Why is the SDMB so liberal?

[Bootis]

Serious question- please refrain from "'cause we're ignorance fighters" type answers, etc.

So in those McCain/Obama threads in this forum, right now its ridiculous, like 88/12 for Obama. Why is the Straight Dope, which I think most people would agree has a member base of above average intelligence, but is otherwise a random sampling of locations, ages, professions,and sex, why is it so liberal?
Conservatives, why do you think this is?
Liberals, why do you think this is?

[beowulff]

Not to be too snarky, but when rightist dictators come to power, who is first against the wall? The Intelligentsia. There has always been a slightly anti-intellectual bias to conservatives.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

1) educated cross-section
2) self-selected for intellectual curiosity
3) NOT self-selected for income levels
4) in a period where the right is widely discredited

just for starters.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Possibly because ignorance and conservatism go hand in hand? Not attempting to be damning of conservatives, but a lot of right wing opinion seems to stem from lack of exposure to alternative ways of thought or living, hence why cities tend to be more liberal than small towns.

[Tamerlane]

To very roughly paraphrase something tomndeb posted recently:

1.) Newspaper column that started this message board was a mainstay of "alternative" newspapers, which usually has a more left-leaning readership.

2.) Moderate-sized international contingent, especially western and northern European and Canadian, which tends to skew a little leftwards of the U.S. generally.

3.) Increasing political polarization over the last several years has served to intensify political discourse. To the point where a what was a solidly majority leftist board to begin with, has become rather more so as some more conservative voices have felt marginalized and have opted to move on.

As always I'll note, as I usually do when this topic comes up, that hardcore social conservatives and genuine Marxists have always been rather rare here ( there used to be a few vocal members, not so much now ). Meanwhile self-identifying libertarians seem to me to have always been just a bit over-represented relative to the general populace.

[Little Nemo]

Because we're smart enough to know that Obama is not a Muslim, a Weatherman, a non-native American, a Hollywood celebrity, a terrorist sympathizer, or a socialist.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Not to be too snarky, but when rightist dictators come to power, who is first against the wall? The Intelligentsia. There has always been a slightly anti-intellectual bias to conservatives.

Oh come on! Hard core left wing dictators have had similar policies. See here (http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/attack.html), for instance. Does this imply the left has similar anti-intellectual tendencies? I'd have thought anti-intellectualism has more to do with being a dictator rather than being left or right of centre.

[Revtim]

1.) Newspaper column that started this message board was a mainstay of "alternative" newspapers, which usually has a more left-leaning readership.I thought of this too, but is it really a factor? Is a large percentage of people here as a result of the print column? I would guess not, I think more people come across the site from internet sources. But that's just a guess.

[lavenderviolet]

I think it has something to do with the newspaper column's origins. The Straight Dope column originated in Chicago, which tends to lean Democratic, and was carried by alternative newspapers, which I think tend to have a liberal readership base. Once you have a base of people who think a certain way gathered in a spot, they tend to attract like-minded folks and repel people who don't share their values/beliefs.
People who like Obama know they're among friends here so have no problem talking about it. People who like McCain know there are several frequent posters here who think McCain is not only wrong but "evil", so of course they won't be as vocal about it if they care about fitting in here.

I also think the topics that are discussed in the column (and to a lesser extent here on the boards) are the kind of topics that would appeal to someone with an interest in topics like the arts, sociology, and other "social science"/"liberal arts" arenas, which tend to be liberal folks in general.
I also visit a website for medical students/physicians. Like here, the site is strongly moderated and the posters tend to be smarter than those you find on the average internet forum, but yet there are definitely more openly conservative people on that site than on here. Physicians in general, in my experience, tend to lean more conservative than a comparably intelligent group with PhDs in Medieval Studies.
It's not an issue of intelligence, in my view - just the kind of personalities that certain topics of discussion tend to attract.

