posted
Yeah yeah sorry about the thread title. But it's true. Not even saber-rattling. Just ... yeah.
So apparently Pew research studied political affiliation of scientists.
quote:Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
Six percent. That's apparently cratered over the course of the Bush years.
posted
Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
I've also read that the more formal education someone receives the more likely they will identify as democrats.
I would love to see a study that looks at scientists in the private sector, however if a university education tends to swing the students more liberal, then there is a good chance the results will be consistent. It would still be interesting to see.
Edit: Just finished the article
quote: Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
quote:Originally posted by lem: Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
Yeah there's a huge hunk of scientists who go democrat because of the funding issues, but at the same time there's probably even more that are influenced by a perception of the republican party as one of anti-scientific interests and a defender of pseudoscience.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Texas's Republican governor did just choose a creationist as its new chairman of the state board of education, as an example of how a scientist could perceive such a bias.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not surprising scientists don't identify as republicans when the republican party mocks science, in many different areas, quite openly.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a scientist, I am going to have to disagree with the idea that my fellow scientists are only dem because that is where the funding comes from. I think that the republican party's connection to religious/social issues is a big issue for most scientists (abortion, ssm, etc). In my experience, religious scientists have had to learn to compartmentalize, so even if they personally agree that X is morally wrong, they aren't going to support making X illegal without a more compelling reason. Also, as has been pointed out, the whole ID/creationist tends to upset scientists more then the general population.
Another difference between scientists and general population, scientists are a bit more international. I have never worked in a lab where there was not at least one person from another country. Which means that when we discuss health care, in almost every conversation someone says "my home country did public health care and it was so much better then this system".
Or, of course, it could just be that people trained trained to think logically and required to have a basic level of intelligence can't help but despise the republican party. Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
:sigh: Yes, please, simplify and reduce, reduce and simplify.
quote: Or, of course, it could just be that people trained trained to think logically and required to have a basic level of intelligence can't help but despise the republican party. [Wink]
Ding ding ding ding!
There's the little part about the democratic party being willing to listen to opposing viewpoints that makes it appealing internationally, and to a broad base of people who agree not necessarily on the finer points of the issues, but on the way that government should function.
The democratic party tries to be the supporter of individual freedoms and creativity, while the Republican party remains the gatekeeper against social, cultural and economic transgressions- whether it be their intent at this point, or not, that's their appeal at this moment.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
As a liberal, government-funded, Democratic scientist, I can tell you that nobody in my institution votes D just because Democrats are "willing to listen to opposing viewpoints," or that they're the "supporter of individual freedoms and creativity." Those are certainly important factors (or at least, the Dems' relatively less-horrible track record in those areas is an important factor), but the honest truth is that Democratic support for government research funding plays a big part as well. For quite a few scientists, it does boil down to "that's where the money comes from," in much the same way as high-powered executives vote for Republicans because, for them, that's where the money comes from. For many others, including myself, it's because we believe that there are certain things that government agencies are better equipped to make funding decisions for than the free market (heresy in this "Going Galt" age, I know), and basic science is one of them. In other words, a big part of why I support the Democrats is because I trust the scientific minds running the NIH and NSF more than I trust those at Merck or Pfizer.
Again, lots of other factors come into play - Republicans' disregard for scientific ethics and transparency during the past Administration being a critical one, as well as the aforementioned anti-science/ anti-intellectual bent of the modern American right. But reducing the issue to "Democrats are open-minded and Republicans are troglodytic thugs" is as much an oversimplification as katharina's post.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Wow. You just gave me whiplash, Orincoro.
Agreed.
I find it fascinating how Democrats and Republicans alike often cite open-mindedness and intelligence as defining features of their party. I would be tempted to claim that the truly open-minded and intelligent wash their hands of both, but then I'd be falling into the same trap. Plus I've known too many people of every association who would belie that claim. There's simply no correlation to be found in that regard.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think Dems and Republicans are are mostly composed of average people of average openmindedness, I also think the the Democratic party actually defines itself by that attribute. Republicans certainly would want their members to be openminded because it's an all around useful features to have, but not because it specifically has to do with their core values.
And when you're looking at core values - conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is theoretically about trying new ideas in an attempt to discover better ways of doing things.
The latter is fundamentally ABOUT being open minded. The former is not. And think both parties have their share of intelligence and stupidity, I think that systematically trying new ideas and progressing towards a better society requires more intelligence (in order to recognize when ideas are working and need to be changed) than sticking to the status quo.
