Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:17 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
On a slightly lighter note, it strikes me as amusing that liberals are classed as wishy washy ditherers who sit on the fence over any opinion, yet are then always then beaten with the stick that they are so staunch in their supposed self-loathing, anti-American attitudes :)

You say "only aggressive anti-liberalism such as I practice... can hope to stop this runaway train..." - yet i don't agree with it and would voice my disagreement of any such stance, and i'm not aggressively anti-liberal, you'll certainly agree. I know you're saying not all people are like this, but I think i'm far from a minority in this way, so I don't think the picture's so bleak as you seem to paint it?

Moving slightly off the point. Christmas is closing in, and we'll soon be hearing a number of newspapers and presenters, in the UK, using scare tactics about the actions of 'loony liberals' in various councils and organisations. There'll be shock headlines about how they're trying to take away our festive occasion, to 'avoid offence to non-Christians' and other such nonsense. Politically correct crusaders may well be loony, but they're just just not liberal at all, in my terms of the word.


Well, liberals (if they are truly liberal on these issues) are wishy-washy in terms of things like cultural relativism, recognition (or admission) of right and wrong, recognition or admission of superiority/inferiority, and law enforcement. Things like that. One thing liberals are not wishy-washy on - i.e are quite illiberal about, however, is their aggressive attempts at social engineering on behalf of their 'progressive' agenda and anti-conservative behavior. Many American university campuses still prohibit ROTC (Reserve Officer's Training Corps for military officers) from operating on their campus. Real fidelity to their professed ideal of 'diversity', huh? What are they afraid of? Well anyway, I hope that clears up any confusion from perceived inconsistencies in Rightwing views of modern liberals.

Certainly here in the U.S the so called 'Progressives' with the uber-secular agenda have been trying to secularize Christmas.

MC, it seems we don't share common definitions of 'Liberal'. If you don't think Progressives with a secularizing agenda are Liberal - then I just can't see your point. And political correctness, at least here in the U.S, has been an overwhelmingly liberal phenomenon for a long time.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Dorset Girl » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:23 am

I've pretty much given up on this thread, which now seems to be less about the original poll question and more about what constitutes left-wing / right-wing / liberal, etc. I don't see how anyone can give their true views on the matter if they constrain themselves to thinking within a particular political ideology, and dismiss everyone else's ideas as not worthy because they don't sit within this 'box'.

Also, JT, firstly you say there is no literature to support your view, then you say you have arrived at your conclusions by interpreting the literature:

The 'support' of my views is in the interpretation of facts.


So, actually then, are we looking at the same sources and interpreting them differently?

There are also some questions that I have asked a few times, that you haven't answered - or if you have, I've overlooked your answer. People in the UK will be familiar with Jeremy Paxman, who has a habit of repeatedly asking a politician the same question until they have no choice but to stop evading it and actually answer it... that's how I feel now! So, for the third time - do you not think that it sounds arrogant to say that European culture is / was superior?

In my opinion, which I imagine you would say has been derived from literature written by liberal wishy-washy, wacko nutters, I don't think 'culture' can be compared in this way, because it is not a concrete, measurable idea. Yes, you can measure certain elements of it - crime levels, wealth gap between the rich and the poor, etc., but I think it is too subjective to give an overall opinion on whether one culture is 'superior' to another.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:57 am

O.K Dorset Girl, I haven't had time to respond to your other questions for me. Here it is - that is if you're still participating. I hope so, the danger with these edgy threads on the nice-and-fluffy Frasier forum is that they raise blood pressure.

Dorset Girl wrote:Also, even if as you say the social sciences have been 'dominated' by academics with liberal world views (which I'm not saying is the case!), this can't account for 100% of people, so to me it feels far too much of a generalisation to say Academics = liberal.


It doesn't have to account for 100% of people. But overwhelming dominance (maybe for argument sake say 70-80%) is significant. Especially with the groupthink that tends to take hold with the prevailing views.


