The Actual Threat to Democracy

[Satinavian]

In what way?

STEM-based academics are also generally left leaning.

The only fields i have ever seen singled out as exception to the left leaning of academia are Business/Finance (who tend to prefer business friendly politics and don't like redistribution) and Law(who tend to be big on law and order). But i don't have much data on those, so i am not completely sure that is true.

Now it is possible that different fields tend to care about different issues. But even then i guess the conservatives did not actually make many friends in the scientific community by e.g. promoting creationism/attacking evolution and (more globally) supporting fossil fuel industry and attacking climate science.

But it goes further than that. Scientists are at the pulse of new scientific discoveries and want that new knowledge applied. Which often means they favor change. New or updated regulations reflecting the current scientific knowledge, not the understanding of the every-man on the street. And conservatives are notoriously bad at this.

Also every single time science discovers something that goes against widespread assumptions, the conservatives remember that this "common knowledge" is what their voters believe to be true and they want to be vindicated. So scientists get attacked, declared to be a fraud based on nothing but "everyone knows". That happens in any field that is not completely out of the news. And produces a lot of bitterness and contempt for the conservatives.

 

[Trunkage]

STEM-based academics are also generally left leaning.

The only fields i have ever seen singled out as exception to the left leaning of academia are Business/Finance (who tend to prefer business friendly politics and don't like redistribution) and Law(who tend to be big on law and order). But i don't have much data on those, so i am not completely sure that is true.

Now it is possible that different fields tend to care about different issues. But even then i guess the conservatives did not actually make many friends in the scientific community by e.g. promoting creationism/attacking evolution and (more globally) supporting fossil fuel industry and attacking climate science.

But it goes further than that. Scientists are at the pulse of new scientific discoveries and want that new knowledge applied. Which often means they favor change. New or updated regulations reflecting the current scientific knowledge, not the understanding of the every-man on the street. And conservatives are notoriously bad at this.

Also every single time science discovers something that goes against widespread assumptions, the conservatives remember that this "common knowledge" is what their voters believe to be true and they want to be vindicated. So scientists get attacked, declared to be a fraud based on nothing but "everyone knows". That happens in any field that is not completely out of the news. And produces a lot of bitterness and contempt for the conservatives.

There are a bunch of lefties in economics, generally classed as neo-Keynesians

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Now it is possible that different fields tend to care about different issues. But even then i guess the conservatives did not actually make many friends in the scientific community by e.g. promoting creationism/attacking evolution and (more globally) supporting fossil fuel industry and attacking climate science.

Funny thing about that sort of shit in Australia is that it's alienated the moderate conservatives who're abandoning their party in droves... much to the amusement of everyone else.

 

[tstorm823]

STEM-based academics are also generally left leaning.

Oh, we're not talking exclusively about academics. We're talking about everyone, and the correlation between amount of education and liberal political leanings. And it's not STEM as a whole, there are STEM fields that lean left and those that lean right. Optometrists are predominantly Republican for whatever reason. I'm sure their professors were all or nearly all left-leaning, but the people in the field of optometry aren't for the most part. It's not less intelligence or less knowledge that is going to explain these patterns.

 

[Ag3ma]

Funny thing about that sort of shit in Australia is that it's alienated the moderate conservatives who're abandoning their party in droves... much to the amusement of everyone else.

Yes, but conservative parties are also replacing a lot of those moderate voters.

Populist nationalism has been growing heavily, not only from traditional right-wingers but also a substantial number of people who traditionally may have voted for leftist parties. Conservative parties are either being supplanted by radical (even extreme) right parties, or moving to prevent this loss of support to the radical right and morphing into radical right parties anyway.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Yes, but conservative parties are also replacing a lot of those moderate voters.

They got roflstomped here. I larfed.

 

[Satinavian]

Oh, we're not talking exclusively about academics. We're talking about everyone, and the correlation between amount of education and liberal political leanings. And it's not STEM as a whole, there are STEM fields that lean left and those that lean right. Optometrists are predominantly Republican for whatever reason. I'm sure their professors were all or nearly all left-leaning, but the people in the field of optometry aren't for the most part. It's not less intelligence or less knowledge that is going to explain these patterns.

You wrote about "degree programs with carreer focus" . If it provides a degree, it is academics.

 

[Silvanus]

A) I did not dispute the correlation existing, I suggested a different causal relationship leading to that correlation.

...based on insulting assumptions about your political enemies, including me.

B) If they're equally specious and derogatory, why are you only arguing with me?

They're not equally specious. One was at least based on real data.

 

[Hawki]

Funny thing about that sort of shit in Australia is that it's alienated the moderate conservatives who're abandoning their party in droves... much to the amusement of everyone else.

You mean the teals?

TBH, I'm not sure if I'd really call the LNP "conservatives" as opposed to "liberals" (and yes, I know those terms tend to mean different things in different places). There's certainly a conservative wing of the party, one that seems to be ascendant within said party right now (see Morrison and Dutton), but it's still called the "Liberal" part as opposed to, say, Bernardi's "Conservative Party" (which didn't do so well IIRC).

 

[tstorm823]

You wrote about "degree programs with carreer focus" . If it provides a degree, it is academics.

Then your disagreement is just wrong. Many STEM fields that require degrees lean right.

...based on insulting assumptions about your political enemies, including me.

They're not equally specious. One was at least based on real data.

"Conservatives aren't intelligent enough to be liberal" is based on real data, and not insulting?

 

[Satinavian]

Then your disagreement is just wrong. Many STEM fields that require degrees lean right.

