The conservative concept of liberalism in academia

[Upchurch]

In this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24836&perpage=40&pagenumber=2), hammegk posted the following:
Originally posted by hammegk

Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...p20030812.shtml
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.
What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

See again thread on incest. In the above thread, we explored the absurdities and contradictions of that quote (as well as the fact that it has nothing to do with atheism and, in my opinion, has more to do with theism). But that's besides the point.

I was reading a little further in the article and found something that got me thinking. It is off topic for the original thread, so I thought I'd start a new one.
"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?For a moment, let's ignore the author's broadly generalized caricature of academia and obvious anti-intellectualism and consider the idea itself.

I was first introduced to the conservative concept of "rampant liberalism" in academia when I was in college. I have an ultra-conservative uncle who listens to, and believes, way too much conservative talk radio. He mentioned/asked me about all the liberal concepts my professors were inundating me with. I was not at all politically inclined at that point so I had no idea what he was talking about. I responded that I was in physics. The closest thing my professors ever came to mentioning politics was when we discussed the closing of the Superconducting Supercolider project.

He went on to insist that they must be teaching me things like being pro-abortion or pro-affermative action. He became more than a little irate when I told him those subjects never came up. (We had so much to cover as it was, who had time for socio-political issues as well?) Finally, my mother (a college professor) and my grandmother (both a strong conservative and a teacher) backed me up that it just wasn't like that and that the idea was nonsensical.

So, where does this idea of rampant liberalism in academia come from? As I said, my mother is a professor so I grew up around academics and, in their personal lives, they span the political spectrum, in my opinion. Well, almost. As they tend to be better educated than the general public they don't seem to be as inclined to extremism, be it liberal or conservative.

It's my guess that the origin of the concept that my uncle and the above author holds come from the fact that they, themselves are conservative extremists and see anything left of themselves as rampant liberalism. In otherwords, it is a relative assessment rather than an absolute assessment (if such a thing is possible in politics).

Is anyone else familiar with this idea or why some people think it is true?

[Lurker]

I have attended three differrent colleges and in none of them did I learn the liberal point of view. But like you, I was in the sciences so may not have been exposed as those in humanities.

I also find it humorous that conservatives seem to feel that the more educated you are the higher probability is that you are a liberal. Or at least that is how I translate their dislike of accademia. After all, they keep claiming that the PhD's are liberal. What else can I infer from that logic?

Lurker

[The Don]

I would agree in most aspects, however....

It could be argued that "career educators" can have a somewhat naive understanding of some aspects of politics and the economy on the grounds that historically they haven't had the same degree of exposure to certain economic constrints.

This is quickly evaporating in New Labour's third way Britain

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Don
I would agree in most aspects, however....

It could be argued that "career educators" can have a somewhat naive understanding of some aspects of politics and the economy on the grounds that historically they haven't had the same degree of exposure to certain economic constrints.

This is quickly evaporating in New Labour's third way Britain

And here's me thinking your nick refered to Donald Bradman.

So, Don, are you Oxford or Cambridge?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Lurker
I also find it humorous that conservatives seem to feel that the more educated you are the higher probability is that you are a liberal. Or at least that is how I translate their dislike of accademia. After all, they keep claiming that the PhD's are liberal. What else can I infer from that logic? I would argue that it is just conservative extremist who hold this opinion, but there seems to be such a polarization of the political spectrum, that it seems thats what most conservative (and liberals) are these days: extremists.

I think I could rationalize the concept that education makes you more liberal. At least, "liberal" in the sense one is broad-minded and not necessarily bound by tradition rather than the "dirty word" concept that people like the above author or my uncle might use. Exposure to other cultures (both foreign and domestic), religions and people tends to open people's minds to alternate possibilities than the ones they grew up with.

Still, I don't think it implies the kind of ultra-liberalism that ultra-conservatives imagine.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


So, Don, are you Oxford or Cambridge?

Palermo

[Malachi151]

As someone who is a liberal myself I agree that there are many stupid liberals, and that much of the supidity of liberalism comes from postmodernism and the belief that "we can all just get along".

However among liberals you have two distictly different types, the ones like me, and he ones that think everyone is good.

I don't agree that we should be teaching cultural equality or acceptance, or that everyone is good, or if it feels good do it, or re-writing history to take the oppiste view of the conventional view, ect.