[Bootis]

It's not an issue of intelligence, in my view - just the kind of personalities that certain topics of discussion tend to attract.

I've also noticed other boards, that have very intelligent members, but are geared to specific disciplines, that are generally conservative politically. Several other general discussion boards tend to be pretty 50-50. I guess I consider the SD to be one of the most general boards out there, with discussions of Math, Science, Literature, Art, Medicine, and Religion pretty evenly represented. Maybe some topics are more represented than others, but not so much that I would expect a 90-10 split!

[Sage Rat]

I would personally guess that the internet itself leans left. You're going to find more computers in urban homes than in rural, and urban areas tend to be more liberal. The internet is also home to younger people, who are generally more liberal than older.

The Straight Dope, as someone posted, is printed in an alternative newspaper that's probably most popular in liberal cities.

Smarter people favor skepticism, making them generally less strongly religious or otherwise fanatical. Without strong religious views, it's hard to maintain strong socially conservative values.

Conversation and friendly interaction, similarly, makes it hard to hold bigoted views in regards to homophobia. So you're not going to find a lot of homophobics on a site with a thriving gay population, and most homophobics are, in modern time, conservatives.

Smarter republicans are more likely to consider themselves to be too busy to waste time chatting on the internet and debating with loonies.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I don't think you should use the numbers in the voting thread as an indication of how liberal this board is. The Obama support has simply a lot to do with his personality and character on the one side and the Bush failures and McCain flailings on the other.

[Chefguy]

If you do a search of threads that have to do with topics such as "How many countries have you visited?" or "How many languages can you speak?", you'll see that a remarkably large number of Dopers have travelled extensively and have a fairly broad world-view. I don't like the notion that intelligence has a lot to do with things, but I do believe that intellectual curiosity does.

I can only offer the example of my siblings and children: my brother and sister are certainly not dummies, but neither of them has ever ventured out of Alaska for more than a couple of weeks at a time in their 70+ years, and never beyond the North American coastline (Hawaii excepted). They are hard-core conservatives (and have varying degrees of racism), only lacking the religious zealotry to make them neocons. Ditto for their children, who are very bright people. They have had very little exposure to the world, and basically don't wany any. My own children, by contrast, are lefties, and not because of any agenda I pushed while they were growing up. They have arrived at their present political leaning all on their own, after spending childhood traveling all over the world with me.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Because liberals have time to faff around on message boards while good hardworking conservatives are out working. ;)

[Gorsnak]

One factor not yet mentioned is that this board is extremely hostile to evangelical fundamentalists, who comprise a very significant portion of right-wing supporters in the US at the moment. This shouldn't be a huge surprise, given the sort of response that a thread defending "intelligent design" will garner in GD. So, take your basic American demographic spread, pull out the evangelicals, and add a mix of non-Americans predominantly from western Europe, Canada, etc, and I don't think you'd be far from the actual range of posters here.

For those who think the board is universally leftist, I suggest the following experiment - consider the likely course of the following GD threads:

1) Evolution/Creation - near universal pile-on condemning one side
2) Abortion - rancorous debate that stretches on for pages without any sign of consensus
3) Gun control - a few American supporters of gun control, a few foreigners expressing mystification of American attitudes towards gun control, and a majority contingent arguing vehemently for the right to bear arms
4) Economic ideology - viewpoints ranging from strong welfare state to laissez-faire market fundamentalism, with the dominant position being that governments suck at market intervention but that it's sometimes a necessary evil. On balance probably trends centrist by American standards and somewhat right by international standards.

Outside of social conservative issues, I just don't see a dramatic liberal bias unless you're judging the international contingent by American standards. There's plenty of support for right-wing views on other issues. As for Obama-McCain split, well, pull the 30-40% of Americans who are evangelicals out of the national polling and where do you think the numbers would stand? Add the sort of self-selection you'll get in who's going to respond to those polling threads - the McCain campaign has been pretty much an unmitigated disaster and who wants to associate themselves with that publicly - and the results don't strike me as being very illuminating with regards to how the board leans.

