More Educated = More Liberal?

[barfbag]

Before this topic gets out of hand with liberal partisans, let me say it depends on what you mean by educated. Too often is a solid education mistaken for academics at a state school. There are many ways to become educated such as wisdom, common sense, and life experience. My college education helped me to become a little more moderate, but I'm still pretty much the same type of political person I've always been. There are though many students who are brainwashed by their leftist professor's liberal agenda designed to influence the electorate and decimate those with traditional values. All in all, it depends on what type of education we're talking about. It is rather insulting to think of education in the narrow dogmatic way of liberal academia.

[barfbag]

Before this topic gets out of hand with liberal partisans, let me say it depends on what you mean by educated. Too often is a solid education mistaken for academics at a state school. There are many ways to become educated such as wisdom, common sense, and life experience. My college education helped me to become a little more moderate, but I'm still pretty much the same type of political person I've always been. There are though many students who are brainwashed by their leftist professor's liberal agenda designed to influence the electorate and decimate those with traditional values. All in all, it depends on what type of education we're talking about. It is rather insulting to think of education in the narrow dogmatic way of liberal academia.

How dare those professors teach about non-sense like global warming and evolution!

What are you saying or getting at? I don't believe I brought those up. There's nothing wrong with teaching them as long as they don't stand there and quote Democratic talking points like any professor I've heard of or had for class has done. Basically, anytime either topic is brought up, it turns into Bush being responsible for global warming and people like Bush who are in the way of science. Then they get off topic and start talking about tax cuts for the rich and Florida 2000. This is where the line should be drawn. They should stay on topic and so should you.

[barfbag]

Another reason which can explain the differences, would be that college graduates are possibly twice as likely (or more) to actually stop and take their time for an Exit Poll interview. The reasons and incentives for this might be various. High school drop outs might be hostile to surveys in general and kind of feel it like a privacy intrusion. They might also be reluctant to doing things for free that don't involve a money reward. Higher educated citizens are also a lot more likely to be engaged in voluntary political work in my opinion. There might be a lot of other reasons for this discrepancy as well.

There's something to be said for this. I've never met a fellow Republican who has talked to an exit poll person and neither have I. Exit polls always tend to favor Democrats with the exception of Rasmussen in the past two election cycles. In 2004 John Kerry was shown as being up by 20 in PA, 15 in FL, and almost double digits nationally and once the voting precincts had started to close we were looking at a possible Bush landslide. The results were somewhere in the middle.

[barfbag]

Before this topic gets out of hand with liberal partisans, let me say it depends on what you mean by educated. Too often is a solid education mistaken for academics at a state school. There are many ways to become educated such as wisdom, common sense, and life experience. My college education helped me to become a little more moderate, but I'm still pretty much the same type of political person I've always been.

Why do you think your education made you a little more moderate?

I'm sorry I might have overreacted a couple posts above. Originally, I was a political science major and my professor disguised himself, but as a young politician I could see he was a hardcore liberal. In the 100 level courses such as American Government, he was very one sided in terms of teaching which media sources to follow and which actions were corrupt. I tuned him out and did the assignments because they were very interesting. The next year, before becoming a religion and philosophy major, I took Elections and Campaigns which is a higher level course mostly taken by political science majors. In this level of academics he was very fair. A big reason for this is likely the fact that we're talking about students who are very well informed about politics. As he moderated he would also speak of the issues from a liberal point of view that actually made sense. Not to say I agreed with him very much, but I learned that Democrats outside of Democratic politicians weren't just pawns of their party. I already knew this about Republicans because I grew up in arguably the most conservative extended family to ever exist. As my education continued, I learned Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Unmovable Mover, and most importantly, scriptures which can be basically described as J, E, P, and D for Genesis- 2 Kings. This allowed me to see the Bible from a point of view where humans wrote a document with human error rather than "do this or else." From here on I became socially moderate in my politics and have still remained a social conservative in my personal life. As an adult, I've associated with people from all different economic and racial backgrounds whether through friends, work, customers, or neighbors. Working at a grocery store during and after college helped me to see that food stamps aren't simply a welfare handout, but can serve as an economic stimulant as long as we don't waste them or let them go to waste individually. I've seen people not be able to attend college because their parents didn't qualify for a loan and they only had a 3.0 GPA. Regardless of the arguments and ideas I could make to solve these problems from a conservative point of view, there is an importance to having a financially stable economy and educated individuals. I still vote my party because I see them as the lesser of two evils, but I've also laid out a lot of independent and center-right ideas in the political debate threads. As for this topic, certain education can make one more liberal and it can also make one more conservative depending on how one is raised and what they're being educated on.

