College grads agree w/ Liberals, while High School dropouts agree w/ Conservatives.

[JoshuaW]

If liberals are so smart, then why are so many of liberal views so stupid? Seriously? High taxes, big governemnt, socialism, stripping away gun rights, politicial correctness. Leads me to believe it's indoctrination rather than people freely accepting beliefs they find intellectually superior.

The ignorant possess a smug arrogance about their lack of need or desire for knowledge. It is not much compared to the joy of intellectual discovery, but enough to allow them to function in society on a primitive level.

 

[Billnew]

sigh, is there any study posted on this board that isn't posted with an obviously partisan agenda?

I get enough of this stupid liberal/conservative war at home.

But, yet , you come to the political forums?
Feel at home?

children go to college and are exposed to the real world, they contract liberalism.
.

Real world?
Drinking and partying to excess, learning the real world from people that have never worked in the real world, outside of school, and having your opinion handed to you?
The majority of college students leave college as liberals, then they get into the real world and figure out
life isn't like they were told in college.
It does make you wonder why, people that are packed into cities tend to be liberal, and those that have more room to move, tend to be Conservatives.
Those living in crime infested cities tend to be liberals,
and those living in lower crime areas tend to be Conservatives?

Huh, maybe its a simple fact of life. People tend to
meet the goals and restrictions set for them. If you expect people to be criminals they will, if you expect them to live within the law, they will.(as a whole).
Liberals offer liberal handouts, so society has more people willing to live "up" to the expectation of being on welfare.
Conservatives offer less free handouts, and people live up to be expected to work.

Liberals=slums
Conservatives= suburbs

Another thought,

Union workers tend to be less then college educated. Worker class, middle class people. So how does this
explain how more liberals are college educated. Seems labor union people would be a large part of the Democrats. But college Grads usually means supervisor
rather then comon laborer.

 

[MachZer0]

College is not about learning about American history, government, foreign policy and economy. I went through college, I was in engineering, of the things you listed, I only took economics. You don't seem to know what a college education entails.

Sounds like you somehow managed to avoid yuor General Education requirements which usually are replete with liberal indoctrination and entail some sort of specific multicultural course.

 

[SaintInChicago]

College is not about learning about American history, government, foreign policy and economy. I went through college, I was in engineering, of the things you listed, I only took economics. You don't seem to know what a college education entails. Most people pick a major and then work on that major. If I want to be a chemist, I'll be taking orgo and not a civics class. It's just plain sense, college is about choosing a field to start a post-graduate career, not learn about America.

A good university is exactly that: a university, not a college. At a decent university you have core classes to take that are there to give you a very broad education. I am a software engineer and I learned quite a bit about evolution, anthropology, global politics, and Ernest Hemmingway. Universities were not originally envisioned to be tech. schools as you describe them. They were originally meant to refine a person's character (eg Harvard originally requiring students to read the Bible twice a day) and to give a broad education and make better citizens. I recommend Wolf on Campus for a good understanding of how universities have been changing (in my opinion for the worse).

Your argument is just replete with bad logic. Have you even met a sizable number of high school dropouts?

Yes. My home town has quite a few.

And how can you even compare them to incoming freshmen, who are going into college.

That's for me to know and you to find out.

It makes sense they know more about government and history considering they've had those classes for four years in high school.

Bingo. While the dropouts may not have had all four years of learning, they have not had all the four years of dumbing down/liberalizing that colleges give us.

Those are not requirements college, thus it makes sense a person would know less about the subject if they are not studying it and/or not keeping up with politics, government, world news, etc. But I bet you were to ask these seniors about a subject in within their major, they would know a lot more than you or any freshman could ever know.

You should read that article I linked to. It addresses those things.

Uh...

Don't tell me you're glorifying teen pregnancy there.

I went to college, but I had to learn the hard way about many things in my life. I paid my entire way through college, pal. And I still come out, compared to you, an evil liberal.

Well, some are beyond even the best of us to help.