[Really Not All That Bright]

3) Gun control - a few American supporters of gun control, a few foreigners expressing mystification of American attitudes towards gun control, and a majority contingent arguing vehemently for the right to bear arms
What?

I'm pretty sure you're imagining that majority. IME, gun control threads here always boil down to a bunch of anti-gun people and a few very vocal pro-gun people.

[Chefguy]

On a much more basic level: birds of a feather and all that. When you find a forum that is sympathetic to your world view, you stick around.

[The Flying Dutchman]

On a much more basic level: birds of a feather and all that. When you find a forum that is sympathetic to your world view, you stick around.

On the other hand some of find that boring.

[Gorsnak]

What?

I'm pretty sure you're imagining that majority. IME, gun control threads here always boil down to a bunch of anti-gun people and a few very vocal pro-gun people.

Well, those threads do tend to attract a predictable group of pro-gun posters, but I don't recall any "bunches" of anti-gun Americans. Take this recent thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=478916) regarding a new assault weapon ban. Nearly every poster arguing for gun control indicates UK or Australia in their location field. The Americans posting to the thread are overwhelmingly opposed to increased gun control. Bad example, perhaps, given the objectively stupid cosmetic nature of the assault weapons ban? Okay, let's look at this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=473709) more generally about gun control, in which ExTank opens the topic with a moderate pro-gun position and the respondents discuss various ways in which that position isn't sufficiently pro-gun. We find a wider array of opinions in Airman Door's thread on the Heller decision (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=473098&highlight=heller), but the majority opinion in the thread is that the decision in favour of individual gun rights is both legally correct and preferable as public policy. There's a couple of actual anti-gun Americans in that thread, but I don't see any bunches of them.

If a majority of American board members are in favour of increased gun control, it's a very silent majority, or I'm blind.

[fisha]

1) I think there is a lot more political and social conservatives on this board than most realize; they just tend not to get into pointless squabbles about politics. I'm one of them-most of the time this board is cheap entertainment to me. I don't want to spend half an hour crafting a masterful post with numerous cites to defend my opinions, when I'll get piled on reflexively, whether my opinion has merit or not.

Rather just inkle in on another game of Family Feud, or comment about child rearing, etc. That's why I rarely post about any thing having to do with construction, either.

2) About birds of a feather and all that-I cannot stand being in an echo chamber, it makes me cringe when someone of the same political persuasion is a raving idiot. Plus it's boring; I don't need constant affirmation.

3) Current political climate. Once we have 8 years of the Dems screwing things up, the conservatives will become more vocal.

4) I think it is a fallacy to believe that a conservative cannot be an intellectual. Glad to see you all pat yourself on the back, though. You're so smrt!*

[Chefguy]

On the other hand some of find that boring.

On the contrary: when you don't have to spend all your time defending your view, you can actually learn something new.

[Chefguy]

1) I think there is a lot more political and social conservatives on this board than most realize; they just tend not to get into pointless squabbles about politics. I'm one of them-most of the time this board is cheap entertainment to me. I don't want to spend half an hour crafting a masterful post with numerous cites to defend my opinions, when I'll get piled on reflexively, whether my opinion has merit or not.

In my experience, as long as your post actually has merit and is supportable, anybody with a brain will respect your opinion.

2) About birds of a feather and all that-I cannot stand being in an echo chamber, it makes me cringe when someone of the same political persuasion is a raving idiot. Plus it's boring; I don't need constant affirmation.

None of which I said. But since you "tend not to get into pointless squabbles about politics" because you'll "get piled on", it would appear that affirmation is indeed important to you.

3) Current political climate. Once we have 8 years of the Dems screwing things up, the conservatives will become more vocal.

An obvious false premise. :D

4) I think it is a fallacy to believe that a conservative cannot be an intellectual. Glad to see you all pat yourself on the back, though. You're so smrt!*

Please see post #13 and try not to paint with such a broad brush.

