Conservatives in a liberal universe...

Student Lounge College Life
81

<p>
[quote]
This is why I am always puzzled by religious people who are also political liberals

[/quote]
As a Catholic and product a Jesuit education, I'm sure you're familiar with liberation theology. There are plenty of liberals who share your faith (although I'm sure you'd beg to differ), never mind "believing in an absolute truth." What about people lik Gandhi and MLK? Or would you classify them as liberals?</p>

<p>Liberal and conservative are nothing but expedient political labels which vary significantly from locality to locality and from time to time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Unless by absolute truth you mean the party line.

[/quote]
Only within a given country, of course. What is "liberal" in the US is considered "conservative" by someone from, say, France or even Canada. Still, it illustrates the fact that one can basically declare anything absolute and follow it blindly, including liberal or conservative political ideology.</p>

<p>I don't know why people are so obsessed with this left/right dichotomy. I think it's a poor model of the politics of anything except the French Revolution, the historical situation from which it arose. Harumph.</p>

82

<p>Why do conservatives believe this is an oxymoron? When we talk about being "Christian" we mean people who believe in the true teachings of Jesus Christ, who chose to help the poor and sick, who sought believers among sinners and prostitutes, who believed the rich have a duty to share their wealth with the poor, etc., etc. That theology/philosophy is neither liberal nor conservative, it is "Christian" and frankly those same principles are shared by many other religions.</p>

<p>I'm a person of faith first. The rest is part of Caesar's world.</p>

83

<p>"As a Catholic and product a Jesuit education, I'm sure you're familiar with liberation theology."</p>

<p>Of course; I've studied it. And I've come to the conclusion that liberation theology, as it is put forth by most theologians, is little more than socialism in the name of Jesus. It reduces the Christian faith to mere political social justice. I reject it, regardless of how fervent many Jesuits are about it. So have Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.</p>

<p>Why am I, as a Catholic, a political conservative? More than anything, it is because contemporary liberalism aggressively strives to erase religion from the public square. I feel that religion has a place there, and if I want its position to be maintained, I am inclined to oppose those who want it taken away. It's as simple as that.</p>

<p>Religious people who side with liberalism are simply sleeping with the enemy. They are being used by people who hate them.</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
I'm a person of faith first. The rest is part of Caesar's world.

[/quote]
Well said! I read a story the other day of a person sitting in a church service during which God Bless America was scheduled to be sung. When the time came everyone stood up and started singing. I don't understand how people of genuine piety can tolerate such a corruption of their faith. Isn't the only kingdom worthy of a song like that the Kingdom of God?</p>

<p>The transparent collusion of faith and politics is as degrading to the political process as it is to the essence of faith.</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
More than anything, it is because contemporary liberalism aggressively strives to erase religion from the public square.

[/quote]
I have to ask, what does this matter with respect to your faith? Does it weaken it? Only politically. Aside from the fact that I disagree with you, or at any rate think there are more subtle things going on than "Liberals hate religion," what would it matter to the faithful if their religion were removed from the public square?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Religious people who side with liberalism are simply sleeping with the enemy. They are being used by people who hate them.

[/quote]
Deus caritas est. You seem so angry and militant. I guess that's what they call the zeal of the recently converted.</p>

86

<p>"More than anything, it is because contemporary liberalism aggressively strives to erase religion from the public square."</p>

<p>I'm not too familiar with the Canadian laws and rights, but in the United States the first amendment of the bill of rights states explicitly, among other things, that congress will create no laws with respect to a religion. Religious liberty (this is very different than religious tolerance) is paramount in an ever-shrinking world. Though, I must say, because Canada has ties to the monarchy, and the monarchy claims its power from god, Christianity is probably the official religion.</p>

