Progress In Iraq Continues...

[MMMMMM]

tolbiny,
I don't think it's BS, but I wil amend my statement to include some conservative educated elites as well.

I generally have more trust and confidence in the opinion of the common man when it comes to politics, than in the opinions of those who make careers of politics--or of studying politics.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
My objection is not to the beliefs of all political science professors, but rather to beliefs such as: "the US is the greatest oppressor in the world"; "all cultures and traditions are of equal merit" (an obviously false claim when one considers both the relative efficacies of various cultures in providing for their own people, as well as the abysmal status of human rights under certain cultural traditions); the lunatic political rants of the likes of Ward Churchill and Nicholas de Genova; and various other nonsenses. It isn't just that I disagree with these beliefs, I'm pretty sure you do too; and it isn't necessary to construct proofs of the correctness of our positions in order to so assert (although if we wanted to waste a lot of time I'm sure either of us could do so).

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying about these particular academics. Here are the things to consider though:

1) There are some disciplines in which these types of people are more concentrated. Political science is simply not one of them. This is just an empirical fact. It is really in ethnic studies, anthropology, and literature departments.

2) Even in those departments, the number of people with beliefs this extreme, or poorly nuanced, is much lower than you would imagine. You and a lot of other people who read conservative media face a problem that in social science is referred to as selection bias. You end up hearing about the Ward Churchills of the world, but not the many, many other people in anthropology or sociology or literature who simply produce good scholarship, have more nuanced (albeit probably left of center) pollitical views, and have a lot to contribute in terms of how we understand the world.

[ QUOTE ]
The typical Wisconsin dairy farmer, or New Hampshire pig farmer, typically would recognize the nonsense in such views. Hence they ARE in a sense considerably "smarter" than those vastly studied crackpots who believe such hooey. And my take is that the concentration of such crackpots is typically higher in poli-sci academia than in other more mundane disciplines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this judgement can only be supported if you have a balanced assessment of academia, and especially political science. This is the world I inhabit so I have a natural incentive to defend it. But I also have a fair amount of knowledge about how it works, and I just think your assessment is quite biased by some rather extreme "outliers" within the larger population of academics.

[ QUOTE ]
But anyone who thinks that communism is better than capitalism, or that all cultural practices are of equal merit and equally deserving of respect, or that the US is the greatest net force for evil and oppression in the world, or that all white Americans are racist oppressors--is just a crackpot who holds indefensible positions. And as mentioned, you know where I think a relatively high concentration of these crackpots can be found, and it isn't out in the fields mowing hay.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be true that a larger percentage of these types of people can be found in academia than elsewhere. But, again, this percentage is still quite small, and miniscule within political science in particular.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is sort of that people who "just live their lives", or "grassroots America"--are just as likely or more likely to form good conclusions about political matters, than are those who are deeply involved in that stuff by way of profession or education.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree for one main reason- the public in these questions has the benefit of hindsight. 90% of americans supported the war in Iraq before hand, now according to polls less than 50% do-for varying reasons- some say it was right to go in, but its been handled badly, some believe that it was ok to go in, but wouldn't have knowing the intelligence was false ect, ect. Which group is right? time will tell. The majority of americans if asked would say we should have stayed out of vietnam, but the anti war movement at the time was a COUNTER culture, they were the minority. So who is right? Communism has enjoyed spectacular popularity at times with populations- especially at the beginning of new regimes- the average farmer in those situations were "wrong".


Most people are uneducated about situations - ask what is positive about cuba? Mostly blank stares and jokes about cigars is wht you usually get, nothing about thier health care system.

If you take an individual ideologue who studies/works with poly sci for a living he will make the average joe look good by comparison. but if you take your average poly sci guy they will have a lot more insight and better defined opinions than that same randomguy.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
1) There are some disciplines in which these types of people are more concentrated. Political science is simply not one of them. This is just an empirical fact. It is really in ethnic studies, anthropology, and literature departments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok; I didn't know that, and thanks for the insight.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Even in those departments, the number of people with beliefs this extreme, or poorly nuanced, is much lower than you would imagine. You and a lot of other people who read conservative media face a problem that in social science is referred to as selection bias. You end up hearing about the Ward Churchills of the world, but not the many, many other people in anthropology or sociology or literature who simply produce good scholarship, have more nuanced (albeit probably left of center) pollitical views, and have a lot to contribute in terms of how we understand the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it is a high proportion, per se; just higher than in more "grassroots" type professions. And that to me appears somerhing of an enigma.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, this judgement can only be supported if you have a balanced assessment of academia, and especially political science. This is the world I inhabit so I have a natural incentive to defend it. But I also have a fair amount of knowledge about how it works, and I just think your assessment is quite biased by some rather extreme "outliers" within the larger population of academics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your insights and generally speaking find many of them (in this and other threads) quite valuable.