That said, this is what Liberalism and Conservatism are theoretically about, as opposed to what the Democrats and Republicans actually stand for. (I've actually been leaning away from certain 'liberal' ideas on regulation lately simply because I think they don't work, but I'm still opposed to the thought process that leads many conservatives to the same conclusions).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coincidentally, two of the advisers I had at NIST were Republicans.
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Wow. You just gave me whiplash, Orincoro.
Agreed.
I find it fascinating how Democrats and Republicans alike often cite open-mindedness and intelligence as defining features of their party. I would be tempted to claim that the truly open-minded and intelligent wash their hands of both, but then I'd be falling into the same trap. Plus I've known too many people of every association who would belie that claim. There's simply no correlation to be found in that regard.
Truth.
quote:Perceptions of scientists are virtually the same as those of medical doctors and just above those of engineers.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And when you're looking at core values - conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is theoretically about trying new ideas in an attempt to discover better ways of doing things.
The latter is fundamentally ABOUT being open minded. The former is not.
That's one way of defining the core values. Somebody with a different perspective might define conservatism as being theoretically about keeping the government out of one's personal affairs, and liberalism as being theoretically about micromanaging people's lives for their own good.
By that definition, it's the conservatives who are fundamentally ABOUT accepting multiple viewpoints, and the liberals who are fundamentally narrow-minded. One might say that insisting on a more laissez-faire approach encourages innovation, while a top-down approach to reforming society stifles it.
Is this a distortion? To some extent, yes, but no more so than your characterization. I think both pit the better features of one ideology against the worse ones of the other. I think both ideologies, in their ideal forms, are equally concerned with keeping an open mind and are equally intellectually stimulating; and I think both are equally capable of going horribly wrong and mindlessly quashing those with the wrong views or lifestyles.
(As you note, this has little to do with Republicans vs. Democrats, which don't map onto those other two groups very well.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
There are many factors at play here. Pretending it's so simple may be a good way to reduce your cognitive dissonance, but isn't good for much else.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this part is worth keeping in mind.
quote:Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition. Scientists are different. Just a third (33%) say they believe in God, while 18% say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power and 41% say they don’t believe in either. Just less than half of the scientists interviewed (48%) say they have a religious affiliation, while as many (48%) say they are not affiliated with a religious tradition.
The Republican party essentially discards anyone with non-religious beliefs. It is not hard to see how a party that produces people like Palin, Bush, or Romney might not do too well at attracting the non-religious which would give a huge handicap for 1/2 of the demographic already.
quote:Originally posted by lem: ...
I would love to see a study that looks at scientists in the private sector, however if a university education tends to swing the students more liberal, then there is a good chance the results will be consistent. It would still be interesting to see.
Edit: Just finished the article
quote: Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
If you look at the chart, there is another tidbit worth mentioning. In the industry, only 10% of scientists are republicans up from 6%. In fact, government and academic are at 7% and 5% which are probably within the error margin. It is the NGO scientists which really bring down the average at 3%.
So whatever "tax-effect" would seem fairly minimal and concentrated in NGOs when compared with the private sector scientists.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And when you're looking at core values - conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is theoretically about trying new ideas in an attempt to discover better ways of doing things.
The latter is fundamentally ABOUT being open minded. The former is not.
That's one way of defining the core values. Somebody with a different perspective might define conservatism as being theoretically about keeping the government out of one's personal affairs, and liberalism as being theoretically about micromanaging people's lives for their own good.
By that definition, it's the conservatives who are fundamentally ABOUT accepting multiple viewpoints, and the liberals who are fundamentally narrow-minded. One might say that insisting on a more laissez-faire approach encourages innovation, while a top-down approach to reforming society stifles it.
Is this a distortion? To some extent, yes, but no more so than your characterization. I think both pit the better features of one ideology against the worse ones of the other. I think both ideologies, in their ideal forms, are equally concerned with keeping an open mind and are equally intellectually stimulating; and I think both are equally capable of going horribly wrong and mindlessly quashing those with the wrong views or lifestyles.
(As you note, this has little to do with Republicans vs. Democrats, which don't map onto those other two groups very well.)
