Ideological_Bias_and_Political

In class, it was suggested by a student that perhaps the reason why the liberal or progressive viewpoint is institutionalized in academia and the news media, is that it is more representative of reality. People with advanced degrees or who live in big cities and make more money tend to be liberal. Those in the middle of the country, who live in more rural areas tend to be more religious and less educated and perhaps less sophisticated and thus more conservative. It was also suggested that conservatives largely get their ideology from unjustified religious beliefs based on faith.

I suggested an alternative explanation: although the evangelical block of the conservative demographic is strong, this is partly because people in the heartland look to their families, friends, communities and Churches, to solve problems first, not government, and secular people in liberal cities (and in Europe), the State and political ideology function as a proxy religion and high mobility makes family and community ties weaker. Those in industrialized and congested cities also depend more on government services because of the practicalities of the required infrastructure. Or perhaps because of the increased commercial activity, the opportunity for politicians to skim off and efficiently bribe constituencies and exert influence is greater.

Another factor is that Idealists and people interested in social change or helping people go into academia and journalism. Those of a more practical bent go into business or industry or trades such like diesel mechanics or nursing. Historically, because of deferments to the draft in the Vietnam War, college campuses became natural centers of political activism. Agitators went on to become professors, hired their friends and institutionalized their beliefs.

Given increasing government funding of education and rise of state sponsored schools since the post WW2 G.I. Bill, higher education has taken an increasingly liberal, pro-government stance. And, of course, extremely liberal journalism schools churn out journalists who, if they weren't liberal when they went in, are when they graduate. The reason why non-college educated working class people in the Northeast might still consider themselves to be conservative could be the fact that they weren't in college long enough to be indoctrinated into the liberal ideology of their professors. Liberals claim that racial bias is so pervasive that it goes unnoticed and is partly unconscious. Why wouldn't the same be true of the liberal or progressive viewpoint itself? Why else would many journalists and academics think The New York Times and NPR are “down the middle” and "fair and balanced" while Fox News is "right wing propaganda?"

Another interesting phenomena is that people tend to be liberal when they are young and get more conservative as they get older. This may be because when people are younger, they are passionate and idealistic and have certain preconceptions about how the world “should” be, perhaps largely based on indoctrination in government schools and liberal media culture - not just in the news, but in the music, TV and movie industries that engross most youth.

As they gain practical life experience, things don’t add up. They go from being dependent on their parents and the State while they are in school to having to take care of themselves. They become parents themselves and have the added responsibility of taking care of children. They get a job and start making a lot of money and see how much they have to pay in taxes. Going from being a net tax consumer to a real taxpayer is often a rude awakening, even if the government’s “withholding” scheme and putting tax season as far away as possible from election season as possible attempts to mask this. Perhaps, like economist Thomas Sowell, they get a job working for a government agency and see how inefficient and wasteful it is. Or they see the effect of government mandates and regulations on their industry. Or they see how they are doing just fine picking a practical career path, working hard, and making prudent choices, while irresponsible or lazy friends screw up and blame anyone but themselves for their problems. This goes along with the saying, “If you’re a 20 and you’re not a liberal, you’ve got no heart. If you’re 30 and you’re not a conservative, you’ve got no head.” Of course some people remain liberal or progressive, but as a whole people tend to move to the right as they age. This would seem to support the “practical experience vs. biased, liberal academic theory” and “interests of a ward of parents or the state vs. an independent person" over the "liberals are more intelligent, enlightened, educated non-religious and thus reality-based" explanation.

As a social scientist, one question which fascinates me is that, despite a strong liberal bias in virtually all social institutions (education, the news media, the entertainment industry and the legal system and increasingly, business and corporate culture), conservatives still consistently outnumber liberals by about 2 to 1. One explanation for this is that some of these conservative beliefs about government, society and human nature are in fact reality-based. Social conditioning in a free-ish society can only do so much to drum them out of people.

Because liberalism is so pervasive, students sometimes students wonder why any enlightened, especially non-religious person might question the liberal orthodoxy or take a more conservative or libertarian view. So I tried to think of beliefs which seemed obviously false or highly questionable supported by LCC as an institution (in its mission statement and core values, press releases, official statements from the President of the college, and so on), that the former Obama Administration supported or that most of your other professors or the student body would agree with. Do they seem true or do some or many of them seem questionable, doubtful or obviously false? What do you think? Write at least 200 words in response to 2 extra credit points, making up for any missed or late posts (sorry, no extra credit if you already have the maximum of 10 points in your posts).