What I actually learned, was the silver-spoons who had most of their stuff paid through mommy and daddy come out more conservative IF they're devout to the church, and the church treats them well. Otherwise... yeah... they probably do turn more liberal.

There we go --the world according to Harpuia: working hard and developing a conservative, Puritan work ethic makes you liberal, being spoiled by liberal generosity and handouts makes you conservative.

Either way you're fighting a losing battle. Look at the premise of the OP: people who have gone through the process of being dumbed down in history, civics, foreign policy, and economics tend to take liberal stances on history, civics, foreign policy, and economics. Meanwhile, people who have not been dumbed down on history, civics, foreign policy, and economics tend to take conservative stances on history, civics, foreign policy and economics. Funny that.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

The ignorant possess a smug arrogance about their lack of need or desire for knowledge. It is not much compared to the joy of intellectual discovery, but enough to allow them to function in society on a primitive level.

Actually, the push for lowering standards in education to make sure that no child feels left out, is a contributing factor to the decline in education for American kids today. Liberals want everyone to play on equal ground, and prevent those that excel from advancing ahead of their peers. It's better to put everyone in the same education level, than to allow educational excellence be rewarded.

That my friend, is a liberal position within the United States. You learn 97% of what your taught at school within the real world, so higher education has nothing to do with real world. It merely gives you the foundation, and I mean basic foundation, to prepare for life.

 

[SaintInChicago]

Actually, the push for lowering standards in education to make sure that no child feels left out, is a contributing factor to the decline in education for American kids today. Liberals want everyone to play on equal ground, and prevent those that excel from advancing ahead of their peers. It's better to put everyone in the same education level, than to allow educational excellence be rewarded.

That my friend, is a liberal position within the United States. You learn 97% of what your taught at school within the real world, so higher education has nothing to do with real world. It merely gives you the foundation, and I mean basic foundation, to prepare for life.

So true. And is it just me or is his statement mind boggling in its backwardness?
The ignorant possess a smug arrogance about their lack of need or desire for knowledge. It is not much compared to the joy of intellectual discovery, but enough to allow them to function in society on a primitive level.

The ignorant possess a smug arrogance? It's the elite that are smug elitists. No one outside of La La Land is proud of lacking knowledge. Rather, it is the pseudo-intellectuals and priests of the white lab coat that think themselves better than the average man.

In the world of liberals it's not the elite who are elitist in accountance, but the unelite who are smug in there elitism.

 

[JoyJuice]

Liberalism as practiced in AMerican politics empahsizes equality of results not equality of opportunity. There is a vast difference. As for limiting the power of government, that may be sort of true is a general theoretical sense, but in terms of real life American liberalism is all about government being big and powerful enough to meet everyone's every need from birth to death. That's not limited, it's all powerful.

Sometimes the effectiveness of opportunity needs to be measured. If the protection of rights and promotion of opportunity were left to majority rule, there would be little if any effect. I think it prudent not to confuse the scope of Government, which conservatives enjoy the large size as well, with the power exerted by Government. The current is a prime example.

 

[SaintInChicago]

With the shift from high school where, as the article noted, where history is for the better part required all four years in high school; to college where the emphasis is shifted to courses dedicated to a specific disipline and major, couldn't there be a simpler rational rather than the evils of liberalism?

For the record: I do not think liberalism is evil, just very illogical, and is caused by the lack of knowledge that you speak of, not the cause of the lack of knowledge.

 

[BlueAfgani]

The ignorant possess a smug arrogance about their lack of need or desire for knowledge. It is not much compared to the joy of intellectual discovery, but enough to allow them to function in society on a primitive level.

Yea, and I'm the smug one, huh? I don't mind if you flame me, but I'ld take it as a courtesy if you'ld at least address the question I asked while you're calling me an idiot.

So can you explain to me how it is that even with your superior edumacation, that you can't see the flaws in all those things I mentioned? That you support? And you do support those things because you're a hyperpartisan. How you will come down on a given issue is predictable. Just go all the way to far left, and that's where you'll be. Or is it just easier to call me an idiot than defend your position?

