Are liberals obsessed with intellect?

[highlonesome]

I consider myself probably closest to a libertarian. I agree with most of my liberal friends on the ends of civil liberties and most issues, but often disagree on the means to those ends.

That said, one thing I notice in personal conversations with liberal friends, watching TV pundits, reading the opinion section of the paper and indeed typing on this board is that many liberals seem almost obsessed with intellect.

It seems to be a pervasive belief that liberals are generally smarter, better educated and more logical than conservatives.

Is this true or am I getting the wrong impression?

[cornermouse]

1. Since Bush is president, it is logical to assume that he is

the premier representative of the republican party as it currently exists. How much of what Bush has done do you consider to be smart, educated, or logical?

[highlonesome]

4. I'm not talking about Bush

I'm asking about the liberal mindset.

[RBHam]

8. The liberal mindset...

Or how about the "Liberal Headset"?

The volume automatically cuts out whenever disquieting truths about so-called Liberals like the Clintons emerge...

"Hillary Clinton supports Kerik's nomination? Oh....crackle....zip...schrhrhr..."

Whew! That was close....

[cornermouse]

17. You're got the wrong impression.

"It seems to be a pervasive belief that liberals are generally smarter, better educated and more logical than conservatives.

Is this true or am I getting the wrong impression?"

This is why I commented on Bush. You compared liberals to conservatives. I simply pointed out that as an representative of conservatives, it would not be all that hard for someone not to be smarter, better educated, and more logical than Bush. Bush's advantages are a family well grounded in money and connections.

As far as your basic history comment? Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. We tend to operate from areas that we consider ourselves stronger in rather than those we are weaker in. Congratulations on your apparent ability in history. Personally I prefer to find a small corner where I can watch and observe and then think about it.

[highlonesome]

20. two things

On W: not stupid doesn't mean intellectual. By that I mean -- W? Set your bar a little higher kiddo!

I guess why i ask that question is precisely because someone shouldn't need to be adept at history to answer that question. And it's important because it's the framework for the creation of a free society -- every other foundation flows from that concept.

If we don't realize civil rights are inalienable, they simply become contractual, and politics becomes a consumer game of providing better service at a lower cost!

[cornermouse]

23. Interesting. I guess it all goes back to your statement.

"It seems to be a pervasive belief that liberals are generally smarter, better educated and more logical than conservatives."

I told you my opinion, you immediately attacked. I don't think I was aggressive or angry. I certainly wasn't feeling it. My main feeling at the time was mild humor and yet your reply was something else completely.

Is this how you "talk" to your liberal friends who "attack" you?

[highlonesome]

24. when did I attack you?

I made a joke about W being stupid. How's that an attack?

Could you show me where I attacked you?

[cornermouse]

26. You're looking at it from your own perspective only.

Attacked was probably too strong a word. Talked down to is probably more accurate. Anyway, like I said congratulations on your knowledge in history. Have a lovely day.

[RBHam]

2. Totalitarian regimes always attack the "intelligentsia" first...

So Liberal types are maybe a little over protective?

[highlonesome]

7. I guess that's what I'm saying

What is it that makes you accetp de facto that the liberal view is the intelligentsia view?

[K-W]

43. Please prove that any liberals do so.

You have not given any evidence than any liberals assume anything.

Why dont you do an anylisis of the liberal narrative of reality and compare it to the competing narratives and see who has has evidence and reason behind them.

If you can prove that the liberal position is not a stronger position than others, then perhaps you can question why we think it is. Until then, the rather obvious answer is that we do have the strongest position.

[AngelAsuka]

3. Can't say for anyone else

but I like to take pride in educating myself on every important issue that I can. I don't think that's obsessing, though, anymore than a neat appearance is obsessing. I mean, you can take it too far, but not everyone who takes pride in knowledge and logic is obsessed.

Like my friend Sarra says...all benefits are features, but not all features are benefits. :bounce:

~~AA~~

[highlonesome]

5. I know what you mean, but...

Most of my other liberal friends consider themselvs well informed as well.

But I have a question I ask many of them that I haven't gotten a correct answer to yet:

What is the origin of our civil rights in the United States? From where do our civil rights emanate?

I mean, it's a pretty basic question of American history and probably THE most basic question a liberal could ask. Yet for being well informed and educated not one's been able to answer it yet.

[whirlygigspin]

12. not emanated, assumed by creation

...according to the declaration of independence, you are endowed by your creator with rights,

do I win a prize?

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

[highlonesome]

16. Yes!

That's the simple answer: you're born with them.

[txaslftist]

40. You sure as sh*t aren't...

born with any "inalienable rights". That's one of the great fictions our founding fathers indulged in. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that we are...endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights...among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What they really should have said was: "We hold these PRINCIPLES to be self-evident. That CERTAIN OF US...OUGHT TO BE endowed by our creator with certain RARELY ALIENATED PRIVILEGES..."

Since that was, in effect, what the founding fathers intended.

The fiction that God gave us rights is simply fiction. No peasant born in czarist Russia had a 'right' to liberty that was enforceable in any forum. No slave born in 1789 in Mississippi had any right to life, liberty OR the pursuit of happiness.