[barfbag]

Having said that, I feel the subject background does indeed matter, but I think the breakdown needs to go deeper. Within engineering, you should find left-leaning specialisations (IT, environmental technologies) as well more 'conservative' ones (civil engineering, vehicle building). Lawyers are, at least in Germany, pretty "green", but here again, specialisation may matter (e.g. family law vs. corporate law).
Economists - already back in the 1980s, when working at Shell Germany during semester holidays, I found quite a number of Greenpeace members among younger economists there. Polls among German top managers typically find the CDU at slightly below 50%, and some 12% support for the Greens. If you correct that for age (essentially, you hardly find Green voters that are older than 50, but a lot of older top managers), I tend to say that in Germany, economists overall are probably slightly leaning to the right, but only barely so. Sector splits should be quite pronounced here, with industry leaning rightwards, while services, including banking, are more liberal.
As for medicine - quite a number of doctors here are in 'alternative medicine', however, doctors (as many other free-lancers) are also traditional FDP clientele. No idea how that works out overall. I am, however, pretty sure that dentists are leaning to the right, as are pharmacists.

Re: medicine.....from what I can tell, in the U.S., primary care physicians and nurses are considerably more likely to be Democrats than specialists are  (though that probably depends on the specialty in question, too. )  

Yes the medical field is more divided than people think. It may change in another year.

[barfbag]

Before this topic gets out of hand with liberal partisans, let me say it depends on what you mean by educated. Too often is a solid education mistaken for academics at a state school. There are many ways to become educated such as wisdom, common sense, and life experience. My college education helped me to become a little more moderate, but I'm still pretty much the same type of political person I've always been.

Why do you think your education made you a little more moderate?

I'm sorry I might have overreacted a couple posts above. Originally, I was a political science major and my professor disguised himself, but as a young politician I could see he was a hardcore liberal. In the 100 level courses such as American Government, he was very one sided in terms of teaching which media sources to follow and which actions were corrupt. I tuned him out and did the assignments because they were very interesting. The next year, before becoming a religion and philosophy major, I took Elections and Campaigns which is a higher level course mostly taken by political science majors. In this level of academics he was very fair. A big reason for this is likely the fact that we're talking about students who are very well informed about politics. As he moderated he would also speak of the issues from a liberal point of view that actually made sense. Not to say I agreed with him very much, but I learned that Democrats outside of Democratic politicians weren't just pawns of their party. I already knew this about Republicans because I grew up in arguably the most conservative extended family to ever exist. As my education continued, I learned Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Unmovable Mover, and most importantly, scriptures which can be basically described as J, E, P, and D for Genesis- 2 Kings. This allowed me to see the Bible from a point of view where humans wrote a document with human error rather than "do this or else." From here on I became socially moderate in my politics and have still remained a social conservative in my personal life. As an adult, I've associated with people from all different economic and racial backgrounds whether through friends, work, customers, or neighbors. Working at a grocery store during and after college helped me to see that food stamps aren't simply a welfare handout, but can serve as an economic stimulant as long as we don't waste them or let them go to waste individually. I've seen people not be able to attend college because their parents didn't qualify for a loan and they only had a 3.0 GPA. Regardless of the arguments and ideas I could make to solve these problems from a conservative point of view, there is an importance to having a financially stable economy and educated individuals. I still vote my party because I see them as the lesser of two evils, but I've also laid out a lot of independent and center-right ideas in the political debate threads. As for this topic, certain education can make one more liberal and it can also make one more conservative depending on how one is raised and what they're being educated on.

