Why are the Vast Majority of Scientists, Artists and Intellectuals Liberal?

In answer to the headline, could it be because the very nature of being 'Conservative' is to preserve things: the past, tradition, what one has enjoyed and grown used to, while Liberal leaning favours moving away from those old ideas and mindsets, embracing new innovation, ideals, experimentation, risk taking, REFORM and change, etc?

Being Liberal is about exploring possibilities while being Conservative is about preserving what they value. It is natural for artists and scientist to be of the Liberal than Conservative mold.

Just a thought. :o)

To me, in essence, at the most fundamental level, the liberal mindset shows a willingness to admit uncertainty. It shows a willingness to confront the unknown. A certitude that things do and must change. A bravery that challenges the notion of conventional, traditional thinking for the sake of understanding what doesn't work - representational in the ability to adjust, to admit error and to grow.

Well said!

Excellent article.

Hey, Mike, good article! As a musician, liberal, teacher (private), mom, etc. I know I have always marched to my own drummer, as it were, and taught my son, an artist, to do the same thing--and he does. I think folk who think for themselves tend to move more toward the liberal side of things, since we tend to want to find answers and/or create questions to be answered. Just some thoughts.

Hope you're having a great day!

while Liberal leaning favours moving away from those old ideas and mindsets, embracing new innovation, ideals, experimentation, risk taking, REFORM and change, etc?

I wonder if there's ever been a study of entrepreneurs? I'm not talking about run of the mill business people, like CEOs, etc., but people with actual entrepreneural spirits, since being an entrepreneur takes an amount of risk-taking, uncertainty, etc.

Just exactly what in the hell are CONservatives conserving? Their fat wallets? Income inequality? Racism? Voter fraud and deception? Massive unemployment? The Bush Bastard's failed economic policies? The eternal GWOT? The fascist Corporate Oligarchy?

Whoa, ease up on the partisanship, there! Refer to post 1.1 for a solid answer on that.

If you are liberal equals good, conservative equals bad....it's hard to have productive dialogue.....I'm just sayin'

Whoa, ease up on the partisanship, there!

If you are liberal equals good, conservative equals bad....it's hard to have productive dialogue.....I'm just sayin'

Indeed, so right- and not necessary either in the spirit of the discussion.

Well being a libertarian I am considered a classic liberal. what was once just considered a liberal. I am for individual rights.....same as the liberal. most economists are libertarian ....so lets see I am enlightened with the liberal on my social side....but want to progress and not wanting to be a slave to a central government like the communists, fascists, and socialists do. so embrace liberty and liberalism when it comes to economics also.

would that not make me the most progressive and enlightened? gee thanks for letting me know what I already knew.

peace.

I am proud to be a liberal and I have noticed that those that I most agree with tend to be liberal. On most "tests" I come out as liberal with a libertarian leaning. I have also noticed that people I know who are interested in science and reading and learning are also liberals.

As George Washington said...

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.

redsfan

although you claim to have libertarian leanings I have ran into you a few times on here and can assure you you are anything but libertarian.

Wow...a couple of comments on Newsvine and you know what I think about everything huh? You must be god.

And by the way, I wasn't aware that racism was a libertarian trait.

its not redsfan

libertarians view placing people in groups as liberals like to do as racist in itself. we believe in judging people by their character and actions only.

peace.

those types of people generally see the world as they would like it to be. Unfortunately, many cannot seem to see the world for what it is.

it would be nice if the world was full of wonderful people who only mean to help and not to do harm, but its not.

california

then those people who cause harm will go to prison. and not like the prison system we have now.

pretty simple

I'm glad to hear it James...since in our previous discussions you were defending Fox News and their actions regarding Breitbart's racist attack on Ms. Sherrod and I was denouncing them, I was afraid you were saying that racism was a new libertarian party platform. I'm so glad to hear that's not the case.

what I have been saying all along is that fox is no more at fault than all the other stations that aired it. as a matter of fact there is a vine on here how sheppard smith called out his network on it.....not one of the left has ever called out there boss on it. regardless its not foxs fault. it was the white house for firing her and the NAACP for calling her racist when they had the full tape all along.

the facts are out and fox was not at fault...and to those who think so I guess that means the white house is controlled by fox....since its not the white house fault....it must mean they do not make the decisions and fox does.....

its the mentality I was questioning and the way this whole story went about. I think this was a manufactured crisis by our political parties...both of them.

oh and breitbarts attack was on the NAACP and not her personally because of their racist attack on the tea party. he wanted to discredit them....which by the way in the video you can see that much of the audience there was racist by their responses.

peace.

Because they're smart enough to be scientists.

As stereotypical as this my sound...

Liberals do tend to be more educated than most Conservatives. Liberals tend to place a higher value on education and science. Whereas Conservatives place value on Religion and tradition. Are either of these bad? Nah. We need tradition just like we need education. And we need science as much as we need Religion (YES, we need Religion).

So should it come as any surprise that Conservatives and Liberals fall along those lines? Not really. But when people begin to arm themselves with nukes and throw bile at the other side -- then we have problems.

Why are the Vast Majority of Scientists, Artists and Intellectuals Liberal?

Do you have actual numbers or just assumptions?

what I have been saying all along is that fox is no more at fault than all the other stations that aired it. as a matter of fact there is a vine on here how sheppard smith called out his network on it.....not one of the left has ever called out there boss on it. regardless its not foxs fault. it was the white house for firing her and the NAACP for calling her racist when they had the full tape all along.

James: While I agree that the white house and NAACP were clearly wrong for their conduct in this matter, one cannot be intellectually honest and absolve FOX of all error as well. They took the story from a blogger with a known bias, presented it as fact without doing their own fact checking, and commented repeatedly about how she was racist, one FOX commentator even going so far as to claim that this supposed incident was indicative of how black racism against whites was endemnic within the Obama administration.

The mainstream (CNN) and liberal (MSNBC) media clearly erred in reporting - but it was on the resignation, etc., not the "setup" - that was all FOX. And for the liberal media getting after the NAACP, White House, etc., and their own bosses, see Keith Olberman's special comment last night.

And we need science as much as we need Religion (YES, we need Religion).

I will have to wholeheartedly disagree. I believe religion was absolutely necessary in setting up our civilization as we know it, since it kept all believers "in line". But today, that very same religion fights advances in science, technology, and advances in understanding people unlike ourselves. I believe only when we do away with religion will human beings be able to reach their/our capacity.

mike, you ask an interesting question. I am a sculptor and I have always been open minded and wondering what could be. I think to sit and hurt ones brain on a day in day out searching for that muse or idea is a daunting task but one that most of us relish. I have always felt stifled by convention and was a bit of a handful for conventional parents.

James,

I would like to personally thank for you hijacking this great article and showing your COLORS!

To the article.

I don't consider myself an intellectual or artistic. But I am a curious person. You cannot learn if you are not curious. I also believe that people's genetic makeup has a lot to do with their leaning left or right in life. How else could I explain a brother that is polar opposite of me and raised by the same liberal mother ;-)

Oh, I am a poet.

Well written article Mike!

Tony-1517948--

But conversely you could also look at it that in truth some of the scientific and technological advances have become quite dangerous and harmful.

Almost as if religion is saying humans should not be playing God.

I believe only when we do away with religion will human beings be able to reach their/our capacity.

That is a very dangerous statement actually.

Think upon this, religion gave rise to science and technology. Both have pros and cons to life. However, science and technology have created more destructive forces than religion did.

But religion is not the problem, science and technology is not the problem, humans are the problem.

dennis

I am not absolving fox. but the actions taken after they our government heard of that video are theirs and theirs alone. then you take into account that the NAACP all along had the entire uncut video and they still called her a racist. wouldnt that be even worse?????

Many in the media reported on the NAACP calling the tea party racist and that is a complete lie. anyone who thinks an organization the size of that one is racist is probably a racist themselves. It seems to be ok. The man who presented this video to the public wanted to discredit the NAACP by showing the racism in the crowd at this event and not necessarily the speaker. I just find it amusing that behavior is ok to this crowd and not the actions of an individual who was associated with fox. its a double standard and not the type of intelligence that this article endorses of the liberal mind.

peace.

CCarm, 1.24 --- I agree, genetics and being left-brained or right-brained gives us inherent 'tendencies' toward our individual intelligence, academic abilities and natural artistic skills - not political leanings.

But religion is not the problem, science and technology is not the problem, humans are the problem

Kshark, this is probably the only point we will both agree on, because while I grew up in a religious home, over my years (the last few especially) I have grown to despise organized religion. I don't wish to hijack the thread into a religious conversation, so I will focus on a positive instead ;)

I will have to wholeheartedly disagree. I believe religion was absolutely necessary in setting up our civilization as we know it, since it kept all believers "in line". But today, that very same religion fights advances in science, technology, and advances in understanding people unlike ourselves. I believe only when we do away with religion will human beings be able to reach their/our capacity.

You are thinking to narrow. Your view is limited to the idea that religion is a limiting factor. That there is some element of control that must be maintained by the order of religion in order to allow one to function. This isn't taking into all the facts of religion.

