or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 174

post #2596 of 8748
I think it's more like "Why are the highly educated Democrats rather than Republicans", rather than saying they're on the far left of the Democratic spectrum.
post #2597 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

The only problem with that is the highly educated liberal elite have made Hillary the nominee and she's really pretty much center/center-left with big ties to Wall Street. Also, there's the billion dollars her and Bill have extorted gathered in donations from various cronies and even foreign businesses and governments. If this group is "so liberal" why did they put a corrupt hawkish middle of the road person up to run instead of a true socialist?

i think that more of these "highly educated" folk should get a job at target/walmart/mcdonalds/grocery store for a few months, just to see what life is like on the other side.
post #2598 of 8748
It's because the "highly educated" are "highly dependent" on the government for their wealth and status.
post #2599 of 8748
I need to get in on this "wealth and status" business. When's that kick in again?


Science was much more evenly split along ideological grounds for a long time. Both parties funded academic science; Republicans still have a historical advantage on that one. Beyond that, most people with PhDs don't work in the academy. A majority (something like 70%) of chemists and biologists go into industry. Physics has always had major connections to defense, and to finance these days (of all things). The idea that "scientists = grant money = Democrats" is way too reductive. There are other reasons the ratio shifted to almost unanimous support for Democrats. Or rejection of Republicans, which may be a more accurate summary.


I suppose the humanities have probably always been heavily liberal. They get a lot of the attention as "the academy", but they're not so much representative of the bulk of highly educated people in this country.
post #2600 of 8748

I mostly skimmed the article, but did the article ever define what a "liberal" view is on things.  I would say "free trade" is a "liberal" view, but most people today would say that it is "conservative" or something else.

I'm also going to attribute some of it to bias.  Just look at polls of academics, and they regularly admit they are "liberal" or "Democrat" or "left-of-center" by wide margins in most departments.

 

The other obvious factor is that Democrats and Republicans aren't the same as "liberal" and "conservative."  The parties just take on opposite views of different issues, so right now Democrats try to paint themselves as the party of the highly educated, the poor, and other special interests.  The Republicans try to paint themselves of the middle-class, middle-America, the self-made man, certain religious groups, and a few special interests (gun owners is first to mind).

post #2601 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I need to get in on this "wealth and status" business. When's that kick in again?


Science was much more evenly split along ideological grounds for a long time. Both parties funded academic science; Republicans still have a historical advantage on that one. Beyond that, most people with PhDs don't work in the academy. A majority (something like 70%) of chemists and biologists go into industry. Physics has always had major connections to defense, and to finance these days (of all things). The idea that "scientists = grant money = Democrats" is way too reductive. There are other reasons the ratio shifted to almost unanimous support for Democrats. Or rejection of Republicans, which may be a more accurate summary.


I suppose the humanities have probably always been heavily liberal. They get a lot of the attention as "the academy", but they're not so much representative of the bulk of highly educated people in this country.

 

One of my best friends is a PhD in material science and physics, and he is in a fellowship with the government, but he plans to move to industry after the fellowship.  He used to be very liberal, but he is now hugely pro-market (though he is very much pro-choice, etc).

post #2602 of 8748
You don't have to "work in the academy" to have your livelihood depend on the government. Medical doctors, for example, have a broad (government enforced) monopoly on the practice of medicine, and the government either pays directly (or forces others to pay through various regulations like insurance, the courts, etc) an immense portion of their earnings. Lawyers, teachers, and, yes, chemists and engineers -- even the ones who work in private industry -- are either working for the government, their employers are paid by it, they're doing things the government requires, they're dealing with the government, etc.

Few if any professionals or academics really stand to gain from a smaller government.
post #2603 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I mostly skimmed the article, but did the article ever define what a "liberal" view is on things.  I would say "free trade" is a "liberal" view, but most people today would say that it is "conservative" or something else.


I'm also going to attribute some of it to bias.  Just look at polls of academics, and they regularly admit they are "liberal" or "Democrat" or "left-of-center" by wide margins in most departments.

The other obvious factor is that Democrats and Republicans aren't the same as "liberal" and "conservative."  The parties just take on opposite views of different issues, so right now Democrats try to paint themselves as the party of the highly educated, the poor, and other special interests.  The Republicans try to paint themselves of the middle-class, middle-America, the self-made man, certain religious groups, and a few special interests (gun owners is first to mind).

How strange that Hillary is the free trade candidate and Trump is the protectionist. What a weird election.

You last point is meaningful though. The STEM fraction of the educated elite aren't intrinsically Democrats, but they're mostly at odds with where the Republican party is right now. Or has been since Reagan, really.

The other big factor is that the educated are much less likely to be religious. Religious social conservatism is a big negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

One of my best friends is a PhD in material science and physics, and he is in a fellowship with the government, but he plans to move to industry after the fellowship.  He used to be very liberal, but he is now hugely pro-market (though he is very much pro-choice, etc).

Obviously they exist, but I can't say I know anybody with a science background who would vote Republican. Plenty of people who aren't the greatest fans of the Democrats, but those are the two options.


There was an extensive discussion in here some years ago about the politics of scientists and engineers and someone (Piob?) brought up the point that scientists tend towards believing in technocratic solutions. I think there's something to that. Technocrats aren't inherently liberal, but they're almost diametrically opposed to the religious conservative/small government approach of the modern Republican party.