That is why i originally wrote "you are wrong".

The overwhelming majority of STEM degree holders is left leaning. And this likely translates to fields as well even if there are few sources that make distinction by field.

STEM degree holders compared to average population are very typical for the "more educated, more left wing" phenomenon.

"Conservatives aren't intelligent enough to be liberal" is based on real data, and not insulting?

Well, yes.

But that could and should be phrased as "current Conservatives are better at providing seemingly simple solutions and unrealistic promises that are more likely to get them the vote of the less educated".
Or maybe as "Somehow the leftists have now problems connecting with the workers, their traditional clientel."
Or maybe as "The tactics of appealing to a imagined better past and of providing easy scapegoats for all of todays problem, which conservatives like to employ, seem to work better for uneducated voters."

It is less that conservatism itself has to do with lack of intelligence and more that conservatives go for certain voter groups and lose others by doing so.

 

[Silvanus]

"Conservatives aren't intelligent enough to be liberal" is based on real data, and not insulting?

If that was actually the sentence that was said, you'd have a point, but it wasn't.

"Those with more education lean left" is based on real data (whereas "those who work in 'real jobs' for more time lean right" is not). They're both about as insulting as eachother insofar as what they insinuate about the 'other side', but there's obviously less leeway when a statement is true than there is when someone's just pulled it out of their ass.

 

[Kwak]

Gaetz says most in GOP ‘don’t feel like we should negotiate with our hostage’

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Tuesday that he and his conservative colleagues “don’t feel like we should negotiate with our hostage” on a debt-limit compromise. In his comments, the Florida Republi…

thehill.com

 

[Ag3ma]

They got roflstomped here. I larfed.

Really? I thought the Lib/Nats actually picked up more votes than Labor - although plenty fewer than Labor and Greens combined.

 

[Ag3ma]

Gaetz says most in GOP ‘don’t feel like we should negotiate with our hostage’

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Tuesday that he and his conservative colleagues “don’t feel like we should negotiate with our hostage” on a debt-limit compromise. In his comments, the Florida Republi…

thehill.com

I'm not entirely sure that the Republicans have learnt from history that the country overall tends to take a dim view of Congress for shutting down the government, and that it risks painting them as intransigent and extreme with moderate voters. They might get lucky and the president takes the hit this time, of course, but...

 

[Cheetodust]

If that was actually the sentence that was said, you'd have a point, but it wasn't.

"Those with more education lean left" is based on real data (whereas "those who work in 'real jobs' for more time lean right" is not). They're both about as insulting as eachother insofar as what they insinuate about the 'other side', but there's obviously less leeway when a statement is true than there is when someone's just pulled it out of their ass.

Also "educated" is relatively measurable whereas "real work" is purely classism.

 

[tstorm823]

That is why i originally wrote "you are wrong".

The overwhelming majority of STEM degree holders is left leaning. And this likely translates to fields as well even if there are few sources that make distinction by field.

STEM degree holders compared to average population are very typical for the "more educated, more left wing" phenomenon.

As recently as 2016, the conventional wisdom that STEM fields are more conservative than not held true:

https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246

And while the trends in political identification relative to education have shifted very rapidly in recent years, I don't think it's even possible that enough people have been replaced by the younger generation for the "overwhelming majority" of STEM degree holders to lean left at this point.

But that could and should be phrased as "current Conservatives are better at providing seemingly simple solutions and unrealistic promises that are more likely to get them the vote of the less educated".
Or maybe as "Somehow the leftists have now problems connecting with the workers, their traditional clientel."
Or maybe as "The tactics of appealing to a imagined better past and of providing easy scapegoats for all of todays problem, which conservatives like to employ, seem to work better for uneducated voters."

It is less that conservatism itself has to do with lack of intelligence and more that conservatives go for certain voter groups and lose others by doing so.

The only one of your possible explanations that isn't itself a silly oversimplification is the second one, and anyone who has touched the Teamsters in this century knows why Democrats can't connect with workers anymore. (edit: it's because they're just an extension of the corporations that protect their power by feeding money to the Democratic Party.)

But I appreciate making clear it's not a matter of intelligence, but that only further begs the question of why nobody but me responded to that claim.

Also "educated" is relatively measurable whereas "real work" is purely classism.

Are you accusing me of classism against the rich?

If that was actually the sentence that was said, you'd have a point, but it wasn't.

"Those with more education lean left" is based on real data (whereas "those who work in 'real jobs' for more time lean right" is not). They're both about as insulting as eachother insofar as what they insinuate about the 'other side', but there's obviously less leeway when a statement is true than there is when someone's just pulled it out of their ass.

This is going to be a test for you. Are you capable of conceding a point? Cause this is as black and white as it's ever going to be:

Those with lower IQs, lower intelligence and lower education are more conservative. Because, very specifically, they're not intelligent enough to be liberal.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Really? I thought the Lib/Nats actually picked up more votes than Labor - although plenty fewer than Labor and Greens combined.

They lost key seats to 'teals' which is to say fiscal conservative/social kinda-liberal/environmentally aware independents.

 

[Cheetodust]

Are you accusing me of classism against the rich?

Nah. You're just bad at understanding things. Don't worry though. I'm sure you have other talents.

 

[Hawki]

Really? I thought the Lib/Nats actually picked up more votes than Labor - although plenty fewer than Labor and Greens combined.

The LNP's on the ropes here - every state sans Tasmania is run by Labor, and while this is more of a subjective judgement, the Federal LNP strikes me as being pretty rudderless.

Also, as Rhombus has pointed out, the teals are another factor.