Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Screw mortgages, here’s the real banking crisis Previous entry: Unanswered questions from Soccergate

Stupid can’t be cured with a degree

In today’s news that shouldn’t be surprising but is, check out this story that was on the front page of the NY Times today.

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

 

I have finally dug through the giant pile of books on my nightstand to start reading Andrew Gelman’s extremely important examination of the realities behind the stereotypes Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do.  And the book was inspired by the media stereotype that conservatives are less wealthy and educated than liberals.  Conservatives have very successfully pushed forward this narrative about the “liberal elite”—-in their worldview, liberalism was invented by over-privileged white people and then foisted on the rest of the Democratic coalition, characterized as illiterate sheep.  Gelman dives deep into the reasons why this narrative had any traction at all in the mainstream media.  It wasn’t just malice, but it’s sort of complicated, so you should read the book.  (It’s a quick, breezy read with LOTS of graphs.  Seriously, there’s like two a page.)  But the book definitively answers the perplexing question of our time, which is, “Why do poor people in red states vote against their economic interests?”  The answer is, quite simply, they don’t.  There is no paradox.  To quote Gelman: “If poor people were a state, they would be ‘bluer’ even than Massachusetts; if rich people were a state, they would be as ‘red’ as Alabama, Kansas, the Dakotas, or Texas.”

Of course, I don’t think the stereotype of tea baggers have ever been that they’re poor.  But I do think there’s a supposition that they’re lower or middle middle class, and not well-educated.  That’s based on the illiterate signage, the bad clothes, the obnoxious pride in having bad taste, and of course the mind-bendingly stupid shit they believe.  And that’s not just regarding the paranoid fantasies about Obama, but more straightforwardly asinine stuff, like that Medicare isn’t government health care.  It’s easy to assume that these folks are just uneducated, and that they’d wise up if they got educated.  And of course, the assumption that lack of education correlates with lower income is something that comes from demonstrable facts, so it’s easy to leap to thinking the tea baggers are less wealthy than the liberal elite they carp about. 

But wait!, you may say, look, I hate that “liberal elite” shit as much as you do, but they have a point.  I mean, are you going to tell me the East Coast isn’t thick with white liberals who dress nicely, have strong opinions on coffee drinks and wine, and all have fancy college degrees and most likely graduate degrees?

Well, of course.  Gelman actually talks about that in the book, and how that impacts the image of the “liberal elite”.  The data does show that a lot of the professional class leans towards the Democrats.  Lawyers, educators, journalists, high level bureaucrats, those sort of people.  But those people are far from the majority of college-educated people, and a lot of the time, their salaries are actually lower than the average for people of their education levels, because they swapped out money-making for meaningfulness in their careers.  And they cluster where the jobs are.  And they socialize with each other.  And they begin to think their circle is bigger and more meaningful than it is.  Since journalists come from this group of people, they have a megaphone to perpetuate their own stereotypes.  And since conservative journalists and pundits live in this world, they develop an outrageously stupid narrative about how they’re so oppressed because everyone in their small slice of the world thinks of them as the dweebs. 


What’s forgotten in all this is that most college-educated people don’t get degrees in journalism, philosophy, literature, or public policy and then go on to have careers in media or law.  Anyone who’s worked at a college can tell that half the students at any given time are business majors.  And then you have computer science and all those other majors with a direct career path laid out for you.  And guess what!  People with those degrees start making more money right out of the gate. According to this article, the most lucrative degrees are engineering, computer science, and business, and the least are all on the liberal arts end of the scale. The “liberal elite” are poorer than the people sneering at them.  Which isn’t to say that the conservatives who sneer at the liberal elite don’t feel the real jealousy that crackles right under the surface of their self-righteous pose.  I think we’re right to see that they envy the cultivation of taste and more free-wheeling sexuality of the “liberal elite”.  Personally, I’ve seen more blog posts than I care to count from conservatives griping about how liberal blogs think they’re so cool, but blah blah they’re lazy and worthless. 

And that’s just talking about this particular slice of the pie.  When you look at the bigger pie of the whole country, then the fact that tea baggers are richer and more educated than the rest of the country should give you a “no duh” moment.  If it looks like the tea baggers are a bunch of privileged cry babies who don’t want to share, then well, you know what they say about quacking like a duck.  These aren’t the economically stressed people lashing out that some might hope.  The people who are getting hit the hardest in this recession are working class people without college degrees.  You know, most of the country?

Calling the tea baggers “populist” is something conservative pundits do just to confuse the issue.  And it works, because even though tea baggers are, in reality, highly privileged people who are motivated by a mean urge to sneer at and beat down the people they think are beneath them, they also come across as giant fucking morons.  Which they are!  But alas, the problem has nothing to do with lack of education.  They have plenty of degrees and access to learning.  But you can lead a horse to water, you know?

No, tea baggers believe stupid shit because they want to.  It’s willful ignorance.  They spin outrageous theories because they know that the naked truth about what they believe would make them look like giant bigots and big meanies.  So, instead of saying, “I don’t want health care reform because I like a system where poor people are shut out because that means I don’t have to see them in my doctor’s office,” they start yelling about the slide into socialism.  Instead of saying, “I’m an incredibly selfish person who wants to keep my government-funded Medicare, but I don’t want to see that single mom down the street get health insurance because she’s a slut and I want to see her suffer,” they say that Obama’s trying to take their Medicare and that’s socialism.  They’re not confused because they were badly educated and don’t have a grasp on critical thinking.  In fact, I think a lot of us would be surprised to find that the person hollering ignorant shit about Obama’s birth certificate often turns around and is highly competent at a job that requires the cognitive skills they don’t bring to their politics.  They’re willfully ignorant, and this distinction should never be forgotten when trying to understand them. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:33 AM • (139) Comments

Sounds like a great book, I’ll try to check Gelman out.

Comment #1: atheist  on  04/15  at  10:31 AM

They may be technically “richer” and more educated than the population at large, but that’s a function of who they are: white, older, male, upper middle class.  By definition, people in this group are be all of these things.  The real test is how they compare to non-teapartiers in the same demographic group.

Comment #2: Sjt  on  04/15  at  10:44 AM

I believe the “dumbest” liberal is ten times smarter than the “smartest” conservative.  Conservatism is a dumbing down force that encourages and even romanticizes willful ignorance.  From supply-side economics to creationism to global warming denial to neocon war policies to free trade to racism/sexism/homophobia/bigotry, conservatism is a brain drain across the board.

Comment #3: Albert Cirrus  on  04/15  at  10:49 AM

So, why can’t they spell?

Comment #4: rowmyboat  on  04/15  at  10:55 AM

You know, there is also the very widespread belief that all education is broad-based. That having a degree means you are informed on more topics than someone who doesn’t.

I can’t tell you how many people I have met who have degrees - even advanced degrees and can’t in any meaningful way discuss something outside their field. People who never read books, fiction or non, who don’t discuss anything outside of gossip and whatever narrow interest they have.

And of course, we all know people without formal education, or with focused education, who are of limited means, and still manage to be widely read, well-informed, critical thinking people.

And, of course, in some areas, both geographically and financially, that broad, diverse, empathic experience actually gets in the way of financial success - having a life and friends can get in the way of single-mindedly clawing your way to the top.

Comment #5: Lymis  on  04/15  at  10:58 AM

#5
<blockquote>And, of course, in some areas, both geographically and financially, that broad, diverse, empathic experience actually gets in the way of financial success - having a life and friends can get in the way of single-mindedly clawing your way to the top.</blockqutoe>

I feel this problem often.

Comment #6: atheist  on  04/15  at  11:14 AM

so the morans have brians but they are fuckin retarded because they decided to be idiots…

I knew it was something like that!  thanks smile

Comment #7: ewellone  on  04/15  at  11:31 AM

I think that the baseline here is that conservatives are, overall, more likely to have a college degree, but that progressives are more likely to have a graduate degree (other than an MBA and possibly JD or MD).  About 25% of Americans have a BA, while only 10% of Americans have a masters and about 1% have a doctorate.  Conservatives tend to be more privileged and want to retain that privilege, without recognizing it for what it is.

Comment #8: DrDick  on  04/15  at  11:36 AM

So, why can’t they spell?

Possibly because a lot of them are used to having secretaries and spellcheck programs at their disposal. The way this part of the world is set up these days, if you don’t want to bother learning perfect spelling and grammar, you really don’t have to, and you’ll get by pretty well, generally.

Then again, the way this part of the world is set up these days, you don’t always need much grasp of logic or deference to reality to get by pretty well, either.

Comment #9: Kyra  on  04/15  at  11:40 AM

Anyone who’s worked at a college can tell that half the students at any given time are business majors.

No, as someone who worked at a western land grant university, I can tell you that the two larges colleges therein were Engineering and Letters & Sciences while the smallest were Business and Art & Architecture.  The colleges of Forestry & Resource Management, Education and Argiculture were as large as the college of Business, if not larger, all 13 years I attended and worked there.  Most of that time, I worked in the registrar’s office, including the portion doing the enrollment verification to the state board, so know the actual numbers.

Comment #10: helen w. h.  on  04/15  at  11:51 AM

I can’t spell.  But I can use spell check.

No, seriously, the ability to spell is more related to how much you read, because you just pick up on the spellings of words by osmosis that way.  And that’s the thing.  The frat daddies with business degrees we all remember from college don’t necessarily grow up to be voracious readers.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/15  at  11:52 AM

It was pointed out ages ago that whatever conservtives are accusing liberals of doing, they are doing themselves. So why is it a surprise that the conservatives are the real elites?

It would be nice if the Democrats could leap on this news by characterizing the tea partiers as a bunch of fat cats from gated communities who think they’re better than everybody else. I’m not holding my breath for it to happen, however. And now journalists will be so impressed with the news that tea partiers are more educated, the coverage is going to get more fawning than ever. Journalists these days have never met an elite they weren’t overjoyed to suck up to.

Comment #12: sophronia  on  04/15  at  11:54 AM

A lot of people have trouble spelling when it comes time to write big letters on posterboard.  I’m a fairly decent speller and even I know to do a first-draft outline in pencil and step back and look at it carefully before I go in with the markers. When you’re too busy focusing on using the space correctly and making sure the letters are large enough to be read and legible, you’re not focusing on the actual word.

I suppose teabaggers are so assured of their own superiority they don’t think they have to do that proofing step. But hey, it’s funny.

Comment #13: Mighty Ponygirl  on  04/15  at  12:01 PM

For a very long time and at many schools, “college-educated” was more of a class status marker than a sign of educational achievement. If you were a man from a local “good” family, you went to your father’s school as a legacy student, less to learn anything than to make contacts among your social circle who would become the local business community for the rest of your lives.

Comment #14: Llelldorin  on  04/15  at  12:05 PM

Well, the ones in my family are split.  The two biggest ones are high school graduates, the other two are college grads.  I do think of them as stupid anyway, I admit it.  I guess I am one of the stereotypical liberal elites but I can’t hold a conversation with these people.  Maybe that’s the easy way out for me.  If I think about all four of them enough, there’s no doubt that though they have different levels of education, they are all very selfish people.

