the trouble with post-modernism is that it claims the total inability of Man to discover any "objedctuce" truths in science, too. In this, the PoMo's get in a mess! As Dawkins wrote, they have misunderstood Gödel and they apply pseudo-Math and phony Physics to the humanities.

Lacan's main, initial argument was totally, absolutely legitimate. The French psychanalyst posited that there is one possibility only of exploring the sub-conscious and that would be to express the sub-conscious in terms of language. This sounds simple but we now know how tricky language is and that extra-linguistic notions exist.

From that point on, Lacan descended to serious, as Dawkins charminly puts it, "meta-twaddle"!

[Ray Zee]

wacki, i thought this was generally accepted. it certainly isnt saying someone on the right is less smart or successful or anything at all. it is a statement that if a large group of smart people think along a certain line it pays to reconsider your thinking if it doesnt agree.
i think what i said was fairly accurate in a GENERAL sense. not totally encompassing.

[Ray Zee]

m, you might be right about that. i never considered thinking about the distiction you make here. i will give it some thought. but likely not to resolve anything as i really know little about the breakdowns in that stuff. and i put smartist, to kind of draw it away from like one half against the other. but it didnt work out as planned, since my planning was weak it seems.
but it seems to me that is a factor to consider strongly, as of course many others. in these discussions things can get taken really personally quickly.

[Zeno]

Blind acceptance of ideas, policies or proposals by “Academics’ or by some PhD from a ‘Think Tank’, or anyone else for that matter, is not only dangerous but has lead many people down a primrose path to a dubious fate or outlook on the world. Critical appraisal of everything is necessary and constant vigilance the watchword.

What I advocate is a skeptical attitude toward much of what passes as supposed ‘good ideas’ palmed off to the public by all sorts of Corn Doctors from the left, right, center, or from the bleachers, in the field of politics and all other human endeavors. The capacity for self-delusion is very strong in everyone and many Charlatans and Mountebanks play on that to get large segments of people to believe all sorts of hooey and absurd notions. And much of this plays on human pretensions, flattery, and credulity – Sokal’s paper and all the follow-on noise is proof of this.

How much hooey is written about Poker? Where does it come from? Why is it written? Who writes it? Who buys it, reads it, and believes it?

A gentleman by the name of Martin Gardner has written some excellent books on some of the ideas and subjects I just touched on in this post.

Book #1 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573920967/qid=1092248988/sr=1-19/ref=sr_1_19/002-2568765-5196054?v=glance&amp;s=books)

Book # 2 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393322386/ref=pd_sim_books_3/002-2568765-5196054?v=glance&amp;s=books)


-Zeno

[riverflush]

There are a lot of myths about Libertarian political philosophy...namely that we believe "anything goes," both socially and economically. That is an overstatement of a general attitude towards both social and economic freedom, something neither major party in the U.S. satisfies. Libertarians would never support an activity that directly harms another human...such as child pornography. We are a people of principle and laws. Children deserve a protection that consenting adults do not require. We can support legalized drug use (if someone wants to screw up their life, they should be allowed to) and still be against the exploitation of children.


Also...to say that the smartest people within academia and elsewhere are left-leaning in general is an incorrect statement. In fact, the most esteemed philosophers in economic theory are expressly not left-leaning.

For anyone who wants Libertarian or "Classical Liberal" philosophy better explained to them, please read "The Road to Surfdom" by F.A. Hayek. It is the greatest socioeconomic work of the 20th century.

[CCass]

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

[sweetjazz]

FWIW, I am studying mathematics in graduate school. So I therefore have had a chance to sample some of the political views of mathematicians.

Among the mathematicians that I have met, their political views tend to lean to the left, but a lot of their viewpoints are very different than mainstream opinions. I do not mean to say that they are completely crazy (though some are off the deep end to varying degrees), only that their thought process is quite different.

In general, they are quicker to challenge the talking points put out by both parties, and are often willing to criticize someone who they support or give credit to someone they oppose. (There are many Americans who do this, but I would say that from my observations it seems that mathematicians in general tend to look at things more rationally and less emotionally.)

FWIW, I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense of the word -- one interested in learning more about the world and interested in pursuing the position that has (to the best of my judgment) the strongest case. From that starting point, I have come to have fairly moderate political viewpoints, though I would say that they tend to lean slightly more to the left than the right. I have found that the level of public debate that takes place through the media to be quite low; as someone in academia, I am fortunate enough to have a lot of reasonable people around to talk to. However, I am disturbed by the fact that the most popular sources for political ideas are people like Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, Ann Coulter, etc. It's a shame that shoddy research, misleading use of facts, mis-contextualized quotations, and outrageous statements make for a best-seller. Unfortunately, many people can recognize that one side or the other is guilty of such sloppy thinking, but not enough people (in my opinion) are willing to admit that all sides are taking advantage of an incredibly low standard for public debate.

The one methodological insight that I believe mathematicians and physical scientists can offer is to emphasize the importance of a dispassionate interest in the truth. In the political realm, we lack indicators for truth or falsity that are as reliable as in the sciences (esp. mathematics -- which arguably is more akin to a humanity than a science in many regards, but I digress). What that should do is heighten our awareness of the possibility that we could be in error and increase our humility; unfortunately, what happens in practice is that a lot of shoddy thinking takes the place of rigorous critical thinking.