You're a college graduate yet you've never learned about paragraphs?

That's all you got?

[barfbag]

There are people who are too smart for their own good though. There are people with IQ's so high that other things start to go such as social skills, motor skills, organization, reflexes, creativity, and so forth. Think of someone who is so educated and intelligent, they're fluent in 26 different languages, but has never been able to figure out how to drive a car due to a lack of social and motor skills. No doubt they're intelligent, but obviously lacking in common sense. There's college professors who have 3 Ph.D's and 2 master's degrees, but couldn't figure out for the life of themselves how to use a washer or dryer. They're educated, but the bigger question is; how do we measure intelligence and education? It's clear that the higher education someone has at the university or college level, the more likely they are to vote Democrat in U.S. elections, but it could be argued that it's a result of being educated by our current education system rather than generally being educated.

[barfbag]

What us conservatives object to is the victimization of various groups and the oppressed/oppressor type history shoved down our throats.

Hard to debate with someone who object to the facts, cheesey.

Here's the problem, opebo.  In our current culture, we have black illegitimacy rates that are 10 times the national average, 70% born out of wedlock, and total household wealth way below average.  These numbers have gotten worse since the civil rights measures.  This is because of the massive welfare programs introduced in the 1960's.  They created a disincentive to work and have led to perpetual poverty among the black community.  It also created a culture of laziness and violence.  Bill O'Reilly is taking tons of heat for telling the truth. 

Yes, some groups like blacks were oppressed in the past, but now it's government handouts and lavish benefits being showered on them that are perpetuating the cycle of poverty. 

We aren't told about this in school.......the epic failure of the AFDC is a good example.

All that is utterly beside the point CP.  I do agree however that welfare is not the right approach - we should be eliminating private property and guillotining the rich.  Giving welfare just reinforces capitalism, and after all slavery is still the problem.

We eliminated slavery in 1865 as a condition of the Civil War. You'd like to behead those who have more money than you? This thread is about education.

[barfbag]

Your wording is very misleading. There are many ways to be educated other than the liberal academic environment funded by Democrats.

[barfbag]

All that is utterly beside the point CP.  I do agree however that welfare is not the right approach - we should be eliminating private property and guillotining the rich.  Giving welfare just reinforces capitalism, and after all slavery is still the problem.

We eliminated slavery in 1865 as a condition of the Civil War. You'd like to behead those who have more money than you? This thread is about education.

No, capitalism still enslaves in a functional sense all who are not owners.  Yes, this thread is about education, but like all other issues, the 'problems' of education are imposed by the ruling class.

Redistribution of the wealth enslaves those dependent on welfare to the Democratic Party. Democrats impose the problem of slavery on the poor by getting them addicted to welfare.

[barfbag]

All that is utterly beside the point CP.  I do agree however that welfare is not the right approach - we should be eliminating private property and guillotining the rich.  Giving welfare just reinforces capitalism, and after all slavery is still the problem.

We eliminated slavery in 1865 as a condition of the Civil War. You'd like to behead those who have more money than you? This thread is about education.

No, capitalism still enslaves in a functional sense all who are not owners.  Yes, this thread is about education, but like all other issues, the 'problems' of education are imposed by the ruling class.

Redistribution of the wealth enslaves those dependent on welfare to the Democratic Party. Democrats impose the problem of slavery on the poor by getting them addicted to welfare.

Barfbag and Opebo are fighting. This should be fun.

Do you not like me?

[barfbag]

If so, it's probably because academics tend to be very left-wing in their politics.  In terms of actual life experience, however, more educated probably means more conservative.

All of the research, talking points, facts, and big words in the world couldn't add up to what you have said. Oldiesfreak you really just summed it up here. All of us were trying to sound better than we really are. I should send you a friend request. Excellent point!