Dorset Girl wrote:Please, help my pounding brain out and explain the term that I asked you about in an earlier post - "Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality" - what does this mean in everyday language that I can understand? :?


Sorry for the techno-babble. But part and parcel of modern liberalism - at least in the US - is the tendency to view today's social conditions in terms of victims. Blacks are victims. 'Native Americans' are victims. Hispanics are victims. Palestinians are victims. The poor (which in the U.S means only 1 car, 2 color TV's, and dial-up Internet) are victims. The environment is a victim. The rest of the world (varyingly the non-West, or non_US) is a victim. Women are victims. Animals are victims, etc. etc.

Now, there are victims. There are issues. But the point is that these 'causes' have taken a life of their own and have even spawned industries - with jackasses going around making money and/or fame taking up the 'cause' of this or that victimized group. Even the defense lawyer industry has taken advantage of this. This is all dysfunctional. This is what I mean by "Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality". Here is just one article/opinion on this issue I quickly found in a query:

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/victimization.htm

Dorset Girl wrote:Do you not think that it sounds arrogant to say that European culture is / was superior? It is only superior if you accept that the Western models of development are the best, and perhaps the only, way that countries should progress.


It may sound arrogant, but is it true? This I think is maybe the one thing that would best illustrate differences between Left and Right. In these threads I have mentioned things (techno-babble) like 'cultural relativism' and the inability to acknowledge (or admit, or recognize) superior and inferior relationships. I have said this is what I consider to be dysfunctional. I wrote in a previous post my views on liberal misuse of cultural relativism. I have always like the phrase "A liberal is someone who is so broadminded they can't even take their own side in a fight". That is related in a way to taking cultural relativism too far. You can be too broad-minded. All I can say is one culture has evolved to put machines on Mars and send imagery back, one did not. One culture has developed cars, airplanes, TV, radio, computers, medical technology, complex governmental and social institutions allowing industrious and talented people to prosper, one has not. One has developed complex legal systems whereby people can air grievances with due process, one has not. Etc. Etc.
Well, I for one will go way out on an ethnocentric limb and conclude that one is superior.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:27 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:And another thing - kind of humorous, at least to me. Why did the 'Native Americans' have to invade a pristine 'Why did the 'Native Americans' have to invade a pristine natural environment of Buffalo and other fauna and flora, and kill, eat, and displace them?'


Dorset Girl wrote: IMO, this is a different debate - this comes under whether humans have the right to kill and eat animals. The difference in human terms is that the Native Americans were using their own land, whereas the European settlers were taking land and resources from humans who were already there.


I'm just pointing out the liberal's tendency of chasing their own tail - and having some fun doing it. It wasn't really a serious post. But If libs are anti-killing-and-eating-animals, and they get all over us white dudes for displacing Indians and raping the environment, then why don't they get all over those indian cultures that invaded the pristine natural environment of the Americas and killed so many animals. Thats a liberal issue too. But again, were they using the land and resources that we used? is it that simple? Was there enough land and resources for both the scattered tribes already there and euro settlers? and just with growth of the advanced Euros is when the conflict arose? This has gone on repeatedly throughout human history. Again, it comes back to my question as to why we should simply accede such a large, rich land-mass to such scattered, backward (I know, I know! in our ethnocentric terms) cultures. Wouldn't that retard the future development of the entire world? Is that 'progressive'?

Dorset Girl wrote: Another point is that - am I right in saying that the Native Americans had no system of land ownership? Even if this is the case, I still feel it was wrong to take over the area in which they lived. They had no system of ownership because those methods of management did not exist in their culture at the time, I don't see that as a fault on their part, just part of their circumstances. They had had no need of ownership systems before the Europeans came along.