We do need to rewrite history, but to be objective, not just place all blame on one side or the other.

There is a thread on the bombing of Japan on a different forum that is a great example of this:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59717

A few of my comments:

Well, I think that the use of the bomb(s) was acceptable.

It was horrific, but the Japanese really were not going to surrender. There were plans not to surrender even after the 2nd bomb. Its a shame that those innocent people had to die for the actions of their leaders, but their leaders were going to get them killed regardless. Maybe not those same exact people, but an equal or greater amount. Some Japanese were prepared to fight to the very last man, for real. Its hard to image looking at Japan today, but at the time most people really did think that the Emperor was a god, they really thought that the war was an all or nothign part of their destiny. To either win the war or be destroyed as a people. The Japanese are very sacraficial people, it is part fo their culture.

We did save them from themselves.

I think that the US did liberate the Japanese in WWII. The lives of the Japanses really were improved by the loss of WWII and the US takeover of the country.

The same with Germany.

Now if someone would just return the favor and liberate us

Edit: It does good to reevaluate history and question the judgement of the past, but this is one that was a correct judgement, and IMO opposing this issue only hurts the positions of the left. People on the left should support this as a form of liberation of the Japanese, for which they themselves are greatful as is the whole world.

Some more info here. I really can't see how anyone can argue that it was not right to use the A-bombs.

#1 The Japanese had killed millions of civilian Asians by the time we bombed them, and they did it in person. Shooting women and children at point blank range. The Rape of Nanking? We are talking about over 12,000 females, from little girls to old ladies who were raped by Japanese soldier. The Japanese indiscriminately shot civilians including children. They tortured thousands of people for sport, set people on fire, etc. Shot babies as they were crying, etc.

So if were are going to start talking about some group was horrible during this war lets start with the Japanese because they were the worst of all.

#2 The Japanese had thousands of Americans in POW camps. Between 1% and 4% of Allied POWs died in German hands, about 17% to 28% of allied POWs died in Japanese hands.

The Japanese tortured and killed thousands of American POWs by doing things like hanging people from their thumbs until they died, just beating people for fun while they were tied up with pipes and guns, taking bayonet practice on groups of Americans tied to posts, freezing people to death to study the affects. Operating on people while they were alive with no anesthetic. Dissecting people and keeping them alive so they could see the organs working while the screamed in pain. They infected thousands of people with biological agents, diseases so bizarre and foul that there were no cures, they caused death and permanent damage.

#2 At the time of the bombing there were still thousands of POWs in Japan. The Japanese had a practice of killing all POWs when an area was invaded So, when previous Japanese islands were taken by America they would slaughter all the POWs and then fight to the last man. They did that so that they didn't have to deal with the POWs during the fights, and also so they would not talk.

If there was a land invasion of Japan they would probably have done the same thing and killed all the allied POWs.

In the war the Japanese probably killed more civilians than any other group, its a hard toss up between the Germans, Japanese and Russians, I'm not sure who killed the most civilians, but they all killed millions.

#4 A land invasion would have likely killed even more people, including civilians, than the bombing did.

#5 The Japanese were WORKING ON a nuclear bomb of their own. During the whole war Japan and Germany were working on A-bombs themselves. After Germany surrendered, they sent a secret sub to Japan with uranium and their best scientists to help Japan make a nuclear missile, also with an in tact V-2 rocket. This sub was picked up by the Americans and did not make it, but they had plans. The Japanese, if they had access to uranium, could have built a bomb, which THEY would have used on civilians, they had already killed millions.

The Germans and Japanese were working on kamikaze ICBMs to begin bombing the US. There was a German plan to built an ICBM that would be piloted by a person, to hit New York and DC. If they could have gotten a nuke on it, they would have.

To argue that we should not have bombed them is stupid. To even allow the idea that America was the "bad guy" in this situation is disgusting. I am very critical of American policy, in fact I am critical of the fact that we made such good friends with the Japanese after the war and immediately invaded China with their help, which is a load of crap, but nuking the Japanese was a good thing.