In reality, you only have the RIGHT to make your own choices among a limited range of alternatives that varies substantially from locale to locale and background to background. Everything else, even those things you consider to be rights, are in fact PRIVILEGES.

Privileges are those things you are permitted by your fellow humans and by circumstance. The source of your freedoms is the indulgence of your society and you own strength of arms. What you can secure and what your nation permits you, you can have.

That's reality.

[AngelAsuka]

13. Well, considering that we were here before there

was a true 'United States', I would guess that our civil rights originated in theory with the Magna Carta and British King George law. As we saw the law did not apply to us as it had other citizens of the Crown (taxation/representation, the Stamp Act, etc), our thinkers and philosophers (the original American Liberals) began to lay out their vision of what was wrong with it.

Since there was clearly something wrong with how it was being applied to us, I would think that would be considered the start of our Civil Rights, and so our fight for the first American Civil Rights was the War of Independence, which was won with the tacit help of our allies, the French.

I dunno, maybe I'm way off, but that kinna makes sense to me. I'd welcome other thoughts on that, though. :)

~~AA~~

[PowerToThePeople]

6. This is true.

Most liberals are at least smart enough to know that they don't know everything and are willing to have a good "debate" on topics of importance. Conservatives tend to say "my way or the highway"(or "you are going to hell with those ideas").

[highlonesome]

9. That's why I'm asking

Because I've not found that to be the case. In fact, I've had to stop even talking politics with many liberal friends because they usually become personally insulting. It happens quite a lot.

Some listen and talk, yes. Most do not.

And I have to say that I've not yet had a talk with a conservative where I've gotten the My way or the highway thing -- even when I speak in favor of something like same sex marriage.

[PowerToThePeople]

11. well...

My experiences have been just the opposite. Liberals tend to discuss, Conservatives tend to get belligerent. Example #1 is B*

[freeplessinseattle]

14. If you read this board enough you could maybe get that

your friends aren't representative of us. sounds to me as if they just don't really like you is all.

[highlonesome]

15. thank you

...for supporting my point.

[Bunny]

28. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy for you, isn't it, kiddo? n/t

[bliss_eternal]

27. please delete

error/post deleted--

thank you--

[RBHam]

29. Like the thought didn't cross our minds...

The back and forth of debate reveals quite a bit...

About us all...

[donheld]

10. I don't believe they are at all

but there is NO honor at all in ignorance. I think every person on earth should strive for more education. If that leads to liberalism then so be it.

[highlonesome]

18. I think both paths...

can be either equally valid or equally invalid.

I mean, it IS possible for someone to be educated, smart and conservative isn't it?

[RBHam]

19. That's what we're afraid of...

Look at Karl Rove.

[highlonesome]

21. yeah but

smart is one thing -- evil is another.

I find as a libertarian leaner anyway, that both sides tend to erode civil rights, but in different ways.

Karl Rove would have you give them up by trotting out a picture of Osama to scare you.

Howard Dean would do it by trotting out a picture of a helpless pregnant teenager.

[PowerToThePeople]

22. reminded of

that post about the college freshman talking to upperclassman about higher education. "Too much education can be bad" or something along those lines. I do believe you can have a highly educated, smart, and conservative person all in one package. But what they imo lack over the liberal is truth and caring for all human beings rights. Capitalists (economic conservatives)use their knowledge to gain advantage over others to profit off their labor and social conservatives imo do not give value to peoples of different "life beliefs" than what they consider the "correct" set of beliefs. Liberals may not be smarter, just more open minded. Once again, this is just my opinion.

[highlonesome]

25. part of it

I think is that in some cases it's not that conservatives value human beings any less.

They simply see that a basic protection of rights is the best way to protect people.

And not all capitalists are bad you know.

I'd like to talk more but I gotta get some sleep.

Too bad, I've got a lot to say about that particular point...

[LWolf]

30. I can't speak to "pervasive views,"

since I tend to go my own way, and don't often fall into large group-think.

I will share what I've noticed during my lifetime re: the relationship between political ideology and exercise of intellectual capacities.

I've seen plenty of "smart" conservatives. They aren't stupid, by any means. Their intelligence is shaped by different values and exercised to achieve different agendas. They are all about competition, "winning/beating," and rising to the top on the backs of the less fortunate. They lack empathy. They are on a constant overdose of testosterone.

Liberals, on the other hand, are guided by a sense of justice and compassion. They tend to be more balanced, hormonally speaking.

Conservatives like things to be very literal, very black and white. They don't do nuance.

Liberals like to explore all the nuances and layers of complexity. That's what makes them more "intellectual," imo. They can operate from within the gray.

