OT - How Conservatives Lost the Educated Class
 

This is an interesting article by David Brooks that gets to the heart of one of my significant concerns about the Conservative movement: their loud, public disdain for intellectualism and the educated class in America. Yes, there are outliers, but check out the statistics he provides about campaign donations (which I've bolded). For a country that supposedly prizes education, it's odd how much Conservatives will dismiss the contributions of the so-called 'educated elite' -- perhaps education is only prized through high-school? Sincere question -- it's strange to me. But as this article doesn't address the main Obama/McCain election, I felt it deserved its own thread, and I'm hoping to see a good discussion about this issue.

Link: NYT: The Class War Before Palin

Full Text:

I think the Palin part is a bit tacked on, tho she is the latest salvo in this "class war". But the idea is sound

SI

The Northeast was gone after Abraham Lincoln.

I think this is a straight outgrowth of the Moral Majority and the Religious Right.
The Republicans, by embracing religion so closely, can not also embrace science or education.

lol

Two points from me:

1) I'm not sure the "educated elite" is a single class. If we're talking about the "educated elite" that have infested our educational istitutions and formed the NEA who have decided that teaching "life management skills" and implementing diversity programs are far more important than teaching reading, writing, math and science, then good riddance to them.

2) My first does of class warfare was Clinton's '92 campaign. Before that, I was mostly getting into following politics during the Reagan and elder Bush elections, which were more about government fiscal policy and taxation than about class warfare. Clinton rode a wave of anger against the "rich" and perfected class warfare in politics, and I think a lot of what you see now out of Republicans is from folks backed into a corner who have seen this country turn on those who are successful, punishing them for that success.

1) That's cute, but absolutely irrelevant. People with post-graduate degrees (technical executives, economists to names the one cited by Brooks) support Democrats now. Are you seriously arguing that if we took a polling of the hard technical sciences or Math/Sciences, you'd find a more favorable split for Republican? If anything, I'd venture the split there is even more left-leaning.

And yet the majority of the successful vote Democrat.

You think so? I wouldn't.

I've found engineers to be fairly split. Perhaps as a group slightly right leaning, because they seem slightly more likely to come from conservative families.

The traditional sciences are definitely left leaning. Biological sciences much more so than the others.

I'd bet my savings on PhD's in technical sciences being more left-leaning than right-leaning, although not as left-leaning as academia overall (that's where the "Contemperary African American Gender Studies in Sexuality" types come in :D ).

The GOP has earned a lot of credibility over time (especially with economists) for sticking to facts on things like free trade, even when populist baying was for the opposite. Their idiocy on things like climate change and science overall has lost them a lot of that.

We're going to disagree, but I guess that's anecdotal evidence and there's no support there. :D

Ha, and I will admit that most of my experience comes from being around southern universities, so that may skew things a bit. I would imagine that the student body of MIT and Cal Poly is probably more liberal than a school like GT is conservative. (And just as liberal as Texas A&M is conservative.)

Here's a research on the topic.

www.nd.edu/~cwolbrec/PartyID.pdf

Well, I went to school at CMU which is pretty damn apolitical - but since then I've spent time in Boston and the Bay Area, both of which are pretty liberal. So yeah, I guess we're in agreement. :D

A lot of PhD scientists exist due to funding by the federal govt. When an administration, like the Bush2, cuts or reduces fundings for their project, they support those that will not.

Based purely on observations, most of the "pure engineers" that I work with seem to be left-leaning. Those engineers who are using the engineering as a stepping stone to management of some sort seem to be more right-leaning. And I'll 100% echo Bucc's comments about drastically reduced federal research funding under this administration making a large impact on whom the scientific community supports.

/tk

I find the lack of compassion that most conservatives possess to be frightening, and possibly borderline sociopathic.

I wonder how many conservative psychiatrists there are.

You do realize that in many cities in this country and in many places around the world, it is those same "conservatives" that have started and are running ministries, social services and medical clinics to help those in need. In other words, actually doing something tangible in the community. Or you just looking at a few loudmouths and painting everyone with the same ignorant brush? shurg

A few?

Conservatives tend to be very compassionate towards those looking for a helping hand to get back on their feet. Conservatives tend to have little sympathy for those who get themselves into trouble and expect someone else to fix it for them.

This is purely my opinion, but:

Conservatives are self starters and ambitious. Most feel the need to achieve as high a level as they can and support similar ambitions. They end up as technical leads, analysts, managers and small business owners. Outside of an MBA here or there, most prefer to run their own businesses as opposed to rely on an advanced degree. Those that work their way up the ladder to wealth often end up being conservative.

Liberals want to make a difference, improve the world and often don't like corporate organizations. They tend to gravitate to advanced degrees (masters, Phds, ..), journalism, lawyers, doctors and other professions/roles where they can impact society (social worker, psychologist, teacher, academic research). I also contend that a lot of people with wealth prefer to be liberal (maybe guilt for being as "lucky"?). That's why some CEOs, actors and entertainers lean left.

So, if you read those two groups, is it really a shocker that the second ends up with most of the support from people with advanced degrees?

Conservatives like Barack Obama, for instance. :)

It's easy to paint institutions of higher learning as filled to the brim with liberals who wouldn't survive in the real world, but it's not accurate.

I think you guys are somewhat missing the point of the column. It's not necessarily about the degrees people have, but how each party treats intellectualism.

There's also some wild generalizations being thrown around. Conservatives are the ones who are self-starters? That's a pretty broad claim.

Step back for a moment and try to think about how things and people actually are, people you know, and not how things have been painted by Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove.

