Conservative Perception of Liberals

[Andrew Fletcher]

I'd like to believe that I have some understanding of conservative ideology. I'm very liberal, but I recognize why people hold differing political beliefs from my own. I don't think conservatives are stupid, irrational, or whatever. I think you're totally wrong, but only because I think I have a firm grasp on the basic ideas of left and right. That's why a reccent interaction in one of my politics classes was very puzzling.

This conservative kid was complaining about Bush and how much money he is spending on relief and other things. He said that he didn't understand why liberals didn't like Bush-- after all, he was increasing government spending and that's what we like.

At first, I thought this was a joke. But it wasn't. His perception of liberals is that we just want to increase government spending for whatever reason. I was blown away.

Do other conservatives have similar perceptions about the ideology of liberals? If so, why?

[Autocratic]

I think it's very important to have a good understanding of the other side. I used to be very liberal, and am now a bit left of center. But when I look at the far left, I see what conservatives dislike, and it helps me think about their beliefs more objectively. In general, there is a lack of understanding coming from both sides.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Do other conservatives have similar perceptions about the ideology of liberals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Many do.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they are a) stupid or b) trying to sell books.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
At first, I thought this was a joke. But it wasn't. His perception of liberals is that we just want to increase government spending for whatever reason. I was blown away.

Do other conservatives have similar perceptions about the ideology of liberals? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because liberals almost always advocate increasing government spending to attempt to solve problems? Maybe there are times it is a good idea, maybe other times it isn't, but when was the last time liberals didn't advocate more government spending on any non-defense significant issue?

I wonder if this Jack fella was the guy in your class.

Anyways, you were in a polysci class. Many people in polysci classes don't know their ass from their elbow. Happens on both sides. People get a little knowledge about politics and they think they're experts and that they know everything about everything. Even though I'm liberal, I hate hearing immature liberal politics as much as immature conservative politics.

[Andrew Fletcher]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate hearing immature liberal politics as much as immature conservative politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I'm interested in increasing spending for government programs that I believe have a positive social benifit. Not programs that are useless or outdated or whatever. The spending Bush is doing seems to be more about an unwilingness to choose between priorities (war in iraq vs. hurricane relief).

Liberals don't like to just throw money at problems-- we actually think government and state intervention can be a positive force in society. government can do things that the private sector cannot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do other conservatives have similar perceptions about the ideology of liberals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Many do.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they are a) stupid or b) trying to sell books.

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD. Very nice.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

government can do things that the private sector cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what? Mess things up? Skew the free market? Stagnate growth?

Conservatives don't like the liberial mindset of coddling, elitist, I-know-better-than-you-because-I-went-to-haaavaard line. They like the whole. I'll take care of me and my family and you take care of your own.

When has the government ever be altruistic? They are the most selfish of all beasts. Republicans and Democrates.

-Gryph

[ QUOTE ]
When has the government ever be altruistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any natural disaster? Of course the extent to which the government helps the disaster is determined by who heads the department that helps disasters and who appoints these people. But that's another thread...

[Felix_Nietsche]

I listened to an interview today of a republican congressman from Texas. He said in his opinion that 20% of all republican politicians are fiscally irresponsible while 98% of democrat is fiscally irresponsible. The problem was this created a majority of irresponsible spenders in the congress and senate. I am in 100% AGREEMENT with this. It reminds me of Ann Coulter's quip that there are lots of bad republicans but no good democrats. Normally a president uses his veto pen to keep this in check but that [censored] jackass Bush43 has not used his veto pen ONCE.

The last time we had a semi fiscally responsible congress was under Newt Gingrich. I am not a big fan of Tom DeLay because he places Bush43's agenda as a top priority while making a balance budget a non-priority. By the way, Bush43 (and Bush41) are NOT conservatives. His claim of being a ‘compassionate conservative’ is just codespeak for liberal-lite with a stronger foreign policy. Bush43 is spending like a drunken sailor (farm bill, education bill, highway bill, Katrina give-away, prescription drug bill). And Bush43's lap dog Tom Delay has paved the way to get these bills passed.