Now, the problem with American perceptions of the bombing of Japan comes from the idea that the Japanese were the victems and that they weren't really doing anything horrible. That's obviouly moronic. The problem was really created by both the left and right though. It was origionally created by the anti-Communsits in America because we wanted to ally with Japan to fight the Communstis in Southeast Asia, so after the war thier attrocities were covered up. Now liberals have latched on to that and try to take the side of the Japanese, This is horrible.

Same goes now with the Muslims. You have some liberals that say "we are all equal, the Mulsims are good and they should be abel to have Mulsim governemtn is they want to", and other liberal, that say "No, theocracy is bad, repressive and a step back, we, as Americnasw need to stand up and make sure that the rights of people in Iraq are protected against these fanatics and to hep ensure progress in Iraq now that we are there."

Conservatives generally say "Its their problem, let them deal with it."

But, overall I think that what the quotes in question do most is look at the right-wing stereotype of the modern libeal, not real issues of liberalism or the real views of the liberal community as a whole. They are taking the worst group of liberals and saying that they are all like that. I think that you will see a resurgance of the term progressive to separate out rational, atheistic, progressive liberals, from postmodernist, new age, loopy liberals.

I think that MOST liberals are rational, the its the few vocal new age ones though that the right likes to highlight in order to make thier point.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Conservatives generally say "Its their problem, let them deal with it."



..... unless of course they say "out of the way rag-head and let me at that oil"


to be deliberately provocative

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The Don
It could be argued that "career educators" can have a somewhat naive understanding of some aspects of politics and the economy on the grounds that historically they haven't had the same degree of exposure to certain economic constrints. Not to argue the point too much, but career educators, on average are one of the worst paid in the U.S., even at the collegate level, which is much better than at the primary and secondary levels. And really the only thing that bumps collegate level educators up to the big bucks is the non-education related jobs they also do like book writing and research.

If anything keeps educators somewhat naive, I'd say it's the lethargy they get from the security of tenure. But I don't see how that effects their political leanings, per se, except to make them maybe more so of what they already were.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Not to argue the point too much, but career educators, on average are one of the worst paid in the U.S., even at the collegate level, which is much better than at the primary and secondary levels. And really the only thing that bumps collegate level educators up to the big bucks is the non-education related jobs they also do like book writing and research.

If anything keeps educators somewhat naive, I'd say it's the lethargy they get from the security of tenure. But I don't see how that effects their political leanings, per se, except to make them maybe more so of what they already were.

I'm always alarmed when professionals are paid poorly. Teachers in Australia, IMHO, are paid well (they are paid more than me), but I shudder when I think that a police officer is only paid a fraction -a bare fraction- more than I am, and I'm only an office worker.

I'm overqualified for my job- I could get a higher paying job easily if I wanted to. But I don't want the stress that comes with the higher pay. Life's too short, and I don't need the money. But the majority of people I work with, while I wouldn't call them morons, aren't the people that I'd want in charge of law enforcement. Even though they deal with legislation every day, they don't even know the basics of legislation. A common attitude is that if you don't like a law because it's in favour of someone on welfare, you can just ignore it because "we're here to serve the tax payer, not welfare recipients".

I don't like to think that these are the sort of people who would work as police officers. It's like the old cliche goes- you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Not to argue the point too much, but career educators, on average are one of the worst paid in the U.S., even at the collegate level.

Sorry, didn't explain myself well enough. I didn't mean to imply that educators were as rich as Croesus I just felt that, as you said security of tenure, relatively generous pension provisions, not having to indulge in individual pay bargaining (at least in the UK), and the fact that budgets are generally managed on their behalf has led to a degree of detatchment from some aspects of the economy.

Unfortunately this has all changed, the fact that there is no longer (if ever there was) pool of resource, the various political machinations and so forth has meant that some of this has been cruelly removed. Both my parents retired from teahing ASAP when they found out that they wouldn't be spending much time teaching. (Likewise Mrs Don's parents in the States)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by The Don
Both my parents retired from teahing ASAP when they found out that they wouldn't be spending much time teaching. (Likewise Mrs Don's parents in the States)

Well that's the thing ain't it; in Higher Education these days lecturers can spend as much time on administrative tasks as they do on their teaching/research, and they're having to come to terms with the economic realities of the latest crop of government modernising initiatives in the most abrupt manner, particularly in terms of redudancies to make up for shortfalls in funding if their recruitment figures don't match targets set by the government.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151
[...]and that muc of the supidity of lieralism comes from postmodernism and the belief that "we can all just get along".
Could you explain how you arrive at this conclusion, or give an example of postmodernist thought or philosophers that espouse this view please?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Could you explain how you arrive at this conclusion, or give an example of postmodernist thought or philosophers that espouse this view please?

