Liberals And The Herd Mentality

[Snow]

It seems to me, and I assume there is data to support the idea, that liberals are drawn into certain job sectors. I'm thinking right now of academia, the government sector, and the performance arts. While is seems that liberals currently are a minority of the overall population, they are a majority in those professions.

I get the (or suppose) that they would be drawn to academia and government where they can get secure jobs, good wages that aren't subject to the rigors of competition (that is their job is protected regardless of their performance) but why the arts?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I would guess that what those professions have in common (including the arts) is that image counts for more in them than measurable results. My impression of Hollywood (viewed from fifty miles away) is that among the vast population of aspiring entertainers with bare-bones talent, whether you're successful or not depends largely on luck. You either get cast in a picture that hits it big, or you don't. Reese Witherspoon, for example, couldn't act out the concept of being squished if you shoved her under a steamroller, and while she's cute as a button, so was Julie Warmington from NHHS class of '90. (Except when she barfed on her date at the winter formal.) But success generates success, as I think Thomas Hobbes once wrote.

The visual art world operates the same way. Either you have buzz, in which case your dashed-off fingerpaintings are auctioned for $100,000 to people who want to look like they're with it, or you're not, in which case your work gets stored in the university arts building until it's thrown out to make room for the next random clay extrusions.

As it happens, image in Hollywood and the art world as presently constituted depends in large part upon having the right political opinions. Being a Republican in Hollywood is about as career-enhancing as being a fellow-traveller at the height of McCarthyism, and I'm only mildly exaggerating. About the only exceptions to the liberals-only rule are people who are already too huge to ignore -- whose box-office cachet trumps the fact that his opinions aren't respectable.

So there you go. In professions where either (a) you can keep your job despite producing virtually no measurable results other than not screwing things up royally (teaching once you've got tenure, civil service) or (B) where whether you're successful or not has more to do with luck and peer perception (when your peers are all liberal), such as in acting and art, you will be more likely to find people whose political opinions are not tempered by the discipline of competition.

[Snow]

Did I ever mention that I played the drums in a midnight jam session in Marina Del with actor James Cann and Peter Distefano (of Jane's Addiction and Porno for Pyros) doing vocals and guitar --- true story my friends.

...Success in professional acting and singing is often not a matter of talent, witness Ashley Simpson or Keanu Reeves, most such in the entertainment have some sort of charisma, though not all witness the manufactured Ashley Simpson and plenty have loads and loads of charisma as well as a sophisticated mastery of their craft, witness William Peterson or Cate Blanchette. So it is not all a matter of luck and even those with skill and dedication seem to be, on balance, liberal. However, on balance, so many in the arts are just plain tweaked when it comes to being human - maybe you got something there with the "image" idea.

[Larry Kozlowski]

And while we pound mercilessly on the libs why is it the militant, yellow-bellied environmentalists are always these big fat beefy guys? I mean seriously---take this guy from Sierra Whatever It's Called: fat guy. Dude could be the entire offensive line for the Dalla Cowboys. He's bigger than Rhode Island (not that that liberal cess pool of a state is anything to crow over). No embellishment here! SUWA's head honcho? Fat Guy who makes Rick Majerus look like Kate Moss on a 39 day Survivor diet! My hunch is that on the one hand these elitist enviro-fat boys are scolding us ultra neo-cons about conservation! conservation! conservation! and no drilling of oil whatsoever around landscapes on par or prettier than west Ogden, and on the other hand chowin down on Big Macs with extra special sauce. I mean what's the deal Neil?! And don't be telling me that we're not allowed to go dwelling in Yellowstone without our 6 cyclinder, 220 horsepower turbo-charged snowmobiles fitted with high-tech, titanium gunracks because that'll happen over my cold dead body.

[john doe]

I'm interested in what Cal or Winnie have to say about this subject.

As for the arts people, I think it may be that most in the arts world simply don't think like the rest of us. Many of them are brilliant people, but they don't have a basis in reality, because many of them don't live in the real world.

[Snow]

Originally posted by john doe@Dec 3 2004, 10:32 PM

As for the arts people, I think it may be that most in the arts world simply don't think like the rest of us. Many of them are brilliant people, but they don't have a basis in reality, because many of them don't live in the real world.

I don't know about those behind the scene but it seems readily apparent that actors and singers and no less intelligent than the the general population when they are not reading lines someone else wrote for them.