I think the liberals are weak on defense and appeasers/cowards in foreign policy. Former FBI director Louis Freeh (sp?) said there was strong evidence that Iran was behind the Kobar (sp?) tower attacks in Saudia Arabia but Clinton chose to do nothing. USS Cole, continuous violations by Iraq/other nations on the oil-for-food-program, appeasement towards North Korea. etc..

My view of liberals is they love to cut defense/intelligence, overspend on social programs, and cower to aggression/threats from hostile nations.

[ QUOTE ]
Like what? Mess things up? Skew the free market? Stagnate growth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen my fair share of the private sector do these as well.

On another note, you think IBM would reap the benefits of a free market if it weren't for Pentagon funding?

There is a lot of talk from business (this isn't necessarily directed at you, Gryph) about keeping the government out of everything, but they're more than willing to take government handouts and tax breaks (which amount to a government hand out).

[ QUOTE ]

My view of liberals is they love to cut defense/intelligence, overspend on social programs, and cower to aggression/threats from hostile nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

See option (a), above. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When has the government ever be altruistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any natural disaster? Of course the extent to which the government helps the disaster is determined by who heads the department that helps disasters and who appoints these people. But that's another thread...

[/ QUOTE ]

Citizens donating to the hurricane relief are altruistic. The government is covering its butt and always will be. It is easy to give money away when it is not yours in the first place. A good question would be how many of the politicians give the same or more of their own money to the causes they vote for. Tied expendatures to their salaries by the percentage and then see how altruistic they are.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I-know-better-than-you-because-I-went-to-haaavaard line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing a Harvard graduate (lets say, a vast majority of Harvard graduates) knows better than most - by that, I mean, if you fill the 'you' in here (where I bolded) with 95-99% of Americans, I'm willing to wager the Harvard graduate is smarter and has vastly more well-reasoned opinions and judgments.

In other words, I'm guessing a Harvard graduate does know better than you - if 'you' = 95% of Americans, and perhaps more. I'd be interested on what David S. has to say about this. I could be way off, but I'm guessing a great majority of Harvard graduates are also in the top 5% of knowledgeable Americans.

So I'm not sure why it's wrong for liberals to acknowledge that Harvard grads know more than most. Is this something conservatives deny?

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I-know-better-than-you-because-I-went-to-haaavaard line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing a Harvard graduate (lets say, a vast majority of Harvard graduates) knows better than most - by that, I mean, if you fill the 'you' in here (where I bolded) with 95-99% of Americans, I'm willing to wager the Harvard graduate is smarter and has vastly more well-reasoned opinions and judgments.

In other words, I'm guessing a Harvard graduate does know better than you - if 'you' = 95% of Americans, and perhaps more. I'd be interested on what David S. has to say about this. I could be way off, but I'm guessing a great majority of Harvard graduates are also in the top 5% of knowledgeable Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, this is so wrong. Havent you seen Good Will Hunting?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like what? Mess things up? Skew the free market? Stagnate growth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen my fair share of the private sector do these as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Enron etc. But they have the ability to go out of business for their actions. That is part of the market response. Goverment doesn't get that. It just blames it on the guy next to them.

[ QUOTE ]

On another note, you think IBM would reap the benefits of a free market if it weren't for Pentagon funding?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. In that case though, the Pentagon is a customer that gets a tangable product from the investment. This is good business sense.

[ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of talk from business (this isn't necessarily directed at you, Gryph) about keeping the government out of everything, but they're more than willing to take government handouts and tax breaks (which amount to a government hand out).