Because I don't really feel like wasting a lot of time on this, I'll just point you to one viewpoint:

http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/postmodernism.html

And some other things I have already written about this subject:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/economic_solutions.htm

[BillyTK]

So anyway, rampant liberalism in academia... I guess there is, and it's kind of inevitable if education is going to be made accessible to all, regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion &c &c. I guess it's this pluralism, and the inherent erosion of "traditional values", that conservatives like Dennis Prager are afraid of.

On an aside, my experience is that politics, economics and law lecturers tend to be on the right, whereas sociology and psychology lecturers tend to be more left-leaning. With sociology this is likely due to the nature of the subject matter, what with it being the study of society and social level phenomena. I guess you could try to be a right-wing sociologist, but this would require the rejection fo a number of basic tenets and would be like trying to be a scientist who rejects empiricism.

[Nyarlathotep]

Perhaps Community Colleges are different, but I am currently attending one in hopes of getting the degree I should have gotten when I was younger. From what I have seen so far, I can't detect any bias towards conseravtism or liberalism on the part of my instructors. I have had a couple of conservatives, a couple of liberals, and many whose leanings I couldn't discern one way or the other. This is pretty much what I would expect with any similar size group of random people.

As for the students, this may be because I am mostly taking night courses with other adults, rather than idealistsic young kids, but I notice a defininate CONSERVATIVE trend. While I still couldn't tell you most of my fellow students political leanings, the ones I can tell, with the exception of a couple of "aging hippie" types, are mostly conservative, even the younger ones. In fact when, in the course of a writing assignment in an English class, some of my fellow students found out that I was an atheist, they began to treat me as if I were evil incarnate, to the point of not getting on the same elevator with me. It was pretty funny actually/

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Because I don't really feel like wasting a lot of time on this, I'll just point you to one viewpoint:

http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/postmodernism.html

And some other things I have already written about this subject:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/economic_solutions.htm

Cheers! Have you read Jameson's "Postmodernism..." as well? ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BillyTK
So anyway, rampant liberalism in academia... I guess there is, and it's kind of inevitable if education is going to be made accessible to all, regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion &c &c. I guess it's this pluralism, and the inherent erosion of "traditional values", that conservatives like Dennis Prager are afraid of.So, you're saying that it's not the education, per se, that leads to the idea that academia is liberal, but that the education is (theoretically) available to anyone? That's interesting, but it doesn't cast a very good light on conservatives. Not that my idea that education itself is viewed as the cause of liberalism by conservatives was very flattering either.
On an aside, my experience is that politics, economics and law lecturers tend to be on the right, whereas sociology and psychology lecturers tend to be more left-leaning. With sociology this is likely due to the nature of the subject matter, what with it being the study of society and social level phenomena. Those aside, I'd say when it comes to other disciplines, it's pretty much an even spread, in my experience.

[Ladewig]

I have never noticed such a trend at all. When I was at a Jesuit university, we were given a case in a business ethics class that involved a promenent employer in a small town that was not able to meet EPA regulations concerning chemicals dumped into a stream. We were told that to meet the regulations would put the company out of business and destroy the town's economy. The vote was 100 to 1 to keep polluting and keep the plant open. Hardly the result of liberal brainwashing.

Perhaps such a label comes from professors asking things like "why should we believe this instead of that" in order to encourage critical thinking. From some extremist conservatives, discussing all sides of an issue is an attack on the status quo.

Perhaps it is a hold-over from the McCarthy era when hundreds of professors condemned the HUAC hearings.

__________________

When conservatives tell me that the definition of a liberal is someone who believes people will act their best and the definition of a conservative is someone who knows people will act their worst, I ask why rich, white, politically-connected males are excluded from their condemnation of human behavior.

[corplinx]

Apparently, the "academia is full of liberals" idea comes from Buckley's "God and Man at Yale", the collegiate activism during the 60s, and modern day examples of PC run amok that pop up every two months or so at some college somewhere.