My comments are simply based on life experience. I know more liberals (including most of my family) than conservatives and outside of Flasch, my dad and one other guy - none run their own small business (while about 12 people I've worked who do are conservative). None of the managers at my company or the ones we deal with are liberal. Plus, most of my left-leaning friends are in journalism, education, psychology or still going to school for advanced degree. I certainly could be the "odd ball" from this standpoint, but my comments are just based on my own experiences.

True conservatism died several years ago.

The problem with "conservatives", is that you have a "religious" attachment to that. A lot of people are what you describe, but don't support the religious movement (socially liberal). Am I wrong here?

Nope, you are correct there. Very few conservatives I know (maybe 20% max) are what I would consider strong socially conservative. Most are either more libertarian or generally apathetic on social issues (like myself).

I was simply referring to the base conservative belief system vs. the liberal belief system. From that standpoint, you don't have to have a religious component.

Earlier I had a huge response typed up, but opted against posting it.

Being a conservative != being religious.

Being religious != being anti-intellectual

Something that people on the left do not understand, or do not care to understand is that religion and science can coexist. I have posted here on the boards before, science is the study of the universe around us and how it works. Religion is the study of why the universe behaves that way. Much of the confusion is because there is a subtle difference between the pursuits. For example, the statement that water is a great solvent because it is a polar molecule is a scientific statement. It can be proven by experiment, etc. The statement that water behaves that way because God created a system that makes it behave that way is a religious statement that attempts to answer why the science is the way it is.

Or, another issue, the big bang is the current theory of how the universe was created. The question of why the points singularity is there or how that was created is the realm of religion and philosophy.

What winds up happening to conservatives is two-fold. First, the religious right exerts too much power in the party due to them voting on their social agenda, not their fiscal agenda. With more fiscal minded people not turning out in primaries, the religious right gets their candidate. Second, conservatives are typically for smaller goernment spending. Each of the groups listed in the article benefits from democrat views on spending, regulation, etc., etc.

Also, I heartily agree with the points Arles brought up as well.

part of the problem though warhammer is that the religious right is anti-intellectual. they don't think in the reasoned way that you think. they would say "water is a great solvent because god wanted it to be, and he made it a polar molecule."

That's not quite what I was saying. I would argue that liberalism has a pretty strong stranglehold on HOW education is run in this country (hence my comment on the NEA and teaching "life management skills"), though, and that has generally been for the worse, as the focus has been on teaching things OTHER than basic skills in public schools.

And while I may be colored by my current experiences with my local school board and how they've been given awards by national education groups for how they've pushed diversity at the expense of a stable educational environment, I've noticed this trend for a long time, as my family watched the curriculum at my old junior and high school change from the time I went through until the time my youngest brother graduated.

Everybody's gotta throw around extremes. Anybody who thinks that are conservative Christians can be painted with the same brush is either unaware of the facts or flat out distortiung the truth, perhaps for emphasis. My dad is an Evangelical minister with a ton of credentials such as chairing the Graham Crusade and also working for the WV Council of Churches on gambling, and would be known far and wide as one of the more influential conservative Christians int eh area. He has his doctorate. His wife has a masters. I have a masters, and he would be pickled pink if I got my PhD in polisci and taught it. Someday he wants to retire and go teach at a college. The churches I have been a part of embrace education both spiritually and secullarrly. Any idea that conservative Christians as a whole just disdain those with a higher education is silly based on my expereinces. Of course, there are a few idiots who are conservaite Christians, just like there are eco-terrorists on the other side, but environmentalislm is not painted by teh same brush by a few idiots with too much time on their hands, but conservativism is not so lucky.

Again, there is a VERY subtle difference which I am not even sure that I elaborated properly.

With the water example, that is a perfectly good explanation that is not at odds with science. If you are religious and believe that God created the universe (regardless of how that might have been achieved or what processes were used) then it goes without saying that God wanted water to be a polar molecule, etc., etc. In the mind of the religious person, God created the universe and the laws that govern it.

Thinking some more, and with more sleep than I was working on yesterday, I have a different example. In the past, in the minds of the ancient Greeks, the Greek gods were given credit for everything. If there was a storm, it was because the storm god wanted to smite some one. Lightning was created by the lightning god hurling down lightning bolts from the clouds, etc.

Today, I think we all know that lightning is caused by the uneven distribution of charge in a storm and the electrical discharge is due to the laws of physics trying to achieve a lower energy state. This is a scientific reason for why lightning occurs.

Now, the religious person would claim that this is due to God's crafting of the laws of nature or the universe. Meanwhile an atheist would claim that it was due to the laws of physics. Again, there is not a big difference in belief or definition. The difference is that the laws of nature are attributed to God in the case of a religious person, while the atheist believes the laws of nature are there by chance.

As I said before, there is a very subtle difference, which I can certainly recognize, I am just not sure that I am elaborating it very well.

I think that David Brooks has a good point.

From what I have seen, many folks with PhDs have grown quietly disenchanted with quite a few aspects of left-wing politics and policies, most notably affirmative action as it is currently practiced, speech codes on college campuses, teachers' unions whose primary purpose is to keep bad teachers teaching, and so on. If there was still a Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, or even a William Buckley wing, they might find a new home there. But there is no possibility of a single one of them jumping ship and supporting a Republican Party whose anti-intellectualism is so venomous, and whose celebration of mediocrity is so unabashed.

sorry - didn't mean to imply all. perhaps i should have just said "a very vocal minority."

Those would be the "few loudmouths".