The bigger government is and the more services it offers, the better off we all are.
Institutionalized violence and the threat of violence is better than voluntary approaches to social problems and almost always morally justified. (OK, most liberals wouldn’t put it this way, but government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a given geographic area. This is the hidden and often ignored “gun in the room” which distinguishes government from business-consumer relationships, charity, civic and religious organizations and other forms of voluntary association. Taxes are extracted and laws enforced at gunpoint).
Policies of unrestrained deficit spending on the welfare state is a good idea, even after 20 trillion dollars in debt, and observing the fallout from the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. When the the money runs out, printing more or raising taxes on the wealthy is an easy solution.
Pyramid schemes should be illegal, except when the government uses them to fund retirement and health care of its citizens.
Moral relativism (often coupled with an air of moral superiority and strong convictions about moral issues of race, class and gender and “social justice.”)
Multiculturalism: All cultures are equally good. Except the Nazis, European cultures during the colonial period. Or the pre-civil war south. Or maybe American culture in general is also bad. Or maybe there is no distinctively American culture; American culture is just multiculturalism.
Gender is socially constructed and there are 32, 51 or 58 different genders.
While the male/female genders and biologically based gender differences are an illusion, race is real. People come in natural kinds and can be put into boxes and dealt with in groups, given group rights and assigned institutionalized privilege or ancestral guilt.
The U.S., global capitalism and “greed” or “the rich” are the source of most of the bad things in the world (when the opposite is true, which is why the standard of living in he U.S. is so high, opportunities so great, and why so many people want to move here).
Markets are untrustworthy. Government can do it better.
Communism works, it’s just never been properly applied. Celebration of brutal dictators like Mao, Che, Castro. Fascism and Hitler are “right-wing” pro-capitalist movements (both were lower class socialist union labor movements and explicitly anti-capitalist).
There’s nothing wrong or strange having an advocate of oppressive, sexist Sharia (Islamic Law) and ties to the terrorist organization Hamas as a lead organizer the “women’s march” in DC.
Police racism and brutality are pervasive and systemic problems which are much bigger and more important than urban crime in the inner cities.
Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with violent race riots or murder of cops
Harping on “white privilege” is an effective approach to improving race relations.
Underdogma: Support of he underdog, no matter who they are (e.g. the Palestinian Territories, run by the totalitarian terrorist Fatah and Hamas parties over Israel, a peaceful, liberal democratic republic with with 20% Arab and 18% Muslim population)
Global warming is the top national security threat, greater than Islamic terrorism. Muslim contributions to science should be a “top priority” of NASA.
We’re destroying the planet, not just through carbon emission but depletion of scarce resources which are in imminent danger of running out. Also we’re overpopulating the planet, which is leading to ecological disaster (predicted since 19th century doomsayer Thomas Malthus, followed by loud, failed prediction of doom since the 70s).
We can run a modern economy on "renewable" energy resources. Oil, coal and natural gas are "dirty" and need to be gotten rid of, even if it hobbles the economy and hits poor people with high gas and heating bills. Nuclear power is too dangerous to use, even though it's clean, can be done safely and makes up 40% of electricity generation in France.
Mechanization, such as ATMs are responsible for unemployment, making the poor poorer (liberals since Ned Ludd), not government taxes, regulations and wage and price controls.
Foreign threats can always be best dealt with through appeasement (e.g. Neville Chamberlin and Hitler, The Clinton Administration helping North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, the Obama Administration’s inaction against ISIS, against Russia when they moved into the Crimea, the nuclear Iran nuclear deal).
Irrational fear of guns, unless wielded by police, who beat and shoot unarmed black people because they are racist.
Toppling "dictators" and replacing them with "democracy" is a good idea, even when there are large numbers of religious fanatics waiting in the wings to impose an even more draconian regime and repress religious minorities, women, secular people, gays (e.g. the Shah of Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Qadaffi in Libya, Assad in Syria)
People who are failing at life (criminals, addicts, the homeless and very poor) are victims of society, or “the system” and not responsible for their bad choices.
“Alcoholism” is a disease, like tuberculosis, as opposed to a bad habit or a character issue over which a person might be culpable.
Democracy is great, except when it votes for laws I disagree with. Then I’ll shop around for a judge who will legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people.
The law is the law and should be enforced, except laws regarding immigration.
Unchecked immigration from the third world and fundamentalist Islamic countries is a net plus to Europe (despite evidence of major social and economic problems which are obviously resulting).
Regressive attitudes about free speech, women, LGBT and Jews or attitudes about U.S. foreign policy or terrorism (or ISIS infiltrators) among immigrants or refugees from fundamentalist Islamic countries is nothing to worry about.
Illegal immigrants should get in-state tuition, but not U.S. citizens from other states who have just moved here.
Free speech should be limited on college campuses. People who have views I strongly disagree with or consider “hateful” should be blocked from speaking, intimidated or shouted down.