While I kinda see your point, I don't think there was anything unfair about my characterization. I wasn't attempting to put a value judgement on the status quo or a hypothetical progressive future. And "Status Quo" vs "Change" are pretty much the textbook definitions of Conservative vs Liberal. What that actually means in practice depends entirely on what era you're in and what people consider the traditional/status quo to be.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo
See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Wow. You just gave me whiplash, Orincoro.
Agreed.
I find it fascinating how Democrats and Republicans alike often cite open-mindedness and intelligence as defining features of their party. I would be tempted to claim that the truly open-minded and intelligent wash their hands of both, but then I'd be falling into the same trap.
You assume I'm a democrat. I'm not a democrat.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
Inasmuch as I agree with that, there are a thousand ways of doing so. That's why whatever their latest claims are, republicans and democrats alike use a mix of socialism and free market economics that are only different in breed, not species. Every important question on either side of the aisle still involves money.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Follow the money. It explains everything. "
Which is obviously why NGO's had the lowest percentage of scientists who are republicans.
You don't think the republican parties attitude towards climate change, creationism, stem cell research, and the scientists and science associated with those issues and a host of other issues has any bearing on this?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:conservatism is, theoretically, about maintaining the status quo
See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Meh, you're just describing wisdom. The republican party, perhaps not the epitome of "conservatism," is about maintaining the status quo against mounting losses. There are a hell of a lot of things about the democratic party that I consider wiser, and in fact more conservative than the republican party.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: You're right the Republican party does not embody the principles of conservatism right now. I don't think I am describing wisdom, I too think there are many elements to the Democratic platform that are more wise than the Republican, but conservatism prides itself on recognizing principles that have always worked, and sticking to them, even when new thinking seems to cast doubt on them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Meh, you're just describing wisdom. The republican party, perhaps not the epitome of "conservatism," is about maintaining the status quo against mounting losses. There are a hell of a lot of things about the democratic party that I consider wiser, and in fact more conservative than the republican party.
Actually I think his characterization was pretty fair. Conservatism isn't (or doesn't have to be) blindly keeping every single facet of existence the same, just the things that you consider good. I don't think there are many people who are completely happy with every single aspect of society.
In D&D terms, it might be accurate to say Conservatism is about Wisdom (relying on things we've already learned from experience) and Liberalism is about Intelligence (learning, studying and reacting to new ideas).
Granted, I probably lose 13 arbitrary credibility points for using D&D terms to explain politics.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: You're right the Republican party does not embody the principles of conservatism right now. I don't think I am describing wisdom, I too think there are many elements to the Democratic platform that are more wise than the Republican, but conservatism prides itself on recognizing principles that have always worked, and sticking to them, even when new thinking seems to cast doubt on them.
Are we talking about the buzz words the republicans have been using, like "founding principles?" Because a lot of that crap seems to be getting conjured out of the air to fit with the Republican needs of the day, which have little to do with principles and a lot more to do with lifestyle, economics, etc. I only accuse neocons of this because they are the most buzzword happy these days ("buzzword" not being the same as "slogan").
I mean, in the regard you're discussing, conservatism is a-political. It's about doing what is proven to work, at it's base. In that sense neither major party really plays by the rules- they both cherry pick or reinterpret "principles" in order to justify the needs of the day, recasting them as updates of a model that works, ie, republican deregulation and government support of big business is supposed to be "allowing" the free market to take care of everything... except they "help" the free market, thus rendering it *not* free.
Now, to be truly conservative, I think it's true that one need only be wise. Conservatism on a certain level has no hard-line exclusion of any practice or belief. Whereas the modern day conservative movement in America is all about hard-line exclusions and rewriting the past to fit with the current model- a remarkably "liberal" take on reality, if you will excuse the parlance. Dems are not much better about this, but have been dominated by thinkers who have avoided these hard line stances, to their political and ideological benefit.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hardly think money explains everything...but it seems equally foolish to me to reject completely the idea that rational self-interest - supporting the party much more likely to support you - is a non-factor as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if those poor people would just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and stop wanting quality education, medical care, housing, food, clean air, affordable energy, emergency services, travel, immigration, jobs, the right to vote, etc, then there would be no problems! Those damn poor people! Haven't they got bootstraps to tug on?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hardly think money explains everything...but it seems equally foolish to me to reject completely the idea that rational self-interest - supporting the party much more likely to support you - is a non-factor as well.