[Bricker]

In my experience, as long as your post actually has merit and is supportable, anybody with a brain will respect your opinion.


Um...

I've been called some pretty vile names on this board, and -- if it's not undue lack of modesty -- I believe that, objectively, my posts tend to be well-reasoned and supportable.

[Chefguy]

Um...

I've been called some pretty vile names on this board, and -- if it's not undue lack of modesty -- I believe that, objectively, my posts tend to be well-reasoned and supportable.

The location of this thread prevents me from calling you a douchebag for this obviously poorly researched remark.

[fisha]

In my experience, as long as your post actually has merit and is supportable, anybody with a brain will respect your opinion.

Yes, and no. There will be some posters who will take a post on its merits-even a highly socially conservative post- but you'd have to be delusional to think that there would not be additional reflexive comments by the usual suspects, oftentimes drowning out rational discourse.


None of which I said. But since you "tend not to get into pointless squabbles about politics" because you'll "get piled on", it would appear that affirmation is indeed important to you.

Personalize posts much? I was not addressing you directly, I was commenting upon several posts from several individuals in this thread.

No, I do not need affirmation on my varied and often contradictory beliefs. If I did, I would find myself a site with posters so we could circle jerk. That doesn't sound like much fun to me.

This is similar to my thoughts on the ignore feature. If you can't handle the discourse of ideas, backgrounds and viewpoints contrary to your own, perhaps you need to re-evaluate.



An obvious false premise. :D

Noone likes the priest until he's gone.



Please see post #13 and try not to paint with such a broad brush.

I have a enormous amount of intellectual curiosity, yet am on the conservative side of the middle-both socially and politically. I can even get by in two languages, although fluency would be a major stretch. Am I the exception to the rule? Or just yours?

ETA-Now I wonder why I bothered to write out this post, Chefguy. I see you've went and called someone (well not really called them, because you were sooooo tricky with your sentence.) a douchebag for expressing their personal opinion.

Yeah, intellectual discourse at it's finest.

[GIGObuster]

Serious question- please refrain from "'cause we're ignorance fighters" type answers, etc.

I know you do not what to hear it, unfortunately the current Republican candidate claims to be proud of someone like Palin, that is a creationist, has attempted to ban books, disdains basic science research, etc. When conservative leaders are being proud of ignorance, it is a big deal when they attempt to ignore that among moderates such ideas are not being appreciated. This is particularly painful for common sense Conservatives that, if you are not noticing, are jumping ship nowadays and are being confused as liberals over here.

This is the current state of the conservative leadership in the USA. They decided to be saddled with an anti science candidate to excite a base that is not welcomed in the SDMB.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

I do think that when Obama (most likely) becomes president that many that you think are liberal in the SDMB will show up as conservative, one should not forget that calling Obama a liberal was not really accurate, he is a moderate that even though he will consider liberal solutions to the current problems, I expect him to get help from conservatives in his administration, I expect the SDMB then to sound very conservative as I thought it was when I found the Straight Dope in the last years of the Clinton presidency!

[The Second Stone]

Um...

I've been called some pretty vile names on this board, and -- if it's not undue lack of modesty -- I believe that, objectively, my posts tend to be well-reasoned and supportable.

Sometimes your posts are well-reasoned and supportable, and sometimes not. The thing on VP being in charge of the Senate and the thing about voting for Obama were not your best moments. Usually your posts are enlightening and I look forward to them because they are like WF Buckley when he was at his best. But not on the mentioned occasions.

That being said, this is a board about curiosity, and curiosity is not a conservative trait in general.