What if we had never 'taken over their land' (in my view way overly simplistic)? Instead of the greatest engine of human advancement in the history of the Earth :P in the U.S. A, the modern world would be confronted with an undeveloped, backward hemisphere of desperately poor humans.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:41 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:I've pretty much given up on this thread, which now seems to be less about the original poll question and more about what constitutes left-wing / right-wing / liberal, etc. I don't see how anyone can give their true views on the matter if they constrain themselves to thinking within a particular political ideology, and dismiss everyone else's ideas as not worthy because they don't sit within this 'box'.

Also, JT, firstly you say there is no literature to support your view, then you say you have arrived at your conclusions by interpreting the literature:

The 'support' of my views is in the interpretation of facts.


So, actually then, are we looking at the same sources and interpreting them differently?

There are also some questions that I have asked a few times, that you haven't answered - or if you have, I've overlooked your answer. People in the UK will be familiar with Jeremy Paxman, who has a habit of repeatedly asking a politician the same question until they have no choice but to stop evading it and actually answer it... that's how I feel now! So, for the third time - do you not think that it sounds arrogant to say that European culture is / was superior?

In my opinion, which I imagine you would say has been derived from literature written by liberal wishy-washy, wacko nutters, I don't think 'culture' can be compared in this way, because it is not a concrete, measurable idea. Yes, you can measure certain elements of it - crime levels, wealth gap between the rich and the poor, etc., but I think it is too subjective to give an overall opinion on whether one culture is 'superior' to another.


Sorry to hear you've given up on this thread, DG. I don't see any other way of seriously discussing the issue without putting it in a left/right context. Now if I weren't here, you all could discuss it in a left/left context - without even realizing it!! Is that what you all want? That would really be "constraining themselves to thinking within a particular political ideology" - without realizing it. No mention of right/left, ideology or any of those things.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:54 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Sorry you're disappointed BN, but like a few others, it seems you miss the point. Once again - THERE IS NO 'TREASURE TROVE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH' OUT THERE SUPPORTING MY VIEWS, AS OPPOSED TO THE DOZENS OF SOURCES DG UNCOVERED. Thats the point. Liberal domination of soc sci academia is as thorough as that of the US mainstream media. See how destructive such ideological monopolies have on the perception of truth? Do you all believe everything academia come out with? Even if they involve contextual interpretations in the social sciences? I don't have to read 'an extreme right-winger's opinion' to form my opinions. Simply reading about our 'theft' of Indian territory and 'genocide' of Indian populations, and 'greed' of European colonists, and 'raping' of the natural environment in the face of the eco-enlightened 'Native' Americans, and much of this subtly implied under the guise of academic credibility. Any 5 facts vis a vis colonist/Indian interaction can be interpreted in widely varying contexts. And I view all this liberal filtering amidst the other stuff - like the nutty posts about the dearth of U.S inventiveness, including a poster on here responding to my challenges with "Everything thats been said in this thread is factual" or something like that. Its as nonfactual as 2 + 2 = 5.


No, I haven't missed the point JT. I obviously realise that physical evidence regarding 'eco-enlightened' (love that! :lol: ) Native Americans will be thin on the ground. My point was your assertion that most academics have a liberal bias cannot be logically true. If Liberalism was so prevalent in the US that every person of academic standing had a bias why hasn't this filtered through to the polls? There's only been one Democrat in the White House since 1980. Are you saying only educated people have a liberal bias? I'd be most surprised if you were... :wink:

I think this is simply a case of claiming an article is biased because you don’t agree with it. The article in question came from The Journal of American Studies. Isn’t it possible there are people out there who simply know better than you what happened (i.e. experts that have devoted their careers to such things).
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Dorset Girl » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:02 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Sorry to hear you've given up on this thread, DG. I don't see any other way of seriously discussing the issue without putting it in a left/right context. Now if I weren't here, you all could discuss it in a left/left context - without even realizing it!! Is that what you all want? That would really be "constraining themselves to thinking within a particular political ideology" - without realizing it. No mention of right/left, ideology or any of those things.


