Incomplete
Here’s the Economist getting into the act on the ‘US universities are leftist strongholds by a factor of 9 to 1’ issue, and like a lot of journalism that discusses the subject, leaving some important aspects out. At least I think so.
Evidence of the atypical uniformity of American universities grows by the week. The Centre for Responsive Politics notes that this year two universities—the University of California and Harvard—occupied first and second place in the list of donations to the Kerry campaign by employee groups, ahead of Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft et al. Employees at both universities gave 19 times as much to John Kerry as to George Bush.
Yes but there might be reasons for that other than political allegiance. Surely. Come on, Econ – think. Think hard. What is it about people who work at universities that might make them prefer Kerry to Bush even if Bush were a Democrat and Kerry were a Republican? Can you really not think of anything? Because I can.
Which one, for example, has a well-known habit of ridiculing universities themselves? Which one chuckles fondly about the bad grades he got at Yale? Which one got into not one not two but three elite schools despite lousy grades, simply because of his family name? Which one had educational chances that other people would give an arm for, handed to him, and then squandered them? Which one got job after job after job despite a conspicuous lack of ‘value added’ because, again, of who his daddy is and nothing else? Which one, when asked how he can make decisions without knowing the facts, answers ‘My instinct’? Which one systematically makes a virtue of his own ignorance and lack of curiosity? Which one makes a virtue of making snap decisions and then refusing to think about them further? Which one ran on a campaign that seemed to delight in calling its opponent an elitist merely (to all appearances) because he’s knowledgeable and articulate?
Isn’t it blindingly obvious? Don’t academics (and journalists, public intellectuals, private intellectuals, nerds, bookworms, wonks, scientists, artists, teachers) have every reason to despise Bush and think he is destructive, even if they are Republicans? Not to mention people who are not sure they much want to live with a Christian-right agenda, despite not being either Democrats or liberals. The Economist article doesn’t breathe a word, not a syllable of all that. And it should. That’s a very important part of the subject.
And then there’s this:
Meanwhile, a new national survey of more than 1,000 academics by Daniel Klein, of Santa Clara University, shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences.
Okay, but then why don’t you tell us what the numbers are in the business schools, science and engineering, medical school? If B-schools are mostly Republican, why is there never any hand-wringing about that? Maybe they’re not. Maybe they’re packed to the rafters with liberals too. But then why doesn’t someone say so?
From my experience at UC Irvine, I can say that if you polled the science, engineering, and comp sci people there, you might find that they do not give a shit at all.
In fact, many computer science grads and undergrads I know pride themselves on how they get more worked up over class scheduling issues or technology news than the war in Iraq. It seems that the only real passionate conservative academics will have to be found in business or hiding in the dungeons of social science.
Business schools as divinity schools!! God that’s hilarious. I didn’t know he’d said that. That Horowitz, what a card.
Just so, about the science types. And my guess would be that if they do care enough to vote, they would be vastly more likely to vote for Kerry simply on the grounds of basic competence and cognitive functioning. My guess would be that most scientists don’t find Bush’s ‘Aw shucks I’m a reglar guy’ shtick at all appealing, for reasons that have nothing to do with politics or Left-Right.
I wrote an evidently fruitless post on the scientific case for Kerry. If only people had listened! The case is right there that the current administration has no committment to the furthering of scientific knowledge, just to the furthering of agendas.
From what I understand there is a democratic lean to the sciences. And why is it surprising? Even if truth and progressivism appear decoupled in some regions of the academic world, scientists continue to do their work in an enlightenment spirit, and if understanding the world is possible and desirable then one may also feel the world can be shaped and improved. Add to this a relative underrepresentation of conventional religious belief, and you’ve got a core which are naturally disposed away from any conservatism, especially one which wears its halo on its sleeve.
“Okay, but then why don’t you tell us what the numbers are in the business schools, science and engineering, medical school? If B-schools are mostly Republican, why is there never any hand-wringing about that?”
Because the humanities are in the unique position, of late, of having to justify their existence, unlike business departments and the sciences. “Why on earth do we need to study art, philosophy, or literaure?” asks the masses. At least that’s how it feels to this English prof sometimes.
“I find teachers dislike people not for their opinions but for the extent they waste their talents.”
Now, let’s be fair. Some folks with really dreadful opinions use their talents well to further them. Teachers, I hope, do not ignore one in favor of the other.
Allan – interesting. So you don’t think academics in general, right as well as left, might object to Bush’s uninhibited anti-intellectualism?
OB, “Uninhibted anti-intellectualism?” What “uninhibted anti-intellectualism?” Until I know that I couldn’t tell you whether anyone ought to object to it.
See that’s my point. When you stay away from partisan politics you often hit the nail right on the head. But when you get political you start acting like all you need to do is preach to the choir , when what you really need to do is to embrace diversity, question authority, and not believe everything you read in the papers.
Speaking of anti-intellectualism, wasn’t it Kerry who, when he applied for a license before his duck hunting tirip, asked if “I could get me a hunting license here” Bush doesn’t talk like that.
There was plenty of anti-intellectualism on Kerry’s part in this campaign. Just look at the way he acted when he got anywhere near the Hollywood types, how he went along with Michael Moore and the rest of those who assumed we were idiots, how he never condemned the people who were tearing down Bush-Cheney signs, vandalizing cars with Bush bumper stickers, etc., and how he came across as standing for whatever seemed to be expedient at the moment, as though we’d forget whatever he said in the past. And then of course there was the Mrs.. Ordinarily I’d be willing to cut him some slack on that, but she’s paying the bills, so maybe she’s calling some of the tunes
But let’s get back to your post. Now you’re talking about people objecting to what you describe as “uninhibted intellectualism”. That’s a bit different from assuming that that people should despise Bush, as you originally said. But my concern is why did you think, as you said originally, that people should despise Bush and why do you think he’s destructive?. He’s done nothing to deserve this treatment that I can see.
The things you’ve mentioned are things that pertain to him personally, assuming they’re true. Even if he had some youthful indiscretions, he never went out and did what Kerry did in the early 70’s to hurt other people to build himself up. I also don’t recall him ever doing what Clinton is alleged to have done to various women, or what Teddy Kennedy did to one. Yet the Democrats weren’t particularly outraged by any of that. And why do you think ithe reasons to despise Bush are blindingly obvious., when 60 million people voted for him?
You said he was destructive. I’m not sure what you mean. On balance I’d say that what he’s destroyed are things the world is much better off without, BTW .I don’t recall him ever bombing an aspirin factory to divert attention from a scandal.
And why would his not being an intellecual bother you. Kerry certainly isn’t an intellectual. . If he were president he wouldn’t be intellectualizing.– he’d be mediating disputes between the various interests that put him in power. Harry Truman wasn’t an intellectual, but now there’s a group that wants to remake the Democrats in his image. Then again, maybe Hillary is, but look at what a mess Hillarycare turned out to be.
Bush wasn’t running for Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, and he wasn’t competing in a debating tournament or for a Rhodes scholarship, so he shouldn’t be judged as if he were.