[barfbag]

I'd say Malcolm X and Vladimir Lenin has plenty of "life experiences".

Life experiences can make someone more liberal or more conservative and if dramatic enough, push one far to one side or the other. After all, look at Saul Alinski. It's living in the real world and understanding how things work as opposed to sitting and learning it from someone else that makes someone conservative. I'm not trying to be biased. If you think about it, doing it on your own reflects more of the Republican Party when dealing with free enterprise while receiving something from someone else is more reflective of the Democratic Party when dealing with government programs.

[barfbag]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

[barfbag]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

I'm not convinced.

First of all, you could say Elizabeth Warren switched from being a conservative to a main-stream economic liberal. She never said she wanted to stop all foreclosures, or break up banks. Certainly nothing like your "hypothetical" woman. She is no communist. Your use of "moderation" is vague.

Finally, your blurb about Saul Alinsky does not make sense whatsoever. I have researched him and cannot find anything saying he became a conservative. He was always a left-leaning radical.

(Since I don't want discussing Saul Alinsky to be where this conversation ends, I will give you the freebie liberal-to-conservative Henry Wallace.)

The title of this thread is "More Educated = More Liberal?". This should have been fairly simple, based on the "C-Curve", that the least-educated voters (primarily black and latino) lean Democratic, with subsequent Republican gains in "High School Diploma" and "Some College". The "College Graduate" vote is roughly tied, while Democrats lead big once again amongst "Postgrads". I think the bottom half of the "C" is fairly obvious, those at the bottom vote democratic not because they are poorly-educated, but because they are minorities. I think what this discussion should be about is the top of the "C" where highly educated voters lean democratic. You have attempted to assert that "real life educated" people tilt conservative. You have not been able to do so.

This politifact article may come in useful in discussion.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/

There's so much more to one's education than the grades they receive as a kid. Life has more education to offer than school. We've all learned more life skills as adults than as children. You don't seem to have commented on my example though.

[barfbag]

All that is utterly beside the point CP.  I do agree however that welfare is not the right approach - we should be eliminating private property and guillotining the rich.  Giving welfare just reinforces capitalism, and after all slavery is still the problem.

We eliminated slavery in 1865 as a condition of the Civil War. You'd like to behead those who have more money than you? This thread is about education.

No, capitalism still enslaves in a functional sense all who are not owners.  Yes, this thread is about education, but like all other issues, the 'problems' of education are imposed by the ruling class.

Redistribution of the wealth enslaves those dependent on welfare to the Democratic Party. Democrats impose the problem of slavery on the poor by getting them addicted to welfare.

Redistribution of wealth and income is going on, and over the past three decades, but almost as a strict rule toward fewer people. Real wages have been in decline. Welfare of any kind is becoming harder to get.

Big Business, whether as tycoons or as executives, has been exploiting the disappearance of meaningful choice between jobs and has exploited such to the fullest. Add to that it has gotten Congress to enact tax changes that favor monopolization of business and reward people for having economic advantages.

I'll agree with you on changing tax structure. We should all be taxed at 6% for each corporation. Politicians are trying to please those who fund their campaigns.

[barfbag]

Getting back on topic....

My impression is that the most liberal voters tend to be lower-income/economic status voters with high educational attainment. Conversely, the most conservative voters tend to be higher-income/economic status voters with lower educational attainment.

Of course, there are other factors at work here as well. The former group of voters trends younger, more urban, more racially and ethnically diverse, and less male than the latter group.

Pretty close, but I think the most conservative voters on economics tend to have professional degrees.

[barfbag]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

I'm not convinced.

First of all, you could say Elizabeth Warren switched from being a conservative to a main-stream economic liberal. She never said she wanted to stop all foreclosures, or break up banks. Certainly nothing like your "hypothetical" woman. She is no communist. Your use of "moderation" is vague.