Yeah, the same people that look at gays as "sinners". When they start accepting LGBT people into their ministries, and not as reclamation cases, you can tell me that they are a compassionate people.

I find it disgusting that people still experience this horrid bullshit. It is truly terrible. I truly feel that if the evangelicals were in power, there would be a muted sort of genocide against unrepentant gays, and that is unacceptable to me.

Let the Evangelicals be Evangelical. Let them seek office. After all, that is America. Let anyone seek office. Please. I am begging my fellow Americans...please don't let these intolerant, unconstitutional people ever gain power.

I am a black american. My ancestors fought for fairness. They endured hardships that I will never have to endure.

I am not gay. However, if me having to be gay helps lend credence to their fight for equality, then call me gay. In spirit, I will be gay. FUCK THE BIGOTS, AND MAY HELL EXIST SO THEY CAN ROT IN ITS BORDERS.

Also, let me speak on people who are against abortion. Fuck you. Worry about yourself. The police don't consider a pregnant mother able to drive in the carpool lane. Are you anti-police?

A fetus can't feel a thing. Tell me what you felt when you were a fetus. Yeah..you didn't feel a thing. That's because your first memory was when you were 3 or 4 years old.

I'm all for abortion. I eat steaks. I think a fully grown cow has a more developed nervous system than an unborn human fetus.

Feel free to disagree.

Sigh, where I work, there are plenty of conservative faculty members, even in the sciences. They don't take the extreme views of some southern conservatives (especially those in Cobb Country we'll call the textbook stickerers) but some have very conservative moral views. However, what Bucc said was correct. Funding has been cut under Bush, and that's funding that we use to support our research and our families. So most are tending to be left-leaners this election. But believe me, even higher educated people in a technical school let their moral beliefs determine voting behavior.

As for whoever said "science is the study of the universe around us and how it works. Religion is the study of why the universe behaves that way." I don't really understand how religion can be a "study" of anything. There is no "research" going on and every answer is essentially the same, God made it that way. So sure, you can use your example about water and say the ultimate answer is that God made it that way, but really, that's the same answer to every question. Evolution, gravity, etc. I'm not knocking religion, I am moderately religious, I just don't see it as a "study" of anything except human faith.

And by the way Arles, I didn't get my advanced degree to "help the world" or any of the reasons you stated above. I wanted to learn more about science and put myself in a better position to run my own life, or at least make a lot of money in industry if I went down that path. In fact, I'd say most of the reasoning for my advanced degree was looking at how to make more money in the future and possibly even start my own consulting business.

Ah OK, sorry I misunderstood you there.

On the topic as you've clarified it, I agree that much of public education has lost its way. I'm not sure if I'd put the entire blame at the door of "liberalism", however. There's rampant under-funding, for instance, parents who don't care, parents who sue at the drop of a hat, and some school districts who have to fight a running battle against creationists. There's plenty of blame to go around for the sorry state of public education these days.


Same here. My brother, who was 4 years behind me in school, went from public to private for his last two years in part because the quality of the curriculum had gone downhill so badly. And that was 15 years ago now.



Again, this is the point a bunch of people are missing in this thread.

There are plenty of conservatives out there who are good people, just like there are plenty of liberals out there who are good people (JiMGA's opinions notwithstanding). Anecdotally, two of our best friends are born again Christians (not sure how to capitalize that). And there's clearly a lot of common ground between the new progressives in the Democratic party and the intellectual, fiscally conservative, socially moderate wing of the GOP.

That's not the point.

The point is that the anti-intellectual, evangelical, intolerant wing of the GOP that gained ascendancy with Newt Gingrich, culminated in the George W. Bush presidency and has Sarah Palin as one of its standard bearers, is not these people. But it is the modern GOP.

And thus there is no room in the modern GOP for old-school conservative intellectuals specifically, and intellectuals in general. Even Christopher Buckley.

I agree that this is the real point.

At least here in the northeast, the republicans have more or less lost the suburbs. A lot of northeastern yuppie types who would have been republicans twenty years ago no longer see the GOP as a real choice. The perception (real or imagined) that the Republican party is no better (and possibly even worse) than the Democrats on fiscal policies, coupled with the alignment of the GOP towards social policies that are generally not in line with the culture of the Northeast, makes support for the Republican party a tough sell these days. That the traditional wing of the Republican party (and traditionally populated by moderate northeasterners) are considered "RINOs" today, also gives these voters pause as to whether the Republicans running in these elections actually have real influence in their party.

The article also pointed out:


I wonder if this is already starting to manifest in Obama's fund raising abilities in relation to McCain. This could be a serious issue for the Republicans in the long run...

I agree with this post. And for purposes of your example above, I will also be gay.

Wanna go make out?

+1

cept I'm not black. :( :banghead: :rant:

Don't mistake Republican for conservative. Please. Current crop is not conservative.

Repubs are hurting because they've lost their way. I don't see a party to vote for since the Dems are just insanely liberal and my party (hurts to say that) are liberal wannabe's.

That's all fine. Only one problem with the post:

While 99% of Evangelicals may be Republicans (I won't use conservatives, true conservatism is dead at the moment), most Republicans are not Evangelical.

In truth, Evangelicals won't get power now no matter who is elected. Bush is pro life, correct? What exactly has he been able to do in 8 years to curb abortions? Supreme Court justices? Please. Spare me.

Since 1980, we have had 22 years of Republican administration and 8 years of a Democratic one. Are gays treated better now than they were in 1980? Are abortions down from 1980? How about race, are we worse off in race relations than we were in 1980?