 

[utdbear]

I'd like to see the breakdown by degree type as well. There's a big political difference between the Starbucks barista with a Masters of Liberal Arts than a corporate accountant with a business degree.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

or apply rational thought and disregard emotionalism as a first response to all issues. it also helps if one learns from history and doesn't think hugs from the international community makes past failed policies any better.

THis is an interesting statement, as Conservatives are the emotional ones. Think about it. Conservative ideas are based on emotional connections with a religion, and/or the thought that a certain idea, in principle works, but in reality it just doesn't.

The drug war, cutting down on social programs, abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty... all these things look good on paper, and SHOULD work, but we see from implementation that they don't work.

 

[JoyJuice]

For the record: I do not think liberalism is evil, just very illogical, and is caused by the lack of knowledge that you speak of, not the cause of the lack of knowledge.

Just curious, but what lack of knowledge is it they are missing out on?

The way I see it liberals understand the world we live in has nuances and consider those nuances. Conservatives on the otherhand tend to see the world in black and white, "for us or agin us" kind of Bill O'Reilly type of terms given a whole array of issue.

It takes more consideration and pondering of those nuances understood from knowledge, then it does to be a black and white linear thinker. It's why issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, Prayer in school, war on terror, and illegal immigration resonates so well.

 

[chaz345]

You mean through education? I think conservatives need to realise thay many of their views are not dying out because of some conspiracy to destroy the truth, but because their views belong <staff edit> to the past <staff edit>.

Which views would those be? The view that in general lower taxes means a stronger healthier economy? The view that it isn't the government's job to provide for everyone's every need? The view that there are nations in the world with leaders that would do very bad things if there wasn't a country with the military ability to stop them?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

It needs to be pointed out that college teaches people to be independant, and also teaches that America was founded on freedom. Both of these things go against Conservative ideals.

Liberals want to govern with freedom for all, so that our laws leave people to live out their morals and values, for the most part, except for the bare limit (murder... and such).

Abortion, gay marriage, drugs, every single law allows for the most freedom, so that people aren't forced to live against their morality.

This is completely opposed to the Conservative way of governing, which isn't really American, because they try and pass laws so that everyone must fall in line with their morals and values. This is not the principles that America was founded upon, and once leaving college, people realize this.

It's easy for Conservatives to convince uneducated people that our country was founded on Christian principles, and that our founders wanted America to be a Christian nation whose laws coincide with the bible, because they don't know any better. But, once you go to college and learn the truth, you see that Conservatives main premises are wrong, and that the way they govern is in direct conflict with the ideals of the nation.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Which views would those be? The view that in general lower taxes means a stronger healthier economy? The view that it isn't the government's job to provide for everyone's every need? The view that there are nations in the world with leaders that would do very bad things if there wasn't a country with the military ability to stop them?

You're leaving off a great deal of COnservative philosopy, especially the social issues and the desire to make Christianity the primary force guiding the country.

You have a point with all of these issues that you mention, and they are good on paper. But, in the real world, these ideals do not work.

Lower taxes and get rid of the social programs? Great idea! Except that hurts our citizens and leaves a great many of them without a way to live, which then causes crime and hurts us even more than the higher taxes.

Liberals and Conservatives both believe in a strong military, while Conservatives have proven over the last few years, that they are not able to use the military correctly, and also that their "support" of military actions against other countries, hurts our national security. So, what you have here, is two groups that believe the same thing about the military, just believe in different ways of using it. To me, if the Bush administration is a Conservative example of how to keep our country safe and use our military, then Conservatives are not to be trusted with the issue, because they have failed and are continuing to fail.

 

[chaz345]

Sometimes the effectiveness of opportunity needs to be measured. If the protection of rights and promotion of opportunity were left to majority rule, there would be little if any effect. I think it prudent not to confuse the scope of Government, which conservatives enjoy the large size as well, with the power exerted by Government. The current is a prime example.