Religion didn't just act as a control, or a uniting factor. For many people it was a solace. When times go bad, when things go wrong, people turn to God for help. When there are incurable super-flu's, pandemics, bio-misery, nuclear war, bio-chemical attacks, people pray, hope that there is a higher power, that will redeem the horrors that exist on this planet.

We can say science can disprove this. That we are worm-chow when we die, that we're stuck on this dirt-ball until we find a new dirt-ball. But until that time, I think people use God as an excuse to cope with the day-to-day things. Because science, while important... lacks the personal touch that religion has down.

Oh, and for people who are wondering about God: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxRXP3w-sQ

-Regina Spektor: Laughing With

That there is some element of control that must be maintained by the order of religion in order to allow one to function.

Religion (mostly "spiritualism") may not be, but organized religion is all about control. I believe it to be the best scam of all time.....better than anything Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff could ever come up with. How do you get the masses to accept their lives of "serfdom"? You tell them their rewards are coming........after they die.....and you wrap it up in a neat little story of supernatural that defies every law known to man so it can't truly be proven or disproven. The riches the various churches (Roman Catholic, Mormon, Scientologists, Muslim, etc) have amassed is mindboggling.....and proof enough. As I was talking with Kshark about, humans have screwed up so badly we have no idea if we're even close to what our deity's intention was if He even existed. Anything man touches, he corrupts.

But I didn't really want to get into a religious argument. For that, Mike Rupert, I apologize for the thread-jacking!

Being an artist myself, I'm probably biased but I would have thought the artist part was self-explanatory. ;-)

But seriously, being an artist means challenging convention, tradition and very often authority, which is the very opposite of conservatism.

Why are the Vast Majority of Scientists, Artists and Intellectuals Liberal

Clearly, education is a liberal conspiracy to indoctinate our young to join the liberal agenda.

Religion (mostly "spiritualism") may not be, but organized religion is all about control. I believe it to be the best scam of all time.....better than anything Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff could ever come up with. How do you get the masses to accept their lives of "serfdom"? You tell them their rewards are coming........after they die.....and you wrap it up in a neat little story of supernatural that defies every law known to man so it can't truly be proven or disproven. The riches the various churches (Roman Catholic, Mormon, Scientologists, Muslim, etc) have amassed is mindboggling.....and proof enough. As I was talking with Kshark about, humans have screwed up so badly we have no idea if we're even close to what our deity's intention was if He even existed. Anything man touches, he corrupts.

But I didn't really want to get into a religious argument. For that, Mike Rupert, I apologize for the thread-jacking!

Your arguing organized religion, I'm arguing religion (or faith) in general. I think we actually agree on everything since I feel the same way about many organized 'faiths' (Here's lookin' at you Scientology, and Westboro Baptist Church) XD

My personal response to this is because they realize that society doesn't function on an "every man for himself" attitude.

Mike Rupert--

Fair enough.

Regarding science I could see both sides to the argument to be honest, and yeah my background is science.

-------------------------------------------

Tony-1517948--

It is cool, not a worry and perfectly understandable.

As someone who was a science geek and science major (not technically working in a science field, but I did cheer when Obama's inauguration speech mentioned "statistics") - I just love being grouped with the artists as a "creative" person. So many people have the stereotyped pocket-protector, dry, cold, emotionless scientist, without thinking about the creativity and imagination that have to go into seeing a collection of seemingly random facts, organizing them mentally, and then asking questions/discovering things about them. I don't understand how other people don't geek out on science!

Mike...IHMO:

Why are the vast majority of scientists, artists and intellectuals liberal?

Is NOT as important a question as: Why are only 6% of scientists Republicans?? I think that this number say ALOT about the Republican Party !!

Probably has something to do with the development of body's largest organ.

It took 10K years for the neanderthals to eliminate cro-magnon man from the planet through the course of evolution. It might take a little longer for homo-sapiens to eliminate all the neanderthals.

O/T responses: Most "libertarians" on NV are closet republicans too embarrassed to admit they voted for Bush twice and McLame and the Tundra Twinkee next, now are teabaggers. "Libertarians" that support GOP military events, wealth/corporate tax exclusions, and fiscal policies, are teabaggers. "Libertarians" that don't endorse the separation of church and state, are teabaggers. The word conservative hasn't been in the rightwing dictionary for 30 years and they no longer have the right to claim that they are.

I'm sorry ... I believe artists and scientists have to think outside the box, but being labeled intellectuals??? Conservatives are intellectuals as well ... most liberals, though are not artists or scientists, so it really depends what spectrum you're coming from.

Changing the Constitution to suit your individual need isn't a good thing to conservatives, while liberals embrace it. They want more government, they need more government, while Conservatives would rather be left alone, to with their life, what they would like.

The word conservative hasn't been in the rightwing dictionary for 30 years and they no longer have the right to claim that they are.

Says who? You? And you're, who exactly? thankfully I can think for myself and don't need the government to bail me out, or to give me money, etc ... as a matter of fact, while we're at it ... the government should be doing only what the constitution empowers them to do.

Allowing illegals to roam freely in and out of our country and sponging off our welfare programs, is not what they're supposed to be doing, neither are they to be privatizing banks, private businesses, hiring firing ceo's ... you get the point.

Only a liberal would find this action acceptable, simple because they do not understand the Constitution, which kind of defeats the label of an intellectual, does it not?

I truly believe Conservatives desperately resist change out of fear. Fear of the unknown. When you look at history, most often the ones who advocate for us to reach beyond the comfortable, and believe that we can do it, are younger generation men and women than the releative conservatives at the time.

J.F.K., M.L.K., Bobby Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, and the like were younger men of their times unafraid of what may happen, and more than willing to lead the way. As people age, they often become more conservative - afraid of change, and that is the overiding trait conservatives everywhere share. Their constant attacks against change is the manifestation of fear.

Look at the unhinged paranoid attack against our first black president, a younger man, unafraid of the challenges that confront us, and willing to lead the way. By contrast, you see entire platoons of elderly conservative politicians, reacting out of fear - basically saying "No!" we can't do these things, and he'll ruin us!"

Who would you rather have leading the way......a fear mongering status quo loving dumpling, or someone who not only believes we can do better, but is willing to lead the way, by example?

The answer to why scientists, artists and intellectuals are mostly liberal is obvious.

Probably has something to do with the development of body's largest organ.

The skin? That's the biggest. The liver is the largest internal organ. Which would lead to some interesting questions about artist's, intellectuals, scientists and alcoholism.

Well this is an interesting read

Climate-Change Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand
Sharp divergence on whether the effects of global warming are yet evident

Actually provides a bit of a historical perspective between the parties and the environment.

Now I am curious as to what parts of science Republicans would be against. Ok I know they are against embryonic stem cell research. I'm not.

But there is the thing, perhaps while Republicans are readily not scientists themselves they have the companies that employ scientists.

Artists frankly can be quite strange. I dabble in photography that is my art extension, I wonder if artists really are of either party or just more Independent thinkers.

As for intellectuals, it all depends on what area of intelligence. Intelligence, even professionals, cannot define.

Heck I could go into deep analysis . LOL

---------------------------------------------------------

AZPADDY--

You do know that MLK was a Republican right. Roosevelt started as a Republican as well.

Look at the unhinged paranoid attack against our first black president, a younger man, unafraid of the challenges that confront us, and willing to lead the way. By contrast, you see entire platoons of elderly conservative politicians, reacting out of fear - basically saying "No!" we can't do these things, and he'll ruin us!"

And bloody hell seriously why did you bring racism into this?

Unbelievable.

Just to point out, there are an awful lot of scientists, engineers and the like who are classically liberal, but in modern terms that's really libertarian, which is not modern day liberal or progressive.

Do you have actual numbers or just assumptions?

I'm a musician, so I'll frame it like this: How many music acts can you name right now with conservative messages in their songs that top the charts? Name a country music artist who can sell as many records globally as Radiohead or U2 or Green Day, if you can. I didn't mean that to sound as crass as it came out; I'm not saying Mike is definitely right or wrong, but he sure does seem right. And while I don't enjoy country music (which is what most conservatives seem to enjoy), I can tell you from years of experience that bands like Radiohead run circles around them in terms of album sales, concert attendance, etc. Also, being a musician and meeting countless other musicians, it's pretty rare to meet a conservative. But this can be chalked up to genre; some music genres are probably more likely to attract liberals than others, and bands that belong to a particular genre tend to gig together.

"I'm a musician, so I'll frame it like this: How many music acts can you name right now with conservative messages in their songs that top the charts?"