The reality is that the populace as a whole determines how people are treated. Racism has started to decrease in America when a majority of mainstream people looked down upon racist rhetoric. (it is not gone and I'm not saying discrimination still doesn't take place, please don't spin this off as me saying everything is perfect) If abortions are to go down it will take an overwhelming movement from the people to do it, not a couple of people elected to office.

The reality is most "conservatives" vote that way not to stop gays from having families or to prevent 16 year old rape victims from having abortions. . . they vote that way for economic reasons. Free trade. Smaller government. Personal responsibility. I have an ever so slight lean right. And yet I'm against the death penalty, against religion in schools, for gay rights, and am unsure on the aborition issue and would never base my vote on that because I don't think the guy in office can control it anyway.

What's changing?

As I noted above and someone else in the thread already did as well, true conservatism doesn't exist anymore. Reagan is spinning in his grave at a 700 billion dollar buyout for example. True conservatives are looking at other paths. Libertarian for example.

Painting people with broad strokes is pretty simple. Republicans do the same thing by callinlg all liberals communists. It's silly, stupid, short sited and wrong to do it. But people from both sides play the game none the less. . .

Well, what else can he do? That's about the extent of it, other than signing symbolic partial birth abortion bans. He turned Roe from a 6-3 majority into a 5-4 majority. Both of his justices were pro-life. He certainly did better than Regan (1 of 3 pro-life) and Bush Sr. (1 of 2 pro-life).

Aside from not being black, I'm with you here.


Aw, hell. Well for one, it's the DOT and not the police that defines a pregnant mother not being able to use the HOV lane.


So if you don't remember when you were under a year, is it okay to kill kids that young?

Oh, or it's the feeling thing. What about killing people in a coma? Or, ooh, under general anesthesia. There you go.

I'm sure a 8 month old fetus can feel things, most certainly pain. If your point is that a person can't remember way back then, I'll give that to you.

Suggest a another thread for this discuss as I can see this spiralling out of control.

What's your position on the requirement by some states to have a second physician present to prevent the aborted kid from being snuffed out if he happens to survive?

That's all he can do and yet that won't even be enough. OK, someone finally gets to the supreme court and they overturn Roe V. Wade. Then what? It simply goes back to the states control like it was before Roe V. Wade. Then it becomes chaos. Abortion, like it or not, isn't going anywhere for a long, long time. It's just not happening. Because of that, I won't vote on that issue, no matter how I feel on the subject. (As noted earlier, I'm undecided on it.)

I'm with DaddyTorgo and KWhit. +3

Karlifornia is too young to have so much negativity, anger and hatred.

In a thread nominally dedicated to intellectualism, I find this to be a pretty glaring example of the lack of logic and reason that's prevalent and pervasive in both parties today.

Ignoring, for the most part, your cartoonish attempts to paint your ideological opponents as monsters (muted genocide? Unconstitutional people? Really?), let’s get right to the heart of your fallacy.

If we believe that we have rights, then it means we believe our lives are worth something. Rights and privileges are sometimes used as one and the same (witness the 14th Amendment, for example), in the sense that we hold a person valuable enough to afford them certain privileges we don’t extend to other objects. We don’t value cows as highly as we value human beings, for example.

The belief that your life is inherently worth something, and you were inherently entitled to make of it what you would, is the driving force behind the concept of individual liberty. We haven’t always had that concept with us, and it certainly hasn’t been the dominant political thought throughout human existence. With the Reformation in the 16th century, we started an incredible philosophical and political journey into unexplored waters that has lasted for half a millennium. The progress has not always been easy or fast. It has often been uneven. But it has generally moved forward over time.

Now, where are you going to find a more rapid pursuit towards or preservation of individual liberty… in a society that holds life in so much esteem that it wants to extend human rights to the unborn, or in a society that advocates killing the elderly and the retarded (as ethicist Peter Singer has proposed)? I know, I know, that’s not your position. But I don’t hear you loudly proclaim against those who hold our life (and therefore liberty) in such low esteem that he would kill those on the edges of productive society.

We’re not worker bees. We’re not unthinking. We show mercy as a society. What morally killed slavery? Ultimately, it was the idea that even though someone may have the ability to enslave someone else, there is nothing that gives you the right to enslave someone. Our respecting the rights of others is, in a way, the strong showing mercy to the weak.

And again, one side shows an over-commitment (and perhaps one sided in the instances of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty) to mercy, while the other extreme shows an unflinching utilitarian view of inviduals.

At heart, those who are opposed to abortion are advocating for the full potential of human life. Those opposed to abortion believe, at least on some level, that we should have the right to prevent human life if it benefits society or ourselves. If left in a state of nature, the fetus will most likely turn into a child (barring miscarriage). That child will most likely grow into an adult. If left to nature, that fetus will be entitled to human rights. The question is when?

I don’t think a scientific consensus exists as to when life begins. The evangelicals believe it begins at conception. There are those who believe it begins at birth. I think most Americans fall into the camp of better safe than sorry, but aren’t willing to take it as far as the “life begins at conception” position. There are an awful lot of them who do, however, and I’ve yet to be convinced that is a bad thing, or at least that it’s worse than the utilitarian point of view you find at the opposing end of the spectrum.

As for evangelicals thinking gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, and what not are “sinners”… so what? We don’t have a right to not be offended by other people’s speech in this country, but behavior is another matter. As long as our laws aren’t solely based on the preachings of one denomination (or even one religion), they’re allowed to be based in a societal consensus. Witness the Supreme Court case on the death penalty for child rape. We may not like the result, but there’s nothing unconstitutional about it. When it comes to societal consensus on gay rights, I think we’re much closer to seeing acceptance for things like civil unions than we do tarring and feathering homosexuals. You also need to keep in mind that while some evangelicals are probably glad to tell someone they’re going to hell… these people have problems that are not necessarily the effect of religion. There are also people out there who try to prevent “sins” because they are compassionate. I think, frankly, most evangelicals need to be more tolerant of others who don’t share their point of view, and I don’t think they do a very good job of convincing others of their viewpoint, because it’s very easy for them to insult and fearmonger those they are trying to “save”.

Beautifully said, Cam. I disagree with most of what you said, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness and beauty with which you said it. I will digest this and try to figure how exactly I disagree with what you said. You upped the ante in classy way....I'm a young kid, and I can learn from people like you, Cam, even if I disagree with some principles. Give me a day to think about everything you posted. I don't want to be a reactionary idiot...at least not this time.

Also, Buccaneer...I agree with you..I am too young to be so angry. I wish my life had turned out different. But it is how it is. Sorry. Do you ask people to learn to deal with you, or do you just let them figure it out on their own? I'm thinking the second one. I hope that when I'm your age..I can have your level of wisdom. That last sentence is not sarcasm in any way...for real.

EDIT: Bucc...I am a budding libertarian...and that is in part thanks to you. Thanks for that.

Karlifornia, I will think of a good response and get back to you. Hope you have a good day.

Here's your original claim:


Evangelicals want abortion outlawed. To do this, they need the following to happen:

1. Elect a like-minded President who will stuff the federal bench with pro-lifers and stuff the SCOTUS with pro-lifers.

2. When SCOTUS is a 5-4 pro-life majority, Roe gets overturned.

3. In roughly half the states they have anti-abortion legislation waiting to go. Getting that passed is the next step.

4. Once this is done, start working on the other half of the states to outlaw abortion. If necessary (and ironically) get SCOTUS to do it. :)

Evangelicals got power to do #1 by being a big part of electing Bush. If they are a big part in electing McCain, they'll probably get #2 done (and #3 follows logically), since Stevens and Ginsburg will probably retire during the next term.

I don't understand how you can claim that evangelicals don't have power (probably inordinate power) in today's GOP, and especially for the past 8 years.

This is the same Reagan under which the debt ballooned from $500B to $4000B under, right?

SI

Oh historical pwnination.

I need an ironic t-shirt or something for this moment.

Similarly, your post is an example of cleverly cloaking a one-sided argument in the raiment of even-handedness.


Tangent: If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd ask someone to dig up the numbers to juxtapose the amount the American consumer spends on beef in a year vs. the amount they privately donate to charities that help humans.

So "value" may be the wrong word. It's perhaps more correct to say that we categorize human beings differently than animals (obvious, but there you go), as a society. Animals have a close-ended use, while humans have an open-ended potential to do almost anything with their lives.

If we were to have an intellectual conversation on this point, we might argue, between conservatives and liberals, how much potential an average human can actually realize given their starting point in life. If there's a conservative/liberal divide here, it's that conservatives view achievable potential more expansively regardless of the "starting point" than liberals do. In my view, conservatives' claims are largely backed up by anecdotes while liberals' claims (both claims on this topic, solely) are largely backed up by data.


Actually, I think most would agree that this new path of philosophy started with the Italian Humanists in the 14th century, which later influenced the Reformation.


It is, however, a false dichotomy. We aren't choosing between those who would preserve life at any cost and those who would dispassionately give and take life based on the calculated return to society. You've taken an issue on which the majority of people hold a range of nuanced positions and decided to use cariacatures instead. I'm not sure how that advances the conversation.


Not everyone pro-life is James Dobson and not everyone pro-choice is Peter Singer. Again, a false dichotomy. Worse, a false dichotomy cloaked in evocative language. Clearly the "good" side are over-commited to mercy, while the "evil" side are "unflinching(ly) utilitarian".


That's one way to put it.

Another way to put it would be that those opposed to abortion agree with the restriction of individual liberties in the pursuit of the preservation of the potential of a human life (and in some medical cases the potential may be very low indeed). At heart, they agree with this because they believe that the genesis of life itself is, for lack of a better word, sacred.

Those in favor of choice (which is what I think you meant in the 2nd sentence) at heart believe in the right of individuals to make choices for themselves without preconditions being set by others as being superior to any "sacredness" being present in the act of conception. Note that this description takes into account the fact that most in favor of choice have considerable issues with 2nd/3rd trimester abortions.

The "sacred divide" (again, for lack of a better word) of about 3 months is, realistically, what separates the majority of the pro-life crowd from the majority of the pro-choice crowd.

Tangent: Politically, this is the problem. I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.


The problem is that the argument isn't between those who want to outlaw abortion completely and those who want to be able to abort 40-week fetuses. Again you present a false dichotomy to color your argument.

You're illustrating the key problem here, Cam. Every argument about abortion has to boil down to talking about intractible God-fearers, secular baby-killers, or both.


Again with the false dichotomy, used here to belittle concerns about gay rights coming to fruition. Basically, gays should be so happy because societal consensus is against tarring and feathering them that they should just accept any equality that's engineered vis-a-vis civil unions? How about recognizing that whatever inequalities that are resolved legally by an agreement on civil unions, we'll still have the problem that there are parts of this country in which openly gay people can not live without fear of intimidation?


With this I agree, and would extend it to many parts of the political spectrum. To relate this to the opening post, though, I'd suggest that the inability of the modern GOP to have this kind of open discussion within the party and for that to be OK is what's driven intellectuals, or, more broadly, anyone with nuanced viewpoints, from the party, even if temporarily.

I get the sense (in part from reading this thread) that the political party that can successfully incorporate libertarian beliefs into their platform, will succeed in the coming years. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rep. party begins to make this transformation post-election to accomodate the many of us who are fiscal conservatives & anti-big government, but clash with many of the Republican's current social/moral/anti-intellectual stances.

Where do social conservatives go then?

I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at here. All I'm saying is that Reagan wouldn't have supported a 700 billion dollar bailout. Not that the national debt didn't go up with him in office. There were reasons for the debt, including a major recession that happened at the beginning of his time in office.

What's really needed is a good middle-of-the-road party that believes in tolerance, personal responsibility, and less government, all of which go hand-in-hand. Alienate both extreme sides of the spectrum. Push the Dems off way to the left, the Repubs off way to the right, and grab the middle ground.

To explain myself a bit to avoid people focusing on the particular words I used, "tolerance" means issues like gay rights, but it also means "equality", which includes no special favors in addition to no road blocks. "personal responsibility" means allowing folks to fail while still helping those that need an occasional helping hand through no fault of their own. "Right to pursue happiness" rather than "Right to receive happiness" and all that. "less government" means act as more as a mediator and protector, rather than a helicopter parent. Maybe more like a benevolent uncle or something.

That's the party I could get behind. I thought McCain was that guy a few years back, but he's not now. I thought Obama could be, then he started running for president. Sigh.

+1

Church.

It all seems so easy, doesn't it? Well, explain this one:

1) Anyone the GOP nominates has to go through the process of being confirmed. Good luck doing that with a majority democratic senate.

2) Good luck on getting half the states to agree to outlaw abortion. I'd be stunned if it were more than 25% of the states who banned abortion. There are states with trigger laws about it, but there are also states with trigger laws to allow it.

3) Again, this seems so easy, doesn't it? Do you have any understanding of how hard this is going to be to pass? Do you understand that public sentiment is pro Roe V Wade and not against? If we ever get to this level (and I give it about a 1.3% chance, if that), then the people will decide with their votes. Even in some of the automatic states, there would be little chance of success for abortion bans taking place.

Really, this is all the doomesday scenario. It's similar to what a republican might do in voicing their concerns with a liberal talking about welfare.

There is no overriding public sentiment to get abortion overturned. Until there is, it aint happening.

Again, I'm not pro choice or pro life. I know that's a cop out. I'm just torn on the issue. the way it goes. . .

Either way, I'm not voting on a candidate based off of one issue. If you choose to do so, that's your right.

They'd have to do what us fiscal conservatives are doing now. Hold their nose and vote for the candidate they think will do the least amount of damage or waste their vote on a third party candidate who has no chance in hell of winning.

Either way, they'd lose. Welcome to the world of libertarians.

I didn't say that. I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.


As long as they're competent, they'll get confirmed. See: John Roberts, Samuel Alito.


The percentage isn't the point. The point is that a certain proportion of states will more-or-less automatically outlaw abortion, which is a step in the process for the pro-life movement.


This, yes, is the hard part.


Well, the final, final result is the doomsday scenario, yes, but the first parts seem pretty straightforward. Again, this was in response to your two claims:


If McCain gets elected and Stevens and/or Ginsburg retire, Roe gets overturned and the Evangelicals get what they wanted. Given that Evangelicals would help deliver a McCain victory, and did help deliver two Bush victories (for which they were rewarded with two SC justices and numerable federal bench appointments), I'd say that have had, and will have, power.

Here's your second claim:


I guess I disagree with the state of abortion now and the state of abortion should Roe be overturned as:

1. not being a pretty major change

2. not being a pretty significant victory for Evangelicals and a demonstration of their "power" to drive progress on this issue in their favor

This is where I am also I think. I think I agree with almost every example you gave and going with a major middle of the road party that I felt actually had a chance to make a difference would mean much more to me than how dirty I feel when I compromise various beliefs to get behind a Democrat or Republican with my vote currently.

OK flere. We'll just have to wait and see. I don't think Roe V. Wade will be overturned in my lifetime. Public sentiment will win out here and there just isn't an overall public sentiment for abortion to be outlawed.

You make the statement: If McCain gets elected and Stevens and/or Ginsburg retire, Roe gets overturned and the Evangelicals get what they wanted. That's all fine and good. But I don't think the scenario would play out the way you think it would. And until it does, the "power" you profess the Evangelicals to have is based off of the same thing that I give as reasons they don't have power. Supposition and prediction.

As long as we agree there, I don't see where there is anything to debate on this.

Doesn't matter anyway. Obama is winning the election, barring a complete meltdown. I thought it'd be tougher for him 5 or 6 months ago, but he's did a good job snagging a decent amount of the Hillary supporters, his intrastructure is solid and the "conservative" aren't sold at all on McCain. All that equals to him walking in the White House and all of this conjecture being worthless anyway.

I thought the dots were really simple to connect. He ran up a bunch of debt because there was a major recession during his time in office- sounds a lot like a big bailout only spaced out more.

SI

I tend to agree here. I could see Roe being overturned (see below), but I think the eventual backlash might result in the number of states actually outlawing abortion being pretty small.


Really? Are you saying that the Democrats and/or public, knowing that another pro-Life justice means overturning Roe would go to any lengths to not confirm that justice? I concede that you could be correct if that's your argument.

Sadly, we'll never know if Reagan would have signed FIRREA, which essentially cost $125 billion.

A key point in my stance against abortion is that the choice had already been made. Conception is a natural - one might say, intended (by nature) - outcome of sex. If someone is choosing to have sex, you're accepting the chance of conception. Use birth control all you like, and bring that chance down - but it's still there. In a general sense (taking aside cases of rape, etc.), abortion is an attempt to avoid the consequences of an action already taken.


I think this is likely the case as well.

He ran up debt because he felt it was time to defeat communism. He simply destroyed the Soviet Union through forcing them to spend dollar for dollar with us. He believed in the end the Soviet Union would collapse, there would be economic turmoil in our country for a while, and then things would balance out. For the most part things went exactly as he and his advisors believed they would.

Karl,

thanks for the kind words. I'm looking forward to reading your reply when you have the time.

Flere,

I actually don't have the time to give your reply the attention it deserves, but just a few quick points:

1- I'll concede the Italian humanist movement because of the effects it had in making the Reformation possible, but I still don't think it had the widespread immediate cultural impact of the Reformation. Still, if we want to extend the proto-enlightenment back another 100 years, I'm down with that.

2- the false dichotomy stuff will have to wait, but no, my intention is not to make it an either/or proposition, and in fact I don't think I did that. I merely stated the opposing ends of the spectrum, and pointed out that the majority of Americans fall somewhere in between.

3- GLBT's not being safe because they are GLBT could certainly be addressed through specific legislation without trying to legislatively change societal attitudes towards GLBTs in general. I don't think there is a common societal attitude of acceptance of beatings and murder of those who are GLBT. I also don't think there is a common societal attitude of acceptance of same sex marriage, though our societal position is edging that way. My chief concern is the courts or legislatures getting too far out in front of society in general, because that's where we tend to not get government of, for, and by the people.

anyway, will try to respond in greater detail later, but I appreciate your thoughts too.

I've had an enjoyable time listening to Savage ruminate this week on creating a third party. As if there's a snowballs chance in hell that it would be successful.

It's weird how a guy can go from sounding pretty calm and half decent one minute, to hate filled rhetoric the next. Not everything has to be so black and white. I probably need to get Sirius so I can listen to the Cam Edwards show every night as I drive.

I have never found savage to be "pretty calm and have decent." :)

I cited this poll in another thread - In Poll, 54% Back Alito's Confirmation

How long do you think the Democrats can block McCain nominees until the public gets fed up? At some point, they'll have to let one through who is qualified. A majority backed Alito's confirmation and he was the most extremely anti-Roe justice that had ever been nominated to the court.

Well, you need to get Sirius (and tell them it's because you want to listen to that Cam Edwards fella every night), but don't do it because you think I can't (and don't) see some things in black and white.

I mean, my mind's made up on the gun issue, which is what I primarily talk about. But I don't subscribe ill intent to the vast majority of people who support gun control. I see it as typically a combination of not knowing/thinking about the issue, coupled with societal attention of violent crime without equally prominent coverage of self-defense stories, and the fact that people DO misuse firearms. I also know that I'm not going to get anyone at all to listen to me if I'm calling them names, so I try to be as reasonable as I can.

I figure if that doesn't work out, I can always pull a Flasch and start a show called "Cam Edwards and the Quest for Truth". :D

BTW, I've always thought Savage was about as real as professional wrestling.

Thank you for the compliment, Karlifornia. I can understand how one's life situation can make one bitter or resentful, I have been there (and probably am still to some extent). But in the end, it really is about attitude and how one responds to things around you - especially of those thing you cannot control.

There is, always have been and always will be, injustices and unfairness - thus the nature of humans. We put too much faith in man's systems, especially in the political and religious systems. They have their places in our lives but they are not the answers. What we can do, instead, is to do what Jesus has taught us - to love one another. That is the most fundamental need we humans have, regardless if one have faith in God or not. Such love can manifest itself in many ways and part of it is to accept each other for what we are for all of us can make a difference, however big or small.

That also means to accept yourself, knowing that you can make a positive difference - regardless how other people perceive you or what they have done to you. That's the hard part.

We cannot control man's political or religious systems, so one should have the attitude of not dwelling on the negatives but to accentuate the positives that are all around us. No matter where you are in life, there are always those that are less fortunate than yourself (or anyone of us here). Do we take a selfish attitude and claim what is ours while blaming others? Or are we willing to sacrifice and to give to others in the many ways that we can? I also believe that is the same attitude we have towards human life - to love, to respect and to cherish it - not to treat it as if it is worth nothing. That is the attitude we can control and it really is about personal responsiblity - having courage to affect change and to be selfless about it.

That is why I believe in what Jesus said when the Pharisees (whom we have way too many of today) tried to trap him in paying tribute to Caesar. He said give to him to what is his (in looking at a Roman coin), he had better things to do. The government can take everything I have but will I choose to hate or will I continue to love and still find it my heart to give to others? Man's religious systems can choose to do atrocities in the name of God but will I hate or will I continue to love and see the goodness that many are doing?

You mentioned wisdom. Experience and knowledge can certainly contribute to wisdom but I do not consider myself wise - just having more dots to connect. But I am coming to grips more with personal accountability and responsibility. I can blame and hate the way things are but I am increasingly choosing not to, simply by having a more giving and selfless attitude and to learn to accept myself for who I am.

Unfortunately, the mere psychology behind these two groups almost prevents the libertarians from ever becoming the dominant force. Not to paint with too broad a brush, but church-based groups are used to a hierarchical structure and organizing together. A libertarian half driven by ideals of self-reliance and individualism tends to be heavy on people who adhere to these rules and stray away from centralized machine politics, which is to say the modern 2-party system. So while you can get a charismatic leader at the top (Reagan) to change the tenor of the debate, the actual party machine will never have many libertarian-leaning people.