Every time a conservative hears about Justice Thomas being asked not a attend some college ceremony, about students banned from putting out flyers about conservative speakers, or about some other thing; they assume that it is a pervasive problem without balancing how much of that goes on versus not.

The problem is one of perspective. Conservatives tend to only pay attention to academia when a controversy pops up. Sure, I had a few indoctrinators at my college. However, compared to the vast majority of my teachers they were in a minority. I was treated to these types in history, poly sci, and even in a theatre class. However, my anecdotal evidence doesn't support a pervasive problem.

[Dancing David]

There is a long history of anti education in America, and I think it all goes back to that.

Also consercatives delight in pointing to one or two instances of liberal teachers (CUNY) that do really wierd things. But having gone to school in the Midwest, I have to say most of the educators and educated are conservative, moderate maybe but still conservative.

But Universities are meant to be forums for all points of view, and think that is where they get in trouble.

If you read literature from the thirties and forties, you will see that there is a definite cultural bias against education. 'Longharir' was a tem of dersion before the hippies.

Education, being based on science is also fond of pointing out the faith based nature of many beliefs.

[Malachi151]

Politics and economics are right leaning in universities because that is all that is allowed. We live in a capitliast society, you can't teach Communism or Marxism in a univertisty, you will be kicked out, as many have been over the years. There is a taboo against the subject, so obvioiusly this only allows right leaning people to teach those subjects, or forces peoepl to learn right, etc and only exposes people to right leaning ideology.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, you're saying that it's not the education, per se, that leads to the idea that academia is liberal, but that the education is (theoretically) available to anyone?
Well, in some ways it's more complex than that, but in other ways it's as simple as that. I don't imagine that studying, for instance, molecular biology is going to make you any more or less liberal, but being exposed to people with differing cultural backgrounds is going to affect your attitudes, unless you're prepared to isolate yourself from anyone with a different background to your own, which seems kind of... sad and pointless.

If universities wish to be exclusive and elitist, and only appeal to a white, middle-class, conservative christian constituency (for instance) then that's up to them, as long as they're not doing it with state-funding. But state-funded universities have to be reflexive to the diversity of the population who want a university education.
That's interesting, but it doesn't cast a very good light on conservatives. Not that my idea that education itself is viewed as the cause of liberalism by conservatives was very flattering either.
Well, what with us here in the UK having a two-tier education system, it's understandable that conservatives are worried, because For a long time the top tier "produced" conservatives simply because students were only ever exposed to conservative values; see for instance, the Oxbridge Old Boys' civil service connection (it just struck me, if you take Prager's article and substitute conservative for liberal, and the civil service for academia, you get what many have been saying about public (private) school education in the UK). But widening access to higher education means that the educated elite are no longer as likely to be exposed to traditional values, which is a threat to those who hold on those values dear. This may not cast a good light on conservatives, but surely that's a reflection of the nature of conservativism, and its resistance of change?

[c0rbin]

Great thread BTW. It's nice to be able to talk about this without having to be for or against. Speaking of which...

I would argue that it is just conservative extremist who hold this opinion, but there seems to be such a polarization of the political spectrum, that it seems thats what most conservative (and liberals) are these days: extremists.


It is hard these days to be moderate. The labelling has gone out of hand. Lib this and Lib that. If your not with us, you are against us.

For some, the labelling makes it easier to identify someone: "Oh, you are a liberal, I can dismiss anything you say as being anti-America, or utopian."

It seems like those who cry "Liberal Brainwashing" in acedemia are worried that young adults are in capable of thinking critically. Which is ironic, because in this country I cannot think of a conservative who would be willing to direct funds to elemntary education beyond the lip-service level.

[hgc]

Only anecdotal, but...

When I was at the University of Colorado, I had 2 professors who were famous "radicals." One was David Gross (History) for "European Intellectual History II", and the other was Peter Singer (Philosophy - author of the book Animal Rights) for "Practical Ethics." In both cases, the subject matter was treated with objectivity and academic integrity. If I hadn't known their reputations already, I wouldn't have known their politics from being in class. Oh, and both were tough graders. Jeesh!

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Great thread BTW. It's nice to be able to talk about this without having to be for or against. Speaking of which...



