To the editor:
The ongoing mystery of why there are more liberals in academia than in the general population can be best understood in generalities. There will be plenty of exceptions to the rule that liberals tend to be more educated and informed than many conservatives. Red states are more rural and uneducated than blue states.
The fact that many college professors lean to the left could be explained by the fact that many liberals tend to be less interested in the money the business world offers than conservatives. It's no coincidence that Wall Street and corporate America is populated largely by right-wingers or that most of the nation's wealthy vote Republican.
Or could it be that liberals are often more genetically predisposed with a passion for knowledge and ideas? I have met plenty of uninformed conservatives but I don't recall ever having met an ignorant liberal. It may be an uncomfortable fact for some that NPR listeners are likely to be more erudite than Fox or Limbaugh audiences. Obviously there are hordes of educated conservatives and many will likely be offended by these observations. To them one can only say - if the shoe fits wear it.
Until Americans enlighten themselves with the knowledge and truths the corporate media is not reporting, we will be cursed with the red menace - apathy and ignorance.
Kelvin Schartz,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
There are smart liberals and dumb liberals, smart conservatives and dumb conservatives.
aidan (anonymous) says…
Refer to Arminius' final paragraph:
"Shartz (should be Schartz), who claims he has never met an ignorant liberal, acknowledges that there are intellect (intellectual? intelligent? inept?) conservatives."
If one is going to criticize someone with whom one does not agree, one should at least make an effort to reread what one has written. (Maybe this is why the LJW forces one to preview one's comment before posting...?)
aidan (anonymous) says…
Like many paradoxes, the one you posted doesn't have a satisfactory explanation. Accoring to Merriam-Webster Online, a paradox is "a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises." You're right. Maybe it IS strange that, armed with their well-rounded university education, "liberals" are unable to explain the illogic of joining the "conservative" side.
I think the biggest pradox is when people, claiming to be kind, thoughtful, religious or non-religious, activitsts, feminists, humanitarians, conservative christians, liberal social justice advocates, or anyone else who claiming to work for the greater good and the American way, get so worked up about their own beliefs that they forget that the greatest thing about this country is that we ALL get to have our own beliefs. Democracy isn't about letting the political majority win all the time, it's about providing those most basic and precious things for all, and ensuring that, though the majority might be in control, the minority isn't allowed to be trampled into submission.
aidan (anonymous) says…
I was merely saying that I find it paradoxical that some people might consider themselve activists, feminists (or any other -ist, -al, or -ian they might like to use, whatever they consider the definition of that label to be, and not meaning you or anyone else in particular), claim to truly care about other people, but clearly have no use for who or what those other people are or believe. Why do you think I put the words "liberals" and "conservatives" in quotation marks? They are lables that are used by all sorts of people, with a host of different connotations that are assumed or ignored depending on a person's perspective.
That is a paradox about human nature, and American culture, that bothers me. I will admit that I am also guilty, at times, of embodying that very paradox. I never said that I wasn't.
I will say, however, that a person on one side cannot claim that the other side is spreading falsehoods without being willing to look at all arguments and evidence on both sides as objectively as possible. It IS possible for a person to believe that Bush out-and-out lied about WMD. It is equally possible for a person to believe that Bush, in his heart of hearts, truly thought Iraq had WMD, sought them out, but didn't end up finding any.
Lepanto1571 (anonymous) says…
"...liberals tend to be more educated and informed than many conservatives."
Nothing like making uniformed, unsubstantiated and unsupported statements in a broad brush stroke. Liberals (whatever the term means today) may very well be more "educated" and "informed," but that doesn't make them necessarily "smart." We certainly don't want to accuse Mr Schartz, an obvious self-avowed liberal, of actually producing any facts to back up his absurd statement. Perhaps that is what he deems being "educated;" make unsubstantiated inflamatory remark and run. Seems as if we already have a clue as to the "education" Mr. Schartz is referring to.
