"We know everything isn’t woke, but that academia is woke."
And not even all professors. I went to the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Its professors were plenty anti-Trump (and anti-Israel and often anti-semitic), but none of them were woke.
"Institutions lean conservative except for academia."
I would also add to that employees at Big Tech, journalists, and teachers' unions (though NOT teachers).
I say your initial article tracing the history of the civil rights movement was probably one of your best Substack posts and you should continue it ASAP.
Everything is conservative. (Is that the case across the Western world or just America?) It must be why:
- policemen take the knee at BLM events and take time off from catching criminals to attend Gay Pride events
- the 'trans-rights issue' has gone, in the space of a few years, from something 99.9% of people had never given a moments's thought to an 'issue' that dominates the media and the policy statements of every civic institution and government bureaucracy.
- the post-George Floyd orgies of looting and murder rampages have gone down in history as mainly peaceful protests against injustice.
This seems to take "voting republican" as a measure of conservatives in and of itself, despite the whole political discourse shifting towards the left regarding its divisions (both republicans and liberals becoming more left-skewed). Jump to 1.32 here:
It seems to me that many "rich Republicans" are outright hypocrites. Managers are a good example of this. The only reason why they vote for conservatives is the desire for a "free market" policy - and for all their other views (immigration, a look at US history, gender roles, race relations) - they are absolute liberals. Moreover, even in support of the free market, all these managers are very ambivalent - during some crisis they will support the leftist policy of government spending and corporate bailouts, and the only reason for their economic conservatism is their great wealth. In reality, they have "liberal values" embedded in them, which is why, if they were poorer, they would turn into those very "communist professors". They are not conservative: it is their wealth that "saves" them from being absolute leftist radicals.
This is very different from a normal person of right-wing/conservative views, who, even with average incomes and not being a very rich top manager, will support both a free market policy and a conservative policy regarding immigration, race relations, gender roles, attitudes to historical heritage and the like.:
IQ/race explains more than mutation theory. Majority of white people are republican. Therefore everything is slightly conservative. White liberals are obviously more successful than white conservatives.
1-《 However, it is true that extreme liberal Whites are the smartest group with a mean of 107 IQ versus their counterparts extreme conservative Whites with a mean of 98.5, close to a 10 IQ gap.》
2- 《With their output surging as a result of the big-city tilt of the decade’s “winner-take-most” economy, Democratic districts have seen their median household income soar in a decade—from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. By contrast, the income level in Republican districts began slightly higher in 2008, but then declined from $55,000 to $53,000.》
3- 《President Donald Trump carried 2,497 counties across the country that together generate 29% of the American economy, according to a new study by the Brookings Institution. President-elect Joe Biden won 477 counties that together generate 70% of U.S. GDP.》
Whenever I hear that somebody or some group of somebodies 'care more' I always wonder if what is being measured is simple Sentimentality. We'll use the dictionary definition of Sentimentalism here: a practice of being sentimental, and thus tending towards making emotions and feelings the basis of a person's actions and reactions, as opposed to reason. There is Sentimentalism in philosophy, and in literature, and Empfindsamkeit in music. There is a good bit of academic argument over whether Dickens' novels are part of the Sentimental tradition, or merely contain passages of emotional excess. Goethe's novel The Sorrows of Young Werther seems firmly in the tradiiton, as does Susan Warner's The Wide, Wide World (the first American best-seller). To modern readers, the whole genre seems overwraught, to the point of campiness. But contemporaries did not take them this way. There are widespread reports of people overcome with the suffering of Little Dorrit, weeping at the theatres, and such like. This emotional expression was not confined to women -- men were also moved to tears.
But did the people of those times care more? Despite all of this caring, we get civil wars and world wars. The socialist dream that we would have global peace because the workers of one nation would not want to fight their brother workers in other countries turned out to be naive in the extreme. I know of no historians who claim that the bloodiness of the 19th and 20th centuries was caused by too much rationalism, and a lack of feelings -- while the thesis that it was an excess of sentiment that was responsible is commonplace.
Thus I think we should push back on the statement that 'iberals care more'. While it is easy to diagnose the lack of caring that occurs when people are too callous and unfeeling, it is more difficult to notice that an excess of emotion is bad for the caring impulse as well. But such problems abound. People give to charities because of how it makes them feel, rather than whether the charities are actually well run and accomplish laudable goals -- and then criticise those who point out obvious shortcoming as being 'uncaring'. You find the people that really care about the poor, and the downtrodden volunteering at the foodbanks, and substance abuse centres and what not. Lots of the people there are acting out of a sense of Christian duty. Of course, there are some left-wing zealots there as well, but a surprising number of left wingers think that attending a protest and really, really, feeling about the marginalised counts as 'being more caring', whereas I find it shallow.
"This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. " Robert Lewis Dabney (1897)
But how do you explain the consistent aumentation of regulations on american domestic economy since the 60s, except for Trump era, as well that the people who most percent of income tax paid are higher incomers ones compared to lower ones?
"We know everything isn’t woke, but that academia is woke."
And not even all professors. I went to the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Its professors were plenty anti-Trump (and anti-Israel and often anti-semitic), but none of them were woke.
"Institutions lean conservative except for academia."
I would also add to that employees at Big Tech, journalists, and teachers' unions (though NOT teachers).