<p>Why do you need the public square to affirm your religious beliefs if you truly believe that your purpose in life is to become one with the kingdom of heaven? Even Jesus in the King James bible states that workings of worldly affairs should be separate from the word of god because his kingdom is not of this world.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
When I was an agnostic -- basically all my life until the age of 23 -- I was a liberal. I didn't really have any strong moral convictions one way or the other aside from the ones we all have, and therefore I took offense to people whom I saw as trying to push their idea of "right" and "wrong" on society (usually conservatives). Morality, to me, was largely relative.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me guarantee you that this was not due to your lack of religion. I would venture a guess that it was moreso due to a lack of thought put into the subject, going rather on the swayings of your emotions (which are very relative). Anyone (liberal or not, atheist or theis) would be foolish to believe in moral relativism. It simply doesn't work. </p>

<p>
[quote]
More than anything, it is because contemporary liberalism aggressively strives to erase religion from the public square. I feel that religion has a place there

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why is this a bad thing? In the public domain (gov. buildings and institutions, laws, etc.), we should strive to be completely free of any religious influence.
I'm sure you wouldn't want a non-Christian influence on these things (say, laws derived from the texts of Islam or Judaism, or a copy of the Bhagavad Gita in every courthouse), so why should it only be a Christian influence? To avoid any bias, there should be nothing - no religious influences on any of those things. </p>

<p>Why do you "feel religion has a place there"??</p>

88

<p>Can we designate this the politics flamebait thread so that the rest of us (who are more or less uninterested) have to hear people talk (read: flame each other) about politics? </p>

<p>Trust me, it goes a long way in helping any forum out.</p>

89

<p>or... you could read the first few posts, discover its not something you're interested in, then click the "back" button - ya know, like we do for every other thread in existence :rolleyes:</p>

<p>However, I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of a new board designated strictly for political, etc. discussion. Perhaps a sub-board of the Cafe.</p>

90

<p>"Religious people who side with liberalism are simply sleeping with the enemy. They are being used by people who hate them."</p>

<p>Oh man. This thread has degenerated into complete ********. No thanks to you, Fides. Look at yourself. I'm done here.</p>

91

<p>wow, Fides, people like you scare me. if you are so secure in your faith, and you accept the fact that faith is a personal connection between you and God, why do you feel the need to impose your beliefs on others? live and let live, and let God deal with the rest.</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
52% of those with college degrees voted for Bush. I fail to see how that shows a "tendency" of highly educated people to bel liberal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh gee, you are so misinformed it's amazing. I will break it down for you real simple so that maybe you can learn how to read data :p</p>

<p>Makeup of the total voting body by education:</p>

<p>4% - No High School
22% - H.S. graduate
32% - Some college
26% - College graduate
16% - Postgrad study</p>

<p>If you add this all up, it's 100%. The poll asks for highest education, meaning that the 16% with postgrad study are counted separately from the college graduates. So if you add the numbers, 42% of the voting body has a college degree.</p>

<p>Vote by Education:</p>

<p>College graduate: 52% Bush, 46% Kerry, 1% Nader (only adds up to 99%)
Postgrad study: 55% Kerry, 44% Bush, 1% Nader</p>

<p>So you see, 52% of college graduates that only had a batchelor's degree voted for Bush. For people that had master's and doctorates etc., 55% voted for Kerry. This shows that the majority of people with high levels of education, i.e. doctorates, did not go conservative. Counting Nader's 1% in each group, the difference just becomes larger. So there's the support for my claim.</p>

<p>Now for "I would suggest that you educate yourself and realise that conservatives make up a larger portion of people with college degrees than liberals do."</p>

<p>When you crunch the numbers above and calculate the -real- percentage of college degree holders that voted either way, it comes out like this:</p>

<p>Total % of degree holders: 42% (26 + 16)
% that voted Kerry: 20.76%
% that voted Bush: 20.56%
% that voted Nader: .42%</p>

<p>As you can see, Bush votes are not ahead of Kerry votes. It doesn't matter if the difference is small, because your claim was, "realise that conservatives make up a larger portion of people with college degrees." Your claim is false period.</p>

<p>I am not hating on you, I'm just truly concerned when people spread false/ignorant information. Misinformation affects not just you, but everyone that believes you. I hope you educate yourself and read this thoroughly so that you will know how to read data in the future.</p>

