The Left versus The Right in academia

November 14, 2006 at 10:56 pm (Blogs, Leftist idiocy, The Left, The Right)

There are not many conservatives in academia. We conservatives joke that this is because only idiots go into academia while smart people go out and make a living. But the issue still remains: there are few conservatives in academia.

Please read this excellent post: “Back Up: I’ve Been Holding It In for Two Years” by S. Weasel of S. Weasel.

The Left, which dominates academia, says this is because those of The Right cannot handle the intellectual vigor of academia and academic research. In other words, conservatives are dumb and stupid. But the reality can be seen in The Right scathing regard and, in some cases, loathing and hatred, for academia. The Right rejects any authority posited in academia.

And to a degree, The Right is correct. The Left is wont to formulate theories that have little to do with reality. Indeed, it is joked that if the world proves a theory wrong, something is wrong with the world, not with the theory. Academia, from the perspective of The Right, is nothing but a perverse circle of self-serving idiotic parrots. In order to gain admittance into this circle, one must memorize and regurgitate the same jargon and groundless theories. One cannot deviate, or one risks being ostracized, if not expelled. There is little ground for debate or discussion.

Despite the fact that The Left, in academia and out, characterizes The Right as being backwards, intolerant, and bigoted, perhaps the truth is the other way around: perhaps it is The Left that is backwards, intolerant, and bigoted. High up in their ivory towers, these academics reject everyone who challenges them or threatens their precious theories. Reality is something subjective, irrelevant really. It is no wonder there are few conservatives. It would be a waste of time, even, to wade through such muck.


1 Comment

  1. dicentra said,

    This is what makes the academic Left who they are:

    As S. Weasel said, they’d rather be dead than uncool. Academics think they score extremely high on the cool scale, and in some ways they do. They tend to like high-falutin’ music (jazz, classical), they are into the arts, theatre, and languages, they are capable of engaging in extremely interesting conversations. And they can be quite clever, too. For this reason, I tend to prefer friends who are academically inclined.

    However, academics are universally plagued by the overwhelming fear of being thought foolish by their peers, of not being good enough to be in the Cool Smart People Club. Remember, academics were usually the shy, unpopular kids in elementary through high school. They spent their time with their noses buried in books and encyclopedias, soaking up as much knowledge as possible. Their academic skills earned them the praise of their teachers but the scorn of their classmates.

    So when they get to college, suddenly they are the only ones on campus. All of the “cool” kids from high school took other paths. Maybe they’re in the sciences or they went to trade school or they got jobs straight out of high school.

    At any rate, all of the formerly uncool kids find each other in college, and they are more than happy to dump on all of the “bourgeoisie” who tormented them as children. All of the stuff that interested the uncool kids becomes cool, and they can easily justify their tastes as “better” than those of the masses because the tastes are not as easily cultivated, and they are not as widespread.

    If you want to humiliate an academic, accuse him or her of being bourgeois. Or in other words, “common.” Unenlightened, like the rest of those rotters who didn’t have the brains to go into academia.

    So of course, the Left makes a point of seeking out those values that are held by Middle America and deliberately embracing their opposite. They do not in any way make an honest evaluation of traditional or common values to decide which to keep and which to discard; instead, they hold it as a truism that common values are a priori wrong and must be destroyed. They hold up the sacred triumvirate of racism, sexism, and homophobia as societal wrongs that prove that they are in the right.

    That’s why they call themselves “progresssives”: they believe that human society naturally evolves toward perfection, and that conservatives object to the changes they propose out of old-fashioned bigotry and the desire to maintain social status. Again, they point to racism, especially, as an example of how everybody in a society can believe something that is totally wrong and how it takes the actions of brave “radicals” to change society for the better. Because no one today can argue with the fallacy of racial superiority, they claim the high moral ground.

    But like I said, they don’t differentiate between traditional values that are good and those that should go. They are enamored of the idea that they are at the avant garde of social progress because they, and they alone, are smart enough to see injustice. They, after all, are educated. And education makes you moral.

    That’s how they see themselves. What they don’t see is the degree to which peer pressure informs their opinions. While I was in academia, I heard the siren song of conformity, but I didn’t heed it because I knew that the only reason for dropping my old beliefs and conforming to theirs would be to escape ridicule. And no one, especially an academic, likes to be thought a fool.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: