OT - How Conservatives Lost the Educated Class

[lordscarlet]

dola:

America's smartest cities - Aug. 31, 2006

Seems to be your list, and probably the accurate one.

edit: at first I assumed it was referring to this article: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money.../educated.html

[CamEdwards]

Yep, that's the one I was looking at, and the Census Bureau was looking at the cities themselves, not metropolitan areas.

As for whether it's false or not, I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that crime above the national average (in some cases, three TIMES the national average) is "low crime". The odd thing is, Egan could easily have left that out of his column without really changing his point.

There's a lot that I find odd with Egan's premise. I mean, after wondering why on earth conservatives would pick on big cities and find them "inauthentic", he describes Seattle as "Here in Seattle, it’s become a one-party city, with a congressman for life and nodding-head liberals who seldom challenge a tax-loving city government." Yet he doesn't really want conservatives to mount a succesful challenge to the domination of Democrats. He just thinks, "It would be nice, just to keep the philosophical debate sharp, if there were a few thoughtful Republicans around."

I thought liberals were normally opposed to tokenism.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

And how many of these top ten cities are located in areas were CCW is allowed?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

...

Thank You Cam. I was hoping someone would call him on this very thing.

I probably lean a bit further right than Troy described himself earlier, but I am very close to matching his self description in this thread. I probably should have given that post a +1. I find it concerning when people seriously start throwing stero types around. It reminds me of the rebuke by "intellectuals" that followed Kerry's defeat. Remember? "A vote for Bush is a vote for biggotry and unenlightenment" I'm not even sure that unenlightenment is a word, but I'm rambling now.

Is this topic seriously implying that being conservative is equivalent to a lacking of intelligence? It seems to me that a number of left leaning folks are piling onto this topic, and taking that away. It seems pretty short sighted to lay immediate claim to a notion that allows you to align yourself with the "educated", while simultaneously dismissing the opposition as a lot of fools.

Note: I get that the topic doesn't propose this, but it certainly seems to be the way that folks have taken it.

Rest assured, there are a lot of people more intelligent than you. Believe it or not some of them are conservative.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, both sides are a bit off on this. The Right definitely has its intellectuals in George Will, William Kristol, David Brooks, etc. However, there is definitely a sphere of the Republican Party who is distrustful of intellectuals. This is the part of the party that embraces George W. Bush's from the gut politics.

However, I think a line needs to be drawn between the Republican Party and the Conservative movement. It doesn't necessarily work to treat both the same, even though Bush and Palin call themselves true conservatives (I speculate plenty think they aren't).

[Fighter of Foo]

There's more crime in cities???? You don't say...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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

I think the problem is that there isn't a well-known word that's the opposite of "plurality". In the future, whites will no longer be a majority, but will still have a plurality. Plurality is already not a universally-known word anyway, so just using majority/minority gets the point across.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There's a lot that I find odd with Egan's premise. I mean, after wondering why on earth conservatives would pick on big cities and find them "inauthentic", he describes Seattle as "Here in Seattle, it’s become a one-party city, with a congressman for life and nodding-head liberals who seldom challenge a tax-loving city government." Yet he doesn't really want conservatives to mount a succesful challenge to the domination of Democrats. He just thinks, "It would be nice, just to keep the philosophical debate sharp, if there were a few thoughtful Republicans around."

Well, some challenge is better than no challenge at all. One-party systems, be they Democrat or Republican, can divorce themselves pretty well from the people they're supposed to represent. A case in point I know well is, of course, Chicago. I think we can all agree that echo chambers are a bad thing.

Heck, in the last Cook County Board election I voted for a Republican for Board President, just to try and help break up the stranglehold (didn't work).

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, both sides are a bit off on this. The Right definitely has its intellectuals in George Will, William Kristol, David Brooks, etc. However, there is definitely a sphere of the Republican Party who is distrustful of intellectuals. This is the part of the party that embraces George W. Bush's from the gut politics.

I think this is the point 100%. There's more than one type of Conservative (obviously), but the "conservatives" who have gotten a hold of the GOP since, say, the late 1990s, are exactly the kind of conservatives who have driven away a) intellectuals and b) old-school fiscal conservatives.