They’re all racists too.  Every single one of them.  Even the one who is an admistrator at a university in N Carolina now.

Comment #15: JennyLI  on  04/15  at  12:05 PM

I don’t want to make excuses for those morons, but maybe we shouldn’t draw too many conclusions from the spelling, for a couple of reasons.

First, it’s hard to spell check when one is scrawling on a poster board with a marker.  Also, it’s common these days to write everything with a keyboard, so writing by hand is going to be prone to mistakes.  I’ve been known to misspell my own name when signing a check—the letters just don’t flow like they did when I was younger, basically because I almost never print or write anything any more.

Second, are teabagger signs really more commonly misspelled than lefty signs?  All I know of the teabaggers is the signs the media and blogs choose to show me, and I have a feeling the selection process might be a bit biased.

So. Try not to focus on the spelling.  Focus instead on the idiocy implicit in the content of the signs.  Anyone who ties czars to socialism is just asking for ridicule.

Comment #16: xebecs  on  04/15  at  12:06 PM

“Conservatives tend to be more privileged and want to retain that privilege, without recognizing it for what it is.”

I think at some level they are perfectly aware that they are privileged, but at the same time they’ve absorbed and amplified the conservative victimhood meme: 

They are So heavily taxed! and Taken advantage of by all those colored people! 

It’s so unfair that Those people have all sorts of cheating, liberal benefits like Affirmative Action! 

It’s obvious They are undeserving, unlike the Teabaggers who’ve worked hard for what they have! 

All this makes the white conservative Americans who work so very hard an endangered species!

All they are trying to do is show the world how very downtrodden and exploited they are!  Can’t you see?  Won’t you sympathize with their awful situation?  Don’t you understand that they built this country, only to see it overrun by a bunch of Mexicans, Coloreds, and Asians who have ruined America?

Won’t somebody think of the poor white man?...

***

With all that bullshit swirling around in their minds, it’s no wonder they can easily ignore that they have benefited tremendously from what they are and who they are.  Instead they want desperately to believe some bogus and idealistic Randian idea that they have been rewarded by nature entirely because of what they’ve achieved through their awesomely hard work and because of their beautiful minds…

Comment #17: MikeEss  on  04/15  at  12:07 PM

MightyPonyGirl those pics are hysterical, thanks!

Comment #18: JennyLI  on  04/15  at  12:09 PM

I’m not sure if my mind is blown or if I’m just having trouble understanding what Andrew Gelman means when he says, “If poor people were a state, they would be ‘bluer’ even than Massachusetts; if rich people were a state, they would be as ‘red’ as Alabama, Kansas, the Dakotas, or Texas.”  In my opinion, the leaders of the conservative movement have allied themselves with the religious right in order to get so-called “values voters” to vote against their own economic interests.  They sprinkle in divisive social issues like abortion, gun control, and gay marriage when they speak to their base to hide the fact that their true motiviation is to secure power and wealth in the same small fraction of the population that has traditionally possessed it.  Living in Utah (NOT a Mormon), I know many people who have consistently voted Republican because of “values”, and without really believing that they are getting screwed economically.  So how is it that Gelman can say that lower-income people would be ‘blue’ when I see so many of them as single-issue or “values” voters?

Comment #19: mythbri  on  04/15  at  12:26 PM

Sorry - reading back on that, I don’t feel that it’s at all clear.  What I mean is - does Gelman think that a state of lower-income people just be ‘bluer’ economically, or would they also be ‘bluer’ socially?  Because to me, ‘bluer’ means all kinds of things.

Comment #20: mythbri  on  04/15  at  12:43 PM

I couldn’t agree more.  This description matches up perfectly with my tea partier sympathizer relatives, some of whom are engineers, all of whom are quite smart.

But they are not really mean people, either.  They are people who bring a *tribal* sensibility to politics, not their brains *or* their hearts.  That is what it is all about IMO.  That is why my relatives who in their daily lives are nice, normal people with good brains and no discernible racist (or even classist) tendencies can nod enthusiastically at Glen Beck.  He speaks to their lizard brain, the stuff that was laid down when they were tiny kids growing up, to their sense of belonging to a particular cultural group.

Comment #21: teabea  on  04/15  at  12:51 PM

And since conservative journalists and pundits live in this world, they develop an outrageously stupid narrative about how they’re so oppressed because everyone in their small slice of the world thinks of them as the dweebs that they are.

 

fixed.

Comment #22: jamie d  on  04/15  at  01:06 PM

Jaime d @22: I thought the same thing, then let it go.

We did our taxes last week.  Are my spouse and I the only engineers (since some here tend to bashing all of us who are not strictly liberal arts/education folks) to notice we are better off, personally, under the current tax rate?  Somehow I doubt it.

Comment #23: helen w. h.  on  04/15  at  01:12 PM

I heard a clip of Palin speaking at that Southern Republican thing this past weekend and heard her say “nu-cu-lar.”  It made me laugh at first, but then wonder if she was doing it on purpose.  How can anyone not know how to say that word after 8 years of hearing Bush say it wrong?  My co-worker said she’s noticed that it seems to be a trend on Fox News now as well, and she even caught one of them saying it correctly in one sentence and then switching back to the wrong pronunciation a little bit later. 

This anti-intellectualism fever is really getting on my nerves.

Comment #24: Blitzgal  on  04/15  at  01:17 PM

My Socialist/Liberal/ObaMessianic/ACORN/MoveOn overlords have informed me (via NPR and the New York Times) that I am to ignore the troll farting in the corner…

Comment #25: MikeEss  on  04/15  at  01:26 PM

Sorry - reading back on that, I don’t feel that it’s at all clear.  What I mean is - does Gelman think that a state of lower-income people just be ‘bluer’ economically, or would they also be ‘bluer’ socially?  Because to me, ‘bluer’ means all kinds of things.

What he’s saying is that, contrary to popular belief, poor people are more likely to vote Democratic.  The Republicans put forth a smokescreen of being All About the Common Man, but most of the people who vote Republican are middle-class at a minimum.

Comment #26: Mnemosyne  on  04/15  at  01:27 PM

I thought this was interesting and pertinent:  they tested people with a genetic condition called Williams Syndrome where people have zero social anxiety and a poor ability to read social situations and found that they showed no racial bias.  The scientists who did the study are hypothesizing that racism is related to social anxiety, while the Scienceblogs link above is of the opinion that it’s because Williamses* are unable to pick up on subtle social clues, so racial dogwhistles go right over their heads.

They still showed gender bias, though, so that seems to come from a slightly different part of the brain.

* That’s the preferred term by the people who have the syndrome.

Comment #27: Mnemosyne  on  04/15  at  01:35 PM

Two points: First, I think right-wing talkers have done a really superb job in redefining the poor to mean “everyone who doesn’t make as much money as I do.” So if someone listening to Rush Limbaugh is making $29,000 a year (which isn’t a lot at all), “the poor” is everyone who makes less than that. To Rush Limbaugh, every single one of his listeners are “the poor,” since I think it’s safe to say that all of them make less than he does. And somehow, people are convinced that a guy who works three hours a day, takes numerous days off each month, and makes tens of millions of dollars a year has a pulse on what’s happening in America. I even cringe when Ed Schultz talks about how he’s a small business owner. Even though he is, I think it’s stupid to believe that a guy with two shows knows what it’s like to be the little guy. I don’t care how many small businesses he owns or pick-up trucks he drives. He’s still privileged in every way, including economically.

Kind of related to my first point, while tea party supporters might be more formally educated, they clearly have very little street smarts. Conservatives have the great ability of coming up with simple answers to very complicated problems. They’re capable of rational thought, but things like “race,” “gender,” “class,” and “sexual orientation” are the wrenches that stop the gears from turning. Brown people, women and trans people, poor people, and gays fall outside the mainstream and are erased or ignored from their everyday thoughts and experiences. That’s why anti-choicers can look at pictures of intact fetuses and call that “abortion,” while also believing that abortion tears apart fetuses with suction or curets. Both can’t be true at the same time, but the mere mention of women throws off their reasoning capabilities. I’m sure that education was very expensive, but conservatives don’t seem to be using their well-educated brains.

Comment #28: Emily  on  04/15  at  01:37 PM

Why, anybody can have a brain. That’s a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven’t got: a diploma.—The Wizard of Oz

Comment #29: rea  on  04/15  at  01:48 PM

“My Socialist/Liberal/ObaMessianic/ACORN/MoveOn overlords have informed me (via NPR and the New York Times) that I am to ignore the troll farting in the corner…”

Was this directed at me?

Comment #30: Blitzgal  on  04/15  at  01:49 PM

Mighty Ponygirl, thanks for those; I needed the laugh today.  (I especially like the one who can apparently spell ‘megalomaniacal’ and ‘narcissist’ but can’t manage ‘rogue’ ...)

Blitzgal, I heard Palin say that too & thought the exact same thing: ‘Is it my imagination or do I remember hearing her say that word correctly before?  Have right-wingers actually been training themselves to mispronounce it?’

Comment #31: GSDavis  on  04/15  at  01:53 PM

“... highly competent at a job that requires the cognitive skills they don’t bring to their politics.  They’re willfully ignorant ...”

I’d love to understand the psychology behind this phenomenon. Anyone have ideas about this?

Comment #32: rx7ward  on  04/15  at  01:54 PM

(that’s obviously at #25, not #31)

Comment #33: GSDavis  on  04/15  at  01:55 PM

Haven’t read through the comments, so I’m just responding to the post.

I think “populist” may be a tad more apt a description than you do, Amanda. Surely if we define “populist” as “supporting the interests of (or representing) the great mass of the people,” the teabaggers aren’t populists. But if we see populism as a kind of political rhetoric, that presents itself as speaking for the great mass of people against some elite, the teabaggers are very much populists. And they are a perfect example of the post-Civil Rights Revolution version of rightwing US populism, in which anxieties about race, though all over the place, tends to be (often thinly) disguised. And the elite (or imagined elite) against which the teabaggers array themselves is very similar to the “New Class” that more sophisticated conservatives have been complaining about since the mid-1960s.

Comment #34: Ben Alpers  on  04/15  at  02:05 PM

@ blitzgal:  no, it was directed at knuterockne, who shows up from time to time to troll.  You’re good!

Comment #35: jackspratt  on  04/15  at  02:06 PM

I’m pretty sure MikeEss was referring to the resident troll at #23, not Blitzgal.  Blitzgal seems to be a regular member of the community who holds strong opinions and debates vigorously on them; certainly not the usual definition of a troll used here.

Comment #36: helen w. h.  on  04/15  at  02:08 PM

Ah, yeah I didn’t even see what he was getting at with that comment so I think it barely registered when I was reading through them.