It is hard these days to be moderate. The labelling has gone out of hand. Lib this and Lib that. If your not with us, you are against us.

For some, the labelling makes it easier to identify someone: "Oh, you are a liberal, I can dismiss anything you say as being anti-America, or utopian."

It seems like those who cry "Liberal Brainwashing" in acedemia are worried that young adults are in capable of thinking critically. Which is ironic, because in this country I cannot think of a conservative who would be willing to direct funds to elemntary education beyond the lip-service level.

Speeking of crys abotu liberal brainwashing:

JEWRY IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

Colleges are being constantly invaded by the Jewish Idea. The sons of the Anglo-Saxons are being attacked in their very heredity. The sons of the Builders, the Makers, are being subverted to the philosophy of the destroyers. Young men in the first exhilarating months of intellectual freedom are being seized with promissory doctrines, the source and consequences of which they do not see. There is a natural rebelliousness of youth, which promises progress; there is a natural venturesomeness to play free with ancient faiths; both of which are ebullitions of the spirit and significance of dawning mental virility. It is during the periods when these adolescent expansions are in process that the youth is captured by influences which deliberately lie in wait for him at the colleges. True, in after years a large proportion come to their senses sufficiently to be able "to sit on the fence and see themselves go by," and they come back to sanity. They find that "freelove" doctrines make exhilarating club topics, but that the Family-the old-fashioned loyalty of one man and one woman to each other and their children-is the basis not only of society, but of all personal character and progress. They find that Revolution, while a delightful subject for fiery debates and an excellent stimulant to the feeling of superman-likeness, is nevertheless not the process of progress.

The trouble with the colleges has progressed along precisely the same lines that have been described in connection with the churches. First, Jewish higher criticism in the r destruction of young men's sense of respect for the ancient foundations; second, Jewish revolutionary social doctrines. The two always go together. They cannot live apart. They are the fulfillment of the Protocol's program to split non-Jewish society by means of ideas.

It is idle to attack the "radicalism" of college student- these are the qualities of immaturity. But it is not idle to show that social radicalism ("radicalism" being a very good word very sadly misused) comes from a Jewish source. The central group of Red philosophers in every university is a Jewish group, with often enough a "Gentile front" in the shape of a deluded professor. Some of these professors are in the pay of outside Red organizations. There are Intercollegiate Socialist Societies, swarming with Jews and Jewish influences, and toting Jewish professors around the country, addressing fraternities under the patronage of the best civic and university auspices. Student lecture courses are fine pasture for this propaganda, the purpose being to give the students the thrill of believing that they are taking part in the beginning of a new great movement, comparable to the winning of Independence.

The revolutionary forces which head up in Jewry rely very heavily on the respectability which is given their movement by the adhesion of students and a few professors. It was so in Russia-everyone knows what the name "student" eventually came to signify in that country. The Jewish Chautauqua, which works almost exclusively in colleges and universities, together with Bolshevism in art, science, religion, economics and sociology, are driving straight through the Anglo-Saxon traditions and landmarks of our race of students. These are ably assisted by professors and clergymen whose thinking has been dislocated and poisoned by Jewish subversive influences in theology and sociology. - Henry Ford 1926

http://www.ety.com/berlin/ford1.htm

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by corplinx
Apparently, the "academia is full of liberals" idea comes from Buckley's "God and Man at Yale", the collegiate activism during the 60s, and modern day examples of PC run amok that pop up every two months or so at some college somewhere. huh. I hadn't considered the social activism of the 60's to be the source of this belief, but that would make a great deal of sense.

<hr>Originally posted by BillyTK

This may not cast a good light on conservatives, but surely that's a reflection of the nature of conservativism, and its resistance of change?I'm glad you said that.

See, that's what I've always considred to be the distinguishing characteristic between liberals and conservatives. Liberals initiate change to the status quo while conservatives resist it.

However, I seem to remember a thread a while back when someone brought that up, maybe in an article, and a bunch of the more conservative posters decried it as way off base. So, I thought maybe I was missing some basic understanding about liberalism and conservatism.

Does anyone else agree/disagree with this basic definition of liberalism and conservatism?