93

<p>You stated that very educated people tend to be liberal. You did not offer any evidence of that. I offered evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>I pointed out that, for the last 50 years (and I shall dig up the cite for this), the majority of college-degree holders have voted Republican. There is, by the way, a Boston Globe article which details the past 50 years and has this data - not a very conservative newspaper, to say the least. It differs (slightly) from the CNN data in that, when college degree holders are aggregated, Republicans make up the majority. CNN only includes exit polls, which excludes the very conservative Army. Anything from a bachelor's on up is thrown into the mix. I should have found and posted that data set instead. My apologies. </p>

<p>That does not, however, justify your half-cocked responses. </p>

<p>As for statistics:
I'm a statistics weenie (contrary to your beliefs); if there is no correlation between education and voting records, I think that arguing a tendency (which is the root of all this) is inaccurate. If you were to graph education on the x-axis and voting on the y-axis, you would find very little correlation among the college people. The strongest correlation is among the least educated, who are overwhelmingly liberal.</p>

<p>If you graph college educated v. voting and theorize that more educated -> more liberal, you are more than welcome to. However, an astute person would realise that your R-squared value is ZERO. No correlation present. Given any one voter (or bloc thereof), you are just more likely to accurately predict their voting record by random guessing than by any model which proposes a "tendency" either way. </p>

<p>Perhaps I went too far in majority conservative statements. I really should have hit you with the Boston Globe data long ere this - it's fabulous, traces 50 years back - and have called it a day. I didn't; I'll more than happily admit that the CNN data does not support the majority all college grads/conservative. My apologies. However, it's a moot point. The CNN data supports what it needs to support, which is the fact that it's absurd to pretend that liberals have much on conservatives. That was the contention; that was dealt with. </p>

<p>Even if I am completely, horrendously wrong, you still haven't proved causation - i.e. that education causes people to be liberal and/or lack thereof causes people to be conservative. </p>

<p>My apologies to everyone who has had to read UCB's swaggering posts in the meantime. Hell, I know how accomplished I am, and it's weird. </p>

<p>If you disaggrege "more than college," you find that the MDs, MBAs, and science types are mostly conservative. Education master's are very liberal. You simply cannot compare a doctor and an education degree and presume that they require the same level of education, in my not very humble opinion.</p>

<p>I am stunned at how condescending you are. You can hide it as "information," but it is too direct and cruel for that. </p>

<p>I hope that you will learn the difference between education and wisdom; more importantly, I hope you will learn that the most intelligent people are the ones who are the most secure in it and lack your compulsion to win on trivial points and then shove it down someone's throat. Completely uncalled for... and it reflects upon you, not me. Any reader of your post cannot help but question why the need to be so arrogant. </p>

<p>It does not bring to mind an intelligent, thoughtful young man, secure in his brilliance; it brings to mind the acne-ridden third-string football player who trips people in the hallway for laughs.</p>

<p>Score your cheap points. It doesn't undermine my intellect nor my accomplishments.</p>

<p>Babe, I worked with NASA doing nanotechnology before I went to a top law school. Try engaging me in intelligent, civil discourse. Drop the 'tude or take it somewhere else. You've posted enough so that you should know how to politely disagree with people, even if you missed that episode of Sesame Street (and every subsequent incarnation of human dignity).</p>

<p>Drop the 'tude and re-write your previous post. At that point, we can take this to another thread, bicker there, and let this thread remain a thread devoted to a huge problem in higher education. </p>

<p>I do not think that any institution which marginalises the bulk of its potential talent can long remain a dominant force. No one has addressed this yet - would be nice food for thought about how we can integrate libertarians and conservatives into the existing academic structure. Imagine law without Posner or Easterbrook's contributions to law and economics.</p>