Comment #37: Blitzgal  on  04/15  at  02:11 PM

Ack, now I’m too vague.  Knuterockne’s comment barely registered with me while I was reading through the thread so I didn’t spot the troll first time around.

Comment #38: Blitzgal  on  04/15  at  02:12 PM

All this “teabaggers/wingnuts/Republicans are all oafish morons and we’re so smart” stuff may be fun, but reality is a bit more complicated.

For one thing, people are all different.  People may agree with some “teabagger” positions and disagree with others.  If you actually talk to people (rather than simply stereotyping and ridiculing them), especially the people who _don’t_ get the air time, you find that you can’t predict how they’ll feel on some issues just by knowing how they feel on others.  For example, my boss is a Republican and in love with capitalism, big business, and the right of the rich to get richer, but holds feminist views (without calling them that), has _hired_ gay people, etc.

And they’re not all rich, either.  My brother has a lot of “wingnut” views (e.g., he thinks that Obama must be lying about being born in the USA), but is not rich and didn’t get a college degree until he was over 50.

A lot of people who Progressives might think of as “conservative” are pretty resentful of the way they get lumped together in the “news” media with people who they don’t agree with at all.  And they also resent “liberals” because they believe that “liberals” don’t bother to find out anything about them, but just stereotype and look down on them.  And to judge by a lot of what I read in Progressive blogs, they’re right.

I know it’s fun to make fun of people (we all learned that in Junior High School), but if you want to make a difference, you have to change people’s minds, and to do that, you have to get to know who they really are.  You don’t have to agree with them (I don’t), but you have to treat them with the respect due every human being.

Comment #39: AMM  on  04/15  at  02:14 PM

“I know it’s fun to make fun of people (we all learned that in Junior High School), but if you want to make a difference, you have to change people’s minds, and to do that, you have to get to know who they really are.”

I know this is considered common sense, but in my experience, you can’t change (adult) people’s minds.  We can change our own minds, but not other people’s.  The best you can hope is to present alternative perspectives, and perhaps some will recognize traits in themselves they are unhappy about, and then they might seek to change themselves in reaction. 

The more you attempt to directly change people’s opinions, the harder they will cling to them, as much out of spite as anything…

Comment #40: MikeEss  on  04/15  at  02:24 PM

AMM:

Of course all of the Tea Party protesters are individuals, and hold individual beliefs.  Most of my family hold conservative views, with just a smattering of slightly more liberal ideas among some of them.  But when you say that they resent “liberals” for lumping them all together, isn’t that also a collective stereotype?  I have friends who hold liberal views with a smattering of more conservative ideas, and they are individuals - just like the protesters are individuals.  And yet, I haven’t had any experiences where these protesters have tried to respect me as a human being, or get to know my individual beliefs.  When do you suppose they will stop seeing “liberals” and the media as large oppressive groups and start seeing and respecting them as individuals?

Comment #41: mythbri  on  04/15  at  02:28 PM

You know what amazes me? With the Liberal Elite moniker the people hurling it about are rich: Lush Rimjob for one. Also the anti intellectual, anti science worldview these people have adapted (and are trying to force on the rest of us.) goes against the tradition of American innovation. Ben Franklin started the Free Library system, **The American Philosophical Society and had a major role in the founding of the Univ.of Penn. Jefferson sponsered the Lewis and Clark expedition.
I’m tired of this shit. For 30 years this has been rammed down our collective throats, with the Democrats not taking a stand against it. I just read a book writen in the early 80’s about the rise of the Moral Majority. So much of it is true today and it’s become much more mainsteam now.
I’m SICK of it! (sorry for typos)

** Washington and Jefferson were also members.

Comment #42: pitbullgirl65  on  04/15  at  02:28 PM

The whole big push toward college education started during the depression, to keep young people with minimal family responsibilities out of the labor market. For a lot of people it means you’ve had the resources to be sent to a social warehouse for 4 years.

Comment #43: paul  on  04/15  at  02:34 PM

No, as someone who worked at a western land grant university, I can tell you that the two larges colleges therein were Engineering and Letters & Sciences while the smallest were Business and Art & Architecture.  The colleges of Forestry & Resource Management, Education and Argiculture were as large as the college of Business, if not larger, all 13 years I attended and worked there.  Most of that time, I worked in the registrar’s office, including the portion doing the enrollment verification to the state board, so know the actual numbers.

I work for one of the few semi-private colleges in America (i.e. they went bankrupt but instead of being closed or taken wholly over they were allowed to retain several seats on the board while moving everything else into the state’s structure).  I can tell you the difference is that the state associated and controlled colleges are more liberal arts based.  It feeds into the whole state-friendly/unfriendly belief structure.  Private schools tend to have smaller liberal arts programs unless they’re USC or some other massive private university.  In exchange they tend to have much larger business & science schools because the wealthier class can afford the triple-tuition for what is in most cases a lesser education. 

There are two distinct paths in america, the state school educated path that seems to lead toward liberalism and the private school path that leads towards conservatism.  They aren’t necessarily exclusive of each other but there is some truth to this because of what I mentioned earlier and what the article gets at. 

The fact that we seem to have created moderately wealthy voting blocs in the suburbs & rural zones is intriguing.  So the store managers & above are the ones voting Kansas red or is this simply getting at the fiscal conservatives?  I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the bad spelling signs came from the veterans & poorer social conservatives who were able to make a decent dollar in the military, trades, or business while getting a BA in BA.

Comment #44: Xeranar  on  04/15  at  02:37 PM

It’s that same group of angry white males who put Bush in in the first place.  Sure- it’s not a literal one for one correspondence, but it’s the same demographic, hailing from the same geographic areas.  It’s not anew group, but it probably seems it, because they’ve spent their whole lives making fun of protestors, and yet now that’s their new job.  Oh how far those who think they should be the mighty have fallen. wink

Same group with a new name and more publicity.  They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Comment #45: drachonfire  on  04/15  at  02:38 PM

Also, it’s common these days to write everything with a keyboard, so writing by hand is going to be prone to mistakes.

Why didn’t they type it in for spellcheck first?  If anything, spelling errors are MORE stupid in a world where your dictionary looks words up for you itself.

Comment #46: Punditus Maximus  on  04/15  at  02:41 PM

Second, are teabagger signs really more commonly misspelled than lefty signs?  All I know of the teabaggers is the signs the media and blogs choose to show me, and I have a feeling the selection process might be a bit biased.
Comment #16: xebecs

Well, since the media never covers liberal events, gatherings or protests, we’ll never know.
For instance, the dead tree edition of the Seattle Times has 2 front page articles on Teabagger protesting taxes.  But had nothing on the imigration reform protests week before last.  (ok, maybe buried on A-10)

Comment #47: cynickal  on  04/15  at  02:42 PM

“In fact, I think a lot of us would be surprised to find that the person hollering ignorant shit about Obama’s birth certificate often turns around and is highly competent at a job that requires the cognitive skills they don’t bring to their politics.  They’re willfully ignorant, and this distinction should never be forgotten when trying to understand them.”

Exactly!

This is why anyone who has ever dealt with creationists recognizes this particular brand of stupidity a mile away.

Comment #48: Mike the Mad Biologist  on  04/15  at  02:43 PM

There’s a good “Room for Debate” segment on this poll over at the NYTimes right now. The striking thing is how the more conservative contributors immediately latched onto the question that ostensibly shows that tea partiers aren’t concerned with Obama’s race. They say race is not an issue! Case closed! Roger that. 

Paul Butler of George Washington University neatly deflates this conceit:

“Instead Tea Party supporters complain about too many taxes, though they think their own taxes are fair. They fuss about excess government spending but they support Social Security and Medicare. Overwhelmingly they believe that Barack Obama doesn’t share the needs and problems of people like them, or the values of “most Americans.” These code words have been around long enough, everybody gets them.”

Indeed. Back in the 60’s, these same people (or their parents) were not racist, but merely concerned about “crime” and “property values.”

Comment #49: jonas  on  04/15  at  02:43 PM

I’m actually pretty impressed that the NYTimes printed this story and ran this poll. I figured they’d just rely on the media-created popular perception that the teabaggers are “Real Americans” who were Independants before health care reform. I think it’s a huge step that a publication that apologized for not being sufficiently critical of ACORN is actually taking a critical eye to this movement. The more recognition the Teabaggers get as the traditional far right the less influence they have over American politics as a whole.

Comment #50: rivki  on  04/15  at  02:46 PM

I’ve met plenty of people with lucrative graduate degrees who are none-the-less stuck in a peasant mentality: xenophobic, insecure, feeling they’re entitled because of race or religion, often proud of their ignorance of things outside their profession. Your typical Teabagger is more likely to be a middle-aged coder or middle manager who lives in the burbs than someone who works with his hands.

The key point to remember is that this is not about finances or education but rather about social class. Since the American MSM avoids that topic like the plague, however, they and their pollsters are left with the lazy score keeping of “baccalaureate degrees” (with no qualification or elaboration) and income. This, combined with the desire of their sponsors (e.g. the Koch family) to make astroturf seem like grassroots, is why they’re called populists.

Comment #51: Gracchus.  on  04/15  at  02:49 PM

Xeranar:

In addition, there are plenty of nominally liberal arts majors—history and political science stand out—that are favorites for people going into business, especially at the upper levels.

And when you’re talking about voting blocs, one thing to remember is the general low participation rate in the US. If you have any group of people who vote in almost every election, they will have the same effect on elections as a group twice as large that votes at the national average rate, or a group 4+ times as large that votes at the lower-end rates. So in effect, 200,000 well-off people outvote a million poor ones.

Comment #52: paul  on  04/15  at  02:52 PM

They may be technically “richer” and more educated than the population at large, but that’s a function of who they are: white, older, male, upper middle class.  By definition, people in this group are be all of these things.  The real test is how they compare to non-teapartiers in the same demographic group.

This is worth repeating. Reporting on polls almost always focuses on (meaningless) means. A proper social science study could have determined how being a tea-partier actually affects social position, but this poll just said that tea partiers are old white men.

Comment #53: Tree  on  04/15  at  02:55 PM

The other thing about attorneys and physicians is that for various reasons they tend to come into contact with a wider variety of humanity and its weaknesses/frailties than do holders of commodity professional and technical degrees.

In addition, there are plenty of nominally liberal arts majors—history and political science stand out—that are favorites for people going into business, especially at the upper levels.

That’s definitely the case with history—it’s been a long-time favourite undergrad degree for people who go on to executive management. A lot of them are fiscal or economic conservatives, but there aren’t a lot who are social conservatives. And unlike the Teabagger yahoos, they can argue their position coherently and without being handed talking points by Rush or some wingnut welfare sugar daddy.

Comment #54: Gracchus.  on  04/15  at  02:58 PM

You don’t have to agree with them (I don’t), but you have to treat them with the respect due every human being.

I’m sorry, but on intellectual matters one has to earn respect and credibility. This is the central failing of the MSM: that every issue has two equally valid sides. That’s not always the case, and while everyone has the right to their opinion, not everyone has the right to get a serious hearing.