[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think the government letting you keep MORE of your money is a handout? That is a liberal mindset that logically makes no sense to me in the first place. I can understand social programs and I do see the benefit to them in the benefit the world sense. I personally give on the order of 15-20% of my pre-tax income to charitable orgs because I believe in education, housing and foreign and domestic aid. I just don't want to the government to waste money on some rich bureaucrate with no accountability and dwindle my dollars to nothing for causes that I believe in or oppose.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, this is so wrong. Havent you seen Good Will Hunting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

I think Harvard grads wasted $150,000 on an education they coulda' got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library. I take back everything I said about Harvard grads. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing a Harvard graduate (lets say, a vast majority of Harvard graduates) knows better than most - by that, I mean, if you fill the 'you' in here (where I bolded) with 95-99% of Americans, I'm willing to wager the Harvard graduate is smarter and has vastly more well-reasoned opinions and judgments.

In other words, I'm guessing a Harvard graduate does know better than you - if 'you' = 95% of Americans, and perhaps more. I'd be interested on what David S. has to say about this. I could be way off, but I'm guessing a great majority of Harvard graduates are also in the top 5% of knowledgeable Americans.

So I'm not sure why it's wrong for liberals to acknowledge that Harvard grads know more than most. Is this something conservatives deny?


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what they know more about. I think it was William F Buckley who said he'd rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard factulty.

Is there any chance that attending Harvard or other elite schools might insulate people from the real world?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any chance that attending Harvard or other elite schools might insulate people from the real world?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I never particularly understood what constituted the 'real world' and why some people might live in it, while others do not. Probably a discussion for another day. But to answer your question, I have no idea.

[etgryphon]

I went to Carnegie-Mellon for awhile and Harvard is considered a joke for this exact reason. They are real smart people but are isolationists and control freaks that try to pin constants to ease variables so much that it distorts reality. So their theories work great in the classroom, but fail miserably in the real world. They are very articulate as well. Works well in the law department but not in the other fields.

-Gryph

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Blah blah blah blah blah....

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a question for you.

What do liberals believe, and how do they plan to implement their beliefs?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for you.

Blah blah blah blah blah....

[/ QUOTE ]

This is kinda fun. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for you.

Blah blah blah blah blah....

[/ QUOTE ]

Blah blah blah blah. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Liberating almost. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I went to Carnegie-Mellon for awhile and Harvard is considered a joke for this exact reason. They are real smart people but are isolationists and control freaks that try to pin constants to ease variables so much that it distorts reality. So their theories work great in the classroom, but fail miserably in the real world. They are very articulate as well. Works well in the law department but not in the other fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no head-hunter, but I'm under the impression (even from my own employer) that Harvard graduates are highly sought after in many fields; not just the law field (I work at a software company). So I can't imagine Harvard is truly a joke, unless I'm mistaken.

And I don't understand why Harvard's theories fail miserably in the 'real world'. Because it's been cited twice now, I'm rather curious as to what the 'real world' is. I don't want to completely destroy waxie's thread, so if someone is so inclined, they can PM me the answer. I really don't understand what people are referring to when they reference the 'real world' and why Harvard is outside of it. I grew up in the Boston area, and can indeed confirm (for those who haven't been) that it's an actual place and does exist in the real world (as I know it).

Sarcasm aside, I'm not getting this whole 'real world' concept.

[Felix_Nietsche]

See option (a), above.
******************************
Can anyone translate?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
See option (a), above.
******************************
Can anyone translate?

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, he called you stupid... (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3726358&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) I'd kick his ass.

-Gryph /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Sarcasm aside, I'm not getting this whole 'real world' concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a specific reference to Harvard, but a "real world" concept to help you understand. After George McGovern left the US Senate, he ran a Bed and Breakfast. It failed.

McGovern then made a comment about how incredibly difficult it was to run a business because of all the red tape and taxes. This comes from a man who helped pass all those red tape and tax laws. McGovern said he wished that he knew then(when he was in the Senate) what he knows now. He said he'd be much more sympathetic to those who had to live under all these rules.

This is the concept of the "real world." How many people in the Senate or the Harvard faculty have any idea how to run a business? or deal with all the red tape and regulations that those people generally favor. When you are in an ivory tower things might sound good in theory, but in practice they can lead to ruin for people. I hope that makes you understand the "real world" concept. As someone esle pointed out, class room theories don't always work in the dreaded "real world."