Interestingly, I know a lot of scientists who are not at all fans of Sanders.
post #2604 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You don't have to "work in the academy" to have your livelihood depend on the government. Medical doctors, for example, have a broad (government enforced) monopoly on the practice of medicine, and the government either pays directly (or forces others to pay through various regulations like insurance, the courts, etc) an immense portion of their earnings. Lawyers, teachers, and, yes, chemists and engineers -- even the ones who work in private industry -- are either working for the government, their employers are paid by it, they're doing things the government requires, they're dealing with the government, etc.

Few if any professionals or academics really stand to gain from a smaller government.

If you actually look at the funding numbers, there hasn't been much difference between parties. George W oversaw a massively increase in NIH's budget, for example. Republicans have largely been good for the business of science, or at least no worse than Democrats. The rhetoric though, that does affect people.

Made me look up the numbers for MDs. Apparently they leaned Republican until 2008. The flip was mostly attributed to more women becoming doctors.
post #2605 of 8748
https://www.rt.com/usa/342695-trump-clinton-tied-nationally/

since kasich and cruz dropped out Trump gained and one poll shows him 1% below Hillary
post #2606 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I mostly skimmed the article, but did the article ever define what a "liberal" view is on things.  I would say "free trade" is a "liberal" view, but most people today would say that it is "conservative" or something else.


I'm also going to attribute some of it to bias.  Just look at polls of academics, and they regularly admit they are "liberal" or "Democrat" or "left-of-center" by wide margins in most departments.

The other obvious factor is that Democrats and Republicans aren't the same as "liberal" and "conservative."  The parties just take on opposite views of different issues, so right now Democrats try to paint themselves as the party of the highly educated, the poor, and other special interests.  The Republicans try to paint themselves of the middle-class, middle-America, the self-made man, certain religious groups, and a few special interests (gun owners is first to mind).

How strange that Hillary is the free trade candidate and Trump is the protectionist. What a weird election.

You last point is meaningful though. The STEM fraction of the educated elite aren't intrinsically Democrats, but they're mostly at odds with where the Republican party is right now. Or has been since Reagan, really.

The other big factor is that the educated are much less likely to be religious. Religious social conservatism is a big negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

One of my best friends is a PhD in material science and physics, and he is in a fellowship with the government, but he plans to move to industry after the fellowship.  He used to be very liberal, but he is now hugely pro-market (though he is very much pro-choice, etc).

Obviously they exist, but I can't say I know anybody with a science background who would vote Republican. Plenty of people who aren't the greatest fans of the Democrats, but those are the two options.


There was an extensive discussion in here some years ago about the politics of scientists and engineers and someone (Piob?) brought up the point that scientists tend towards believing in technocratic solutions. I think there's something to that. Technocrats aren't inherently liberal, but they're almost diametrically opposed to the religious conservative/small government approach of the modern Republican party.

Interestingly, I know a lot of scientists who are not at all fans of Sanders.


This seems a very accurate point of view. As to Sanders don't you feel these folks are also rationalists and no matter whether they somewhat agree with him or not most of his rhetoric is just that with little chance of becoming reality.

   Actually I posted that article in response to comments that "you're an idiot maybe you shouldn't vote"or that" the problem is folks less intelligent than me are electing our leaders"

Well the folks with the bonafides are heavily liberal so maybe only they are qualified to select our leaders  

post #2607 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post


This seems a very accurate point of view. As to Sanders don't you feel these folks are also rationalists and no matter whether they somewhat agree with him or not most of his rhetoric is just that with little chance of becoming reality.
   Actually I posted that article in response to comments that "you're an idiot maybe you shouldn't vote"or that" the problem is folks less intelligent than me are electing our leaders"
Well the folks with the bonafides are heavily liberal so maybe only they are qualified to select our leaders  

You have two suppressed premises here:

1) "Bonafides" means you're not an idiot.
2) One must have "bonafides" to be qualified to select leaders.

I think both of those premises are highly indefensible.
post #2608 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

This seems a very accurate point of view. As to Sanders don't you feel these folks are also rationalists and no matter whether they somewhat agree with him or not most of his rhetoric is just that with little chance of becoming reality.
   Actually I posted that article in response to comments that "you're an idiot maybe you shouldn't vote"or that" the problem is folks less intelligent than me are electing our leaders"
Well the folks with the bonafides are heavily liberal so maybe only they are qualified to select our leaders  

While I think it would be very hard or maybe impossible to implement all Sanders ideas they are not so far fetched and have stong basis in reality. If you take a look at UK, Canada, Germany each of his ideas work in at least one of these countries.

Anyway that's the most basic problem we have. We have too little information about basically everything, we can only predict what happens. Nobody can say wheter Trump will be better president than Hillary or Bernie. Even smart people go by feels, eventually most of our decisions will be based somewhat on a hunch. Also even those bonafides heavily liberal folks while good at what they do maybe totally ignorant to the nuances of politics.
post #2609 of 8748

Nothing to defend its just a casual snide comment as to how we smart folks are going to keep the idiots from voting

post #2610 of 8748

I Realize we boomers were the standard bearers for irony ,I didn't realize it had disappeared so quickly

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field