Comment #55: Gracchus.  on  04/15  at  03:02 PM

“college educated” doesn’t mean anything if you let your brain stagnate after you graduate.  Watching the History Channel and the occasion episode of NOVA is all well and good, but it isn’t the same as trying to keep your brain open and active by reading widely and trying to experience new and unfamiliar things…

Comment #56: Woodrowfan  on  04/15  at  03:11 PM

The misspelled signs strike me as being as lazy as they are stupid.  If you’re going to go the the effort of constructing a sign, how about double-checking the words you are going to use before you start?  How much effort can it take to type “OBAMA IS A SOCALIST” into Word to find out you meant SOCIALIST*  instead?*

*of course they really mean N***** instead of socialist, but whatever…

Comment #57: Woodrowfan  on  04/15  at  03:17 PM

My sense is that some people see inability to spell as a sort of badge of honor. It’s like the whole crazy idea that being racist and sexist is somehow countercultural and hip.

Don’t let the Man With the Book keep you down.

Comment #58: paul  on  04/15  at  03:27 PM

The Boston Globe interviewed a family with 10 kids who spewed on and on about handouts and work ethic - but were on socialized health care because they didn’t want to stop having kids they couldn’t afford and they couldn’t afford a private health plan.

Its different when God likes our babies!  Google “Valarie Shirk”.

Comment #59: Ms Kate  on  04/15  at  03:42 PM

One thing that may play into this that has been touched on tangentially by others: Tea Partiers (and conservatives in general) are old. Until you retire people generally get more and more money, and I suspect that older groups of people have more eduction (more time for people who take a while, plus advanced degrees, people who go back to school, etc).

There are tons of demographic differences - young vs old (as I just touched on), wealth differences, urban vs suburban, white vs every other racial group. I’d be interested in how important each one is, though I imagine it would be hard to pull them apart.

I guess the more privileged you are, the more likely you are to be conservative.

Comment #60: MaxPolun  on  04/15  at  03:42 PM

I find many of the comments and presumptions misguided here.

There are so, so many examples of how “conservatives” and “reactionaries” have effectively successfully shut up us in the “liberal elite” at least in my memory starting from 1968 after MLK was shot - if not from before then through the present.

Clearly we need to be much, much better at building coalitions.  We also - particularly - the “higher educated” of us may talk a lot a about the need to work from the bottom up - not top down, but we commonly lack the patience or “time” to do the work.

There are so, so many examples of how we “lose” for a variety of reasons.

A simple, simple example is the “Obama coalition” of 2008.  We were 41-42% of the Whites - hardly a majority.  At least 5-10% of the 41-42% - were hardly “core liberals”.

In talking as I do I am not trying to criticize many, many on the left who are doing much wonderful work.  At the same time - we need to do a better job of analyzing our opposition, but perhaps more importantly strategizing and doing a better job and “succeeding” in more ways as we move forward.

I would take from Gelman at a minimum the clear facts that the Right does a much better job of conning and getting its way - and similarly we often do a terrible job of working towards what we believe in.  As long as we can be labeled - easily “class warriors”  and “unpatriotic” and similar - any time we bring up populist ideas, we’re not doing so good in - building and participating in the “good fight”.  Thanks!

Comment #61: Geo  on  04/15  at  03:44 PM

“… highly competent at a job that requires the cognitive skills they don’t bring to their politics.  They’re willfully ignorant ...”

I’d love to understand the psychology behind this phenomenon. Anyone have ideas about this?

At a rough guess, their jobs and professional competance is a matter of competitive gamesmanship (and if there’s a good gender neutral alternative term for that, please let me know).  They take pride in winning, and they play to win.  Their politics are a matter of tribalism. They play to belong, and they define their tribe by who they hate.

Liberals are more likely to see both their jobs and politics as a matter of excellence - they play to be the best they can be.

Comment #62: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/15  at  06:02 PM

At a rough guess, their jobs and professional competance is a matter of competitive gamesmanship (and if there’s a good gender neutral alternative term for that, please let me know).

In addition to this accurate observation, we have to look at how structures of political thinking translates into other areas of their lives. The evidence points to Teabaggers being sequential thinkers (“stuff happens, don’t know why”) or at best linear thinkers (“stuff happens due to rudimentary cause and effect”). This indicates that their jobs don’t demand systematic thinking (“stuff happens due to complex interactions”)—i.e. non-creative and semi-rote job functions, or job functions that are highly “siloed” from other tasks in the enterprise.

In such commodity jobs (which can be white collar management positions, and can carry the appearance of complexity), often the only way to distinguish oneself is through office politics and other games of personality encouraged by the HR/4th Purpose Culture.

Comment #63: Gracchus.  on  04/15  at  06:27 PM

Another variety of Teabagger might be the systematic thinker who’s underemployed and bitterly frustrated about it. It brings to mind Don Draper’s fantastic line about the ad agency in season 1 of Mad Men: “Sterling Cooper has more failed artists and intellectuals than the Third Reich.”

Comment #64: Gracchus.  on  04/15  at  06:36 PM

“In exchange they tend to have much larger business & science schools because the wealthier class can afford the triple-tuition for what is in most cases a lesser education.”

I think the reason that private schools might focus more on sciences (that hasn’t been my observation, but you seem to have more experience in this area than I do) probably has more to do with the amount of money that science and engineering departments bring to the university through research than with rich kids wanting to get the cache of a degree the easy way by studying a “lesser” field like particle physics instead of communications while Mommy and Daddy foot the unreasonably large bill.

Comment #65: mamram  on  04/15  at  07:00 PM

Sorry about the run-on sentence.

Comment #66: mamram  on  04/15  at  07:02 PM

Private schools tend to have smaller liberal arts programs unless they’re USC or some other massive private university. In exchange they tend to have much larger business & science schools because the wealthier class can afford the triple-tuition for what is in most cases a lesser education

This isn’t really accurate. While I’m sure this is frequently the case (and I know the type of school you’re discussing), there are a lot of expensive private schools that are structured in the opposite fashion. Wesleyan and Vassar and Brown come to mind.

Meanwhile, the top-tier public universities (e.g. University of California) usually have very strong undergrad STEM and business/econ faculties that can balance out liberal arts by as much as 50-50. Once you get to the lower tiers the liberal arts faculties grow, and the other ones morph into something closer to vocational/trades training.

There are two distinct paths in america, the state school educated path that seems to lead toward liberalism and the private school path that leads towards conservatism.

I’d put it slightly differently: state/public schools tend to promote the liberal value of social mobility, while the private schools tend to conserve and perpetuate the status quo.

Comment #67: Gracchus.  on  04/15  at  07:37 PM

Hey Baggers: here’s some advice:
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExOXkvZPtwU&NR=1
Dylan is God.

Comment #68: pitbullgirl65  on  04/15  at  07:49 PM

In addition, there are plenty of nominally liberal arts majors—history and political science stand out—that are favorites for people going into business, especially at the upper levels.

I went into history because of my love after burning out on engineering.  I had the option of med school, law school, grad school, or working for the insurance/business industries.  I took the grad school option because I preferred to teach anyways.  I know about half of the undergrad classes were business majors who were going to get MBA afterwards, total bastards without a heart amongst them.  They disturbed me. 

This isn’t really accurate. While I’m sure this is frequently the case (and I know the type of school you’re discussing), there are a lot of expensive private schools that are structured in the opposite fashion. Wesleyan and Vassar and Brown come to mind.

You named three ivy league schools.  There is a large selection of private liberal art colleges but that goes back to what paul said.  While many of the Vassar students go off and work for High Schools and such but most go off to get MBAs and work in business. 

I’d put it slightly differently: state/public schools tend to promote the liberal value of social mobility, while the private schools tend to conserve and perpetuate the status quo.

I would agree but a large portion of private schools actively push the conservative agenda.  For the portion of students that receive scholarships they are taught that they “won” by hard work.  It’s a giant scheme they build up to create this image of conservative values.  The status quo isn’t sufficient.

Comment #69: Xeranar  on  04/15  at  08:11 PM

“At a rough guess, their jobs and professional competance is a matter of competitive gamesmanship (and if there’s a good gender neutral alternative term for that, please let me know).  They take pride in winning, and they play to win.  Their politics are a matter of tribalism. They play to belong, and they define their tribe by who they hate.

Liberals are more likely to see both their jobs and politics as a matter of excellence - they play to be the best they can be.”


QFT.

Every time I come across someone who really believes that winning confers ‘rightness’ regardless of considerations of morality or effects on others, I suffer the same sense of disorienting shock.  You’d thing I would’ve got used to it by now.

Comment #70: Theadosia  on  04/15  at  08:29 PM

You named three ivy league schools.  There is a large selection of private liberal art colleges but that goes back to what paul said.  While many of the Vassar students go off and work for High Schools and such but most go off to get MBAs and work in business.

  I’d put it slightly differently: state/public schools tend to promote the liberal value of social mobility, while the private schools tend to conserve and perpetuate the status quo.

I would agree but a large portion of private schools actively push the conservative agenda.  For the portion of students that receive scholarships they are taught that they “won” by hard work.  It’s a giant scheme they build up to create this image of conservative values.  The status quo isn’t sufficient.

While that is true of most private liberal arts colleges, especially those in the Northeast, there are some which do buck the trend you mentioned. 

With the exception of the many who enter musically/artistically related careers, nearly all of the graduates from my rural midwest-based private liberal arts college tended to go into academia, NGOs/non-profits, political activist groups, publishing houses, research labs, and working in government. 

For us, the ones who go off to work in business and get an MBA or pursue a law degree to pursue the Biglaw partner track are the rare…though increasing common exception….though this has more to do with the general trend of conservatism across US college campuses over the last 3 decades. 

As for your crack about scholarship students, I think it is much more apt when it is applied towards legacy students at these private colleges…...they got their places because they’re rich, “belonged there”, and/or are from famous parents/families college admins/faculty are tripping all over themselves to suck up to….academic merit…or even mastery of basic arithmetic and written communications skills be damned!!  In short, college admissions based completely on aristocratic privilege, connections, and/or money…..not on “boring” concepts such as academic merit….

Comment #71: exholt  on  04/15  at  09:36 PM

I really think there ought to be an equivalent of Godwin’s Law for quoting Bob Dylan on a blog.

Comment #72: felagund  on  04/15  at  09:39 PM

“At a rough guess, their jobs and professional competance is a matter of competitive gamesmanship (and if there’s a good gender neutral alternative term for that, please let me know).  They take pride in winning, and they play to win.

Oh, and the other thing: They’re white men in their 50s and 60s. They went to college in the 60s and 70s, before antidiscrimination law (such as iy ever was) got serious. Asking why they’re richer than the population at large and attributing it to professional competence is asking why the guy with the gun and the pile of aces hanging out of his sleeve keeps winning the pot.