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the concept of the "real world." How many people in the Senate or the Harvard faculty have any idea how to run a business? or deal with all the red tape and regulations that those people generally favor. When you are in an ivory tower things might sound good in theory, but in practice they can lead to ruin for people. I hope that makes you understand the "real world" concept. As someone esle pointed out, class room theories don't always work in the dreaded "real world."

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 'real world' = entrepreneurial acumen?

I'm not sure what stops the Harvard faculty member from saying "the bed and breakfast owner is insulated in his business world, he doesn't understand the real world".

Put differently, what does a business owner, in his isolated ivory tower office, know of the real world - particle physics, micro biology, chemistry, and math?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I think you probably catch my drift: statements like "XYZ just isn't in the real world" seem to hinge (rather arbitrarily) on what defines the 'real world'. And I can't imagine there's any definitive answer to that.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
So the 'real world' = entrepreneurial acumen?

I'm not sure what stops the Harvard faculty member from saying "the bed and breakfast owner is insulated in his business world, he doesn't understand the real world".


[/ QUOTE ]

Because maybe the Bed and Breakfast owner doesn't have tenure? Maybe he or she actually has to perform well to survive, while the tenured professor doesn't?

Anyway, you are correct. There is no "real world." I made the whole thing up.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, you are correct. There is no "real world." I made the whole thing up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you made it up; I'm just firmly convinced that the Harvard faculty, Podunk State alums, dairy farmers, Wall St. execs, homeless bums, diplomats, politicians, musicians, steel workers, etc. all exist in the 'real world'.

[ QUOTE ]
Citizens donating to the hurricane relief are altruistic. The government is covering its butt and always will be. It is easy to give money away when it is not yours in the first place. A good question would be how many of the politicians give the same or more of their own money to the causes they vote for. Tied expendatures to their salaries by the percentage and then see how altruistic they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked 'when has the government ever done anything altruistic.' If you don't accept paying for the cleanup of natural disasters then what will you accept? If you're going to answer anything I name with "well it's not their money anyways" then what's the point? Then by your definition of 'government's money' it's impossible for the government to do anything altruistic. Even if they save a bunch of African starving AIDS babies from a tyrannical regime and cure their AIDS. You kind of changed the topic when you switched the question to how many politicians contribute to causes out of their own pocket.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See option (a), above.
******************************
Can anyone translate?

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, he called you stupid... (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3726358&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) I'd kick his ass.

-Gryph /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif this thread.

[phage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, you are correct. There is no "real world." I made the whole thing up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you made it up; I'm just firmly convinced that the Harvard faculty, Podunk State alums, dairy farmers, Wall St. execs, homeless bums, diplomats, politicians, musicians, steel workers, etc. all exist in the 'real world'.

[/ QUOTE ]
People have blinders on and whatever it is that they see (or are concerned with) on a day to day basis becomes the real world. To them all other matters are extraneous and cause them to wonder when everyone will come around to their way of thinking.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
People have blinders on and whatever it is that they see (or are concerned with) on a day to day basis becomes the real world. To them all other matters are extraneous and cause them to wonder when everyone will come around to their way of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more good ole' anti-intellectualism manifesting itself on the right: all liberals are stupid, except the smart ones, who are out of touch and not in the real world.

I think it's easier (and more accurate) to argue that prestigious universities (and their faculties) aren't in fact populated by solely by leftists; but then again, that ruins some of the most cherished parts of the right-wing narrative - so criticizing some of the world's best academics for being out of touch and 'not in the real world' gives them the best of both worlds, no matter how meaningless and silly the charge.

I'll throw a bone to the right and admit the left does the same: all right-wingers are idiot hicks who love the Bible but can't read it; except the smart ones, who are diabolically plotting to enslave us all with the Invisible Hand - all for a few more upward ticks in the GDP, and another yacht, while having a toast to celebrate the plight of the great unwashed. I don't think that this is a manifestation of anti-intellectualism, as it is more a case of ascribing some rather strange motives and rationalities to those with whom we disagree.