I say your initial article tracing the history of the civil rights movement was probably one of your best Substack posts and you should continue it ASAP.
Everything is conservative. (Is that the case across the Western world or just America?) It must be why:
- policemen take the knee at BLM events and take time off from catching criminals to attend Gay Pride events
- the 'trans-rights issue' has gone, in the space of a few years, from something 99.9% of people had never given a moments's thought to an 'issue' that dominates the media and the policy statements of every civic institution and government bureaucracy.
- the post-George Floyd orgies of looting and murder rampages have gone down in history as mainly peaceful protests against injustice.
- I could go on......
This seems to take "voting republican" as a measure of conservatives in and of itself, despite the whole political discourse shifting towards the left regarding its divisions (both republicans and liberals becoming more left-skewed). Jump to 1.32 here:
https://youtu.be/IE_J3a6wQAM?si=I3d1yezIHmqy9nE-
>This is strangely consistent with data showing that about 31% of top executives are liberals.
Are you absolutely sure? You should read this study:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23780231211068654
It seems to me that many "rich Republicans" are outright hypocrites. Managers are a good example of this. The only reason why they vote for conservatives is the desire for a "free market" policy - and for all their other views (immigration, a look at US history, gender roles, race relations) - they are absolute liberals. Moreover, even in support of the free market, all these managers are very ambivalent - during some crisis they will support the leftist policy of government spending and corporate bailouts, and the only reason for their economic conservatism is their great wealth. In reality, they have "liberal values" embedded in them, which is why, if they were poorer, they would turn into those very "communist professors". They are not conservative: it is their wealth that "saves" them from being absolute leftist radicals.
This is very different from a normal person of right-wing/conservative views, who, even with average incomes and not being a very rich top manager, will support both a free market policy and a conservative policy regarding immigration, race relations, gender roles, attitudes to historical heritage and the like.:
https://theuntangler.wordpress.com/2022/01/29/is-there-a-g-factor-political-views/
IQ/race explains more than mutation theory. Majority of white people are republican. Therefore everything is slightly conservative. White liberals are obviously more successful than white conservatives.
1-《 However, it is true that extreme liberal Whites are the smartest group with a mean of 107 IQ versus their counterparts extreme conservative Whites with a mean of 98.5, close to a 10 IQ gap.》
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/02/conservatives-arent-stupid/
2- 《With their output surging as a result of the big-city tilt of the decade’s “winner-take-most” economy, Democratic districts have seen their median household income soar in a decade—from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. By contrast, the income level in Republican districts began slightly higher in 2008, but then declined from $55,000 to $53,000.》
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/america-has-two-economies-and-theyre-diverging-fast/
3- 《President Donald Trump carried 2,497 counties across the country that together generate 29% of the American economy, according to a new study by the Brookings Institution. President-elect Joe Biden won 477 counties that together generate 70% of U.S. GDP.》
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/10/election-2020-democrats-republicans-economy.html
/
4- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/among/income-distribution/100000-or-more/
Whenever I hear that somebody or some group of somebodies 'care more' I always wonder if what is being measured is simple Sentimentality. We'll use the dictionary definition of Sentimentalism here: a practice of being sentimental, and thus tending towards making emotions and feelings the basis of a person's actions and reactions, as opposed to reason. There is Sentimentalism in philosophy, and in literature, and Empfindsamkeit in music. There is a good bit of academic argument over whether Dickens' novels are part of the Sentimental tradition, or merely contain passages of emotional excess. Goethe's novel The Sorrows of Young Werther seems firmly in the tradiiton, as does Susan Warner's The Wide, Wide World (the first American best-seller). To modern readers, the whole genre seems overwraught, to the point of campiness. But contemporaries did not take them this way. There are widespread reports of people overcome with the suffering of Little Dorrit, weeping at the theatres, and such like. This emotional expression was not confined to women -- men were also moved to tears.
But did the people of those times care more? Despite all of this caring, we get civil wars and world wars. The socialist dream that we would have global peace because the workers of one nation would not want to fight their brother workers in other countries turned out to be naive in the extreme. I know of no historians who claim that the bloodiness of the 19th and 20th centuries was caused by too much rationalism, and a lack of feelings -- while the thesis that it was an excess of sentiment that was responsible is commonplace.
Thus I think we should push back on the statement that 'iberals care more'. While it is easy to diagnose the lack of caring that occurs when people are too callous and unfeeling, it is more difficult to notice that an excess of emotion is bad for the caring impulse as well. But such problems abound. People give to charities because of how it makes them feel, rather than whether the charities are actually well run and accomplish laudable goals -- and then criticise those who point out obvious shortcoming as being 'uncaring'. You find the people that really care about the poor, and the downtrodden volunteering at the foodbanks, and substance abuse centres and what not. Lots of the people there are acting out of a sense of Christian duty. Of course, there are some left-wing zealots there as well, but a surprising number of left wingers think that attending a protest and really, really, feeling about the marginalised counts as 'being more caring', whereas I find it shallow.
"This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. " Robert Lewis Dabney (1897)
But how do you explain the consistent aumentation of regulations on american domestic economy since the 60s, except for Trump era, as well that the people who most percent of income tax paid are higher incomers ones compared to lower ones?