94

<p>Aries: The pet issues and beliefs of Democrats and Republicans have changed dramatically in the last 50 years. The rise of the New Right and the gradual collapse of the New Deal coalition didn't happen until about the early 80s. So I don't find stats on 50 years of party voting to be particularly useful in the context of this discussion, though they are interesting in themselves.</p>

<p>Is it really that surprising to anyone that people with just a bachelor's degree are more likely to have voted for Bush and people with postgrad education for Kerry? I don't see either as implying that education makes you either liberal or conservative. Many people with postgrad degrees (note the difference between "many" and "all") are either in academia (see my previous comment for why that might correlate with liberalism), or they're in a profession that they got into for social justice reasons, like the idealistic lawyer. Many people with bachelor's degrees are in the tax brackets that benefit from Republican economic policies, without the idealism to offset it.</p>

<p>In my personal experience, uneducated people are more likely to be liberal on economic issues (which only makes sense, as more of them are in tax brackets that benefit more from liberal policies) and conservative on social issues. This is a generalization, with numerous exceptions for either type of issue.</p>

95

<p>Though actually, Aries, as a student at a science/techf university, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you that the majority of science types are conservative. The vast majority of the scientists and engineers I know are either liberals or libertarians.</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
You simply cannot compare a doctor and an education degree and presume that they require the same level of education, in my not very humble opinion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Speaking of cheap shots.... I'm sure the people who have earned their PhD in Education would argue that they have as much right to be called "Doctor" as any MD or science doctorate holder (as would you with your JD, I would venture). And I think most people would argue that any doctorate requires the same level of mastery of their respective subject matters (hence it being the highest degree offered - in effect, it is conferred to those who the factulty considers to be on the same intellectual level)</p>

<p>If you reread your own post, ariesathena, you might find that it is quite a bit more condescending (and arrogant) than the previous post. I'm pretty sure nanotechnology and law school have very little to do with your ability to analyze statistical data, but way to work it into the post.</p>

<p>My point here is that you need to step away from the unnecessarily harsh ad hominems in favor of a more moderate, educational approach.</p>

97

<p>I see it as a simple economic correlation. Usually, those who earn more are going to lean to the right to preserve the wealth they have accumulated. This philosophy is inherent in the definition of conservatism itself. Indeed, many well educated people (your doctors, your lawyers, your businessmen and whatnot) fall into this category because they make a healthy amount of money. </p>

<p>As far as engineers go, those who are higher up in corporate food chain are obviously going to be more conservative to preserve the fruits of their labor. However, at that point they are usually managers rather than technical experts. </p>

<p>Conversely, the majority of PhD's are going to lean to the left because, on the whole, PhD's make a whole lot less than other well-educated professionals. This is generally true of those in research.</p>

<p>According to these generalizations, lower income households should lean to the left because they lack fiscal stability, but we find that many of them are voting Republican because conservatives have managed to bring social issues to the forefront. However, I think it's safe to say that most lower income families are not nearly as educated as PhD's or professionals. </p>

<p>In conclusion, I think it's rather childish to claim that the amount of education an individual has determines whether he or she votes democrat or republican. This whole argument has basically degenerated into one side saying "more educated people vote this way so we're smarter than you are". Honestly, well educated people are just going to vote for what they think is in their best interest.</p>

98

<p>"wow, Fides, people like you scare me. if you are so secure in your faith, and you accept the fact that faith is a personal connection between you and God, why do you feel the need to impose your beliefs on others? live and let live, and let God deal with the rest."</p>

<p>In no way do I want to "impose my beliefs on others." If you don't want to believe in God or Christianity or whatever, that is your right and I would gladly sacrifice my life to defend it. My belief that religion should have a presence and a voice in the public square -- and by this I do not mean more of a presence/voice than it already has in the US, but simply a maintaining of the current situation -- is essentially to protect religion from the state. In Canada, where religion has been successfully erased from the public square by the Liberal party, we are already seeing the beginnings of state persecution. People who publicly proclaim that homosexual acts are sinful, which is a part of their religious faith, are risking being charged with hate crimes; some already have in Calgary. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions, murder in the Christian and Muslim faiths, risk losing their jobs; some already have. Priests and ministers who refuse to marry homosexual couples are increasingly becoming seen as "problems." All of this is troubling to me, and it's only the beginning.</p>