No, I haven't given up, hence my post an hour and a half ago. I was on the verge of giving up, but if we're actually going to get back to talking about the poll question, then I'm happy to stay around! However, I tend to spend a long time posting on FO, especially this thread lately. Today I have other priorities and can't spend ages replying, but I assure you I'm still around and I'm still listening!

I find this a bit condescending:
if I weren't here, you all could discuss it in a left/left context - without even realizing it
I suppose this is an alien way of looking at issues for me. If I debate something usually, I don't try and group the responses into political categories - I'm just used to saying my piece, receiving a response, and not even considering where on the political spectrum that lies. Perhaps that's my error, I don't know - but either way, it's not something I've done before so I find it difficult.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:14 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
No, I haven't given up, hence my post an hour and a half ago. I was on the verge of giving up, but if we're actually going to get back to talking about the poll question, then I'm happy to stay around! However, I tend to spend a long time posting on FO, especially this thread lately. Today I have other priorities and can't spend ages replying, but I assure you I'm still around and I'm still listening!

I find this a bit condescending:
if I weren't here, you all could discuss it in a left/left context - without even realizing it
I suppose this is an alien way of looking at issues for me. If I debate something usually, I don't try and group the responses into political categories - I'm just used to saying my piece, receiving a response, and not even considering where on the political spectrum that lies. Perhaps that's my error, I don't know - but either way, it's not something I've done before so I find it difficult.


I do go off into the liberal thing. To me its a logical extension of these issues. It is to me an ideological issue and can't easily and comprehensively be discussed without going into it.

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet? yes. Despite its flaws, current and past, it is in my view the best engine for realizing ones personal potential in the history of the planet.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:28 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:
No, I haven't missed the point JT. I obviously realise that physical evidence regarding 'eco-enlightened' (love that! :lol: ) Native Americans will be thin on the ground. My point was your assertion that most academics have a liberal bias cannot be logically true. If Liberalism was so prevalent in the US that every person of academic standing had a bias why hasn't this filtered through to the polls? There's only been one Democrat in the White House since 1980. Are you saying only educated people have a liberal bias? I'd be most surprised if you were... :wink:

I think this is simply a case of claiming an article is biased because you don’t agree with it. The article in question came from The Journal of American Studies. Isn’t it possible there are people out there who simply know better than you what happened (i.e. experts that have devoted their careers to such things).


BN, I disagree with your premise that there is a necessary correlation between most academics (I am saying soc sci specifically) having a liberal bias and having that filter through to the polls. Why would the professors and researchers represent a microcosm of the majority of the voting public? 'Person of academic standing'? Do you mean educated people? I'm not talking about educated people per se - i'm talking specifically about educators and researchers in academia. No, i'm not saying only educated people have a liberal bias. The conventional wisdom on this is that Republicans typically include working class and educated. Democrats typically include poor and 'highly' educated.Lots of overlap, of course, so don't yell at me. For example working class labor union constituency. For a long time - although its slowly changing now - liberalism was intellectual-centric.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:40 pm

Beer Necessity wrote:
I think this is simply a case of claiming an article is biased because you don’t agree with it. The article in question came from The Journal of American Studies. Isn’t it possible there are people out there who simply know better than you what happened (i.e. experts that have devoted their careers to such things).


Oh, I forgot this other part of your post. I don't make a habit of claiming an article is biased simply because I don't agree with it. It is possible that there are people out there who simply know better than me what happened, but I don't think that is the case. But itsn't it possible that the social sciences are corrupt as is the media, in that the field cannot give issues the rigor it needs due to ideological homogeneity?

Now, all my posts have been in response DG's and others. DG was basing her posts on some research. You will probably beat me up for this, but I DID NOT READ ANY OF HER ARTICLES/RESEARCH SOURCES. I didn't feel I needed to as I was reading her posts. The specific sources she consulted may have been entirely accurate. I don't know. But I know the general bias of which I speak, and based on DG's posts based on the sources, at least HER posts imo displayed some liberal bias.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:44 pm

Sorry about that. Ignore this guy, "JT". He's not in uniform.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Dorset Girl » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:11 pm

JT wrote:But I know the general bias of which I speak, and based on DG's posts based on the sources, at least HER posts imo displayed some liberal bias.