If this is what passes for modern "education," then perhaps this is a possible reason why "conservatives" (whatever that means today) are not found therein.
"The fact that many college professors lean to the left could be explained by the fact that many liberals tend to be less interested in the money the business world offers than conservatives."
It could also mean that the easily bruised egos of effette intellectuals prefer the insulation offerred by the fantasy-world of the hallowed halls of higher academia, than actually producing anything in the real world.
Those who can't....teach!
But that's just an unsubstantiated remark, alot like Mr. Schartz'. It seems that's a dual edge sword professor.
"Or could it be that liberals are often more genetically predisposed with a passion for knowledge and ideas? I have met plenty of uninformed conservatives but I don't recall ever having met an ignorant liberal."
Maybe, if we are assuming your thesis is even remotely supportable, which is a stretch of the imagination to the extremes without a single substantiated fact; but then again, maybe not. We'll see if you are willing to defend your "education," "enlightenment," "knowledge," or "genetic predisposition" to higher thought.
Perhaps you should get out more Mr Schartz. Many of us are out here just waiting to be "enlightened" by your vast "education."
bisky1 (anonymous) says…
grandma used to tell me that if your were really intelligent you did not have tell anyone, they would figure it out for themselves just fine.
it just sounds to me like a bunch of people sitting around telling each other how intelligent they are, AND making the rules for what intelligent is at the same time.
the important thing is what good you do with the intelligence you have, not just being intelligent. this is where the real difference between liberals and conservatives lies. liberals talk and plan about doing, convervatives do.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
I just wanted to say, here in this liberal sandbox of lawrence, a blue blotch in a radiant state, you are doing the Lord's work. thank you. I used to listen to NPR but gave up because their liberal bias was so grating! if, like the dreaded Rush limbaugh or scean hannity, they had at least been honest I might have stuck with them, but they persist in a false portrayal of themselves as "objective." rush and scean are open about their biases and you the listener are thus able to judge it openly. some of these enlightened liberals on the ku campus have all kinds of tolerance for any faith and any religious practice and any lifestyle, except if it is the traditional faith of our country, then they refuseto work with you and call you a zealot. sso, on and on...
mermily (anonymous) says…
arminius,
i too find the paradox you posed of great interest. as a "liberal", i truly don't know or understand it- nor do i make any claims to have those answers- but i've been trying to figure it out.
in one attempt to understand, i bought "what's the matter with kansas". the title will likely inform you as to which political side the book leans (i use the word "lean" lightly here), but i am sure there is another opposing book to be read afterwards in order to round out the views given. i have to do some fact checking before i parrot off anything, but it is an interesting read nonetheless. if anyone is into some thoughts on the question arminius asked....give it a whirl as one place to start.
more importantly though, and the reason i'm actually writing, is that i briefly wanted to address the idea that 1) there are beliefs with "no basis in reality" and 2) "it's incompetent on [disbelievers] to back up [statements regarding WMD lies] with evidence."
firstly, i disagree that there are baseless beliefs. it has been hard for me to get here, but i finally am. the long and short is that, no matter how ignorant i might think them or ridiculous even, they aren't baseless to someone. no matter how abhorrent the view seems to me, i make every effort to not claim some sort of higher knowledge. it is a belief- one the other person is entitled to have without me, ms. smarty pants, saying it is without base.
secondly, just as our criminal system was modeled on a variety of presumptions, i too think presumptions exist for our leaders. i think rather than the public having to prove there wasn't a good reason to invade and risk their children's lives, i believe the government is in the position to prove to us it was necessary. i think the presumption is no-war until proven necessary.
finally, i would like to close by noting that i am uninterested in receiving grammatical corrections or spelling lessons at this time. there is a time and place for it and here is not that place. i am busy, but still excited about open dialogues. as such,the exchange i've make is to largely fore go proofreading. therefore i will pre- apologize if i have committed either of the former too offenses but ask that no one waste our time pointing them out.