The part of human nature that seems present here is the seemingly inherent need to dismiss that which we don't like, no matter the great lengths and ridiculous means we try to do it. This might provide an answer to the OP's question. My 2 cents, anyway.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
So the 'real world' = entrepreneurial acumen?


[/ QUOTE ]


Close...allow me:

"Academia is for sissies" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the 'real world' = entrepreneurial acumen?


[/ QUOTE ]


Close...allow me:

"Academia is for sissies" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange coincidence: On Yahoo!'s (http://www.yahoo.com) homepage, this was one of the lead stories on the 'In the News' column at the right hand side:

College gender gap widens (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051020/ts_usatoday/collegegendergapwidens57arewomen)

"And the needs of boys and girls are different, says Kimberly Tsaousis, a college-prep adviser who works mostly with low-income minorities at Cleveland High School in Seattle. "Girls are way more likely to just pay attention" during advising sessions, she says. "It's almost less cool" for boys to show interest in college."

Replace 'cool' with 'masculine' and I think this guidance counselor (and you, vulturesrow) are onto something.

[QuadsOverQuads]

One of the first things to understand about this "Evil Liberal" phenomenon is that it's just one of several incarnations of the same basic right-wing propaganda strategy.

Instead of defending and advocating their own policies on the merits, they create an "image to oppose" and then they herd their followers by attacking it and trying to bait their more fairminded opponents into defending it. The left, in general, stands up for minority views and for oppressed groups, which makes this a very easy propaganda tactic for the right wing to employ.

They attack a political minority, wait for their opponents to defend them on political freedom grounds, then accuse all thier opponents of being "secret sympathizers".

They attack a religious minority, wait for their opponents to defend them on religious freedom grounds, then accuse all their opponents of being "anti-Christian".

They attack a racial minority ...

They attack a cultural minority ...

They attack "the French" ...

They attack "people who don't like Country Music" ...

They attack "Hollywood" ...

Anything which, when defended on Liberty grounds, can be turned into a symbol of a decadent and detached opposition.

It's an outright propaganda tactic, and they use it ALL THE TIME. They use it because, so far, it has worked for them.

Don't agree with cutting public services to the bone? Well, you must "love government spending". Never mind the specific budget items, of course, because that would get into actual legislative priorities, which is precisely the discussion right-wing propaganda is designed to avoid.

Don't agree with invading (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, wherever)? Why, you must "love the Terrorists!" You must "hate America!"

And the thing is: the gullible idiots who get their "reality" from Hannity and Rush and Pat Robertson, they drink this stuff down by the gallon.


q/q

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I never particularly understood what constituted the 'real world' and why some people might live in it, while others do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, never mind about whether some people "live in the real world" or not--what do you think about the idea that some people are inclined to propose solutions that tend not to work in the real world, by virtue of the fact that they don't have to be accountable, and have never had to be accountable in that regard? Examples: business major who has never run a business, or even been in business, proposing an overhaul of XYZ Industries; George McGovern making business-related laws before he had ever run a business (and later failing at running a B&amp;B); plus myriad other examples of which I cannot think at the moment (multitabling). It's also a lot easier to be an "expert" in theory than to put that theory into actual practice in a successful manner. Comments?

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

One of the first things to understand about this "Evil Liberal" phenomenon is that it's just one of several incarnations of the same basic right-wing propaganda strategy.

Instead of defending and advocating their own policies on the merits, they create an "image to oppose" and then they herd their followers by attacking it and trying to bait their more fairminded opponents into defending it. The left, in general, stands up for minority views and for oppressed groups, which makes this a very easy propaganda tactic for the right wing to employ.

They attack a political minority, wait for their opponents to defend them on political freedom grounds, then accuse all thier opponents of being "secret sympathizers".

They attack a religious minority, wait for their opponents to defend them on religious freedom grounds, then accuse all their opponents of being "anti-Christian".