Did they? I'll take your word for it. I didn't think 'what can I write from a liberal point of view?' I just wrote what I thought, so if that's 'liberal', then slot me into that category if you like. Just please don't assume that you now know what I think about anything and everything just because I'm in a certain 'box'. :)

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet? yes. Despite its flaws, current and past, it is in my view the best engine for realizing ones personal potential in the history of the planet.

Out of all the comments you've made, personally I find this one the most reasoned and balanced. You've acknowledged it's not perfect, you've explained that despite this, your answer is still 'yes' you've clarified what you mean by it, you've acknowledged that it's your 'view', rather than concrete fact and you've explained how you've interpreted the poll question. All in one-and-a-bit sentences! And better still, you haven't mentioned the word 'liberal or dismissed anyone else's views!' :lol:
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Moon-Crane » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:12 pm

Sorry DG, this is slightly taking it away from the thread title for another short stint. I've read and digested some views of what is perceived as being liberal here, and i've come to the conclusion i'm probably not liberal - in it's modern usage. It seems liberal has been hijacked to be associated with something completely different to my notion of what one is. I think i am liberal, but seemingly not in the current definition, as used in the modern media. Or not in US terms, anyway. Do you think the media is genuinely liberal biased, JT? I don't see it in the UK - i see a lot of 'right-wing' opinion voiced on a number of issues currently - some i'd tend to agree with, some i certainly wouldn't? (Actually don't answer that here it's off topic.)

When we get down to the nuts and bolts, i like hearing JTs point of view, and in quite a few cases i don't regard myself as a million miles away from him on a few points raised here. You may think i'm a world apart, JT?

Maybe we should begin a seperate thread for a general political discussion, so as not to veer away from the 'is america the greatest ever nation' question that kicked this thread off? I'm happy to start one, but i'd like to give "JT the Rightwing American" the honour of kicking it off. Maybe we could start with the media question and kick on from there?
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Moon-Crane » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:23 pm

JT wrote:Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet? yes. Despite its flaws, current and past, it is in my view the best engine for realizing ones personal potential in the history of the planet.


I would find it hard to disagree. I genuinely believe a lot of US/UK/Western hatred is the age old chestnut of jealousy of a pretty successful system of life.

I've always found it difficult to comprehend how (a) if we're so bad in the world why lorry loads of both legal and illegal immigrants head for our shores (US/UK), above all others, when looking for better prospects, and (b) why people continue to live in our countries when they continuously complain about every way of life we live by.

To repeat myself from an earlier post, i couldn't imagine living a life as part of any other civilisation in history to give me a better life than the one i currently enjoy. We're pretty darned lucky as to where that accident of birth dropped us, imho.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Dorset Girl » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:27 pm

Erm, I deleted my own post by accident :oops: but it was along the lines of - apologies if I'm coming across as the 'thread police', I was just frustrated that the debate seemed to have stagnated, and several of my questions hadn't been answered. Now that they have been answered, I've no problem if this thread goes off topic. :) Usually I'm the one guilty of changing the subject, sorry...

MC, several of the issues that you listed in your post at the bottom of the last page would most likely make interesting threads too.

JT, I completely accept what you said in your post earlier, I think that's a reasonable opinion. I don't agree with it completely, but I understand and respect your reasoning.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:44 am

JT wrote:BN, I disagree with your premise that there is a necessary correlation between most academics (I am saying soc sci specifically) having a liberal bias and having that filter through to the polls. Why would the professors and researchers represent a microcosm of the majority of the voting public? 'Person of academic standing'? Do you mean educated people? I'm not talking about educated people per se - i'm talking specifically about educators and researchers in academia. No, i'm not saying only educated people have a liberal bias. The conventional wisdom on this is that Republicans typically include working class and educated. Democrats typically include poor and 'highly' educated.Lots of overlap, of course, so don't yell at me. For example working class labor union constituency. For a long time - although its slowly changing now - liberalism was intellectual-centric.


