Dorrk Dot Com

We’ve all heared that the reason there are so few Conservatives in the education system is because A) conservatives are not smart B) Conservatives aren’t willing to challenge assumptions (which of course liberals aren’t either–they’re just different assumptions) and/or C) conseratives pursue money. Well here’s a counter-argument from someone that made me laugh.

"I used to be really troubled with why what are supposed to be some of the smartest people, professors, are so universally liberal. Same with the media elite. It was finally explained to me. There is a PERFECT correlation between how liberal or conservative someone is and how much their job involves real feedback mechanisms in which there are real consequences to their actions and beliefs, if they turn out to be wrong.
If someone in the media or academia are wrong about something, like communism being a good thing in the early 20th century, no big deal. It doesn’t really impact them. This allows them the luxury of pursuing things that sound good (like redistributing money, etc.) and not having to face the consequences of being wrong. Teachers and the media are the ultimate example of this. They can have all the goof-ball ideas in the world and… no problem, when they turn out to be wrong.

Take a business man or someone in the military. Now, they don’t have the luxury of chasing ideas that just sound good. If they do so, and they are wrong, they are likely to get someone fired or killed. Thus, they tend to be more conservative.
Young kids tend to be liberal as well, until they start to work and face the harsh feedback that is reality. Then they, too, start to become more critical of ideas that sound good, but are bad.
Unfortunately, teachers and people in the media never have to face realworld feedback. So, they will always be liberal

This is similiar to VDH’s idea that if professors had to work with their hands and till the soil, the might not be so utopian.

At the very least, I think the part in bold explains why the United States always takes a realist position in foreign policy as opposed to the neo-hippy positions 50% of America would like the administration to take. There’s too much at stake to pursue wishful thinking on that scale.

Comments?

Tags: No Comments