They’re the last generation of unabashed white male affirmative action, and they’ve watched the system being dismantled around them.

Comment #73: paul  on  04/15  at  09:52 PM

The thing that bothers my friends on the left the most about the TEA Partiers is that the TEA Partiers are voters.  Just six months after Californians gave Barack Obama 61% of their votes, they turned right around and defeated Proposition 1A—the (supposedly) temporary tax increase—by a nearly two-to-one margin, despite the fact that the governor, the state legislative leaders, the public employee unions, and the local political leaders were telling them that if 1A were defeated, all sorts of deep spending cuts, in public education, parks and recreation, prisons, you name it, would have to be made.

The way to win elections is to promise tax cuts.  Ronald Reagan did it, the elder George Bush promised “no new taxes,” and got kicked out when he broke that promise, Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut (though he never meant it) and both the younger George Bush and Al Gore were promising tax cuts.  Barack Obama had an “Obama Tax Cut Calculator” on his campaign website, and was running on his plans cutting taxes more than John McCain’s.

There was, of course, a presidential candidate who promised to raise taxes; Walter Mondale carried one state.

The public really do want their taxes cut, and the TEA Partiers are an angry and loud enough group to keep pushing on that until November.  In the end, the votes of the people really do matter, and if we want lower taxes, and lower spending, that’s what we should have.

Comment #74: Dana  on  04/15  at  09:53 PM

“The public really do want their taxes cut.”

Well yes, in the abstract most people do. Though there was a poll out yesterday or today saying that 62% of Americans think their own level of taxation is fair, so it could easily be argued that you’re full of it. And note that that percentage is pretty constant across party lines.

Once you start asking the teabaggers what spending they want cut in order that taxes can be further cut, nary a one of them will answer SS, Medicare or the “defense” budget, the three single biggest spending items. Hell, if it weren’t for SS/Medicare, most of those teabaggers would be dead or eating cat food and wishing they were dead. And without the bloated military, they wouldn’t have the pleasure of watching uppity brown people get blowed up.

Comment #75: felagund  on  04/15  at  10:01 PM

You know, there is also the very widespread belief that all education is broad-based. That having a degree means you are informed on more topics than someone who doesn’t.

I can’t tell you how many people I have met who have degrees - even advanced degrees and can’t in any meaningful way discuss something outside their field. People who never read books, fiction or non, who don’t discuss anything outside of gossip and whatever narrow interest they have.

IME, there is also the factor that the vast majority of people attend college to either be “trained” for certain applied professions such as CS/Engineering and/or view college as a hoop to jump through to get that piece of paper which they perceive as a ticket to a prestigious high paying job with limitless promotion opportunities. 

Only a minority of undergrads have the interest, curiosity, and/or the maturity at 17-22 to actually utilize their time in college to actually learn and intellectually enrich themselves.  The high school classmates with whom I have had regular discussions about this on our respective campuses have estimated that only about 15-40% of undergrads at most of our colleges are actually interested in learning and intellectually enriching themselves….the rest are just there to go through the motions to get that BA/BS which they hope will serve as a ticket to a lucrative prestigious job and/or social respectability. 

Even with the higher appreciation of learning and intellectual enrichment present at my undergrad, a slight majority are still more interested in going through the motions to get that degree.  Only their methods of going through the motions and their perceptions of what the degree/goals will be upon graduation will be differ…..non-profit, NGOs, or politics/public policy rather than a pre-MBA corporate job/MBA and/or JD on Biglaw partner track.

Comment #76: exholt  on  04/15  at  10:31 PM

I really think there ought to be an equivalent of Godwin’s Law for quoting Bob Dylan on a blog.

Yeah - there must be some way out of here…

Comment #77: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/15  at  10:32 PM

The thing that bothers my friends on the left the most about the TEA Partiers is that the TEA Partiers are voters.

Firstly, we’re not your friends.  Unless you know some other liberals who dig your passive-agressive wingnut schtick, please stop using that phrase.

Secondly, what you miss is that we know that the teabaggers are the whinier Republican voters.  We know they vote, and when they have voted in the past they voted Republican.  Therefore they are not a threat to the left - indeed, the Democrats would LOVE it if they set themselves up as a third party to split the right-wing vote.

Puh-puh-puhlease don’t throw the US in that briar patch…

Comment #78: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/15  at  10:38 PM

Oh, and the other thing: They’re white men in their 50s and 60s. They went to college in the 60s and 70s, before antidiscrimination law (such as iy ever was) got serious. Asking why they’re richer than the population at large and attributing it to professional competence is asking why the guy with the gun and the pile of aces hanging out of his sleeve keeps winning the pot.

They’re the last generation of unabashed white male affirmative action, and they’ve watched the system being dismantled around them.

Way too understated. 

Not only before anti-discrimination laws….most of these clowns attended college during the last years of effective blatant legacy admissions polices which admitted people like W based on aristocratic factors such as family wealth, connections and/or fame.  One uncle who was part of the Yale class of 1970 mentioned that there was a palpable difference in the mentality of earlier Yale students mostly admitted under the old aristocratic system and incoming classes like his which were the first ones where academic merit was the deciding factor for most.

Comment #79: exholt  on  04/15  at  10:44 PM

Phoenician in a time of Romans, speak for yourself.

When will the left realize their general ideology is so far out of mainstream thought? No election has ever been won based on the “liberal” vote. Just face it, the people with the logical way of thought, i.e. independents, are the key demographic here.

I think it’s funny when people cite some bullshit poll that claims either liberals or conservatives are more educated. Go ahead and believe a study of 1500 people represent the whole of the state.

Comment #80: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  01:01 AM

I think it’s funny when people cite some bullshit poll that claims either liberals or conservatives are more educated. Go ahead and believe a study of 1500 people represent the whole of the state.

I will, because I understand statistical sampling.

Americans really have pretty ambivalent feelings about “economic mobility.” On the one hand, we say we want it. On the other hand, if you go to college and you’re talented but from a poor background, it’s expected that you should channel your talents into “service.” And if you’re an ethnic minority, you’re supposed to do something to “help your community,” preferably out of the way of everyone else who’s making money.

State schools are very career-oriented places because they serve to supply the country with the middle classes: the business majors, the engineers, the teachers, the nurses, the state/local government lawyers. The more abstract liberal arts are pursued by people in the private colleges that can afford to do so and still find a job afterwards, either to keep up with their parents’ lifestyles or to pay off their loans. The guy with a business degree from a state university might get a good management-track position somewhere, but the guy with the history degree from Williams has a good shot at getting a job at McKinsey… or a good shot at having the academic credentials and connections necessary to eventually land a tenure track faculty position if he goes to grad school, but that’s an economic step down for most people.

Comment #81: Tyro  on  04/16  at  01:21 AM

WTF:

When will the left realize their general ideology is so far out of mainstream thought?

Depends on what you mean by leftist ideology.  There are very few in the mainstream willing to own it.  There’s a lot of “I’m not a feminist, but…” and when pressed about taxes go “Well, we do need schools and roads but…” and if asked about scientific progress go “Well, I do like the technology, but…”.  The right has very successfully demonized the left.  Congratulations. That doesn’t make our ideology far out of mainstream thought, it means people don’t think about their values too damn often.

Comment #82: Antigone  on  04/16  at  01:30 AM

In addition, I always tend to feel rather anti-populist on this sort of attitude.  “Nah-nah, you beliefs are in the minority, sucks to be you!”.  It does rather suck- it doesn’t make them wrong.

Comment #83: Antigone  on  04/16  at  01:31 AM

Tyro, my point is, every poll is going to show different results. Results can be skewed and shown to present a particular point of view. Statistical sampling was probably the shittiest part of political methodology.

Antigone, if you’re trying to get at me for being a “populist,” then you’re wrong to assume so. You don’t know my beliefs, so back the fuck up. I never said that since American liberal political thought is in the minority makes it a completely wrong or stupid ideology. A lot of it is, but not all of it.

Comment #84: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  04:15 AM

Possibly because a lot of them are used to having secretaries and spellcheck programs at their disposal.

The mulleted “Get a brain morans” guy does not have a secretary.

Comment #85: keshmeshi  on  04/16  at  04:47 AM

Dana,

You are so full of shit.

1A lost while Obama won because the former was a special election while the latter was a historic presidential election.

Lots of other reasons too.  But most importantly, apples and oranges.  It makes no sense to act as if both elections were decided by even remotely similar snapshots of CA demographics/voters.

Comment #86: jennygadget  on  04/16  at  04:48 AM

@exholt: Are you an Obie?

Comment #87: vim876  on  04/16  at  05:11 AM

Americans really have pretty ambivalent feelings about “economic mobility.” On the one hand, we say we want it. On the other hand, if you go to college and you’re talented but from a poor background, it’s expected that you should channel your talents into “service.” And if you’re an ethnic minority, you’re supposed to do something to “help your community,” preferably out of the way of everyone else who’s making money.

Agree on the larger point.  As for poor/ethnic minorities being told to go into “service”, that’s completely the opposite of my experience and those of my classmates who are mostly immigrants/first generation Americans like myself. 

We did hear “help your community”, but in our contexts it meant get into the best damned college possible….preferably Ivy/Ivy-level, wrangle a scholarship or few, and major in something which will ensure a fast-track into a money-making career….preferably one where you’d be a multi-millionaire before you’re 30 or so.  A reason why the vast majority of my high school classmates and immigrant/first generation immigrant classmates ended up majoring in pre-med, engineering/CS, other STEM fields, or business at highly rigorous schools like Wharton or NYU Stern.

If anything, I found the emphasis on going into “service” and the de-emphasis on pursuing lucrative professions/careers much more common among children from upper/upper-middle class families who are much more likely to fit the common student profile of someone attending a private Ivy/Ivy-level university or similarly situated private liberal arts college…....albeit ones which tend to have progressively far-left politics.  They were especially common at the rural midwest-based private liberal arts college I graduated from….and the mentality of the students in this respect was the near total opposite of the prevailing mentality at my high school with a high proportion of immigrant/first-generation students from working class/lower-middle class families….or immigrant/first-generation students I’ve known at other schools. 

It was really strange to end up at a college where merely expressing any consideration for a highly lucrative career was considered becoming an “tool of the evil capitalist machine”.  Made weirder by the fact the ones making such assertions all tended to be products of expensive private schools like Andover and come from upper/upper-middle class homes where one or both parents are highly successful business owners, corporate executives, Biglaw partners, medical doctors, academics, etc.

Comment #88: exholt  on  04/16  at  05:41 AM

@exholt: Are you an Obie?

Bingo! Twenty Confederate dollars will be donated to the National Party of Teabaggers in your name! LOL

Comment #89: exholt  on  04/16  at  05:46 AM

exholt, I meant the culture expects this out of people from poor backgrounds or ethnic minorities. That pressure isn’t necessarily coming from the families who, at worst, will simply consider low salaries “normal.” While we believe in economic mobility, as you pointed out, there is a certain feeling that people are “getting ahead of themselves” if they leverage their elite education into a lucrative career.