Sorry to jump into the conversation but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Do you, as a musician, feel in anyway superior to others in other fields? The reason I'm asking is that musicians fall into the whole Hollywood genre and they are atypically liberal. However, most engineers, doctors, and entrepreneurs I know are conservative. That may not be the case nationwide but it's been my experience. So are almost all of the service men and women I know and believe me, I know a lot. My question is this, do you feel that the positions that are predominantly held by conservatives in any way less valuable than the ones predominantly held by liberals? I'd imagine that the most skilled professions are evenly shared amongst liberals and conservatives since it takes a certain mindset for certain skills. For instance, there's a reason why those studying sciences in college don't have to take a foreign language. I know at least ten programming languages but I barely passed spanish in highschool. We're wired for certain things but we can't be masters of all so I'm wondering if this article is merely an attempt at self-agrandization for liberals or truly a discussion between the difference, as opposed to accused failings, between the two groups.

Kshark #1.44

"And bloody hell seriously why did you bring racism into this?"

Put your jerked right knee back in place and you may understand the reason I mentioned the attacks on President Barack Obama. The fact that we have a black Democratic president, younger than most of his detractors is change on a scale that frightens conservatives to the bone.

Look at the scale of vitriolic diatribe by the entire right wing universe. Nothing but fear can be responsible for that. Fear manifested as hate. Conservatives would have a similar reaction to a woman being elected president. Can you even begin to imagine the attacks if Hillary Clinton was elected POTUS? It was pretty evident she frightened conservatives almost as much as Barack Obama does.

Any racism read into my statement is entirely of your own making. I simply point out how a young black Democratic president, pushing for change frightens conservatives like nothing else could.

Changing the Constitution to suit your individual need isn't a good thing to conservatives, while liberals embrace it.

Really? So it's the liberals who want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

Conservatives would rather be left alone, to with their life, what they would like.

Really? It seems to me that conservatives are always trying to interfere in how others lead their lives. They aren't content to just live their own.

ok I looked up the poll which I think is the basis for this article and it says that 52% of the scientists that were polled self identified as liberal. that's not a vast majority.

but does it really matter?

Those are the scientists.

Now poll the artists.

"Those are the scientists.

Now poll the artists."

Afterwards, let's poll the engineers, doctors, and entrepreneurs. Each of the three I just mention, from my experience, lean more towards conservatives. Are artist somehow superior to them? Where would artists hang their paintings if not from the walls that engineers designed. How would we play the works of musicians if engineers didn't design electronics to play them? Who keeps the artist alive if there are no doctrors? Who sells an artist's work if their are no businesses?

I made no value judgment. I'm simply pointing out that polling only the scientists isn't enough to address the full premise of the article.

You're right. If we're talking about scientists, artists, engineers, doctors, and entrepreneurs, it would be beneficial to poll all of them.

Each of the three I just mention, from my experience, lean more towards conservatives.

Interesting. Most of the doctors and entrepreneurs I'm acquainted with are decidedly liberal. The conservatives I know are usually involved in things that are far more concrete, like engineering and law.

It almost seems to be a left brain/right brain thing. In my experience, creative/right-brained people tend to be more liberal than those who are more concrete/left-brained.

Funny, I remember reading a very similar article/post not to long ago about the same thing. Really funny how you point out that "I thought of this title and subject specifically the other day, but didn't get to writing it until last night, and wanted to put it up Newsvine."

like i said similar not the same but here

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=Sbin

"The conservatives I know are usually involved in things that are far more concrete, like engineering and law."

Then why are most of our politicans, regardless of party, come from the legal profession?

I'm not really disagreeing with you and it sounds like you aren't really disagreeing with me. In fact, it sounds like you're discussing the more rational point of this article which is that conservatives and liberals both fill important skilled positions but that each have specific fortes. I wish the title of the article was more in tune with the spirit of the discussion.

However, one thing I would think that is inaccurate is that all scientists are predominantly liberal. Two things I would ask is how old were the scientists that were polled and what sciences did they study? For instance, my brother is working towards his PHD in chemistry and is already doing ground breaking work and he's a conservative. That's a field that is more in tune with logic and math so I have to wonder if that's not a field more suited for a conservative as opposed to quantum physics that is more theory than practical application. I remember my brother saying he liked quantum physics but liked other subjects better.

Take my field, computer science. It's not necessarily the mainstream science field and it deals more with the absolute and logic than it does with theory. Being a conservative does that give me a prediliction towards the concrete and not the fuzzy of does the way my brain is wired have more to do with influencing whether or not I identify with conservatives and not liberals?

Why are the vast majority of scientists, artists and intellectuals liberal?

because you have to be able to see the world around you to evaluate it. Digging into your own self absorbed conservative greedy world keeps you blind from reality.

Because, to my thought, it is only inevitable that the mind at a young age either chooses the comfort of the confining "what should be", or the more difficult and unrelenting, "what could be" in the face of what actually is. And what actually is is never quite understood unless you're as flexible as an unapologetic and complex world that continues to expose, however intricate, what a life is actually all about.

Science by it's strict rules can only work with what is. facts are what ' is' . it comes up with theories and hypothesis and works with them and the evidence that is available until it either proves correct or not.

what 'should be ' seems a cons song. dismissing fact and evidence ... like climate change.

liberal is being able to look at more than one view point and see the evidence for what it is.

Paul

Changing the Constitution to suit your individual need isn't a good thing to conservatives, while liberals embrace it.

That statement flies in the face of the last 15 years, it's been the conservatives who've wanted to change the constitution, not the liberals. Most glaring case in point: same sex marriage. However, by definition, conservatives would want to preserve it as it is; but, that's just not what we've seen in practice.

"because you have to be able to see the world around you to evaluate it. Digging into your own self absorbed conservative greedy world keeps you blind from reality."

Let's see if I fit that mold. I'm a conservative. I have almost two masters as I'm wrapping up the last so that does away with the stereotype that liberals often like to paint conservatives as being uneducated. Both my bachelors and one of my masters is in the sciences. I'm only 32 but am already a project manager and my salary puts me in the top 25 percent bractile of income makers in this country. I regularly create new IT systems and maintain systems that manage the flow of 26 billion dollars. I'm a regular at the meetings with our upper executives and am known as a critical thinker and a problem solver that thinks outside of the box in order to meet deadlines.

I one time took a test to determine whether my actions are dicatated by my emotions or logic and afterwards the instructor pulled me aside and said I scored the highest on the side of logic than anyone he'd ever tested.

I breezed by subjects in college like calculus, statistics, dynamics, physics, chemistry, and all of my programming courses although I have to admit that physics bored me. The difference is that liberals deal solely with theories and conservatives apply those theories to real world solutions. Liberals are better at coming up with theories, I'll admist, but what, at the end of the day, do theories accomplish without someone to actually make them work in real life?

Oh, and I'm sorry that you see me as greedy. I'm sorry that I'm so successful. Should I give you a handout? I would but then I'm sure your pride wouldn't allow you to accept it.

Sorry to sound so harsh but it's late and I've had a few since I'm taking tomorrow off to enjoy some time with the family. It's one of those perks of keeping my skills pertinent and staying competitive and not expecting the government to provide for me. By doing so, I've kept my job and can afford to take a few days of liesure time but I promise that I'll spend a few moment tomorrow feeling guilty that I've been rewarded for my efforts.

Then why are most of our politicans, regardless of party, come from the legal profession?

Probably because politics, really, is the legal profession. When it comes to politics the liberal/conservative dichotomy is a false one. There's only slightly more liberal than those who are less, and vice-versa.

When I think about it, I can't find a single politician anywhere, present or past, who is anywhere as liberal as I am, and I would imagine that many conservatives could make the same statement. They're all just a litle bit one or the other.

I'm not really disagreeing with you and it sounds like you aren't really disagreeing with me. In fact, it sounds like you're discussing the more rational point of this article which is that conservatives and liberals both fill important skilled positions but that each have specific fortes.

Yep.

I'm a conservative. I have almost two masters as I'm wrapping up the last so that does away with the stereotype that liberals often like to paint conservatives as being uneducated. Both my bachelors and one of my masters is in the sciences. I'm only 32.

I'm a liberal. I also have two masters. One in art and one in media communication. I'm 49.

So there you have it.

Liberals are older. ;-)

Most of the Doctors I know are very Conservative and I know a lot of Doctors. Most Doctors are Businessmen. They have to pay for the Nurses they have on Staff, the Medical Assistants, the other staff, pay the utilities and rent, etc. When most people think of Doctors they don't see the big picture. They only see the person who tells them what they are sick from.

The Doctors who are liberal that I have met are the ones who have just graduated school. They haven't hit the point where they have their own practice. They haven't been unfairly sued, attacked, spit on, or been taxed to death. They haven't have idiot after idiot come through the door complaining about how "we should just take the money from those rich bastards and give it to the poor". How they have it so bad because the boss wanted him to work an extra hour on Friday and they don't understand that the Doctor in front of them is on his 36th hour and hasn't slept yet.

Funny, how fast somebody who was once liberal slowly changes to Conservative.

I would agree that most Scientist are liberal. They rely on the Government for most of their funding and Grants. Who is willing to spend more on them? The Democrats. I have no problem with that. It doesn't make sense to vote against something that will go against the way you live.

Artist's are the more emotional type of the bunch. They rely on emotion to help them with their art. Most of the things liberals like and want are the things that "feel good". Unfortunately all those "feel good" projects have a cost. Artists live within a dream and bring it out to all of us. Unfortunately the rest of us have to live within the real world and must balance everything that it brings.