While I do agree, I think also that the appearance of support as quid pro quot also follows from the appeal of a particular party's agenda in non-financial terms. For instance, if a certain ethnic population supports a certain party because that party was its champion 50 years ago, it won't be entirely surprising that that party maintains an agenda advantageous to that group- but what really came first there, the chicken or the egg? Just as the financial side can affect your decision, it's not like anybody sits down with an economic prospectus from each party and says, "ok, which party will give me an economic advantage?" Either party has the potential to enhance the success of an individual in some cases, but actually predicting that, and voting based on it? I know everybody believes that this happens a lot, but I suppose I don't buy that people are so credulous or hopeful about results in that way. Isn't a more general sort of "what's good for everyone is good for me" attitude? I know republicans who feel like that the same as I know democrats who do- it just comes down, at least when they talk about it, to how success for everyone can be achieved.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once there was a Republican graduate student in this physics department. (Being a foreigner, by the way, I do not vote and thus can view the petty factional squabbles of the natives with Olympian detachment.) He failed his qualifying exam and went away to be an engineer, or some such, presumably drowning his disgrace in liquor. From this I conclude that Republicans simply are not suited to be scientists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Hmmmm,for me it really is about keeping things how we found them Witness how the terms are applied here in this example:
quote:Kidnap rings and factory owners were operating under the noses of the police and party authorities, or even with their collusion. Liberals say only a move to democracy in some form will make officials accountable.
Conservatives call for a reversion to state control of industry and, in particular, an end to the poison of foreign political ideas such as "democratic socialism".
posted
Drawing lines through single data points has a long and honoured history in the social sciences. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By my calculations, the intervals between snarky KoM posts will soon reduce to a fraction of a second. By this time tomorrow, he will have made over 400 million snarky posts.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
Yes and no.
Your original statement about people living off other people's taxes, if taken literally, would apply to every single person in the country. It's one of those statements that sounds nice and means almost nothing in its original form.
Someone a middle class white collar job gets a huge government subsidy in the form of cheap fuel and food, which is a mix of Republicans and Democrats if you follow the source of those subsidies to their backers. We all live other people's taxes, some just do it far more directly than others, and yet we don't all vote in ways that protect this status quo.
Likewise I don't think all voting is made solely on the basis of money. Part of the reason I support Democrats over Republicans is their dedication (if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt) to research and science, and Republicans' serious turn against science during this decade, and while I'm currently a student pursuing a career in academia, that has nothing to do with my support.
It's a factor for them, for sure. It's not the factor automatically however.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you follow the money on a federal level, it seems like the strongest blue states should be for limited taxation while the strongest red states should be for increased taxes, because the blue states put out more money than they take in and many red states take in much more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.
Things are maybe more complex than that. Which, actually illustrates what I think might be one of the important factors in this. It's no accident that the party base of the Republican party is called by at least one conservative commentator, "The party of the stupid". While playing to this base, GOP politicians often use the same sort of simplistic, obviously wrong if you actually look at it, but sounds good/plays to people's prejudices statements as "Follow the money. It explains everything".
I know a lot of scientists. I'm a semi-pro myself. You better believe that funding plays a part in how they see the world (even when they think that they are impartial). But I know very few scientists who don't think that what they are doing is not vitally important work. On a wider scale, nearly all of them believe that scientific thought is, in and of itself, extremely important.
If you look at the extreme anti-science/anti-smart people bent that the GOP has taken through the Bush years and the McCain/Palin campaign, obviously scientists were very unhappy with having funding for their projects cut, but even scientists who saw their funding increased during this time and those who don't get any money from the government sources were incredibly critical of the Republican party's stance on science, and, in many cases, their embrace of really simplistic, stupid thinking.
It's really hard to convey the disgust that people who are true believers in the idea that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is the way to move the human race forward has towards, for example, crowds that will cheer Sarah Palin's complaints about "Why are we studying fruit flies anyway?"
And, as I said, scientists who weren't themselves affected by GOP cuts on spending on science were still upset about them, because they think that funding science is really good idea.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hardly think money explains everything...but it seems equally foolish to me to reject completely the idea that rational self-interest - supporting the party much more likely to support you - is a non-factor as well.
There is no place for your nuance here!
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina: yes, because among Democrats totally isn't where the only politically meaningful support to make those taxes progressive is nowadays. Indeed, only those are who are totally in support of every single measure promoted by a party throughout that party's entire history of existence would ever join one.