99

<p>Most of the ENGINEERS I know - not the students - are very conservative. FYI: I lump "libertarian" in with conservative; in the conservative/liberal dichotomy, libertarians go in with conservatives. They might not be 1950s conservative. Some of that is due entirely to the gender gap - men tend to be more conservative, women more liberal - but some of it is because a lot of funding for engineering work comes from defense spending. There's also a tremendous amount of work done at military research labs. Ultimate result is that engineers vote with their pocketbooks - Republican candidates are often more into spending on defense and defense technology.</p>

<hr>

<p>I should have clarified - how about a master's in education v. a MD? (Ph.D.s in education are much more rare than the master's; many people get the masters' just so they can teach, as some states require it.) Med school is very difficult to get into - roughly half of the people who apply don't get in anywhere. These are very accomplished, intelligent people who go to great schools and take tough courseloads. </p>

<p>I think you are making a common mistake, which is to assume that, if someone says that pursuit A is more difficult than pursuit B, then they must think that pursuit B is a trivial cakewalk for the intellectual midgets of the world. Not true at all. Getting through college with good enough grades to qualify for any graduate education is, IMO, an accomplishment in of itself. That does not mean that everything is created equal. </p>

<p>We can agree to disagree on one more point. I don't think that "effort" is a perfect proxy for rigour, difficulty, or intellectual intensity. Some Ph.D. programmes might require a lot of effort, but it could be five years of grunt work. Some, OTOH, require five years of work that makes your brain feel like tenderised veal at the end of every day. </p>

<p>FYI: I'll fully admit that the JD isn't that hard to get. There's a lot of work, but most of it is not very difficult. Once you're in, you just read stuff every day. It's a test of diligence, not of brainpower.</p>

<hr>

<p>Icarus:
Perhaps you disagree - fine - but telling me to stop the ad hominem attacks is downright amusing. An ad hominem attack implies that I attack the person instead of the idea; that, my dear, is what your buddy ucbhi does. Tell him that condescending to me and pretending that I lack my fair share of brains isn't the best of ideas - but don't tell me to sit back and take some kid's garbage. </p>

<p>Everyone on these fora are SMART. I almost wish there were genuinely unintelligent people around so y'all could remember how gifted you are and maybe calm down. That does not, however, give ucbhi the right to snit at me. </p>

<p>You think that my accomplishments are irrelevant - I think they are solid evidence that refutes Ucbhi's contention that my brainpower might be lacking. Sadly, I don't have a little piece of paper that tells me that I'm good at numbers-crunching, but I do have pieces of paper and lines on my resume that indicate that I'm an intelligent woman. Something wrong with having that out there, when ad hominem attacks about my intelligence are made? </p>

<p>Is there a reason that you aren't a conspicious poster on the "Smart women" thread?</p>

<p>--</p>

<p>If you are talking about punishing doctors for refusing to perform abortions, there's the issue of imposing a religion (or lack thereof) upon them. I'm a big proponent of gay marriage, but think that the ultimate justification for the religious issue is that no church, priest, minister, rabbi, or other is obligated to perform the marriage - they are entitled to the sanctity of their faith and to practice their faith in any way they see fit.</p>

<p>I don't want to to turn this into an abortion discussion, but it is interesting to note that US abortion doctors are mostly male. They are also, in large part, those who were around pre-Roe and recall what happened during that time. The dearth of women doctors is generally attributed to either or both of:
1) women not wanting to perform abortions; and
2) discomfort of pregnant women. If you are getting an abortion, the last thing you want to see, in theory, is a doctor who is pregnant and carrying to term.</p>

100

<p>
[quote]
FYI: I lump "libertarian" in with conservative; in the conservative/liberal dichotomy, libertarians go in with conservatives.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Only in America... :rolleyes:</p>