There is different types of Intellectuals. There is those that have book sense and you would think they were the smartest people in the world but they have never been ten feet outside of their yard. There is those who have never graduated from high school yet if you were to ask of them a question you would swear that you just met the wisest man in the world. There is those who can talk eloquently but the moment you ask them a real question they bumble and fumble for words. There are those who have traveled the world and lived in many different cultures yet never set foot in a Harvard like school.

The Intellectual I like best is the one who can break down a car and likes to read books. That when asked a question thinks on it and is able to answer without a teleprompter giving him clues. I like the Intellectual who has traveled and has first hand knowledge of the places that he likes to talk about. Not the Intellectual who has read and studied on these places but has never lived a year in the places he thinks that he is an expert on.

That's just a start. Conservatives value our traditions and our history because there is lessons in those stories from long ago. We believe in little regulations to spur on the imagination of our liberal scientist.

Anyways, time to go.

I think the premise is flawed and the headline mostly misleading. First, the Pew Research poll said explicitly:

"Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals;"

52% is certainly not the vast majority.

Whether the "vast majority" of artists are liberals, we have no idea. If there is data to support this hypothesis, I haven't seen it. At the least, the question requires a definition of "artist".

Likewise, if there's similar data on "intellectuals", I'm not aware of it, and a definition is necessary.

Second, regarding scientists, the general premise that they are liberal thinkers and creators is almost certainly wrong.

The author is extrapolating too much from a study on the political affiliation of scientists. The surprising, and from my reading of this thread, shocking truth for most of the commenters, will be that scientists are by the most part CONSERVATIVE. They have to be. I do not mean politically conservative. The Pew Poll addresses that question. But with respect to creativity and liberal thought, scientists are severely constrained by reality. They cannot afford to be liberal. A painter can express himself in water color, oil or human feces. A musician can play a guitar, a human body part, or a band saw (excuse the pun). But any scientist who strays too far from mainstream understanding will be challenged immediately by the status quo, and that is how it should be. Science has a built in inertia that is incredibly difficult to change, and any new laws or discoveries made in any field of science are first viewed in the light of current understanding. And there is an immense effort made to maintain it. In fact, the current understanding is built on such a solid foundation that many new ideas are found to be wanting, or wrong. Only rarely does a truly new concept survive the rigors of analysis based on current understanding, and ultimately demonstrate that it must be modified.

Scientists do not like to change their thinking, and certainly do not like to give up strongly held (and accepted) concepts or beliefs. Contrary to the commonly held view, they may be among the most conservative thinkers on the planet. And it serves everyone well.

It is not liberal or conservative thought that characterizes scientists. It is curiosity.

Good post Incredulous... I didn't think on it like you did and gave me much to think on.

able to answer without a teleprompter giving him clues

Just had to jam a teleprompter comment in there, didn't ya? ha ha ha

Sorry to jump into the conversation but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Do you, as a musician, feel in anyway superior to others in other fields? The reason I'm asking is that musicians fall into the whole Hollywood genre and they are atypically liberal. However, most engineers, doctors, and entrepreneurs I know are conservative. That may not be the case nationwide but it's been my experience. So are almost all of the service men and women I know and believe me, I know a lot. My question is this, do you feel that the positions that are predominantly held by conservatives in any way less valuable than the ones predominantly held by liberals?

I don't think we're superior to anyone else, just different. Doctors save lives, while musicians enhance them. We impact millions of more lives than doctors, but musicians don't save lives, and saving one life is more important than enteraining any number of others, to me anyway.

I do know two doctors personally, and one is conservative while the other is extremely liberal. The liberal doctor I know works in a free clinic in NYC, while the conservative has a private practice. There's no question that the conservative makes more money, but the liberal always talks about how rewarding her job is, so I couldn't honestly say who enjoys their work more. And I wouldn't be comfortable with a friend being my doctor and touching my funny bits, so I can't say which is better at their job, lol.

I believe you could argue that most of the scientist, actors and intellectuals spend their lives pursuing endeavors that are paid for by conservatives, some willingly some not. Think about it, intellectuals are usually in colleges or think tanks all supported by the "working" people, actors make money by making films and such that are bank rolled by businesses. SO if your life has been lived off of someone else's dime, then you'd see no problem taking that to new pet projects or beliefs.

Just food for thought. I think we need each other.

I think it's because the vast majority of scientists artists and intellectuals are in their professions because of their love for it. Not for massive profits for themselves.

Humans are social animals, for the most part. We have an innate need to categorize the world around us...identifying, rating, and separating friend from foe.

As a liberal, I want to identify myself with people who are intelligent, open, artistic, spiritual, creative, innovative...all of the positive traits I would like to think I possess to one degree or another. Interestingly enough, my best friend is a Libertarian/Conservative, career military...and yet he is also an intellectual, a haiku poet, and one of the most brutally honest people I've ever known. Both of us find creative stimulation in the interstices of our opposites...yin and yang.

One of the common traits you'll find among people who are innovators is that most are mixed dominance, i.e. their dominant eye, ear, hand, and foot are not all either left or right. Mixed dominance is the reason that intellectual "geeks" also tend to suck at sports, have awful handwriting, etc. Because both hemispheres of the brain are constantly in play, they have constant input from both the analytical and the creative centers in their brains...hence their innovative facility. Einstein, DaVinci, Buckminster Fuller, Edison, Darwin, Picasso...all of the geniuses who have elevated our understanding of the universe and had a lasting impact on human technology and art, have been mixed dominance. Unfortunately, mixed dominance is also associated with dyslexia and other "learning disabilities."

Our public education system has tried to mass produce learning using the assembly line model. But human brains and methods of learning can't be mass produced for conformity. The current right-brain-focused methods actually marginalize the students who may be the brightest and most creative, but who are often terrible test-takers because information is less compartmentalized in one dominant hemisphere. All children should be tested for mixed dominance before starting school, and our curricula should recognize and accommodate individual learning pattern differences. I can remember having trouble reading in first grade, but I discovered that if I closed my left eye (my dominant eye), I could read. Some kids don't figure out a fix, start falling behind early, and never recover. Not surprisingly, in a pre-literate world, survival would favor mixed dominance because creative thinking in crisis situations is an advantage. Literate societies, especially ones where warfare is a constant, are a more favorable climate for individuals who are either right or left brain dominant, and therefore more comfortable with conformity and order.

There will always be tension between the liberal/conservative, creative/task oriented folk, but the more we understand the workings of our brain hardware, the better we can appreciate our differences and how they can work together to best advantage of humans and the world we dominate and impact.

We've ranged far afield from this comment, but James wrote

a classic liberal. what was once just considered a liberal.

I believe that's a false dichotomy. None of today's American political ideologies have the exclusive claim to the heritage of, or to the legitimacy that derives from, the Enlightenment tradition-- by virtue of living under and within a system derived from that tradition, we all partake of it.

The Enlightenment thinkers themselves held far more nuanced and diverse views about politics and society than they are given credit for in the popular conversation in any case.

James,

Please explain why you would say most economists are libertarian? I would say the opposite. Most economist come from the camp that they know whats best, and shouldn't have to be bothered with explaining it to the peons .... What is entirely lacking from the profession is something called empathy - similarly lacking from most conservatives.

On the discussion at hand, I believe that people's position and relative history define who they are in this context. The main factor in determining "liberal" vs "conservative" is fear. Most conservatives fear the loss of rights, property, income if they support programs for the poor, immigrants, minorities. This is fed by the conservative establishment who play on these fear.

On the other side, most intellectuals where at one point in their lives poor. They may end up with wealth, but must have chosen their craft over money at one point. Being poor and smart is a really good way to shift the paradigm.

Now, many conservatives are poor, but that is because they accept the fear paradigm, and the victorian moral work paradigm. They see that they didn't work hard enough, didn't stop sinning, didn't vote for the right people - and its all OK cause they will be OK in the next life anyway.

The key to maintaining the conservative paradigms is they need to have many many people who are directly damaged by following the paradigm, but do it anyway. There is little good reason for the bottom 90% of Americans to support either party, or certainly the status quo in terms of wealth distribution (which sees the top 1% control more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined) but they consistently do????

Most economic forecasters who mislabel themselves as 'economists' ( or are mislabeled by the media ) are of the control freak variety. Think about what they do for a living, playing oracle.

Most economists, the kind who write economic papers, on the other hand are what most people would likely confuse with a statistician. They tend to be grouped into camps with the poly-sci leaning types of the command and control variety and the pure economic types of the free market variety. The US/Canada based groups even the control types pay lip service to the free market so I think it's fair, if somewhat simplified, to say most economists are libertarian.

There is no way to paint a broad bush over 'conservative' or 'liberal' that has a hope of being accurate. It's just barely possible to make a meaningful generalization in the fairly tiny world of actual economists which number in the hundreds not millions.

HereandGone #1.59

To recap:

I'm sorry that I'm so successful......

I have almost two masters.....

I'm only 32 but am already a project manager......