Well, why wouldn't they? The only difference I suppose would be that group of people would probably have a higher I.Q. than the general population. Are you saying the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to have liberal views? I wouldn't disagree with that for a second of course, although I'd be surprised if that was your argument...
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:56 am

Dorset Girl wrote:I was on the verge of giving up, but if we're actually going to get back to talking about the poll question, then I'm happy to stay around!


I did see the discussion about Native Americans to be directly related to the question of America's 'greatness'. JT stated the US was superior to the British and Roman Empires as she hadn't invaded sovereign lands to assert her influence over the world (certainly not in the same way the British and Romans did). I think America has just as much blood on her hands whilst emerging as a major world power (although it could be argued that it was the British spilling blood again - they just happened to be in America at the time!)
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:59 am

Beer Necessity wrote:
JT wrote:BN, I disagree with your premise that there is a necessary correlation between most academics (I am saying soc sci specifically) having a liberal bias and having that filter through to the polls. Why would the professors and researchers represent a microcosm of the majority of the voting public? 'Person of academic standing'? Do you mean educated people? I'm not talking about educated people per se - i'm talking specifically about educators and researchers in academia. No, i'm not saying only educated people have a liberal bias. The conventional wisdom on this is that Republicans typically include working class and educated. Democrats typically include poor and 'highly' educated.Lots of overlap, of course, so don't yell at me. For example working class labor union constituency. For a long time - although its slowly changing now - liberalism was intellectual-centric.


Well, why wouldn't they? The only difference I suppose would be that group of people would probably have a higher I.Q. than the general population. Are you saying the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to have liberal views? I wouldn't disagree with that for a second of course, although I'd be surprised if that was your argument...


First of all, if I came across as arrogant or condescending by saying "you miss the point" earlier, I apologize. Seems I said that to quite a few on here.
So why wouldn't professors and researchers represent a microcosm of the majority of the voting public? Political constituencies are a mosaic of demographic groups - each with their unique ideological and political affiliation characteristics. Some demographics do represent a pretty good microcosm of the voting public at large. Some only a narrow ideological strata - they are too homogeneous. Some demographic groups are very liberal, some are very conservatives. Social science professors and researchers happen to generally be quite liberal. The military happen to generally be a very conservative demographic. Preachers and ministers of various religions happen to be a very conservative demographic. You wouldn't say that preachers would represent an accurate microcosm - or cross section - of our voting public would you? Well, neither do university academics. They are too homogeneous. If these elite academicians vote, so do members of the military. If journalists in the main stream media vote, so do members of the clergy. Now then, why would the fact that recent presidents or congressman may have been mostly Republicans nullify my belief that soc sci academia is predominately liberal? Wouldn't that be logically akin to saying that members of the US military can't logically be overwhelmingly conservative because President Clinton (who 98% of us despised!) held office for two terms?
Now, am I saying the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to have liberal views? Unsurprisingly, my view is this is not really the case. And increasingly not so. Of course this is to imply that it has been the case in the past. It is true that historically most 'intellectuals' have tended to be more liberal. Now, 'intellectual' is as much education, orientation and style as it is a function of intelligence. In other words - its cultural. For example, G.W Bush is not very intellectual (something for which I criticize him for), but he has higher test scores than did John Kerry - someone thought to be much more intellectual that Bush. Now - here is the key for me: I think that the real avant garde of todays intellectualism - at least in the social sciences - is rightward. The neo-conservatives - the founders of neoconservatism being former liberals - seem to agree. It amazes me that so many of today's sophisticated, blue state, highly educated intellectuals are so bound by liberal tradition and the status quo that they can't see that modern liberalism is anachronistic. Its time of supremacy in the arena of ideas has passed. It may cycle back the other way sometime in the future, but at this point "change" would mean rolling back the excesses of modern liberalism. Maybe we should then be called Neo-liberals? :wink: [/i]
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:12 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote: For example, G.W Bush is not very intellectual (something for which I criticize him for), but he has higher test scores than did John Kerry - someone thought to be much more intellectual that Bush.


