|
|
|
|
|
|
by kingkongrevenge
6261 days ago
|
|
|
> the highly educated and intelligent segments of society are massively less conservative I don't know what the "intelligent segments" are. People with masters in liberal arts? Let's just pretend earnings power is proxy for smarts. The top slice of earners skew liberal -- the top 3% or so, who largely owe their earnings power to government granted cartels like the AMA, the bar, and Wall Street banking. They tend to live in urban enclaves where their wealth isolates them from meaningful impacts from social legislation. They aren't personally affected by immigration policy, for example. The much larger mass of upper middle-class types that cumulatively earn most of the money and run the country (the $150K households scattered all over, not just in the coastal urban centers) skew conservative. Entrepreneurs also skew conservative. To a certain extent, you have business people who build things of value vs. the heavily government entwined priesthoods. The "mandarin classes", if you will, skew liberal. The merchant and tradesman classes skew conservative. |
|
|
Intelligent: capable of graduating from MIT.
Educated: studied liberal arts & sciences at any credible college or university.
Conservative: Pat Buchanan. "god and country." Not Milton Friedman. Not Irving Kristol. And not "right-wing", which is an ideology. Conservative might really mean Edmund Burke, but I think the linked article means Pat Buchanan.
Smart: is context dependent and means making the best decisions in a given context. In some forms of human endeavor being smart requires higher than average intelligence, like say being a surgeon. But most aren't especially aided by intelligence. Definitely not politics or business. Too much intelligence can even cause stupidity in some situations.
I'm not sure what the word liberal means to you, but to me, in this context, it's meaningless.