I regularly create new IT systems.....

I'm a regular at the meetings with our upper executives.....

I scored the highest on the side of logic than anyone he'd ever tested......( My fav! )

I breezed by subjects in college like calculus, statistics, dynamics, physics, chemistry......

physics bored me.....

Gosh! I have SO many questions....I must ask this one: Why didn't you just push all those ignorants in the gulf aside and plug that leaking oil well??

With all the ills we face today, please, with all of your untapped genius, save us - solve the world's problems!!

BTW.......for such a busy busy person, among all those very admirable traits you have listed, you've left out 'humble'. I'm sure it was an oversight.

Jason Burnham

"I would agree that most Scientist are liberal." Ummm....Doctors ARE scientists...Mmmmkay?

Kyle,

I would suggest that economists generally are the opposite of libertarian (despite ridiculous statements to the contrary). It is a field of study based upon manipulating basic productive activity of humans for the greater good ..... The confusion is the so called free market economists who claim (erroneously) that they want laissez faire economics. The problme with that is they set up a system with a known outcome (wealth being held by a tiny minority who thus act as feudal lords over the peasant majority, backed up by a violent executive/judicial/legislative branch whose main role is to enforce their property rights - which of course infringe on the rights of the 99% which they rule over). I believe this is the "libertarian" group to which he refers....

What is interesting is that before Keynes merged anarchism / Marxism with capitalism, libertarians were what we would call communists. Government has always been about protecting those in power and wealth from those without it .... so to suggest that they would allow any changes to the status quo is silly. This is why we have elections about nonsense, While the economy is left to bank employed "economists" who tell us that its really best to just leave things the way they are, since we clearly are not as smart as they are ....

In answer to the headline, could it be because the very nature of being 'Conservative' is to preserve things: the past, tradition, what one has enjoyed and grown used to

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Conserve and preserve are two totally different concepts, so let's not use the definition of one to try and define the other. Preservation would be to preserve things, to keep them as they are or to not use them. The tree huggers and environmentalists and their desire to not drill for and use our oil is a example of that. Conservation, or to conserve something would be to limit it's use or using it wisely or possibly sparingly. Prime examples would be the opposite of anything this administration is currently doing. Wastefull spending that would make a drunken sailor blush certainly proves that point.

Olyman, I'm glad you made this distinction. We all most likely know the difference, but it is easy to get caught up in semantics sometimes.

I think many conservatives want to 'preserve' certain principles outlined in the Constitution under 'traditional' interpretation. The new inverted, totalitarian 'interpretation' that many are against, would make most conservatives fall under a more appropriate - 'preservatives' - who knew preservatives could be good for us!! - lol.

HereandGone, relating to your comment #1.47 in your sentence about musicians. You seem to be equating only rock, country, rap type musicians in your statement about Hollywood, etc. There are other folk in the world of music: classical (like me and many others), jazz, opera, church musicians, etc. that really have little to do with the "Hollywood" image. I think it is always a bit dangerous to make broad, sweeping statements, and not look at the broad, sweeping picture, as it were.

conservative in modern American politics have little to do with tradition or preservation, more to do with limiting rights and removing opportunity/

the religous right wants to force morality upon you to "save you" just like the left wants to force morality on you to "save you" they are just opposite sides to the same coin....both would want to control your life from cradle to grave.

reject the status quo....embrace freedom

Matt Rock--

Country music stars?

Garth Brooks comes to mind. He is the second top selling artist in the US behind The Beatles. U2 is only 21 on the list.

List of best-selling music artists in the United States

I could name Kenny Rogers, Patsy Cline, Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash, Shania Twain, but the problem you posed is the fact that country is not as global as pop music.

And Radiohead? Really?

I can tell you from years of experience that bands like Radiohead run circles around them in terms of album sales, concert attendance, etc.

List of best-selling albums worldwide

Where is Radiohead on the list?

List of best-selling music artists

No Radiohead.

By the way, rock music, pop music, all of that came out of country, blues, and gospel music.

-------------------------------------------

AZPADDY--

Oh please you know darn well what you were saying.

Put your jerked right knee back in place and you may understand the reason I mentioned the attacks on President Barack Obama. The fact that we have a black Democratic president, younger than most of his detractors is change on a scale that frightens conservatives to the bone.

Look at the scale of vitriolic diatribe by the entire right wing universe. Nothing but fear can be responsible for that. Fear manifested as hate. Conservatives would have a similar reaction to a woman being elected president. Can you even begin to imagine the attacks if Hillary Clinton was elected POTUS? It was pretty evident she frightened conservatives almost as much as Barack Obama does.

Any racism read into my statement is entirely of your own making. I simply point out how a young black Democratic president, pushing for change frightens conservatives like nothing else could.

You actually do not pay attention to anything do you.

It is not about Obama being black, it is not about Obama being young, it is the fact that Obama's ideologies and policies are horrible and frankly nothing is improving this country.

For you claiming to be a liberal you pay no attention or listen to anyone but your kind.

You cannot provide any ounce of proof to any of your comments. You have provided the knee-jerk reactions about Conservatives. You call it fear? Are you kidding me? Yeah ok Conservatives are so afraid of women they were overjoyed to have idiot Sarah Palin as the VP.

By the way it certainly isn't just Conservatives that have a serious problem with Obama. When you cannot differentiate between objections to policies and ideologies and make up the excuse that is fear and hate of race and youth, you have indeed failed, and actually have not shown intellectual thought.

Let us look at one point here, if liberals were really all that liberal, and not afraid, why have they NOT put up any female candidate for President, why did it take until 2008 to put up a black man? So much for being liberal and fearless.

I could go on with more information, but that is not the point of this seed.

Actually James, I would agree with that. Government, politics is all about limiting rights, controlling behavior based on a paradigm of what "they" think is appropriate. This is why we have elections that never seem to deal with the real issues .... these are sacrosanct.

of course economics.

I argue all day with both...mostly the left on this site....asking them why they think they have the right to tell me how to live.......lol what is funny is they will call the religous right on the same exact thing they do....dont know if its hypocrisy or blindness.

Would love to discuss this issue with you but it would take hours...oh well.

peace.

econ, "limiting rights" - that would depend on what is considered a 'right.' The only 'entitlements' I see that human kind have a 'right' to - is to be free from oppression: from both other men and their government.

Here is another question, does it really matter what what professions liberals or conservatives occupy?

Here is the main point problem, money. We all rely on money for life to live, conservatives have more of a conscious concern regarding money as opposed to liberals who have more of a concern towards people.

Problem is you cannot help people or do whatever without money. People who are up there in the business world yes BOTH conservatives and liberals, when money is the objective truth be told conservative thinking is more dominant.

It really is not the issue of what profession the occupy, it is more of a question as to who is more concerned with money and who is not.

-----------------------------------------------

james-1416766--

Possibly reduced to this idea

the right/conservatives/Republicans = economically conscious.

the left/liberals/Democrats = socially conscious.

Let's see , most people that I know that are highly educated look down their noses at those under them, making themselves feel superior. Feeling superior they now start telling those under them what is best for them because they know better. It's there , no matter what one thinks. On the other hand if you hand a hammer to a liberal he won't know what end to use or how to plug it in, a conservative will hit the nail on the head almost every time.

Kshark

the right/conservatives/Republicans = economically conscious." Economically conscious" is a far cry from economically responsible. In fact, the record shows Democrats are far more economically responsible than the G.O.P.

As for liberals being socially conscious, the Democratic party has also acted on that, and is the reason we have so many social safety measures in place today - guidlines and laws that were fought every step of the way by the G.O.P.

Good post Incredulous... I didn't think on it like you did and gave me much to think on.

Thanks Jason. I think what this discussion centers on is political at its heart. It's not based on fact. It's based on wishful thinking that tries to tie "smart" and "creative" to politics.

The people who would like to be correct politically (I don't mean politically correct) i.e. on the side of "good" and making the "correct" decisions want to associate themselves with people they admire. So if they can admire smart and creative people, they can feel good about feeling the way they do. And if they can claim that the smart and creative people think the way they do, then they themselves can feel good, even possibly thinking themselves smart and creative.

They use scientists as an example, who we can all agree are generally "smart" and "creative" and "artists' and "intellectuals". But, as I've pointed out scientists are not "liberal" thinkers in the non-political sense. They are conservative thinkers. They have to be; it's absolutely built in. But they are intensely questioning, and skeptical, and of course, they are creative.

The bottom line is really that there is no relation between an individual scientist's political views and the fact that they are a scientist. Scientists are ordinary people outside the sphere of their expertise and major interests, and are swayed or influenced or fooled by politicians the same as anyone else.

Do we think of Noam Chomsky as liberal or progressive or on the left politically? Well, if any question deserves a "duh", that's it. But Chomsky who is known mostly for his political opinions and least for what is responsible for his professorship at MIT has academic credentials in linguistics. That's where his professional studies were...and who funded his work in linguistics? The DoD, Pentagon.

I know any number of scientists, physicists mostly, but also others who I would call left leaning politically, but they have no problem whatsoever working on weapons systems and other projects funded by the DoD.