[Czarcasm]

The location of this thread prevents me from calling you a douchebag for this obviously poorly researched remark.[Official Moderator Warning]As far as I'm concerned, you did just call him a "douchebag". Do not attempt to sidestep the rules again.[/Official Moderator Warning]

[Sam Stone]

Possibly because ignorance and conservatism go hand in hand? Not attempting to be damning of conservatives, but a lot of right wing opinion seems to stem from lack of exposure to alternative ways of thought or living, hence why cities tend to be more liberal than small towns.

This is ridiculous. If anything, it's people on the left who are not exposed to other ways of thought or living. I daresay that your average conservative or libertarian could describe the ideas of the left in an accurate manner far more so than could a liberal could accurately describe the ideas of the right, for the simple reason that the ideas of the left are ubiquitous and unavoidable. You get them in school, in the popular media, movies, television, the press, and in locations such as this.

As for intelligence - if you could measure the average intelligence of, say, the readers and writers of the National Review, I'll bet it's not much different than that of The New Republic[/b], and both are probably substantially higher than, say, [i]The Daily Kos or Think Progress.

In other words, intelligence has nothing to do with it. Education has nothing to do with it, other than that if you go through four years of college you're going to be subjected to an overwhelmingly liberal worldview for four years.

Here's what I think is the actual reason: The board started left because of its association with the Chicago Reader. Then when it went to pay-to-post, the leftward tilt accelerated because people in the minority generally don't feel like paying to be piled on. People on the right get less value out of a membership here than do people on the left, who see it more as 'home' and less as a hostile environment. So the right-leaning members slowly dropped away, leaving the board even more tilted to the left.

In addition, it has become increasingly hard for conservatives or libertarians to justify the actions of the current Republican Party, and therefore they have less desire to engage in its defense.

Now that you can post for free again, I've noticed a lot more conservatives showing up to post in Great Debates once again. And I predict that once Obama is coronated, the right will start growing in strength again - it's always easier in politics to play offense rather than defense.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Has anyone noticed that there are a significant number of posters voting for McCain who have relatively low post counts compared to their duration of of membership ?

Tells me that they inform themselves of the liberal views but are reticent to express themselves in what they perceive as a somewhat hostile environment.

[GIGObuster]

As for intelligence - if you could measure the average intelligence of, say, the readers and writers of the National Review, I'll bet it's not much different than that of The New Republic[/b], and both are probably substantially higher than, say, [i]The Daily Kos or Think Progress.

I don't think intelligence is the problem right now with conservatives, but their clamping down on sincerity. When Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, wrote that he was voting for Barack Obama he was canned from the National Review.

Seeing regular smart members of the SDMB claiming that Palin was the beesknees only left then the option for me that either those supporters are misleading, or choose to willingly ignore the evidence that the current Republican ticket was a champion of ignorance (and I have not touched yet the un-ethical and other reprehensible positions of the Republican candidates)

While it is clearly not a deal breaker for some conservatives, the creeping light Lysenkoism coming from conservatives in power is bound to affect the future of America.

[Chefguy]

[Official Moderator Warning]As far as I'm concerned, you did just call him a "douchebag". Do not attempt to sidestep the rules again.[/Official Moderator Warning]

Jeez, forget ONE smiley face and the joke goes right over your head.

[Dan Norder]

Serious question- please refrain from "'cause we're ignorance fighters" type answers, etc.

I want to know why university professors, scientists, librarians, journalists and the states with the highest educational levels all are more liberal than average, but I'm going to be offended if someone gives an answer that suggests it's because they are more well-read/educated/smarter, so don't anyone answer that way.

I also want to know who the main reoccurring characters in the Star Wars movies were, but it's a serious question, so I don't want anyone to mention anyone named Skywalker, Solo, Fett, Palpatine, Vader and so forth. Come up with some different answer please.

[Der Trihs]

I know you do not what to hear it, unfortunately the current Republican candidate claims to be proud of someone like Palin, that is a creationist, has attempted to ban books, disdains basic science research, etc. When conservative leaders are being proud of ignorance, it is a big deal when they attempt to ignore that among moderates such ideas are not being appreciated. This is particularly painful for common sense Conservatives that, if you are not noticing, are jumping ship nowadays and are being confused as liberals over here.