Finally, your blurb about Saul Alinsky does not make sense whatsoever. I have researched him and cannot find anything saying he became a conservative. He was always a left-leaning radical.

(Since I don't want discussing Saul Alinsky to be where this conversation ends, I will give you the freebie liberal-to-conservative Henry Wallace.)

The title of this thread is "More Educated = More Liberal?". This should have been fairly simple, based on the "C-Curve", that the least-educated voters (primarily black and latino) lean Democratic, with subsequent Republican gains in "High School Diploma" and "Some College". The "College Graduate" vote is roughly tied, while Democrats lead big once again amongst "Postgrads". I think the bottom half of the "C" is fairly obvious, those at the bottom vote democratic not because they are poorly-educated, but because they are minorities. I think what this discussion should be about is the top of the "C" where highly educated voters lean democratic. You have attempted to assert that "real life educated" people tilt conservative. You have not been able to do so.

This politifact article may come in useful in discussion.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/

There's so much more to one's education than the grades they receive as a kid. Life has more education to offer than school. We've all learned more life skills as adults than as children. You don't seem to have commented on my example though.

I did not comment on your example because I still do not get what you are trying to say. Are you implying that my Elizabeth Warren example is biased because she switched to an "extreme position"? I don't really see any other point in your example. Similarly, I could make a point of a unionist going in to see On the Waterfront and coming out wanting to abolish unions. I would not attack his position because it is not moderate; I would attack his position because it is wrong.

So basically, I am asking you to clarify your point, mainly because I do not see what purpose it serves.

Also, education is like wealth. Most people agree that money is not the only aspect to a person's wealth; one could go into abstracts such as health, family, etc. But those are almost impossible to quantify. Hence, money wealth is what is used.

Same thing for education. Obviously, academic education is not all there is to education. However, to consider all the aspects of education, such as cooking, household tasks, job abilities, requires data that, if not unquantifiable, is extremely hard to gather and is certainly gathered right now. This makes it harder for you to defend your case because it is hard to find data to support your assertions.

One set of data I would like to see is the political affiliations amongst whites based on educational attainment.

Progressive Realist, I think your statement is right on the mark. This is essentially what I think the trend boils down to:
higher academic educational attainment = more socially liberal
higher income = more economically conservative.

This means that:
Wealthy educated people would be socially liberal and economically conservative (think Shelly Adelson and Michael Bloomberg)

Similarly, poorer less educated people would trend economically liberal and socially conservative (think the state of Arkansas with a sprinkle of Collin Peterson).

No your example wasn't biased. I was more or less implying that life experiences can change people just as much as education. There are a lot of ways to experience an education. Elizabeth Warren's position isn't something I hold as extreme either. Do you agree that there are countless ways to measure education as there are countless ways to measure intelligence? I'll be the first to say from personal experience that academic education can make one more liberal or moderate. Throughout college I went from a hardcore Republican to a moderate Republican with libertarian views on some issues. You could say I went from Pat Buchanan to Chris Christie.

[barfbag]

Of course there are myriad ways to measure education. What I am saying is that with current data, you cannot perform rigid analysis of other forms of education, considering we do not have figures for these.

Here's some data from previous elections that looks at white voting patters based on educational attainment. For mid-income whites, educational attainment seems directly proportional to the propensity to vote democratic. The same is true for high-income whites, discounting the rich whites without a HS degree category, which has a huge margin of error. For low-income whites we see the familiar C-curve.

http://andrewgelman.com/2012/03/23/voting-patterns-of-americas-whites-from-the-masses-to-the-elites/

I think a better question would be not if, but WHY the highly educated skew democratic. I think a lot of it is due to the democrats being perceived as the party the intellectuals call home (I mean, we did have Adlai Stevenson). Social issues, as I have stated before, are also a big reason.

I don't think we can even measure education based on data.

[barfbag]

The more "educated" tend to be more liberal because those who go further with education do things in the liberal arts. Republicans tend to start their careers right after college because they can with the exception of doctors and lawyers for example.