I would say that drawing conclusions about liberal thought, open mindedness, creativity and political beliefs is not supported by any actual evidence, and I doubt it's true.

Jason Burnham

"I would agree that most Scientist are liberal." Ummm....Doctors ARE scientists...Mmmmkay?

AZPADDY: not usually. Your physician is not a scientist, and he would tell you that. Medicine is not a science. Any doctor should be able to admit this without hesitation. There is a reason medicine is one of the healing arts, and that is often how it's referred to.

The Incredulous One,----- I think you are the first one I've read here that thinks a little along the same lines as I was with, " scientists are not liberal thinkers in the non-political sense. They are conservative thinkers; they have to be. Scientists are ordinary people outside the sphere of their expertise and major interests and are swayed or influenced or fooled by politicians the same as anyone else." ------- I implied very similar in one of my posts. ..Imo, there is 'Politically Correct' and there is 'Morally Correct,' and sometimes they have to choose the former, unfortunately.

musicians don't save lives

Are you sure about that? If music didn't exist, how dreary would our existence be on this Earth? How many more suicides would there be? Musicians save lives too, just, in a different way.

"econ, "limiting rights" - that would depend on what is considered a 'right.' The only 'entitlements' I see that human kind have a 'right' to - is to be free from oppression: from both other men and their government."

The problem with the concept of "rights" is that it is a legal term. Now, a cursory examination of the history of law will tell you that the basis of our modern legal system is not "rights" per se, but the protection of property, and ownership thereof.

Now this is where it gets interesting, the basic premise of property ownership is based upon depriving others of the right to use the property to which the owner claims ownership - since in the beginning, all property is based on naturally occurring resources over whihc any claim of ownership is a contrivance - thus property rights are the one "right" which, when excercised, deprives others of their rights to the same.

This cannot be said for the right to liberty, life, pursuit of happiness, religion, marriage, biological function, sexual orientation, etc .... these do not infirnge on the rights to the same thing of others.

So the irony is that property, which is the foundation of our legal system which defines our "rights", is the one "right" which infringes on all the other rights of others. One could make a salient argument that the move to recognize all the other "rights" was mainly to avoid dealing with the inequity and discriminatory nature of property rights - since without these "rights", the need to protect many of the others would be moot.

Incredulous:

Since this article seems to be based on anecdotal evidence of what the author precieves to be the case, you are undoubtedly correct in asking for actual proof that such a correlation exists. However, I am not sure that funding for research necessarily undermines ones personal political views. As such, we should assume that anyone who works for a bank or oil company is a fascist? Or that working at an Organic market requires one to be a socialist?

Most intellectuals are influenced (as both you and CL have noted) by personal political views - based on personal wealth, family and religious beliefs, age, and experience. The correlation of these views and age is particularly important.As someone born in the 1960's I was educated by people who had grown up in the 1950s and 1960s - this combined with the turmoils in the 1970s and 1980s created a far more liberal outlook in our world view than even my younger brothers who is 5 years younger, and was educated under the Reaganomics period. Those 10 years younger have an entirely different outlook based on implementation of supply side economics and policies ....

This applies to all walks of life, and I have found that intellectuals are no more immune than people who work at Walmart.

Hi econ -- I have to agree. I forgot about property rights, one of the main issues of our founders, allowing free men to own land, so that the aristocrats wouldn't own everything. In a sense, my 'freedom from oppression' would fall under property rights, in that one class would try to prevent another from ownership.

In context with your 1.80, I agree that government is all about limiting rights, yet I was thinking freedoms, limiting with taxes and regulation, necessary for a society to function. On the other hand, they 'could' be limiting property rights if property taxes and prices made it difficult or impossible for many to access ownership. Property isn't just land, is it? They could manipulate coercive monopolies to keep men from staying in business. So yes, government is definitely about limiting rights -- not what TJ had in mind I don't think?? ...well, exclusively, anyway.

Phil wrote:

Let's see , most people that I know that are highly educated look down their noses at those under them, making themselves feel superior. Feeling superior they now start telling those under them what is best for them because they know better. It's there , no matter what one thinks.

Is it really, or is it just your personal reaction to them? And if so, why?

On the other hand if you hand a hammer to a liberal he won't know what end to use or how to plug it in, a conservative will hit the nail on the head almost every time.

Metaphorically, or literally? I tend toward a liberal standpoint, and yet worked for years in positions that most would classify as being in the "trades"-- and I can drive a nail, use most any hand and power tool you might name, re-wire the electrical service in your house if need be, rig overhead weight-bearing lines securely, &c &c... I also worked to get myself an education, and because of that I have been accused of being one of those "elitists" you always hear about. Odd, because it's not like I'm living high off the hog or anything...

Neither manual competence nor education scan completely (and solely) onto one or the other political creeds, and the underlying metaphorical notion you're articulating, that common sense is somehow reserved only for the one and not the other, is a myth.

it is the fact that Obama's ideologies and policies are horrible and frankly nothing is improving this country.

KShark...

that is your opinion. not a fact.

factually he has improved the US's standing world wide after Bush lost our honor and integrity.

Obama Rockets to Top of Poll on Global Leaders
June 29, 2009
US President Barack Obama has the confidence of many publics around the world - inspiring far more confidence than any other world political leader according to a new poll of 20 nations by WorldPublicOpinion.org. A year ago, President Bush was one of the least trusted leaders in the world.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/618.php?nid=&id=&pnt=618&lb=btvoc&gclid=CKTtvMCbhKMCFdFO5wodthgWeA

Obama More Popular Abroad Than At Home, Global Image of U.S. Continues to Benefit

June 17, 2010

U.S. favorability ratings remain high in Western Europe and have increased markedly in China and Russia. But opinions remain negative in many Muslim nations. Mexican views of the U.S. tumbled following passage of Arizona's immigration law. Confidence in Obama is high across much of the world, but support for his handling of specific policies is less widespread.
http://pewglobal.org/

There is a reason medicine is one of the healing arts, and that is often how it's referred to.

Actually medicine is considered an art and science, by most definitions.

1 a : a substance or preparation used in treating disease b : something that affects well-being
2 a : the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease b : the branch of medicine concerned with the nonsurgical treatment of disease

Say what you will about Wikipedia, but I think it treats the notion of 'science' pretty well. Wikipedia defines 'science' as:

"Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experimentation, measurement, mathematics, and replication — to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers." (footnotes and internal links removed).

The article distinguishes between 'natural', 'cognitive', 'formal', 'social' and 'applied' sciences. Medicine is listed among the 'applied' sciences. I have no quibble with the Wikipedia articles.

Yes, medicine is often regarded (and called) an 'art' - but physics was once called 'natural philosophy'.

Medicine is listed among the 'applied' sciences

And should be.

Kinda like Edison should be a....

CL,

The point is pretty simple. Lawyers, judges, cops, politicians have one main job, protecting those who claim ownership over basic resources from those who wish to possess them. The creation of other "rights" was made to limit the excesses of those who own the resources upon those who don't ..... the interesting part is constitution was created to protect the lesser aristocracy from the higher aristocracy (Magna Carta, US Constitution/Bill of Rights) regular people still had virtually no rights under any of these documents. Many people died to get the basic rights to vote, etc from these guys long after they were granted???

The simple fact is that property rights are always an imposition on other rights - thats why we have protected these other ones so that property rights don't interfere - and it still doesn't work.

The fundamental problem on a philosophical or ethical basis is that property rights are neither compelling nor honest. All property rights originate with theft, fraud or some sort of unethical behavior. For the most part, the origination of property rights is making a claim and enforcing it with violence (or threat thereof). Thus, it is vital that no one ask why we have such a large infrastructure devoted to protecting what is essentially anti social and immoral activities.

This flows into the dichotomy between punishment of crimes for those of property and those without ..... even today. When a corporation intentionally lies or cheats customers its viewed as "good business", but when a person does so to a company?

This challenge leaves our entire ethics system without a valid foundation. this is why it is so important to involve religion and other social rules in enforcing the sanctity of property rights - because, at essence, they have no real basis in morality or philosophy.

An interesting collarary is the belief by many Americans that property rights are inalienable, so called natural rights. This bizarre belief fails immediately since all property rights are derived directly from government, and its recognition of ownership. Once government ceases to recognize these rights (think of Nazi Germany for example) they are forfeit.

Incredulous

"Any doctor should be able to admit this without hesitation". Admit to NOT being a scientist? Personally, I wouldn't allow a doctor that doesn't have the necessary scientific credentials to treat me, and I have serious doubts one would graduate any medical school without the required scientific credentials.

In reality, Doctors are indeed scientists, but not exclusively so. That's the problem with overly rigid thinking. The world just isn't that black and white.

As neenie points out in #1.95: "Actually medicine is considered an art and science, by most definitions."

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080215222515AAqARu0

No. A doctor is a medical professional, a clinician. The majority have little to no backgrounds in science or biology aside from the short courses they received in medical school or in their undergraduate education (even those who majored in biology).