This is the current state of the conservative leadership in the USA. They decided to be saddled with an anti science candidate to excite a base that is not welcomed in the SDMB.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

I do think that when Obama (most likely) Exactly. Present day conservatism is heavily flavored with beliefs that are simply factually wrong, or are irrational, and fares poorly in places where people are allowed to and willing to point that out. Come in here spouting nonsense about creationism or Obama being Muslim, and people will actually point out that it's nonsense and the mods won't ban them for doing so.

Debate tends to be a lot more middle of the road on things like, oh, tax policy or "Is space travel worth it" or "Is a unipolar or multipolar world better", because one side isn't blatantly, factually wrong. There's something there to debate, instead of a one sided attempt by posters to enlighten or mock someone who's simply out-and-out wrong.

[Yorikke]

1) I think there is a lot more political and social conservatives on this board than most realize; they just tend not to get into pointless squabbles about politics. I'm one of them-most of the time this board is cheap entertainment to me. I don't want to spend half an hour crafting a masterful post with numerous cites to defend my opinions, when I'll get piled on reflexively, whether my opinion has merit or not.

Rather just inkle in on another game of Family Feud, or comment about child rearing, etc. That's why I rarely post about any thing having to do with construction, either.



I'm even more left-leaning than most people on this board, I think, but I feel sorta similarly. It's more, though, that I just HATE talking politics and religion. I have my opinions, you have yours, and neither of us is going to convince the other that they are wrong, so why bother? Bleah.

Joe

[Captain Carrot]

I've been called some pretty vile names on this board, and -- if it's not undue lack of modesty -- I believe that, objectively, my posts tend to be well-reasoned and supportable.
Sometimes, even a lot of the time, they are, but you've also written a lot of dickish stuff. Which is true of all of us, of course, but it stands out for you more because you're prolific, and because that stuff is dickish in the opposite direction from most of the rest of the board, and because even when you write shit, it's somewhat well supported.

[Trepa Mayfield]

As always I'll note, as I usually do when this topic comes up, that hardcore social conservatives and genuine Marxists have always been rather rare here ( there used to be a few vocal members, not so much now ). Meanwhile self-identifying libertarians seem to me to have always been just a bit over-represented relative to the general populace.

My theory on this one is that libertarians are generally encouraged to be vocal about their views, and since we have vocal libertarians, other libertarians speak up, and so on. However, Social Conservatives and Marxists are worried about how they'll be perceived (since others before them have been chased out), so they keep quiet.

[TheLoadedDog]

I think the SDMB is liberal because it used to be liberal.

There was a guy on the radio the other day talking about the phenomenon of political polarisation in American (and Western) society. He presented it almost in terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. As we get more and more affluent and comfortable, we can start sweating the smaller stuff, which in this case is something like, "I don't like this neighbourhood because my neighbours vote the other way to me", and so folks up and move.

The result is that all the Democratic voters seem to wind up in hip neighbourhoods in hip cities, catching light rail to their hip coffee house, and all the Republican voters seek out open space, gun clubs, NASCAR tracks, etc. Well, this is an exaggeration, but the premise is that the Average American is less exposed to opposing political views in his or her local society than was the case a few decades ago. And this is a bad thing.

I'm a conservative (but not a religious one) who tends not to speak up on these boards, because of the futility of it, and the inevitable pile on. At its best, the SDMB provides a harsh test of my own political beliefs, and at its worst, it's a liberal circle jerk. That said, I also don't frequent conservative web sites (I've looked at Townhall.com but the religious side of it annoys me) because I don't like the circle jerk nature of those either.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

I agree with most of the stuff from above. The Internet in general skews liberal. But I also believe that there isn't much for an intellectual conservative to grasp on to these days. There is no William F Buckley. The current Republican party has repeatedly in the past 8 years taken an anti-intellectual, anti-science stance. Conservatism doesn't have to be linked with such philosophy but the Republican party is.