The double-whammy is that now, even at the top, individuals running for president don't seem to be willing to go out on their own (the ones that do, like Paul and Kucinich, get treated as clowns). Like gstelmack said, Senators McCain, Biden, Lieberman, (maybe even Obama although he always seemed to be more of a charismatic salesman in the Deval Patrick, Tommy Carcetti mode than a principled man) were some of the best centrist politicians this country had to offer. And all three changed drastically on the stump. Oh well, I'll go wipe my tears with Federalist #10.

I'll probably never buy a gun, but the last thing I want is Pelosi and her whacko friends interpreting the constitution for me. So we probably would agree on most of the gun issues.

Although lately, due to my job, I have considered going through the proper training, et al, and getting a conceal and carry permit w/ hand cannon. Something I've been mulling over, anyways.

Plus it would come in handy when the inevitable laser carrying zombie militia comes back from the dead.

Not to get all history geek on your (OK, yes, to get all history geek on you - after all, this is the time period of my master's thesis), but bear in mind that the Italian Humanist movement became, essentially, the Renaissance. While there's some parallel between the Renaissance and the Reformation, the former does predate the latter.


Same here, and no rush - we're all busy people, after all.

If the Republicans did not claim Religion I don't think most people would be for them. (Well the modern version) I am not sure how giving a tax break to the rich will help our economy personally. That being said I really don't like somethings the Democrats do either I am with the poster who said we need a third party.

The NYT seems to have thing for these:

That's been done before.

hxxp://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/17/Hillsborough/His_gay_claim_likely_.shtml

This line amused me.

Wouldn't they then be a majority?

No, because they are of different minorities. It does not say that half of all children will be black, or hispanic, or asian. It says "minority." So no one single minority will become the majority, just the collection of "non whites."

True, but then again there wouldn't be a majority at all, right?

BTW, in looking over the brainiest cities and their crime rates, the Times article is false. Here's the 10 ten cities and whether or not their crime rate is higher or lower than the national average.

1- Seattle. Crime rate is higher.

2- San Francisco. Crime rate is higher.

3- Raleigh. Crime rate is higher.

4- Washington, D.C. Crime rate is higher.

5- Austin, TX. Violent crime rate is lower than national average. Property crime is higher.

6- Minneapolis. Crime rate is higher.

7- Atlanta. Crime rate is higher.

8- Boston. Crime rate is higher.

9- San Diego. Crime rate is lower.

10- Lexington-Fayette. violent crime rate is higher, property crime is lower.

Pittsburgh, Albuquerque, and Denver also didn't make the top ten, which the author certainly implied. All three of those cities, btw, also have violent and property crime rates above the national average.

There are, of course, larger points that should be addressed in that column, but I think it's interesting that he's so wrong on that particular point.

Don't forget the bi-racial kids. What are you, racist or something? Jeez. :p

And once everyone's a minority, does that mean that we'll all be equal?

Hey cam-

Any chance you'll be available to XM listeners anytime soon? There's already several channels in the "Best of sirius" package.

I'm guessing that more than half of all children being minority would be true, because when you take adults into consideration they would still be minorities.

Someday they won't be minorities though. Oh, the horror!

Atlanta is in the top 10?

Is he taking into consideration just the cities or the metropolitan areas? I would think that crime would go down for the DC Metro area....but would be absurdly high if you just considered DC.

I wonder if... just possibly... the author was comparing those cities to other cities rather than a composite nationwide average including areas with dramatically different demographics? I'd agree that "low crime" is a potentially misleading title to bestow on any city (given that cities tend to have dramatically higher crime rates than rural areas, especially in certain subsets), but isn't there still something valid about noting that one city has a lower crime rate than another or than a composite of other areas of its size? Wouldn't we all be proud of a city like New York (at least at one point) that worked to effectively reduce crime from one high level to something lower, even if the new lower level was still much higher than the crime rate in Eau Clare, Wisconsin or Ames, Iowa?

I'm not saying I'm particularly persuaded by the argument in the article. But if you're critical of him using one meaning or "low crime" and then act as if there's only one possible meaning of that term and it happens to be the one that you pick, then I'm not sure you're enhancing your argument there.

It might be an ambiguous or even misleading use of a statistic, but it's not "false."

I was ver;y concerned with the left-wing trend in the country in the 1960's. So I voted Nixon and every Republican who followed him. I watched the left get pretty well trashed and saw the country swing pretty heavily to the right as of now.

I'm voting for Obama because my nature is much like Nobel Prize Winner Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain) who said he leaned left when the boat rocked right and right when the boat leaned left. Hitler hated him, even though Mann was anti-Communist. I loathe the anti-intellectuals on the right (Brown Shirts, anyone?) as well as the elitism of the left ('we're so much better and smarter than you are that you prove your ignorance by voting against us'. Yeah, that's worked very well as an election tactic, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore.)

There is just enough center left in the US to make our weight and intentions felt. It is time for the pendulum to swing left for the simple reason it needs to be more toward the center.

It'll all work out.

The list I see is:

1. Boulder, Colo.
2. Stamford, Conn.
3. San Francisco
4. Madison, Wis.
5. Boston
6. San Jose
7. Raleigh-Durham
8. Ann Arbor, Mich.
9. Middlesex-Somerset, N.J.
10. Washington

And I saw another article that referenced Albuqurque as being #7. I think we need to find the proper list. :)