Is liberalism becoming more anti-intellectual?

[136or142]

One of the tenants of mainstream liberalism is that it tends to deal with issues on a case by case basis depending on the specifics of each case, so this is why there tend to be so few great broad based liberal philosophers after the initial philosophers who provided the initial outline of liberalism.

Isaiah Berlin who lived from 1909-1997 has been described as 'the last great liberal philosopher.' His biggest contribution was to greatly expand upon Emanuel Kant's concept of humans as 'crooked timber.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin

Jane Jacobs who lived from 1916-2006 might be argued as one of the first great more narrow liberal philosophers who moved liberal theory to dealing with practical day to day issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs

Of course, in economics anyway, the first great liberal practical philosopher was Alfred Marshal who lived from 1842-1924.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Marshall

I would think by far the best known liberal thinker around right now is Paul Krugman.

However, I think the reason most liberal thinkers aren't well known these days isn't due to any anti-intellectualism but because academic fields are getting more and more technical and narrower.  The line is "we know more and more about less and less and eventually we'll know absolutely everything about nothing."

This is adapted from

“Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.”

― Konrad Lorenz

I certainly agree that Jordan Peterson knows nothing about everything (or anything.)

Edit to add: I'm sure not all liberals agree that there are no great liberal theory philosophers anymore or that their own views are best applied on a case by case basis.

However, in general I think it's far to say that is the case since the cliche of conservatives think in black and white terms while liberals think in terms of shades of grey seems to be true.

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

This isn't just in politics either.  I don't want to make too much of one data point but I remember when 'Dr' Laura was on the Larry King show during the 2000 election (I have no idea why I was watching this) and he asked her "how can you provide advise to people when you know so little about their situation?"

And she replied "If you live by bedrock principles life simply involves applying those principles no matter the details of the situation."

[136or142]

There's an entire major political party in the US that denies climate change.

Don't lecture me about anti-intellectualism.

who is lecturing you?

"Liberals", as a group isn't anti-intellectual, but there are many that are.  Most anti-GMO stuff comes from the left, the same with anti-nuclear power.  The "gender" issue...really any time a field has both biology and social sciences together the left is often there to put to limits on it.

There is no independent science that backs up the safety of GMOs.  The science on the safety of GMOs is actually more analogous to the industry 'science' that backs up the view that global warming is a myth.

[136or142]

Well Beet thanks you Adam, an easy win for blue Beet.

..but I want to play too.

What part of the GMO fearmongering got to you?  Please say "because monocultures are bad", I don't think we've done that one here yet (or if we have, not very good).  If it's just the one Crabby likes (we just don't know, more study needs to be done, ya can't be too safe!) save your breath and search through past threads.

Show me the independent studies then.   

[136or142]

Well Beet thanks you Adam, an easy win for blue Beet.

..but I want to play too.

What part of the GMO fearmongering got to you?  Please say "because monocultures are bad", I don't think we've done that one here yet (or if we have, not very good).  If it's just the one Crabby likes (we just don't know, more study needs to be done, ya can't be too safe!) save your breath and search through past threads.

Show me the independent studies then.  

before I waste my time, tell me true, will it change your mind if I show you studies showing their safety?  Or will you nit pick, dodge and weave or just never come back, continuing on with your ignorance.


'cause it seems to me if you care about this issue you would have Googled by now and found out on your own.  So I assume you've seen the science and still came to the other conclusion....probably because the people you assume are telling you the truth really really REALLY hate Monsanto and thus you do to.

So have you decided already?

Show me the independent studies and I promise you I'll make an honest assessment.  

I have a local friend who has a degree in agriculture and another who is a soil scientist and they both say GMOs are unsafe.  Of course you can find a few experts on opposite sides of an issue, there are even a few genuine climate scientists who are genuinely skeptical of global warming, but these are two individuals I regard as very credible.  Certainly more credible than you.

You are arguing by bullying: "anybody who doesn't agree GMOs are safe is antiscience." They don't do that.  The science, for instance, is far more robust on the reality of global warming than on the safety of GMOs.

[136or142]

link-Cornell

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's interesting.  My soil scientist friend has always rolled her eyes at Jeffrey Smith, but she's mentioned some of these other things.  I'll ask her if she has a response.

She does have concerns other than the effects of GMOs on human health though. For instance, there was the successful lawsuit on the negative effects of Roundup which is made more useful with GMO seeds.

[136or142]

There's an entire major political party in the US that denies climate change.

Don't lecture me about anti-intellectualism.

The Far Left Denies Math with absurd plans like increasing Government spending by 42 trillion dollars with really no way to pay for them.

The $42 trillion figure has been debated and doesn't seem to have much merit but there is no question the far left would add considerably to the deficit/debt.

Both the far left and the mainstream (extreme) right use the same basic economic theory as a rationale for their policies, so it is literally impossible to claim the far left is anti-intellectual without also admitting the mainstream (extreme) right is also anti-intellectual.

The difference though is that the Republicans are so intellectually dishonest they change their economic theories when a Republican is in the White House vs when a Democrat is in the White House.

The far left Democrats are post Keynesians who argue that 'deficit spending pays for itself' on the basis of an economic subset school known as Chartalism (not all Post Keynesians are Chartalists.)  At its core 'Chartalism' argues that long run growth is only achieved through government deficit spending, however on a more basic level, it's taken as a justification for post Keynesians to argue that 'deficit spending pays for itself.'

However, Chartalism is a subset of an economic school called 'Modern Monetary Theory' (MMT.)  MMT was essentially started by friends of the goofball economist Arthur Laffer as a new argument to justify further tax cuts for the rich after the idea that 'trickle down economics' resulting in tax cuts paying for themselves was found to be false.  MMT was behind Dick Cheney's claim that "deficits don't matter."

In this case though, at least the Post Keynesians are consistent in their views.  Conservatives embrace 'deficits don't matter' when a Republican is President and push for more tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy, while embracing balanced budget Monetarism theory when a Democrat is President.  So, not only are conservatives/Republicans anti-intellectual, they are intellectually dishonest.