I think the main thing is that there is no current leader of thoughtful conservatives of any import at the moment. Sure you've got your George Wills and the like, but the main "heart and soul" of the party at the moment has an anti-intellectual streak.

So I don't doubt that there are many people who would actively defend the Republican party if there were a strong leader with intellectually defensible ideas. But the truth is that there really aren't any of these types these days. That's why you won't really see much of that here. When the Republican party gets their act together and manages to accept intellectuals, then maybe they will be equally represented here. The closest you could get to that would be the neoconservatives. They are actually intellectuals, but their ideology has suffered some pretty astounding blows.

All Republican leaders of late have really espoused anti-intellectual ideals. Everything about the Bush administration has been anti-intellectual (except for neocon foreign policy that is). When you guys get a candidate that can attack the Democrats on logical and intellectual points primarily, then you'll see more people of the intellectual persuasion attracted to your position. But the truth is that half of the Republican arguments against Democrats begin with things about Obama being an Arab or Muslim etc. It's hard for someone who values truth and reason to align themselves with such people.

Your average intellectual Republican these days has a hard time finding any company. How the Republican party emerges will have a big impact on what happens in the future.

[TheLoadedDog]

I think it needs to be pointed out that the belief that modern day academia has an unacceptable bias to the left is not the same as a dislike of academia. This is not to say there aren't conservatives who hold the latter view, but there is an important distinction that needs to be made here.

If I come out and say that the humanities departments of Australian universities are unacceptably biased left, and that students are expected to toe a certain liberal-left line in their papers in order to get good marks, I'm not saying they should bulldoze the humanities departments. That'd be like saying a corrupt police force should result in the abolition of the police. The "anti-intellectual" thing is played up a bit much, I think.

[Finagle]

Um...

I've been called some pretty vile names on this board, and -- if it's not undue lack of modesty -- I believe that, objectively, my posts tend to be well-reasoned and supportable.

Your behavior and gloating over the last Presidential election didn't make you very many friends. And objectively, the current administration has screwed the pooch pretty badly, so you should probably review some of your arguments from back then and see if they hold up as well-reasoned and supportable.

As for why the board is so liberal -- probably because the Republicans have aligned themselves with the religious right and bedrock social conservatives (a group which might be composed largely of decent people but which is characterized by a large proportion of scary, anti-intellectual wingnuts). Readers of a column that famously analyzed the "How many calories in semen" question aren't likely to be socially conservative.

Further, the current Administration has made heinous foreign policy decisions (lying to its people in the process), mishandled the economy to a tragic extent, and abandoned any pretense of being the party of fiscal responsibility and small government by running up the deficit and creating the bloated Homeland Security bureaucracy. So unless you're passionately devoted to one of the Republican platform's hot topics -- repealing abortion, limiting gun control, or prohibiting gay marriage -- there's just no reason to support them at this point.

[Carson O'Genic]

Um...

I've been called some pretty vile names on this board, and -- if it's not undue lack of modesty -- I believe that, objectively, my posts tend to be well-reasoned and supportable.

"One thousand Attaboys are removed by ONE You dumb shit!"

Second Stone making the Buckley comparison is very high praise but don't change your hat yet.

[FriarTed]

Because liberals have time to faff around on message boards while good hardworking conservatives are out working. ;)

You took mine! :D

I work as much as I have to, but once that's taken care of, I prefer free time to more money.

[Count Blucher]

Why is the SDMB so liberal?

Occam's razor answer: Its not.

What is passed off as 'conservativism' in America is really so fringe, out there, and so out of touch with America that using it as a basis point skews all point of reference.

SDMB is a great cross section of competant, reasonable, and creative people who form their own opinions on issues. In a very meaningful sense, the consensus values here are center or centrist. Reading this board is a good check of your personal compass bearings to see how off course you are.