That's all I found...

So.....with "little to no background in science or biology"....

Then....."(even those who majored in biology)"

It gets curiouser and curiouser.... :)

econ, 1.98 --- Interesting points that I've pondered quite a bit over the last couple of years, particularly the aspects of a 'basis' for ethics in property rights - and the lack of business ethics, per se, as seen a 'good' for business, but not for the individual, often times.

I think this statement of yours is relevant to "intellectualism" (imo): " For the most part, the origination of property rights is making a claim and enforcing it with violence (or threat thereof). Thus, it is vital that no one ask why we have such a large infrastructure devoted to protecting what is essentially antisocial and immoral activities." .... This type of intellectualism defintiely lacks any sense of moral integrity/authority - and as you state - is why it is so important to involve religion and other social rules.

Although this isn't a point you may be wanting to make, I think it is significant to point out that a true "conservative" would not have these thought patterns; hence, why I agree with what another Viner pointed out, progressive Liberal extremists -"NeoCons"- have a true sociopathic, possibly psychopathic nature, and work diligently at keeping ethics out of the system to maintain supreme law of the land - above and beyond- common man, lesser aristocrats, the Constitution and their general welfare.

AZPADDY

AAdmit to NOT being a scientist?

No doctor will call himself a scientist, or if they do, they will have to give it long thought and say something like: "yeah, I guess you could say I'm a scientist." This will introduce the same sort of conversation we're having now. Don't take my word for it. Try it and see. There will be hesitation. Some might say yes, some might say no. Ask a chemist, physicist, biologist, there will be no hesitation. This is not a matter of pride; this is a matter of knowing that they are scientists.

By the way, I am not making a point about smarts or making a judgment about physicians. Many of them are plenty smart, and some of them are actually scientists. They are scientists when they are engaged in scientific research. But when they are engaged in their practice of medicine, or deciding that the antibiotic they prescribed isn't working and you should try another, or ordering a CAT scan to rule out a brain bleed, they are no more scientists than a car mechanic is a scientist who is trying to diagnose and repair some difficult problem about your car. To do it, he must know and have learned a fair amount of the scientific and engineering principles that underlie his training about electrical systems, hydraulics, some chemistry and so forth, but I would not call him a scientist. Neither would I call a surgeon a scientist. Doctors must know enough science to practice in their field but they are not doing scientific research. However, I would say that a doctor is a scientist in one sense: in the same sense that one could say almost anyone hould be called a scientist, even if not professionally, the reason being that virtually everyone practices the so-called "scientific method", you know that thing you learned in high school that enables scientists to do what they do. And you can bet I've had this conversation with scientists before. Virtually all the time, they come around to my way of thinking which is: there is no such thing as a "scientific method". The ones who disagree are usually (a) layman, who are sure their HS science teacher would not mislead them, (b) philosophers of science, or (c) historians of science. Actual scientists most often do not disagree with me on this point.

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific credentials". They are studying medicine, so this merely begs the question. Certainly, what underlies any technical field like medicine, or any technology really, is science. But this does not make the practitioners scientists. Also, and this may get a rise out of people as well, medical training and other technical training is very different than training in scientific fields.

Note (again): My comments are not meant as a slight to doctors in any way. I am merely trying to classify what it is they do.

Of course, in all this, I mean by "doctor", a medical doctor, an M.D.

CL,

The transition from communal ownership (which represents 99% of human economic organization) to individual ownership (last 3 thousand years or so) required the creation of various institutions.

As we see from extant communal organization religion, justice and social systems are very different from those of the property organization. They are characterized by lenient justice, efficient allocation of resources, religious worship of ancestors and natural resources.

In contrast our soceity is based around personality cults, harsh justice (especially for property crimes), and inequitable resource distribution. the other major factor is the continual violence in our system.

Now, this is not to say that communal systems are "better" than property based ones. In fact, clearly the motivations of greed, violence, exploitation and hate which are used to control the population are very effective in developing technological and process improvement - hence the dominance in a relatively short time over the communal soceities.

The point is the lack of intellectual honesty in modern political economy. The lynch pin of this system is maintaining the pyramid hierarchy of resource control. For our system to function, the teaming masses must be controlled to allow a microscopic minority to control the economy. They do so by manipulating religion, law, violence, etc .... the danger is in the deification of this system as "moral" or ethical - this is complete nonsense. It works, but is is inherently unfair and inequitable. The control is arbitrary and based on ant social behaviors, not some higher calling.

The use of this system to propel man to this point has been successful. The question is can it continue to function going forward. The constant fear of collectivism amongst the ruling aristocracy suggests that this is not the case.

Eco,

I meant to get back to you but I didn't have the energy to dig through this huge post to find what was posted after I went out shooting in the heat for 5 hours yesterday.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Incredulous

"No doctor will call himself a scientist"...There will be hesitation"...., there will be no hesitation.".....This is not a matter of pride"......

I copied your statements to illustrate that speaking in absolute terms regarding what others may or may not say or may or may not do is not a direction I'm inclined to go in. It's simply not accurate.

The fact is, medical doctors are indeed as much scientists as they are healers in their practice. To claim anyone in any line of work or profession is strictly this, or that, is to paint them into a corner that is not correct. My original point way back in #1.72 was in response to Jason Burnham's #1.61 comment that Doctors are primarily conservative business people, and scientists are primarily liberals relying on government grants. Jason also speaks in absolute terms - at least in that comment - in an attempt to paint doctors ( conservatives ) as somehow better than scientists( liberals ) that feed off government largess.

It was my opinion that Jason's comment begged the response that doctors and scientists are many times one and the same. Or...to use absolute terms: No doctor would claim they are not a scientist. No scientist feeds off government grants. Sounds fairly arrogant, doesn't it.

OK? I'm done with this topic.

econ, 1.104,

It pretty much does boil down to 'all' of that - communal vs. individual property rights, how resources should be distributed, and moral authority vs. intellectualism (regarding religion, law and violence).

We both appear to agree on what is wrong. Where we differ (although, I might waiver with more information) is in the area of collectivism. I admittedly, don't agree with many of the areas in both our economic system and in my personal life that incorporate those principles. As a result, I'm left with a feeling that individual rights and freedoms are being compromised on the basis of 'everyone is entitled' to the same things in life. I don't agree with that. We all don't want/value the same things; and therefore, shouldn't be subjugated to the 'intellectual', economic arbitration of an oligarchy. Basically, it's a lie. They know that in order to maintain their control over 'property rights,' they must continue to devise ways of taxing us with social taxes and redistributing the wealth - back to them, the minority elite. I have no idea if the current social democracy will prevail, or will eventually collapse and then fall into the final phase of Marxism. But, I do believe that the aristocracy would like to see an environment of Communism in the form of government control, one that would incorporate all economic activity being conducted by a totalitarian state controlled by a single, self-perpetuating party. Hasn't Soros been working at a similar goal for many years? Soros - would he define an ultimate 'intellectual,' progressive liberal?

OK? I'm done with this topic.

Me too, but first...nitpicking is not more virtuous than generalizations. My comments as generalizations are to make a point about doctors not being scientists as a norm, as usual, as typical, as most often, as etc. It is not defend against an argument that says: no, I found one who says he's a scientist. You can insist on that; fine with me.

I have known many doctors before they were doctors, during their medical training, and after they became doctors, and so on. I have had this discussion with them. Before they became doctors, they believe doctors are scientists, during they are not so sure, and afterward, they have come back to remind me of our conversations, and to admit that the are not scientists. Of course, if you want to define "scientist" in some particular way, you will find that many may be called a scientist, including a car mechanic. But, that's not my working definition at this point.

To claim anyone in any line of work or profession is strictly this, or that, is to paint them into a corner that is not correct.

Sheesh. Stop worrying about the absolutes. There are no absolutes, and if I wanted to stifle any particular discussion, I would make a point like you have. The Chinese want, the Iranians say..."well, don't you realize not ALL Chinese want this?" See, it's easy to do?

My point is not that no human doctor is also a scientist. My point is that usually, almost always a physician will not think of themselves, or refer to themselves as scientists. Go ask some and see. If you called some person a Medical Scientist, no one (do I have to put "no one" in quotes for fear that you'll find someone...try to get the gist...there's forest, there's trees) will imagine you are talking about your physician. A physician doing his/her daily work that earns them a living is is not doing scientific research.

Moving away from who is or isn't a scientist, the point I made earlier in #1.62 is that the political leanings of scientists are not correlated to the types of thinking or reasoning or interests of scientists. Scientists can hold left, right or center political views. But in the practice of their own professions, they MUST be conservative, not liberal, thinkers. Read #1.62 if you care to see why I say that.

CL.

the issue of distribution is central. We can barely even comprehend a world view of a native American or Tribal collectivist. Columbus wrote in 1492 that the Natives he encountered we completely without the concept of personal property. If you asked them for their most prized possession, they would gladly hand it over ..... more importantly, when they needed something another possessed, asking was not even required.