[jdonaldball]

31. No! Shut up, Beavis, you fartknocker!

[Ezlivin]

39. "I am Cornholio! Are you threatening me?"

n/t

[tinanator]

32. my impressions are that "libertarians"

are simply too ashamed of their leanings to admit who they vote for as a slate. The question really isnt which camp is more intelligent, since there is NO DOUBT about that. The real issues are honesty and justice. Subset issues would include rights, racism, sexism and sexual politics and oppression. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to recognize a liar shouldnt be running your country. Why not cut to the chase rather than cloak your beliefs with bullshit notions like Libertarianism?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. its true

we like look at empirical evidence before making policy .... not assumed common sense (which is mostly wrong)

[bemildred]

34. Are conservatives obsessed with being stupid? nt

[txaslftist]

35. Not obsessed, just observant...

Liberals don't like to make blanket generalizations. So, we would probably not say, "all conservatives or republicans are under or uneducated". That being said, it is hard to understand how a person can fail to see all of the disasters that this administration is leading us into. To not see the huge problems Bush is creating for Americans abroad and at home and for our children, it seems one must be either uneducated, ill-informed, so self-interested as to be downright vicious or patently delusional.

I'm sure to our Republican opponents, we appear hopelessly deluded, hyper-idealistic or ignorant in our own way.

The thing is, we are right and they are wrong.

Are they ALL dumbasses? Probably not. I'm sure they have some worthwhile ideas to contribute. The problem is sorting through all of the horseshit to find the few good ideas in mainstream Neocon thought these days is simply not worth it.

I'm not going to eat fifty pounds of shit so I can have the half a pound of sirloin hidden in it.

[cags]

38. HAHAHAHA, Pefectly said

[cags]

36. Yes its true, we are smarter and we know it. LOL

[Ezlivin]

37. I'll have to ruminate on that one

Gee, thinking sure is fun!

Damn, I outed myself....

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Impression Is Correct! It's Also A Fact

Sociologists have been doing studies in this regard for a hundred years. The results are always the same. Smarter and more educated people trend preponderantly toward liberalism. It's why the supposed academic liberal bias exists. The smart people are the ones who end up as college professors, and they are preponderantly liberal. The results are autocorrelated. The same root cause results in both outcomes.
The Professor

[ArkDem]

42. Yes and the dumb ones end up as CEO's, capitalists and

the like.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Wanna Bet?

The proportion of coroporate officers (check the Pew Website to see if the study is still there) that went Kerry over Bush was EXACTLY THE SAME as the overall population. (Within statistical bounds.)

There are MANY, MANY scrupulous run companies in this country with CEO's, CFO's, and General Counsels who are liberals. All business is not run Republicans. That's a myth.

The autocorrelated "smart tends liberal" phenomenon stays constant no matter the final field of endeavor. CEO's and CFO's are not as conservative as most here think.

If anything, they tend libertarian, not conservative.
The Professor

[ArkDem]

48. ****joke alert****

[ProfessorGAC]

50. I Knew You Were Kidding Ark

You'd just given me an excuse to drop that nugget of info out there.
The Professor

[K-W]

44. Why dont you do your homework before asking this question?

Why dont you first find out whether or not the liberal position is far more backed up by facts and reason than the conservative position?

Had you done that homework you would know this is a silly question. No one is obsessed with anything. When a political group makes a concerted effort to base thier policies on fact and reason, they earn the right to tout the intellectual strength of thier positions, especially against the backdrop of political belief systems based almost entirely on dogma.

[opihimoimoi]

46. I agree. The love of inquiry, discussion, logic, facts, etc makes the

inquisitive mind function the way it does...

Analytical, love of learning, reading, thinking, etc leads to knowing better what is BS from Reality.

[K-W]

49. Seriously, this is just another rhetorical trick.

It clouds the fact that liberal philosophy was developed with the express purpose of using a rational approach to policy, which is contrary to the stated ideas of other groups who, at least used to, make no major efforts to conceal the fact that they rejected the usefulness of such an approach.

The question desmisses that fact out of hand. Liberals talk about intelligence alot because they are obsessed with it. Which means that liberals havent thought anything through. They arent talking about intelligence because they respect the power of rational empirical anylisis to get results, they are talking about it because they are silly liberals who get crazy obsessed by things.

But, like any good lie it has a kernel of truth. We all know liberals who to various levels go too far with the intelligence issue. And it bugs us as fair tolerant liberals, so we are quick to step in and defend ourselves, yet by doing so, we give credence to the assumptions of the question.

Remember to never take seriously questions that generalize liberals. The debate needs to be about liberalism, not liberals.

Liberals are human, and that is all that the kernal of truth to this thread proves.

[sweetheart]

47. differentiation of ones ego self

In some ways, we want to feel separate from bush and his criminal hacks,
not related, and how is one to do that. In economic life, we're
trained to show that we "know" more than another candidate, are better
qualified and experienced, and all of this theoretically shows as
"being smarter". The appearance of the economic imperialist culture
is that meritocracy warrants you a better place or a more important
voice... Its an outgrowth of the "C"onservative ideal that you deserve
your economic station by your moral fortitude.

To me, liberalism comes from the heart, and no amount of education
can show one how to love... Education of the mind, helps to learn
combat and social fighting... and in this regard, learning to be
politically "smart" is percieved as the gauntlet one must run for
leadership in representative politics.... Then for people aspiring for
the democrats to be leaders, indeed we must be smart and celbrate
intelligence.

However, this is not moral superiority, and hopefully people know the
difference between leadership and membership... as in demos, there is
only demos, and no superior.