They attack a racial minority ...

They attack a cultural minority ...

They attack "the French" ...

They attack "people who don't like Country Music" ...

They attack "Hollywood" ...

Anything which, when defended on Liberty grounds, can be turned into a symbol of a decadent and detached opposition.

It's an outright propaganda tactic, and they use it ALL THE TIME. They use it because, so far, it has worked for them.

Don't agree with cutting public services to the bone? Well, you must "love government spending". Never mind the specific budget items, of course, because that would get into actual legislative priorities, which is precisely the discussion right-wing propaganda is designed to avoid.

Don't agree with invading (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, wherever)? Why, you must "love the Terrorists!" You must "hate America!"

And the thing is: the gullible idiots who get their "reality" from Hannity and Rush and Pat Robertson, they drink this stuff down by the gallon.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for providing a picture perfect example of the liberal equivalent to what waxie was talking about.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, never mind about whether some people "live in the real world" or not--what do you think about the idea that some people are inclined to propose solutions that tend not to work in the real world, by virtue of the fact that they don't have to be accountable, and have never had to be accountable in that regard? Examples: business major who has never run a business, or even been in business, proposing an overhaul of XYZ Industries; George McGovern making business-related laws before he had ever run a business (and later failing at running a B&amp;B); plus myriad other examples of which I cannot think at the moment (multitabling). It's also a lot easier to be an "expert" in theory than to put that theory into actual practice in a successful manner. Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is inclined to propose solutions that won't work - I'm not sure what accountability has to do with it; which isn’t to dismiss accountability as being important. But I don't think I understand your question (your question = what do I think about the idea that some people are inclined to propose solutions that tend not to work in the real world, by virtue of the fact that they don't have to be accountable, and have never had to be accountable in that regard?).

I certainly agree your post, in that: it's difficult to put theories into practice. Take poker, for instance. Just reading 2+2 books (theory) will put you in a good position toward being a winning player - but experience plays a key role as well - so does variance; and losing (failure) is always part of the game, even for world-class players. I wouldn't expect people who have only been exposed to only 2+2 books to immediately become winning players, without any experience playing hands. Experience (with many things in life, it would seem) is important.

So if I owned a business, I wouldn't suggest letting a newly-minted B-school grad overhaul my industries; nor would I recommend starting a business, like McGovern did, if you have no experience. But I think failures are to be expected in life, including in business. I don't think these failures demonstrate that McGovern lived in an alternate, not 'real' world.

I don’t think I’m satisfactorily answering your questions, though. I'm not sure how this relates to the dialouge about the 'real world'. I know you told me to pay it no mind, and I'm trying - but I'm not sure what you're getting at, either.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone is inclined to propose solutions that won't work - I'm not sure what accountability has to do with it; which isn’t to dismiss accountability as being important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a great many are inclined to propose just such solutions--inadvertently, of course.

It's often not easy for even highly experienced and knowledgeable persons in a given field to come up with truly workable solutions, especially to knotty problems.

I'm just suggesting that those in insular, non-accountable environments may be more likely to propose solutions that sound good in theory but fall short in real-world application, than would be their counterparts who are actually out there "doing."

On another tack, compare successful CEOs or owners of large successful companies with professors of business. Granted, their realms of expertise may both overlap and have distinct parts, but who is more likely to be able to take over a failing Chrysler Motors Corporation and turn it around (as did Lee Iacocca)? The devil is often in the details, and the star CEO well may be a better businessman, even if his purely theoretical knowledge is in some regards less than that of his professorial counterpart. And while some may be motivated purely by love of learning and teaching, the hugest financial rewards are in performance--so on average the very best business minds are probably out in the field applying their skills rather than staying in academia (does not apply to ALL; just on average).

Proposing solutions without having some accountability in the sense of real-world application--and its success or failure--is a likely ticket to a failed attempt. On another note, look how miserably the centrally-planned and centrally-owned economy of the USSR performed--and compare it with the Chinese economy, which allows a stake in ownership for a great many people. Hands-on ownership/business management is vastly superior to hands-off/distantly planned, for the most part.