This culture clash led to many severe punishments, and eventually enslavement and genocide by the Euros. The natives themselves had little need of justice - punishments were generally benign, and never dealt with property.

The Euros, of course, immediately sought to possess whatever the natives had. Since the natives did not see individual ownership at all, they were more than willing to give away whateverthey had.

Now, this story is relevent because in 2010, collectivism is a foreign paradigm. Marxism or Communism as has been practised in the last 200 years is not collectivism - its a new organization of capitalsim. Now to be far to Marx, all of the implementations of his theories (Asia, Europe, Latin America) were financed, managed and implemented by Capitalists who had no intnetion of ending proeprty rights. Hence we get sort of a massive social welfare state where there is state ownership of everything.

There is a fundamental difference between state ownership and collectivism. State ownership is still very much individualism. Property is owned and controlled to exclude the rights of others. In a soviet state or even our country, state property is not communal. I can't move to Yellowstone or the Smithsonian and build a cabin in the middle. I Can't take what I need and contribute my excess.

This paradigm shift we witnessed was a faiilure precisely because they could not abandon property rights. As noted above, virtually all the great evil done by mankind is the result of these beliefs. Whether capitalists, communists, monarchists or religious states - the need to accumulate property at the expsne of the environnment and other people is diametrically opposed to collectivism. As we have seen, the two system cannot function together.

The question is, as you note, what does this mean. You talk about "entitlement". This is very much a property paradigm. In a collectivist soceity, everyone is entitled to whatever the collective possesses. Everyone must work together. There is no individual property. So the concept of entitlement is irrelevent.

I would agree that the balancing act of property organization is teh Social Contract. The key to maintaining control is to provide the masses with enough to keep them from revolution, but not too much so they cease working productiviely. As you note, religion, tax, law, media, entertainment, education, politics are all centered around mantaining this contract between the aristocracy and the masses.

My simple point is that the entire thing is nothing but a lie. Thats why we eed communism, islamic states, terrorists, other religions, nationalism through the military and sporting events - to make sure you are distracted enough not to think about the lies.

Remember, property has been very successful in managing human behavior because it is basic psychology - a la BF Skinner - the carrot and the stick. It has been a 3000 year excercise in behavior modification.

Now in a collectivist soceity it is the communal wealth that matters. This is not nearly so motivating as individual wealth. Similarly, once the needs of the commune are met, and life is good, what the need to progress? In individualism constant growth is implied. There is no acceptable status quo.

This is why indidualism is so dominant. It is a far more effective system of economic organization than collectivism. The 2 key questions, however, are:

1. Is it better for mankind?

2. Can a hybrid be developed which combines the benefits of both, and gets rid of the drawbacks?

We know that individualism is the cause of environmental degradation, war, torture, exploitation, abuse, slavery, etc .... The increasing violence of our world would suggest that without mitigation it will destroy itself. In contrast, collectivism would resolve most of these, but lead to economic and technological stagnation, decentralization and einefficiency. So it would follow that a hybrid would be the solution.

econ -- First, thank you for elaborating on the thoughts you have regarding social organization and the use of collectivism. I've participated in a few economic theory discussions and read a 'little' of Rousseau for the basis of his theory on collectivism. Also, I have understood the Marxist theory, as I interpret it, and it's relevance to capitalism and its final phase as communism. The basic difference I interpret between communism and collectivism is that in the former, a totalitarian minority would conduct the economic activities, but all property ownership is held by the community. In the latter, the community both owns the property and conducts production and distribution of goods. Because of the drawback you mention -control- and the drawback that I mention -values- are the reasons why I think socialism, as a means and an end unto itself will become circular and start the process back into capitalism, imo.

As for a 'hybrid' - I have always viewed what we currently have, a social democracy, as a hybrid. Our system of incorporating 'mixed' economies (socialism and capitalism), a bit of totalitarianism and regulating market competition, protecting and pursuing the interests of different groups, and 'appears' to have a mind for basic social objectives. So, why isn't it working. Well, it depends on who you ask. I have a simple answer as to why - because government and the 'people' are two separate entities - neither the two shall meet. (I know you disagree. :) Others will say because of the welfare state and where it leads, and others, yet, will say because we are at the mercy of the banking cartels and property ownership.

The notion of collectivism is interesting to me, in that I 'understand' your discussion of the basic principles: "Tribal collectivism," concern for group welfare, the sharing of everything - even to the point that people didn't have to ask for something. Those are the basic elements of human caring and compassion for one another. I think this principle works in 'small' but not so well in 'large.' Aren't there still vast communal groups across the nation? There are some in the city I live in - not quite to the degree of 'tribal,' but very close. Yet, the failure I still see in even the 'small' is value. As long as everyone values the same thing, it works. I wonder if ancestoral tribes worked as well as they did because there were no 'choices?' Now, with technological advancements and an environment of diverse social-structure, choices are abundant. How could we, as a large, diverse group possibly all want the same things in the regard of prioritizing values? ...If we peek into some of the tribal existences still in existence, is it really any wonder why their communities seem to work (despite disease and poverty)? ..They lack choices, imo, is why it works. ..So, my point is somewhat to address your questions: 1) Yes and no. Better for mankind in that purpose and value of the group is well defined. Yet, ignorance doesn't fair well for survival. 2) Well, I still think our current 'hybrid' is as close to the best of both. Or, should I say, I don't see how individual needs/wants can be prioritized if the needs of others are the primary focus. Individual rights are sought within the structure of Democracy, or so it appears.

actually marx sees the totalitarian period as a transition to the collectivist economy. Regardless, the we have challenged this issue with Keynes' interpretation, and then Friedman's moneterism .....

The managment of demand and money can create a managed socialist state, but there is little or no difference between that and a totaliterian govt. the man difference is we believe we are free ..... ie, can see the forest for the trees. ....

The issue should be informing people of why they should act a certain way - not just a carrot and a stick. the problme with our current system is clearly that we have a bunch of people who think they know better - and benefit from everything. Most dictators and monarch allways believed they were acting on behalf of the people right?

Democracy can be very effective if the electorate is informed. If it turns into a popularity contest there is little defense to tyranny. Democracy, as per Scorates, is an obligation, not just a right. We have failed in this obligation ....

I agree, our current system needs an overhaul. The problem is how to please diversity, the groups and the individuals; and how to regain the control of our Republic, rid ourselves of the Oligarchy, and follow the honest interpretations of the "Rule of Law." ..In doing so, I would hope Democracy would become an "obligation" to uphold, not something to become regressive.

Btw, AZDADDY, if you need more evidence that doctors are NOT scientists, look no further than this recent NYTimes story

explaining how some med schools are accepting students with little or no science background at all.

My opinion as well, The Incredulous One. (MDs)

Of course, what both you and Ms Cyprah say is quite true. But I have a more ornery reason for agreeing with you. The fact is that 'peasants with pitch forks' don't tend to be intellectual, though once in a while they will find an intellectual spokesman who will try to make their ignorance and fear respectable. And the intellectuals have to keep running from them.

In the end, the Conservative is always wrong. Even Christianity and the American Revolution were revolts against the established order and were opposed by the conservatives of their time and place. And so it has always been with every step in human progress, including all of the things that Conservatives themselves say they most cherish. The ultimate conservative position is to reject any innovation since the Paleolithic Age.

Thanks, Mike. I'll check that out.

Mike: I'm sorry I haven't been back for a few hours (out tickling the economy). I didn't use a very good choice of words in my post. What I meant by "the "preserving "what is" regardless of whether it continues to have actual value" statement was a blind defense of the status quo and the "traditional," even though "tradition" may merely translate into the idea that the group has consistently made the same mistake over time or has always gotten away with mistreating certain members of their society.

Your point about choosing our belief systems while very young is really interesting. I suspect it has something to do with how parents react to their child's exploration of the world--whether it is tolerated and encouraged or brings down discipline and harshness. I remember that, when I would draw pictures as a young child, if I drew a flower on one side of the lady's hat, I had to draw a flower on the other side because "it wasn't fair" otherwise. I don't know where I got that notion, but I've always responded to the fairness issue.

Thanks for the link. It sums up quite well what I've been thinking about "conservatives", and explains a lot about why dialogue is so difficult. It is hard to talk to somebody who does not make the same connections and inferences, given the same evidence, as we would.

The subject you raised is so interesting that I could talk for hours. But I'll make one more observation. I read the case recently in which the federal district court in Massachusetts ruled the "Defense of Marriage Act" (federal law doesn't recognize state-permitted same sex marriages) unconstitutional. The basis of the ruling was that the law could not pass even the absolute lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, which is showing that it is rationally related to a legitimate interest of the government. The court's job was so easy because whoever prepared the legislative history and wrote the law obviously did not know (or care about) the most basic things about Constitutional law that every first-year law student has to learn. It was not enacted without any acknowledgment of traditional legal principles at all. What's funny is that the court's ruling endorsed states' rights as against federal legislation. But these are the kinds of things that one cannot explain to someone in the "conservative" movement no matter how hard you try. It seems that to them, none of it matters. It's not about preserving the legal system, it's about getting momentary results by any means.