Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Let me preface by saying my statement does not apply to all well educated.

People can often study their way out of real context. Very much like too much government, people start believing idyllic versions of the world, and ignore the reality that humans have chaotic foibles. They move to a place where one can think that all problems have solutions if we just study one more variable. Academic studies have an important place in our society, but they are not the "best and the brightest" everytime. Many businesspeople(like bill gates), charitable people (sister theresa) and just everyday people who weren't for one reason or another did not choose college are as good, or better, and as smart or smarter, than the people who have chosen Academia as their life's pursuit and passion.

Respectfully, your very statement, that academics are the best and the brightest of this nation, points to -I believe- the condescending attitude the OP was possibly referring to. The concept that a life long pursuit of academic knowledge is more valuable than other forms of knowledge gained by toil, labor, corporate development, or even charitable acts is a false belief, in my opinion.

Life is fascinating, and each individual is worthy of respect and acknowledgement that they have a point of value to contribute. A man hammering away to earn enough to support 3 children may not know enough to argue Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland, but to his children he most likely is the best dang hammerer in their lives.

Sorry Lotus, again I respect academics, and think it is an important pursuit of mankind, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that it represents the best and the brightest. Some do, but some are just blowhards, like any other walk of life.

You argued against several things that I did not say.

I in no way intended to imply that other forms of work are not as valuable. I completely agree with your point on that one. I said nothing about the relative value of careers. Every academic needs someone to make their clothes, grow their food, keep their electricity on, and so on. So if any academic tells you that their job is the only worthy one, then that academic is wrong.

Further there certainly are many bright people who are not in academia. Academia does not have a monopoly on smart people.

But to become an academic requires a high level of education. This level of education can only be attained if you have some intelligence. Thus, although there are exceptions, academics tend to be bright and well-educated. That is all that I meant.

In the end, you actually argued my point. When it comes to running our country, don't we want to listen to the people who, as you put it, do know "Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland"? I'm not arguing that we listen only to them, but their voice needs to be taken into account, doesn't it?

Writing off the insights of people who know such things as "Keynesian or Smith" simply because they might be "liberal" (as the post which I first responded to did) seems like a foolhardy waste.