And I assume you allow money to dictate your own politics, since you assume it in others?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
One theory suggests that "Research Scientists" are Democratic because that is the people who fund them.
However it is the Republicans who are the strong defense party. It is they who want to spend billions on things such as "Star Wars" missile defense and the newest tanks, planes, and equipment. They are the ones who most heavily finance research science.
So if I am a physicist, I'd want the Republican's in power to pay for my newest way to make things go boom. If I were a mathematician, I'd want the Republican's paying for me to create algorithms for computer viruses. Etc. etc.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... See for me conservatism is not about simply keeping things as we found them. Rather it's a recognition that time has a refining effect on ideas, and that many concepts have proven their nature time and time again, and as such should be adhered to more strongly than the wisdom of the day.
Hmmmm,for me it really is about keeping things how we found them Witness how the terms are applied here in this example:
quote:Kidnap rings and factory owners were operating under the noses of the police and party authorities, or even with their collusion. Liberals say only a move to democracy in some form will make officials accountable.
Conservatives call for a reversion to state control of industry and, in particular, an end to the poison of foreign political ideas such as "democratic socialism".
There's a song in the musical 1776 called "Cool, Cool, Considerate Men" when it was played for President Nixon at the White House, a staffer asked the director to skip that song, as it contains lyrics that are obvious jabs at conservatism, such as this gem,
quote:To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
We have gold, a market that will hold
Tradition that is old, a reluctance to be bold.
The song is also lead by character John Dickinson, who is essentially the embodiment of anti-independence sentiment in the musical.
The definition of conservatism is by no means concrete, but if an intelligent viewing of "liberalism" indicates an acceptance of progressive thought, I think the counter argument for conservatism is an enthusiasm for ideas that stand the test of time.
Nobody says that liberals, "accept only ideas that are new" so in same token, conservatism shouldn't be, "believe only in keeping everything exactly the same."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if I am a physicist, I'd want the Republican's in power to pay for my newest way to make things go boom. If I were a mathematician, I'd want the Republican's paying for me to create algorithms for computer viruses.
You'd want the Republican's what in power? Genitives generally take an object.
Apart from this, this would be an interesting test of the extent to which funding explains the finding. I wonder what would happen if the sample was limited to DARPA-funded researchers?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Follow the money. It explains everything.
The problem with gross oversimplifications like this is that they open the field for gross dismissals.
Eg: follow the money, you say? hmm, ok, I guess this shows that only Democratic policies have shown themselves capable of maintaining scientific progress in this country!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
Correct, because the other party never raises taxes, right? Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be facile to suggest there's no incentive for those who survive off of government grants to support the party under which more such grants are given.
But it would be wrongheaded to imply that those who receive government funding live high on the hog as a result, or that they give little back for what they gain.
And it would be incredibly foolish to ignore that anti-intellectualism and misuse or ignoring of science has had a big place at the Republican table for about three decades.
And unless one is willing to have one's own principles presumed to convey nothing more than self-interest, it would be unwise and ungenerous to make such an assumption about a massive number of people one has never met.
posted
Much as I think the statement was wrong, I think we've done quite enough to demonstrate why the "follow the money" post was not entirely accurate.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... The definition of conservatism is by no means concrete, but if an intelligent viewing of "liberalism" indicates an acceptance of progressive thought ...
For me though. It doesn't. Maybe you could say that about "progressives", but not really for "liberals." Liberals are more about, well, liberty which is why you find the position of conservatives and liberals kinda reversed in China. The liberals are still championing liberty and the conservatives are conservative relative to the recent history of the CCP being in power.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... The definition of conservatism is by no means concrete, but if an intelligent viewing of "liberalism" indicates an acceptance of progressive thought ...
For me though. It doesn't. Maybe you could say that about "progressives", but not really for "liberals." Liberals are more about, well, liberty which is why you find the position of conservatives and liberals kinda reversed in China. The liberals are still championing liberty and the conservatives are conservative relative to the recent history of the CCP being in power.
Indeed, and in China about 50 years ago, the conservatives wanted more democracy, and the liberals wanted more totalitari...err socialism.
BTW I'm rereading Life and Death in Shanghai, and for some reason I can't stop thinking, "I wish Blayne would read this book." It's kind of stupid.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Plus I've known too many people of every association who would belie that claim. There's simply no correlation to be found in that regard.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