[Larry Kozlowski]

I agree. And to top it off, they're all gay! Gay people may be neat dressers but come on, they aren't all that.

[john doe]

Semantics, I suppose. By many I meant there are a few brilliant people in the arts world, not most or even a lot. But there are many of them, simply by the numbers. True, there are more Jessica Simpson types in the category than they would like to admit, but there are also some pretty smart ones too. Typically these are the behind-the-scenes people, but there are a few entertainers who are brilliant in their own right.

[Cal]

Another little fact that you might all enjoy is that the higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be a conservative, and the more likely you would be a liberal.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 5 2004, 12:48 PM

Another little fact that you might all enjoy is that the higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be a conservative, and the more likely you would be a liberal.

Not exactly true.

In some elections the higher educated tend to vote one way but not others. For example, in the 84 Presidential election. of those with a college education, 64% voted Republican. In 88 it was 58%. Utah, one the of best educated states in the Union, most college educated vote Republican.

[Larry Kozlowski]

Yeah, but that's only because we can't read anything besides the letter "R".

[john doe]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 5 2004, 02:48 PM

Another little fact that you might all enjoy is that the higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be a conservative, and the more likely you would be a liberal.

I believe that stat also applies to the lowest educated. What I heard was that the lowest educated tend to be just as liberal as the highly educated. Any theories on this?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 5 2004, 01:48 PM

Another little fact that you might all enjoy is that the higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be a conservative, and the more likely you would be a liberal.

Wrong.

People with only a high school education are more likely to be liberal. (I'm using party registration as a proxy for liberal/conservative; it's not perfect, but there's not much data to work with otherwise.) People with a college education are more likely to be conservative. People with post-graduate degrees go back to being predominantly liberal.

Some thoughts:

One of the biggest job markets for people with post-graduate degrees is academia, where it's not exactly career-enhancing to be conservative. Also, people with post-graduate degrees tend to have inflated opinions of their own wisdom, and yes, I'm implicating myself here. I don't know whether, in the aggregate, either liberals or conservatives are smarter than the other -- but I would bet good money that liberals' perception of their own intelligence is higher than conservatives', and also higher than is justified.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 5 2004, 07:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 5 2004, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 5 2004, 12:48 PM

Another little fact that you might all enjoy is that the higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be a conservative, and the more likely you would be a liberal.

Not exactly true.

In some elections the higher educated tend to vote one way but not others. For example, in the 84 Presidential election. of those with a college education, 64% voted Republican. In 88 it was 58%. Utah, one the of best educated states in the Union, most college educated vote Republican.

A pocket here, an exception there--the most comprehensive studies indicate that the more years of post HS education you have, the less likely you are to be a conservative--especially an ultra-conservative.

[Cal]

Originally posted by john doe+Dec 5 2004, 09:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (john doe @ Dec 5 2004, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 5 2004, 02:48 PM

Another little fact that you might all enjoy is that the higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be a conservative, and the more likely you would be a liberal.

I believe that stat also applies to the lowest educated. What I heard was that the lowest educated tend to be just as liberal as the highly educated. Any theories on this?

What you mean is that recent immigrants (except for Cubans) and the very poor are smart enough to recognize that the Republicans could care less about them.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Dec 6 2004, 12:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Dec 6 2004, 12:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 5 2004, 01:48 PM

Another little fact that you might all enjoy is that the higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be a conservative, and the more likely you would be a liberal.

Wrong.

People with only a high school education are more likely to be liberal. (I'm using party registration as a proxy for liberal/conservative; it's not perfect, but there's not much data to work with otherwise.) People with a college education are more likely to be conservative. People with post-graduate degrees go back to being predominantly liberal.

Some thoughts:

One of the biggest job markets for people with post-graduate degrees is academia, where it's not exactly career-enhancing to be conservative. Also, people with post-graduate degrees tend to have inflated opinions of their own wisdom, and yes, I'm implicating myself here. I don't know whether, in the aggregate, either liberals or conservatives are smarter than the other -- but I would bet good money that liberals' perception of their own intelligence is higher than conservatives', and also higher than is justified.

People with post-graduate degrees go back to being predominantly liberal.

Your disagreement is actually only partial. You disagree that college grads are less likely to be liberal, but agree that beyond that, my statement is correct. You then speculate as to why post grads tend to be more liberal. Here's my speculation: with more experience coupled with more education--they finally got smart :)