Even if someone presents an argument for an opinion you agree with, it's important to look for flaws in the reasoning. Too often, people are willing to accept poor arguments because it supports their position. From a politician, that is to be expected. But for an individual interested in the truth, what does this accomplish? It only ends up deluding one into believing that one's positions are better supported than they in fact are. And I find this happens very often, with respect to just about belief or opinion that is out there, liberal or conservative.

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]
there was little correlation between grades and accomplishments when it comes to science, as well as numerous other fields of study. Einstein is a perfect example of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, then Einstein was a genius:

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/images/us/local/products/productsall/p106312c.jpg

[riverflush]

I love the idea that "all the smartest people tend to be left-leaning academics." A lot of people just accept this, because we automatically assume that our Philosophy professor is really, really smart because he says things that make no sense, yet make perfect sense.

The fascinating thing to me is the divide on college campuses between the Philosophy/English/Political Science Departments and the Business School. If you automatically assume all the "smartest kids" choose the humanities route, you are discounting the prowess of the B-school kids.

Nobody seems inclined to consider that maybe all the smartest folks are, you know, actually out in the real world starting and running successful businesses - while the others sit back on campus and talk about the evils of business.

I don't have the answers, but the campus divide has always fascinated me. Some seem inclined to go out into the real world and join the world of business, while others choose a path that leads to self-reflection and study.

[natedogg]

From lowest to highest.

Christian conservative

Euro-lefty

Ayn-randian libertarian

Canadian

Vegetarian

Leftist

Anti-big government conservative

Social libertarian

natedogg
PS: This list was not biased in the least.

[natedogg]

"If you automatically assume all the "smartest kids" choose the humanities route, you are discounting the prowess of the B-school kids. "

Seriously, everyone knows that the smartest guys/girls on campus are the physicists/ electrical engineers / and O-chemists.

The second tier is not even in the same league as these students.

And b-school types are not in the second tier.

This is like all generalizations subject to exceptions but holds true in the majority of cases.

natedogg (not in the same league)

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]


Seriously, everyone knows that the smartest guys/girls on campus are the physicists/ electrical engineers / and O-chemists.

The second tier is not even in the same league as these students.

And b-school types are not in the second tier.



[/ QUOTE ]

I just flat-out disagree with this.

Without a doubt, one has to be a very smart cat to make it in Organic Chem or Physics, etc. I'm not disputing that at all.

I believe we're talking about two different parts of the brain here . I was originally a Bio/Chem major in undergrad, but after two years I just didn't feel like my brain was "challenged" on a daily basis. It's not that the material was easy, it's that it didn't do anything to fire up my creative juices. Business school has a lot of parallels with Art or Music school in my opinion. It takes a lot of abstract thinking to be successful in business. You have to blend math, psychology, common sense, and a distinct sense of guts (risk taking) in order to make it in business.

I'm not talking about straight accounting here, but building a business from the ground up. It's a lot like being an artist who paints from a blank canvas, or a musician that sits down to write a song: one day you have nothing, and through pure determination (and an acceptance of possible failure) you may one day find yourself in charge of 100 employees with multiple locations, etc.

Some of the most brilliant minds have opted out of academia and into the business world, and our lives are much better off for it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"Einstein is a perfect example of that"

Do you think Einstein would support Bush ?

[/ QUOTE ]


Considering he said "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who are evil, but because of those who don't do anything about them." Ronald W. Clark, one of Einstein's more insightful biographers, wrotes that the scientist's "new-found belief" in violent force came about because of the special menace of Nazi Germany. Because of this, I cannot say he definitely wouldn't. Especially, after looking at Kerry's voting record for the last 20 years, and the similarities of cruelty between Hitler and Saddam.

But at the same time he was a pacifist, but only at specific points in his life. After Harry Truman incinerated the citizens of Hiroshima, Einstein said, "If I had known they were going to do this, I would have become a shoemaker." He tended to believe in peacefull ways, but it seems like only when it was convenient or practical. So he might vote for Kerry.

But the point I had with Einstein had nothing to do with his political views. It was about calling a selective group the smartest group of people. Besides I never said I am for Bush, I just objected at Ray Zee saying liberals were the smartest people around. Conservatives tend to be able to grasp certain concepts very well, and liberals tend to grasp other concepts very well. But I don't think it's proper to say one group is smarter than the next.

Einstein was a very smart man when it came to physics and math. But when it came to interacting with people, he was anything but clever. His homelife was miserable, and despite being a pacifist, he was very abusive towards his wife. In a letter, he praised a friend for having the grace and ability to live happily and lastingly with one woman -- "an undertaking in which I failed twice rather disgracefully." he wrote. It doesn't take much brainpower to figure out that that is not a good way to live.

On a side note, ironically enough, their is a long line of pacifists that were very abusive towards their wives. Tolstoy, Bertrand Russell, Gandhi, The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. were just a few. Not exactly sure what lessons you can learn from this, but it does make you wonder.