<hr>Originally posted by c0rbin

It is hard these days to be moderate.I'm absolutely open to the possibility that the extremism I see is entirely a reflection of the media (radio and TV talk shows, etc.) rather than a reflection of the general populous. But these kinds of shows are popular, so there must be at least some kernal of truth to them.The labelling has gone out of hand. Lib this and Lib that. If your not with us, you are against us.

For some, the labelling makes it easier to identify someone: "Oh, you are a liberal, I can dismiss anything you say as being anti-America, or utopian."This kind of labeling happens on both sides, IMHO.

Another thing I don't understand. Since when did conservatives hold the opinion that utopian-like ideal where everyone worked and lived in peace wasn't a desirable thing? I don't get why anyone (conservative or liberal) would consider that a goal not to strive for.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Speeking of crys abotu liberal brainwashing:

- Henry Ford 1926

http://www.ety.com/berlin/ford1.htm Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you saying this is about liberal brainwashing or a cry about liberal brainwashing?

Besides, I don't think Henry Ford is an example of a conservative you'd want to put on a pedestal. While he made for a great capitalist, his politics were less than perfect.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you saying this is about liberal brainwashing or a cry about liberal brainwashing?

Besides, I don't think Henry Ford is an example of a conservative you'd want to put on a pedestal. While he made for a great capitalist, his politics were less than perfect.

No joke, he was essentially a Nazi.

I'm saying that craying about liberals in the universities goes way back, and as you can see has some disturbing roots. The guys crying about it today have the same mentality as Ford did.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I'm saying that craying about liberals in the universities goes way back, and as you can see has some disturbing roots. The guys crying about it today have the same mentality as Ford did. Gotcha.

I don't know if all of them have the same mentality as Ford, but my uncle (as I mentioned above) sure does. He's the one we try to avoid inviting over for holidays.

[c0rbin]

Another thing I don't understand. Since when did conservatives hold the opinion that utopian-like ideal where everyone worked and lived in peace wasn't a desirable thing? I don't get why anyone (conservative or liberal) would consider that a goal not to strive for.

I have heard the cry of "utopian" as yet another way someone can dismiss another person or their ideas. A Utopia is impossible therefore working toward a Utopian idea such as universal health care is impossible.

It has worked the other way, though. For example, a lot of conservatives feel that sex ed needs to happen in the home. Well, that would be nice, but it is Utopian to assume that all parents are going to be open and frank with their children.

I agree with what you said that it goes both ways, though it is easier to hear the rantings of "conservatives" where I live.

[Furious]

I agree most of it dates back to the 60s.

With definite left leaning students during that era, there were some instances of free speech integrity on campuses where professors spoke out in favor of student rights to protest, but that probably got washed into the professors having those views.

Also, a lot of the more well known universities (think Ivy league and UC-Berkely social science departments) are located in liberal voting states and seem to attract more vocally liberal faculty with instances of over-PCism and anti-war circus events by their student bodies. I'm overgeneralizing probably, but universities in the deep south and midwest aren't exactly known for their protesting of anything after the civil rights movement and Vietnam era.

Essentially my point is, when was the last time you've heard of a professor get in trouble for being overly pro-Bush?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Politics and economics are right leaning in universities because that is all that is allowed.

Booooooooooolshite.

The only reason economics leans towards mostly free markets is because it is a _science_ with its fill of theories backed by repeatable results and sound calculus.

As for poly sci, I can't make a generalization about academia in general. I doubt you really can either for that fact.

[JAR]

Upchurch, this quote you showed is more evidence that hammegk is great!

hammegk really doesn't comment on things enough. He often has something wise to say. I always find myself wanting to see more of hammegk's opinions on things.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm glad you said that.

See, that's what I've always considred to be the distinguishing characteristic between liberals and conservatives. Liberals initiate change to the status quo while conservatives resist it.

However, I seem to remember a thread a while back when someone brought that up, maybe in an article, and a bunch of the more conservative posters decried it as way off base. So, I thought maybe I was missing some basic understanding about liberalism and conservatism.

Does anyone else agree/disagree with this basic definition of liberalism and conservatism?

Well to be fair, it's probably a over simplifying things a bit to say that conservatives are resistant to change, but I was in a hurry when I was posting ;). It's probably more accurate to say that conservatives are less favourable to state intervention, but even that wouldn't be totally accurate either. I guess the idea I'm thinking of is "laissez-faire", that things work best when individuals are left to their own devices, albeit "laissez-faire" is more of a classical liberal idea than a strictly conservative one.