I kind of see George Bush as the US equivalent of Prince Phillip in some ways... when they speak, people are kind of holding their breath thinking 'oh my God, what's he going to say next?' They have both said some pretty cringey things! Worryingly, though, I think Prince Phillip comes across as actually being racist, whereas George Bush seems to unintentionally use malapropisms, etc. :lol:
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:20 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
JT the Rightwing American wrote: For example, G.W Bush is not very intellectual (something for which I criticize him for), but he has higher test scores than did John Kerry - someone thought to be much more intellectual that Bush.


I kind of see George Bush as the US equivalent of Prince Phillip in some ways... when they speak, people are kind of holding their breath thinking 'oh my God, what's he going to say next?' They have both said some pretty cringey things! Worryingly, though, I think Prince Phillip comes across as actually being racist, whereas George Bush seems to unintentionally use malapropisms, etc. :lol:


George Bush is not very articulate. His administration is not very articulate - perhaps reflecting this. But much of his - and many previous Republican administrations - reluctance to effectively communicate through the media is because the media is so overly hostile to them. They overdo on being careful and strategic in their communication. This sometimes makes it seem like they are hiding things.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:26 pm

I've done a brief search through some online journals, but I can't find anything about voting patterns in academics - everything else seems to be there, how race, social class, gender, etc. affects voting, how the military vote... but nothing on level of education that I can find yet.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:36 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:I've done a brief search through some online journals, but I can't find anything about voting patterns in academics - everything else seems to be there, how race, social class, gender, etc. affects voting, how the military vote... but nothing on level of education that I can find yet.


Interesting that is the case, isn't it? Journalists are kind of like that too. There have been some studies here in the states that I have seen reports on. I know for one thing that many members of these two fields have been so bombarded with criticism of liberal bias that they are skiddish about the topic. Many journalists claim they have no idea of the voting patterns of their peers! They say that even if they are left-leaning it does not mean they can't be objective! But they don't generally like to dwell on the issue.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:38 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/educa ... culty.html

....."One of the studies, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences."
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Dorset Girl » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:41 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:Interesting that is the case, isn't it? Journalists are kind of like that too. There have been some studies here in the states that I have seen reports on. I know for one thing that many members of these two fields have been so bombarded with criticism of liberal bias that they are skiddish about the topic. Many journalists claim they have no idea of the voting patterns of their peers! They say that even if they are left-leaning it does not mean they can't be objective! But they don't generally like to dwell on the issue.

Yeah, it would seem a pretty 'obvious' subject for an Academic. I imagine that it is quite popular at Undergraduate and Masters Dissertation level, due to the immediate availability of 'subjects' to answer questionnaires, but unfortunately if it is, I don't have access to those studies.

Mind you, so far I've looked through the first three pages of results for "voting patterns education" and it's come up with 623 pages in total, so maybe I'm speaking too soon! :lol:


EDIT: The problem is, which search terms to use?! Because of the nature of what I'm looking for, the word 'academics' doesn't work because that appears in most journal articles anyway. The word 'education' isn't helping either, because so does that!
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:02 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:

EDIT: The problem is, which search terms to use?! Because of the nature of what I'm looking for, the word 'academics' doesn't work because that appears in most journal articles anyway. The word 'education' isn't helping either, because so does that!


I used "studies of political leanings in academia". But i'm searching the net in general and not particular databases.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron

© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2020. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.