[Warchant88]

Wow q/q, isn't the left always attacking the right? Or am I imagining it?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a great many are inclined to propose just such solutions--inadvertently, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

We might not be on the same page yet, but I think I disagree. See below.

[ QUOTE ]
It's often not easy for even highly experienced and knowledgeable persons in a given field to come up with truly workable solutions, especially to knotty problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on this point.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just suggesting that those in insular, non-accountable environments may be more likely to propose solutions that sound good in theory but fall short in real-world application, than would be their counterparts who are actually out there "doing."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends on the problem. I don't think many business schools are interested in crafting solutions to particular business problems, but merely to provide a foundation of theoretical knowledge, which students are expected to build on post-graduation.

[ QUOTE ]
On another tack, compare successful CEOs or owners of large successful companies with professors of business. Granted, their realms of expertise may both overlap and have distinct parts, but who is more likely to be able to take over a failing Chrysler Motors Corporation and turn it around (as did Lee Iacocca)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly, I'm going with the successful CEO/owner of a large successful company almost every time, unless there's some special circumstance. I can't even envision a situation where I'd take the professor, so for simplicity's sake, let's just say I agree: pick the CEO/owner to rescue a failing corporation. In fact, I'm not sure a business professor would be best suited to save a failing company. I would guess (although again, I defer to those with better knowledge than I) that you might find better results with a professor of industrial engineering, or some other sub-discipline in an engineering field that specializes in business efficiencies.

[ QUOTE ]
The devil is often in the details, and the star CEO well may be a better businessman, even if his purely theoretical knowledge is in some regards less than that of his professorial counterpart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. A star CEO probably has a whole host of skills, tangible and not, that a vast majority of professors do not.

[ QUOTE ]
And while some may be motivated purely by love of learning and teaching, the hugest financial rewards are in performance--so on average the very best business minds are probably out in the field applying their skills rather than staying in academia (does not apply to ALL; just on average).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree. Although I think many of the professors at leading business schools also have experience in the highest level of business/corporate management - or they teach while simultaneously performing the duties associated to their respective businesses.

[ QUOTE ]
Proposing solutions without having some accountability in the sense of real-world application--and its success or failure--is a likely ticket to a failed attempt. On another note, look how miserably the centrally-planned and centrally-owned economy of the USSR performed--and compare it with the Chinese economy, which allows a stake in ownership for a great many people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think business schools are engaged in this kind of work, to be honest. By that, I mean – I don’t think many are involved in teaching students how to centrally-plan an economy; but I think they’re taught (in macro-economic classes, for instance) the mechanisms behind aggregate economic behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
Hands-on ownership/business management is vastly superior to hands-off/distantly planned, for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, too.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow q/q, isn't the left always attacking the right? Or am I imagining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

To reiterate:

What the right-wing is attacking is not "the left". It is a collection of propaganda images designed to generate Pavlovian responses and provide a false caricature of their opponents.

For example: the right-wing doesn't want to talk about their horrendous fiscal irresponsibility, so they find some poor black woman on welfare to attack. They know that progressives will (rightly) defend her, and that this will then enable them to characterize their opponents as "defenders of those (evil racial minority) welfare queens".

They know exactly what they are doing, and you can see this over and over and over again in their rhetoric.

You respond by saying "well, the left attacks the right too, so what's the problem?". But that response completely ignores my point, which was the NATURE of the attack-techniques that the right-wing propaganda machine is using. They are purely propagandistic and dishonest, and the end result is little more than a collection of Pavlovian responses to conditioned images of "the evil other".

It isn't just that progressives are being screwed by this Pravda-like approach that the right-wing is using. It's also that most right-wingers themselves are simply being played for fools.


q/q

[lehighguy]

Do other conservatives have similar perceptions about the ideology of liberals? If so, why?

They do. Because it's true.