And these attitudes manifest themselves among liberals as well as conservatives: liberals believe that people should be happy to live in genteel poverty, even if their backgrounds aren’t genteel, and conservatives believe that people, especially liberals, who achieve a certain amount of economic success are “limousine liberals” with the implication that unlike, say, George W Bush, they don’t “deserve” to be rich.

  They were especially common at the rural midwest-based private liberal arts college I graduated from

Well, let’s face it—your college does select for that sort of thing: no one went their because they their dream was to be an I-Banker.

Comment #90: Tyro  on  04/16  at  09:13 AM

Felagund #73: :D :D

Comment #91: pitbullgirl65  on  04/16  at  09:37 AM

Tyro, the idea of “limousine liberal” or “champagne socialist” isn’t really about liberals not deserving their vast amounts of money/power. It’s more about being a hypocrite, i.e. Sean Penn supporting Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro while still benefiting from capitalism or the Kennedy’s urging people to use the public school system while sending their kids to private schools.

Comment #92: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  10:20 AM

Actually, WTF, it’s about liberals using their clout to support their causes. No one criticizes the Koch family for bankrolling the the transmission if right wing talking points, but there’s serious resentment at money being used to support liberal causes because this is considered “cheating.” Even among some liberals. There’s a deep believe that to be liberal, you need to stay poor. Using your money is only considered valid for conservatives.

But, hey, i can have a nice car abd a nice house without pretending that Obama is a communist. I guess that makes me a bad person, but there you go: I don’t take moral instruction from bush supporters.

Comment #93: Tyro  on  04/16  at  11:26 AM

Actually, it’s about hypocrisy. I’ll give you another example. Larry David’s ex-wife was criticized for being an environmentalist, yet had a private jet to fly her around the country. It’s about urging us lowly plebs to support what they think is an important cause, then going around and doing the opposite.

Personally, or politically for that matter, I don’t give a rat’s ass if a liberal happens to be rich. Good on them. That’s what’s kick-ass about capitalism. But don’t support a cause just to hear your own voice.

You really can’t talk shit on the Koch family. You can disagree with them, but they’re not hypocrites.

Comment #94: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  12:01 PM

Does the Republican projection rule apply to WTF?

Tyro- “Liberals think of making money like conservatives think of sex: it’s vaguely dirty, it’s mostly wrong, and should only done under specific circumstances for specific reasons”.

Comment #95: Antigone  on  04/16  at  12:25 PM

Personally, or politically for that matter, I don’t give a rat’s ass if a liberal happens to be rich. Good on them. That’s what’s kick-ass about capitalism.

Actually, they are probably in a pretty good position to understand the limitations of capitalism. All you has is an empty hope that you might be rich. When you see a rich liberal speak up for the poor, this annoys you because you consider it a betrayal.

The right is perfectly happy to parrot the talking points fed to them by the cook family, but they’re worked into a frothing rage at the possibility that George soros is lurking around the corner to say something bad about Bush. It’s really Stockholm syndrome: republicans deep down WANT to be abused by the wealthy. They think it’s a sign of authenticity.

Comment #96: Tyro  on  04/16  at  01:40 PM

exholt, I meant the culture expects this out of people from poor backgrounds or ethnic minorities. That pressure isn’t necessarily coming from the families who, at worst, will simply consider low salaries “normal.” While we believe in economic mobility, as you pointed out, there is a certain feeling that people are “getting ahead of themselves” if they leverage their elite education into a lucrative career.

Among the immigrant/first generation classmates’ working/middle-class families I knew growing up, every one of them knew they were earning a pitifully low salary and did their utmost to pressure and badger their kids to get into a topflight college and land the most lucrative and socially prestigious job possible.  A reason why they all competed hard to get into the Ivy/Ivy-level schools and all majored in pre-professional and/or STEM fields.  A kid who didn’t end up becoming a doctor, i-banker/corporate executive, engineer/CS/IT, or biglaw partner track lawyer was considered a failure….or at least a black sheep by most of their parents. 

Though there were upper/upper-middle class background classmates who attempted to pull similar BS as the socio-economically privileged classmates at my undergrad, my high school classmates and I all regarded them as hypocritical cranks attempting to keep us down and treated them accordingly.  Either by ignoring them or pointing out the hypocrisy from their own privileged backgrounds and the fact they can afford to pursue low/non-paying NGO or political activist positions because their families can subsidize them for as long as the vast family fortune/trust fund will hold….a luxury none of my high school classmates or I could expect to call on at the time.

Comment #97: exholt  on  04/16  at  02:09 PM

I know it’s fun to make fun of people (we all learned that in Junior High School), but if you want to make a difference, you have to change people’s minds, and to do that, you have to get to know who they really are.  You don’t have to agree with them (I don’t), but you have to treat them with the respect due every human being.
Comment #40: AMM on 04/15 at 12:14 PM

There is no one approved reaction to stupidity.

Some of us will mock them mercilessly.  Others of us will roll our eyes and bitch to each other but put up with them.  Others will work very hard to empathize and walk them towards reality with tiny baby steps.

Each reaction has a purpose.  Mocking them gives us a place to express our anger at their ability to fuck with us and people like us, and lets other people who live in more straitened circumstances encouragement that they are not alone. 

Rolling our eyes and bitching to each other at least gives us an emotional outlet for our frustration without endangering us in the general public.

Working hard to empathize and educate the idiots might get some of them closer to reality.  Unfortunately, most of the time, that does not work.  Sticking with only the nicey nicey approach only makes the idiots more comfortable, and us doomed to run around trying to soothe everyone’s feelings.  Feminism is not that kind of Mommy.

Comment #98: oldfeminist  on  04/16  at  02:16 PM

Well, let’s face it—your college does select for that sort of thing: no one went their because they their dream was to be an I-Banker.

Ironically, I know an increasing number of Obies who are now I-bankers or are pursuing that track.  Even joked about how one was becoming an “evil capitalist tool” and a wanted person by the Marxists/Maoists of our college community by doing so at a publicly open university lecture less than a year ago.

Comment #99: exholt  on  04/16  at  02:22 PM

“… highly competent at a job that requires the cognitive skills they don’t bring to their politics.  They’re willfully ignorant ...”

I’d love to understand the psychology behind this phenomenon. Anyone have ideas about this?

At a rough guess, their jobs and professional competance is a matter of competitive gamesmanship (and if there’s a good gender neutral alternative term for that, please let me know).  They take pride in winning, and they play to win.  Their politics are a matter of tribalism. They play to belong, and they define their tribe by who they hate.

Liberals are more likely to see both their jobs and politics as a matter of excellence - they play to be the best they can be.
Comment #63: Phoenician in a time of Romans on 04/15 at 04:02 PM

If you work with computers or physical objects, when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.  You can’t fake it and make it right.

When you work with politics and policies, there are always excuses why something doesn’t work.  And if something affects people you don’t care about, you can handwave those effects away.

They’re right when they point out that philosophy is not the same as “reality” and that it’s easy to theorize but not so easy to be right.  They don’t derive from this the fact that some people are good at theorizing and philosophizing, which are essential components of politics.

Comment #100: oldfeminist  on  04/16  at  02:22 PM

Among the immigrant/first generation classmates’ working/middle-class families I knew growing up, every one of them knew they were earning a pitifully low salary and did their utmost to pressure and badger their kids to get into a topflight college and land the most lucrative and socially prestigious job possible.

exholt, there are a lot of different kinds of poor and working class families in America, not just immigrants who come to the USA with a bourgeois value system about education and a determination that their kids enter a socially and financially prestigious field.

The Oppoponax has always had interesting commentary on these sorts of class issues from a different standpoint.

Comment #101: Tyro  on  04/16  at  02:40 PM

the idea of “limousine liberal” or “champagne socialist” isn’t really about liberals not deserving their vast amounts of money/power. It’s more about being a hypocrite

Said hypocrisy usually being based on a false premise, namely: “if you’re wealthy you should worship unquestioningly at the altar of the free market.” It’s similar to its nationalist cousin, “if you’re an American you should never question American actions abroad.”

Compare with legitimate bases for accusations of hypocrisy, for example: “if an organisation claims to be a global moral authority, it shouldn’t be enabling paedophiles” or “if a televangelist claims to be a moral authority on traditional marriage, he shouldn’t be banging rentboys.”

Larry David’s ex-wife was criticized for being an environmentalist, yet had a private jet to fly her around the country.

Interesting how this tale of hypocrisy shifted from Al Gore to Laurie David when it was demonstrated that Gore was actually pretty good at offsetting his carbon footprint, jets and all.

In any case, this accusation is often as unsophisticated and tunnel-visioned as the one that demands that heads of non-profits be paid minimum wage. Such outrage (real or feigned) usually comes from people who don’t understand basic concepts like cost-benefit analysis and market-rate compensation.

That’s not to say that everyone should be expected to grasp these concepts, nor is it to say that transparency regarding executive compensation isn’t a good thing. But it’s important to take a close look at the motives and knowledge of those interpreting the numbers, too, and determine whether or not they have credibility.

Looking at this sort of thing from a liberal perspective, I didn’t have much problem with the general concept of auto execs flying around on private jets—sometimes that’s what’s called for. They only became hypocrites when they used those jets (one for each company) to fly to the same meeting in DC to beg for corporate welfare from taxpayers.

You really can’t talk shit on the Koch family. You can disagree with them, but they’re not hypocrites.

True, they’re more confidence artists who understand the benefit of staying behind the scenes and letting others (like Dick Armey, Rick Santelli, etc.) do their dirty work through a variety of fronts. So less hypocrites than cowards.

Comment #102: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  03:02 PM

When will the left realize their general ideology is so far out of mainstream thought? No election has ever been won based on the “liberal” vote. Just face it, the people with the logical way of thought, i.e. independents, are the key demographic here.

FDR’s first election.  Kennedy’s Election. LBJ’s Election in 1964.  Bill Clinton’s Election in 1992.  Obama’s election in 2008.  Those elections were all won on modern liberal views.  I would also point out Carter was far left on everything but busing but most argue he won on that so I left him out.  Bill Clinton ran on a moderate ticket but was still “liberal” by every definition.  Why do you come post here with such outlandish talk?  The whole “40% of people associate with conservative ideals” argument is played out.  Most people say they’re conservative then when pressed they point out how in fact they’re fairly liberal.  It’s a game of bait and switch, get them to vote with you then confuse them with bullshit and give them an enemy to hate.  It’s write out of the pages of 1984.  First it was blacks, then affirmative action, now it’s gays and civil rights. 

To point out that liberal rich americans send their children to private school is hilarious.  Most rich parents send their children to private school in order to “protect” them because some are high-value targets for kidnapping (though rare) or they want the children to network for their future success.  It isn’t as if the public schools in their communities are bad.  If anything the martha’s vineyard public school that services a few hundred service worker’s kids are the best in the world.