I guess ultimately any definition has got to acknowledge that conservativism is a continuum rather than a fixed position (for instance, there's been, and are, members of the UK Conservative party who would be considered left-wing/Democrats in US terms), and as such it's problematic to identify a coherent set of core values other than maybe an adherence to traditional values.

Maybe for the sake of the argument we need to identify and stick to one specific "type" of conservative, whilst acknowledging that other forms of conservativism are also available ;) :D

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx


Booooooooooolshite.

The only reason economics leans towards mostly free markets is because it is a _science_ with its fill of theories backed by repeatable results and sound calculus.

As for poly sci, I can't make a generalization about academia in general. I doubt you really can either for that fact.

LOL, yeah right. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Lurker
I have attended three differrent colleges and in none of them did I learn the liberal point of view. But like you, I was in the sciences so may not have been exposed as those in humanities.

I also find it humorous that conservatives seem to feel that the more educated you are the higher probability is that you are a liberal. Or at least that is how I translate their dislike of accademia. After all, they keep claiming that the PhD's are liberal. What else can I infer from that logic?

Lurker

I believe it was one of the tenets of Jesus' teaching that people were inherently good.

Apart from that, what have conservatives ever invented? These are the guys who want things to stay as they are.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JAR
Upchurch, this quote you showed is more evidence that hammegk is great!

hammegk really doesn't comment on things enough. He often has something wise to say. I always find myself wanting to see more of hammegk's opinions on things. I recommend you read the above thread then. I'd say his statement was pretty much torn to shreds, but I'm guessing that you've already made up your mind so I'm sure you'll think I'm wrong.

Anyway, there's more there. So, enjoy!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Well to be fair, it's probably a over simplifying things a bit to say that conservatives are resistant to change, Of course, but a basic definition, by necessity, must be a simplified one. When you add in real life examples, of course the definition gets more complex. It's a complex world.

I guess I was refering to the Platonian Forms of Conservatives and Liberals, not the current, modern, real life version of American Political Conservatives and Liberals.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Of course, but a basic definition, by necessity, must be a simplified one. When you add in real life examples, of course the definition gets more complex. It's a complex world.

I guess I was refering to the Platonian Forms of Conservatives and Liberals, not the current, modern, real life version of American Political Conservatives and Liberals.

Not the extreme right-wing fundamentalist christian wackjob variety? :( Okay... ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by corplinx


Booooooooooolshite.

The only reason economics leans towards mostly free markets is because it is a _science_ with its fill of theories backed by repeatable results and sound calculus.

As for poly sci, I can't make a generalization about academia in general. I doubt you really can either for that fact.

Yeah, right, some science, even less of a science than psychology. Economics is still in the shaman stage of developement. Oh, reapeatable results, uh huh, thats why every economist hedges and haws when they try to describe the econmoy.

Free marhets lead to democracy is a theory with little proof, it is technology that creates democracy, they had free markets in Chile under Pinochet.

I respect you point Corplinx but economics as science? More like shamanism.

(By the way when did you start smoking?)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Yeah, right, some science, even less of a science than psychology. Economics is still in the shaman stage of developement. Oh, reapeatable results, uh huh, thats why every economist hedges and haws when they try to describe the econmoy.

Free marhets lead to democracy is a theory with little proof, it is technology that creates democracy, they had free markets in Chile under Pinochet.

I respect you point Corplinx but economics as science? More like shamanism.

(By the way when did you start smoking?)

Well, the only scientific approach to economics is Marxism ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, the only scientific approach to economics is Marxism ;)

The only scientific approach to economics is the materialist approach (as championed by Marx) ;) Although his brand of historicism is kind of... problematic :)

[JAR]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I recommend you read the above thread then. I'd say his statement was pretty much torn to shreds, but I'm guessing that you've already made up your mind so I'm sure you'll think I'm wrong.

Anyway, there's more there. So, enjoy!
I think hammegk should tell us what religion he adheres to, because some of what he says doesn't sound very Christian-like. I've yet to hear of a religion that advocates sterilizing b@st@rd children who don't know who their father is.