I'm not against goverment taking steps to insure equal opportunity. My problem comes in when the effectiveness of such steps is measured soley based on equality of results. For example women largely have equal opportunity when it comes to getting jobs in typically male dominated fields like law enforcement, firefighting and the military. But we still have people saying that there is a problem because those fields are still pretty much male dominated. The fact that the reason for that is that not as many women are capable of the physical demands or even want to enter those fields is never considered as the reason for this.

 

[AirPo]

yes it says the disease called liberalism has thoroughly infected academia. i have a college degree but was able to resist emotional, unfactual doctrine based on getting the most hugs.

Clearly a reasoned, rational, factual, unemotional response.

 

[chaz345]

You're leaving off a great deal of COnservative philosopy, especially the social issues and the desire to make Christianity the primary force guiding the country.

You have a point with all of these issues that you mention, and they are good on paper. But, in the real world, these ideals do not work.

Lower taxes and get rid of the social programs? Great idea! Except that hurts our citizens and leaves a great many of them without a way to live, which then causes crime and hurts us even more than the higher taxes.

Liberals and Conservatives both believe in a strong military, while Conservatives have proven over the last few years, that they are not able to use the military correctly, and also that their "support" of military actions against other countries, hurts our national security. So, what you have here, is two groups that believe the same thing about the military, just believe in different ways of using it. To me, if the Bush administration is a Conservative example of how to keep our country safe and use our military, then Conservatives are not to be trusted with the issue, because they have failed and are continuing to fail.

The desire to make Christianity the primary guiding force of the country is not a core conservative value. It is a desire of a vocal minority of conservatives though.

Where did I say anything about getting rid of social programs?
Lower taxes, increased efficiency,and not expanding social programs to the point where they cover virtually everyone in the country.

As for liberals having a better view of how to use the military, how did Somallia work out? What threat was that situation to the US? I ask since the standard of when to use the military for liberals seems to me to be imminent danger to the US. What about Bosnia, where was the danger to the US there?


How did the response to the Cole and the Embassy bombings work out? Or the first WTC bombing? The weak responses to those events is what lead directly to 9/11.


For clarity I do agree that Bush and his administration(most especially Rumsfeld) totally messed up Iraq. Ignoring the military experts estimates of the force level required from the get go was about as stupid as it gets. Wether or not going in at all was necessary or good is a debate for another time but HOW it was done, in ignoring the military planning experts opinions was without a doubt just plain stupid.

 

[JoyJuice]

I'm not against goverment taking steps to insure equal opportunity. My problem comes in when the effectiveness of such steps is measured soley based on equality of results. For example women largely have equal opportunity when it comes to getting jobs in typically male dominated fields like law enforcement, firefighting and the military. But we still have people saying that there is a problem because those fields are still pretty much male dominated. The fact that the reason for that is that not as many women are capable of the physical demands or even want to enter those fields is never considered as the reason for this.

I personally have no issue with that. If results are not met based on the limited pool of individuals although the opportunity is there, I would rather that then the opposite where the opportunity itself were limited. It kind of works itself out.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

The desire to make Christianity the primary guiding force of the country is not a core conservative value. It is a desire of a vocal minority of conservatives though.

Where did I say anything about getting rid of social programs?
Lower taxes, increased efficiency,and not expanding social programs to the point where they cover virtually everyone in the country.

As for liberals having a better view of how to use the military, how did Somallia work out? What threat was that situation to the US? I ask since the standard of when to use the military for liberals seems to me to be imminent danger to the US. What about Bosnia, where was the danger to the US there?


How did the response to the Cole and the Embassy bombings work out? Or the first WTC bombing? The weak responses to those events is what lead directly to 9/11.


For clarity I do agree that Bush and his administration(most especially Rumsfeld) totally messed up Iraq. Ignoring the military experts estimates of the force level required from the get go was about as stupid as it gets. Wether or not going in at all was necessary or good is a debate for another time but HOW it was done, in ignoring the military planning experts opinions was without a doubt just plain stupid.

Bill Clinton wasn't a liberal, and to be honest, he was probably the most moderate President since I've been alive.