To go back though, I’ve met the scholarship recipients of some of these schools, while I know it is anecdotal, they tend to have an egotistical belief in the bootstrap theory.

Comment #103: Xeranar  on  04/16  at  03:32 PM

Among the immigrant/first generation classmates’ working/middle-class families I knew growing up, every one of them knew they were earning a pitifully low salary and did their utmost to pressure and badger their kids to get into a topflight college and land the most lucrative and socially prestigious job possible.

exholt, there are a lot of different kinds of poor and working class families in America, not just immigrants who come to the USA with a bourgeois value system about education and a determination that their kids enter a socially and financially prestigious field.

The Oppoponax has always had interesting commentary on these sorts of class issues from a different standpoint.
Comment #102: Tyro on 04/16 at 12:40 PM

Not to mention that the original claim was that society at large, not immigrant/minority/lower-class families of college students, expects those immigrant/minority/lower-class college students to take jobs for the good of their “people,” or society in general, and not for their own good.

Comment #104: oldfeminist  on  04/16  at  03:51 PM

Not to mention that the original claim was that society at large, not immigrant/minority/lower-class families of college students, expects those immigrant/minority/lower-class college students to take jobs for the good of their “people,” or society in general, and not for their own good.

I wasn’t just talking about the families of the immigrant/minority/lower-class college students, but the larger society as I knew it growing up in NYC.  Whether it was long assimilated “5+ generation American” working/middle-class families who had similar expectations for their kids or teachers, the greater public, and MSM was do whatever it takes to get the education/training necessary to land the most lucrative and socially prestigious job possible.  Heard similar experiences from colleagues who grew up in other working/lower-middle class areas in the greater Boston area. 

There was also the prevailing notion I also noticed was common among many 5+ generation working/middle-class families and the larger society I knew that pursuing careers for the sake of “service” and de-emphasizing lucrative careers was a “sucker’s game” that would be a quick route to the poorhouse unless one is able to call upon a substantial family fortune and/or a trust fund.  In short, “service” was only a viable option for the socio-economically privileged….a notion only confirmed when I heard how little my classmates were being paid to work at those NGOs and political activist jobs considering they were living in expensive cities like San Francisco, Boston, and NYC….that is, if they were being paid at all.

Comment #105: exholt  on  04/16  at  04:40 PM

Gracchus, of course, is reading into shit that isn’t there. Please cite where I said you had to worship almighty capitalism if you’re rich? Let’s put it this way, if Sean Penn wants to send Chavez and Castro his praises, fine, but why doesn’t he move there. If he wants to berate people for not helping the victims of Katrina and the Haitian earthquake, fine again, but don’t bring your entire entourage for a fucking photo op. Maybe in your own fucked up logic it’s similar to nationalism, but you’re wrong.

On the issue of Laurie David: y’know, I didn’t really think about Manbearpig, but now that you mention it, he’s a fucking scum bag too.

Xeranar: None of those presidents you named subscribed to the liberals school of thought on one of the more important issues: foreign policy. And really, how many of those presidents would actually call themselves liberal? Like it our not, the word “liberal” is a career killer in this country.  You keep telling yourselves that this is a liberal or leftist country, but it’s really not. Seriously. Humphrey was a liberal. He lost to Nixon. Carter was a liberal. He lost to Reagan. Mondale was a liberal. He lost to Bush.

Kidnapping? Are you fucking kidding me?! If anyone is going to tell me about the merits of sending a child to public school and he or she doesn’t send their own child to one, then of course I along with many others would be pissed and call them out on their hypocrisy.

Comment #106: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  05:11 PM

Gracchus, of course, is reading into shit that isn’t there. Please cite where I said you had to worship almighty capitalism if you’re rich?

You’ll note that the following is a general statement:

Said hypocrisy usually being based on a false premise, namely: “if you’re wealthy you should worship unquestioningly at the altar of the free market.”

Pay special attention the qualifier “usually” and the lack of any reference to your (I’m sure excellent) other reasons why a “limousine liberal” is a de facto hypocrite.

In short, it’s not about you.

Let’s put it this way, if Sean Penn wants to send Chavez and Castro his praises, fine, but why doesn’t he move there.

That’s not addressing Penn’s real hypocrisy, which has little to do with how much money he makes vs political-economic ideology, and everything to do with how he makes his living—through free expression. Cozying up to despots, whether they’re right-wing or left-wing, is not something any self-respecting artist should do.

If he wants to berate people for not helping the victims of Katrina and the Haitian earthquake, fine again, but don’t bring your entire entourage for a fucking photo op.

Really? That’s your complaint? Perhaps if he’d hidden behind pricey astroturf front organisations like Freedomworks you’d feel better about the manner in which he takes his show on the road.

On the issue of Laurie David: y’know, I didn’t really think about Manbearpig, but now that you mention it, he’s a fucking scum bag too.

As always, the way in which you support your contentions is truly impressive. Based soley on your opinion, I have no doubt you’ve convinced us all that he is a scumbag.

Kidnapping? Are you fucking kidding me?!

Through a friend whose kids attend a private middle school, I know of at least one wealthy celebrity who feels this way, to the degree of not letting his kid attend any birthday parties thrown by his classmates.

For reference, that bedwetting celeb is conservative he-man Sean Hannity, whose wife earnestly gave fear of kidnapping as precisely the reason for their family policy. While I don’t see fear of kidnapping as a general reason for sending kids to private school, I could easily one of those limousine liberals (perhaps a real celebrity with real money) choosing to shelter their kids in that way.

Comment #107: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  05:38 PM

Most rich parents send their children to private school in order to “protect” them because some are high-value targets for kidnapping (though rare) or they want the children to network for their future success.

The latter is far more important than the former for wealthy, high-profile parents. It’s really about networking, smaller class sizes, social class, and a school that’s more accommodating to and flexible toward the demands of parents who are used to having their way. Private schools usually have a fairly explicit ideology associated with them (usually expressed through paedagogical approach), and this is often a factor.

Academic rigour is important as well, but that’s a baseline—there are plenty of magnet schools or Ivy-feeder public schools in major cities if that were the main criteria.

Comment #108: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  05:58 PM

It is sort of funny that in WTF’s moral universe, if you have a conservative and a liberal who both send their kids to private schools, if the conservative wants to destroy public education and the liberal wants to support it and improve it, then the conservative is the “good” one in that equation and the liberal is an evul hypocrite.

It’s not about that at all, of course. WTF just hates liberals and is looking for any excuse to get outraged and kind of resents successful liberals for “selling out the rich.”

Comment #109: Tyro  on  04/16  at  06:26 PM

The latter is far more important than the former for wealthy, high-profile parents. It’s really about networking, smaller class sizes, social class, and a school that’s more accommodating to and flexible toward the demands of parents who are used to having their way. Private schools usually have a fairly explicit ideology associated with them (usually expressed through paedagogical approach), and this is often a factor.

Academic rigour is important as well, but that’s a baseline—there are plenty of magnet schools or Ivy-feeder public schools in major cities if that were the main criteria.

Social exclusivity and networking in a closed of cliquish group is one key factor for the wealthy to send their kids to private schools along with the prevailing notion in society that private schools are always better than their public counterparts….a notion which could be laughably wrong from what I’ve seen of my private school educated college classmates academic performance or from what I heard about their graduation requirements….such as one expensive private school only requiring 2 years of “rocks for jocks” type science courses without lab to graduate. 

Other factors I’ve seen that may be unique to NYC is:

1. Some wealthy parents didn’t want to subject their darling kiddies to the unseemly cutthroat academic competition prevalent at such magnet high schools like the one I attended which factored in why my incoming freshman class had an attrition rate of around 28%...with most of that occurring within our first two years.  It was certainly a factor in why one uncle ended up sending his daughter to some fancy upper-east side private girls school after he asked me and other public magnet school alums about our experiences.

2.  Other wealthy parents and/or their kids wanted to attend the public magnet high school, but didn’t cut it on the entrance exam and ended up having to settle for a private school.  Several of the more socio-economically privileged high school classmates had siblings who attended fancy upper-east sider private schools like the ones my uncle sent his daughter to because they didn’t qualify on the entrance exam…whether by a few points or bombing the exam altogether.  Some of my classmates and in a few cases…even their parents gave their private school attending siblings a hard time about “not being smart/good enough” to attend our magnet high school.

Comment #110: exholt  on  04/16  at  06:53 PM

exholt, I think much of what you describe is, if not unique to NYC, at least not common elsewhere.  I think this is because there are many areas where there are few or no good magnet schools.  In order to be high-status academically there, you have to go to a private school. 

You might get in because your parents have money, you might get in because you got a scholarship.  Either one allows you to mingle with the smart/rich people who will help you with academic placement for college, and a job.  If you’re smart, that’s great, but if you’re not, it’s of course even more important for you to be around other people of the “right” kind.

In the city where I live, there are private schools with high standards, and private schools who “understand” when a young person is having trouble at the regular schools. 

A couple of prestigious public academic magnet schools, one of which one of my sisters went to.  Suburban schools that are very, very nice.  City schools that are anywhere from okay to truly miserable.  Catholic schools that vary, also; a relative went there and could hardly fucking read when she graduated 6th grade.

Comment #111: oldfeminist  on  04/16  at  07:29 PM

whiskeytangofoxtrot ,

No one says you have to like Al Gore, but if you’re going to use South Park nicknames in an attempt to be clever, get it right. Al Gore was never shown or depicted as ManBearPig, he was depicted as being afraid and paranoid about a ManBearPig. Your comparison is like thinking that Captain Ahab and Moby Dick are the same characters.

Comment #112: Ben F.  on  04/16  at  07:32 PM

Tyro, the question is why would a proponent of public education send their child to a private school? Better education? Better networking? Better security, as someone else put it? It’s like saying, “Public education is good for YOUR kids, but not MY kids.”

How do you know what I feel towards liberals? I’m not like you and particularly hate a person simply based on their ideology.

Gracchus, dude, you need to learn to back your shit up. You’re acting like a typical rhetorician. If Penn had helped those people without making a big deal about it, I would’ve been fine, mainly because I can’t stand the prick. It’s really not a huge deal with me, I was just making a point at liberal hypocrisy. And of course you top it off by assuming I’m a Hannity-loving, Fox News watching, conservative simply by me criticizing the general liberal ideology.

Ben F., either grow up or get a fucking life, you loser.

Comment #113: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  08:45 PM

whiskeytangofoxtrot,

Real big of you to come here and troll Pandagon. All I did was to add a whimsical comment, and then you blew up.  That’s the sign of a truly pathetic human being.

Comment #114: Ben F.  on  04/16  at  08:54 PM

Awww, I’m so so so sorry. Forgive me?

Comment #115: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  09:12 PM

It’s really not a huge deal with me, I was just making a point at liberal hypocrisy.

Your big problem was that he was going to Haiti and publicizing the issue: ie, using his wealth an influence to help there, which you think liberals should not be allowed to do with their money.

Tyro, the question is why would a proponent of public education send their child to a private school?

Maybe because they want the public, free schools to be just as good as the private ones that they can afford. The big question is why conservatives don’t think the same way.

Heck, I don’t use public transportation to get to work (blame the people who built my workplace 40+ years ago), but I think that the bus and rail system
should be much improved because I know that helps everyone.

Conservatives also don’t understand or have the capacity for empathy, so they think there’s something insidious about a rich person who advocates for the poor or someone successful under a given economic system thinking that maybe laws as set now aren’t the best way for everyone who isn’t necessarily successful under that system.

Who’s the hypocrite? The successful guy who thinks that everyone shpuld have better opportunities, even if they don’t have the same privileges, or the guy who insists that he did everything by himself and wants to make it harder for everyone else to have good opportunities so he can maintain his position on top?

Comment #116: Tyro  on  04/16  at  09:32 PM

If Penn had helped those people without making a big deal about it, I would’ve been fine, mainly because I can’t stand the prick.

He’s a celebrity—making a big, MSM-attracting deal about an issue by leveraging their fame is what they bring to the table. I don’t think it’s the best way to draw attention to an issue, but I’m not expecting him to see being Mr. Anonymous Volunteer as the best use of his public profile, either.

Your personal feelings about Sean Penn are, of course, absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.

And of course you top it off by assuming I’m a Hannity-loving, Fox News watching, conservative simply by me criticizing the general liberal ideology.

No, I was using Hannity as a concrete example of something you denied exists. I found it amusing that he’s also a right-wing pseudo-populist.

It’s also pretty clear that you’re not the sort who’d be a fan of an uncool conservative like Hannity. To be honest, you strike me more as a typical South Park “edgy/rock-n-roll” Libertarian. Which would be cool, except for the heaping side helping of class resentment and the obnoxious macho and anti-intellectual front you present to cover for what I’m afraid is a telling lack of general knowledge.

I know that funny Cartman-like bluster and aggro can cover up for a lot of shortcomings in certain settings. I certainly appreciate it when it’s clear the person doesn’t want to be taken seriously. I have to admit that you keep me guessing in that regard, but I’m happy to assume that you’re playing the clown and play the straight man in return. I’m not sure others do.

And look, I like South Park, too. Part of the reason I like it is because Parker and Stone understand one of the keys to TV comedy is getting a given viewer to laugh 30% of the time in any given show—no easy feat (analyses like this are why I’d be a failure in a writer’s room). Their successful formula comes down to throwing hilarious toilet humour out there (getting them halfway to their goal with most people), and making up the other 15%+ with either anti-liberal Libertarian gags (usually aimed at self-important celebs, which gets guys like you) or anti-conservative Libertarian gags (usually aimed at self-important preachers and pundits, which gets guys like me). All well and good, but kitchen-sink comedy is no basis for a political stance.

Anyhow, I’m off. Have a good weekend, “you loser.” The same to your fellow “losers” Ben F., Tyro, oldfeminist, exholt, and everyone else who reads this site—myself included.

Comment #117: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  09:33 PM

There you go again. Labeling. Libertarian? Oh fuck no. My politics aren’t influenced by pundits/blogs/celebrities. If you should know, I read a shit load of academic journals and engage in actual discourse with fellow students. If you wanna know where I stand on certain issues, just ask. You might find it refreshing that a person on this blog actually thinks independently and doesn’t stick to an extremely broad ideology, like liberalism/conservatism/libertarianism/etc.

And because I present my point of view I’m an anti-intellectual? Dude, I’m in college. I’m planning to go to grad school.

Enjoy the spring weather this weekend.

Comment #118: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/16  at  10:34 PM

And because I present my point of view I’m an anti-intellectual? Dude, I’m in college. I’m planning to go to grad school.

When your POV extends to calling people losers, yes you’re being anti-intellectual.

Comment #119: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/18  at  12:13 PM

In my opinion, the leaders of the conservative movement have allied themselves with the religious right in order to get so-called “values voters” to vote against their own economic interests.
Comment 19—mythbri

You’d think so. But statistically, there aren’t a whole lot of those people; most values voters are voting exactly in line with their economic interests, even if they believe they’re deciding largely/solely on “values.”

Tyro, my point is, every poll is going to show different results.
Comment 85—WTF

They actualy don’t. <strike>Ninety-five percent of polls are generally within three points of each other.</strike> If you actually look at polls instead of whining “but they never ask me,” you’ll find they actually have fairly consistant results.

It’s almost like science works.

***

Now then, WTF, I don’t think you’re trying to come off as a condescending troll, but you are. Either you do broadly have an ideology, even if you, like anyone who thinks, don’t follow the stated beliefs of any one person or organization 100% of the time; or you’re happy to believe contradictory things. Before breakfast.

Or you get trollish amusement out of telling people “you can’t possibly have any insight into my beliefs from my comments.”

Comment #120: Hershele Ostropoler  on  04/18  at  12:57 PM

Ok, here’s my beef with polls. They can be used by interest groups to show the country is behind them. A pro-life group usually has a poll that says something along the lines of “54% of Americans are pro-life.” Pro-choice groups do the same. Proponents or opponents of gay marriage do it. Groups for and against the wars do it. Everyone does it. I understand that polling is a scientific way to sample the state on opinion. I’ve done it. I’ve taken a methods course. It sucks. I hate polling. Then you have the shady polls that don’t disclose the number of people polled.

By calling me “trollish” you’re essentially being anti-intellectual. Or is that labeling only extended to non-100% liberals?

Comment #121: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/19  at  06:41 PM

You really can’t talk shit on the Koch family. You can disagree with them, but they’re not hypocrites.

I’m not aware of any public statements made by the heirs to the Koch fortune about how one needs to pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps, but their lackeys are certainly saying it.

Ok, here’s my beef with polls. They can be used by interest groups to show the country is behind them. A pro-life group usually has a poll that says something along the lines of “54% of Americans are pro-life.”...Then you have the shady polls that don’t disclose the number of people polled.

So it’s a shitty or misleading poll. But that’s not what you were arguing. You were arguing that polls are not accurate, in general, because they don’t ask everyone.

Re: public schooling - I don’t think it’s hypocritical to advocate for public education while sending your kid to private school. You’ve got multiple interests and they’re not really in conflict - you support public education, but you also want the best for your kid, and it’s not fair to them to sacrifice their education for your ideals if the public schools in your district are really that terrible. It’s possible to work for better public schools even without having a kid in one.

Comment #122: Rebecca  on  04/19  at  10:28 PM

Not one single misleading poll. Multiple polls. It’s a trend. And you’re right, I generally don’t pay attention to polls. I think it’s pretty fucking dumb to generalize American opinion from the responses of 1500 people. Ask any political science professor.

You need to look up the definition of a hypocrite. Hypocrite and limousine liberal go hand in hand.

Comment #123: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/20  at  01:12 AM

Hypocritical: to profess beliefs one does not hold. Or are you using the special dictionary?

I think it’s pretty fucking dumb to generalize American opinion from the responses of 1500 people. Ask any political science professor.

You’re right, it’s not like polls generally predict elections or anything. But then again, just as you can’t tell WTF’s opinion from the things he says, maybe elections are just like polls and people are voting for things they don’t believe or candidates they don’t support just to trick you!

Comment #124: Rebecca  on  04/20  at  01:45 AM

* hypocritical: professing, not “to profess.”

Comment #125: Rebecca  on  04/20  at  01:46 AM

Saying one thing and doing another. Example: “Everyone should ride the bus to work in order to reduce pollution.” *one hour later* “Jeeves, start the limo up. I need my Starbucks before traveling from NY to LA in my private jet.”

Comment #126: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/20  at  09:55 AM

Rebecca, I think WTF calls polls “misleading” because polls show that the majority of Americans don’t share his beliefs, when clearly they do. The only possible explanation is that polling doesn’t work, because the science of statistics must be fundamentally flawed.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t poorly conducted or just plain worthless polls out there, and even polls designed to get a specific result. I’ve read Huff too. But reputable polls are designed to avoid bias, and they really don’t need to ask everyone in the country.

Comment #127: Hershele Ostropoler  on  04/20  at  10:19 AM

Saying one thing and doing another. Example: “Everyone should ride the bus to work in order to reduce pollution.” *one hour later* “Jeeves, start the limo up. I need my Starbucks before traveling from NY to LA in my private jet.”

I think I’ve hit on it: this is exactly in line with conservatives’ whole “pro-America” philosophy. It’s impossible both to support something and think it needs improvement, so a liberal who wants the best for their child and simultaneously wants to improve other children’s only option is a hypocrite.

Comment #128: Rebecca  on  04/20  at  01:24 PM

Don’t get me wrong. There are hypocritical conservatives out there. The infamous “family values” politician who cheats on their wife or the anti-gay marriage politician who happens to be gay. In essence, you can be pro-public education or pro-environment. Just expect some flak when you yourself don’t act on your cause.

What’s wrong with being “pro-America?”

Comment #129: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/20  at  02:24 PM

Since I’ve already explained to you why it’s not hypocritical to send a child to private school while working for the improvement of public schools, would you care to respond instead of repeating “it’s hypocritical”?

What’s wrong with being “pro-America?”

Nothing at all. Conservatives in this country, however, seem to oppose the idea if it means loving the country enough to improve it, rather than shutting up and refusing to take a stand against torture and things like that.

Comment #130: Rebecca  on  04/20  at  05:19 PM

Well, your explanation is wrong, so why respond?

Comment #131: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/20  at  07:53 PM

Tell me why it’s wrong. That is generally what one does, in an argument.

Comment #132: Rebecca  on  04/20  at  07:57 PM

Because you’re idea of what a hypocrite is is wrong. The general consensus is a hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does another. I’ve already given examples. It just so happens that yes, liberals can be hypocrites. Liberals can be wrong. I know it’s a foreign concept to you, but please try to grasp reality.

Comment #133: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/21  at  01:52 AM

*your

Comment #134: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/21  at  03:13 AM

I provided you with a dictionary definition of “hypocrite” - it’s on you to prove that the “general consensus” is different.

Comment #135: Rebecca  on  04/21  at  03:53 AM

I nice little project for you: ask people what the general definition is.

Comment #136: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/21  at  11:34 AM

Your job, dude.

Comment #137: Rebecca  on  04/21  at  01:11 PM

Rebecca’s already said what the general definition is, WTF, you’re the one asserting that people don’t mean that.

Also, I hate to say “Semantic Argument! Semantic Argument!” but I notice you’ve stopped addressing the substance of what anyone is saying. So you now agree that polls are accurate, conservatives are two-faced,and you have a coherent political position and it’s generally rightist?

Comment #138: Hershele Ostropoler  on  04/21  at  01:41 PM

Wow.  Just. Wow.

Comment #139: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  04/21  at  07:38 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.