[Clothahump]

I agree with most of the stuff from above. The Internet in general skews liberal. But I also believe that there isn't much for an intellectual conservative to grasp on to these days. There is no William F Buckley. The current Republican party has repeatedly in the past 8 years taken an anti-intellectual, anti-science stance. Conservatism doesn't have to be linked with such philosophy but the Republican party is.
True dat.

As I have said before, the worst mistake the Republicans have made in the last 50 or so years was getting in bed with the religious whackos.

[Cardinal]

Because we're smart enough to know that Obama is not a Muslim, a Weatherman, a non-native American, a Hollywood celebrity, a terrorist sympathizer, or a socialist.And I as a conservative of course believe all these things.

Seriously, a piece of advice, Dopers: the best way to be taken seriously is to not be ridiculous. Admit that the other side is not necessarily the dumbest thing you've ever heard, and that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a victim of a severe head injury or inbreeding.

[Johnny L.A.]

And I as a conservative of course believe all these things.

Many of you do. They tarnish the reputations of the rest of the Conservatives, just as far-left extremists tarnish Liberals.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I don't want to confuse intelligence with academia, but I think that we have a high proportion of academic-types -- I don't necessarily mean people who teach, but there's a certain academic point-of-view, mindset, view of life, that I think many Dopers share.

And academia tends to be somewhat more socialistic/leftist, for whatever reason. Perhaps because they don't earn enough money to be Republicans.

[Mangetout]

The board has a liberal bias because the internet has a liberal bias, because the western world has a liberal bias. In fact, therefore, it's not a bias, it's just the norm.

[DMark]

Because liberals have time to faff around on message boards while good hardworking conservatives are out working. ;)

Although they seem to have time to listen to, and call into, talk radio for hours and hours.

I think it might be as simple as people here on the SDMB seem to have more life experience; many here have traveled around the world, are living in or have lived in larger urban environments, have worked with people from various cultures and minority groups and, if not highly educated, at least show some curiosity and interest in learning more about those who are "different" from themselves.

If you have life experience with those who might not look and act like you do, it at least gives you the insight to realize that just because others are different from you in some aspect, it doesn't mean their views are automatically less worthy. I think people who think like that are more often than not labeled as "liberals".

[squeegee]

I can't believe I'm the first to raise this -- I've found the board leans left, but there were more than a few conservatives around a few years back. More than a few, but probably not a majority or even close. Until the Iraq war in 2003. My feeling since then has been that the conservatives, or at least supporters of that war, fled the board, aside from some dead-enders (no names offered) who still defend it (or even think the WMDs are in Syria, god help us). The board has been much more Left, and to my mind less interesting, since then.

[Clothahump]

I don't want to confuse intelligence with academia, but I think that we have a high proportion of academic-types -- I don't necessarily mean people who teach, but there's a certain academic point-of-view, mindset, view of life, that I think many Dopers share.

And academia tends to be somewhat more socialistic/leftist, for whatever reason. Perhaps because they don't earn enough money to be Republicans.

And apparently they haven't been mugged yet.

[Sam Stone]

I agree with most of the stuff from above. The Internet in general skews liberal. But I also believe that there isn't much for an intellectual conservative to grasp on to these days. There is no William F Buckley. The current Republican party has repeatedly in the past 8 years taken an anti-intellectual, anti-science stance. Conservatism doesn't have to be linked with such philosophy but the Republican party is.

It's not just Buckley that the right is missing. Almost all the intellectual standard-bearers of the right are dead.

When I was young, the conservative/libertarian/free market torch was being carried by the likes of Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, Ludwig Von Mises, William F. Buckley, and Friedrich Hayek. They were intellectual/popular powerhouses.

Milton Friedman was a brilliant economist, but he was also a tireless crusader for capitalism with the public. He wrote "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free To Choose", which were best sellers. He created a TV show on PBS based on 'Free to Choose", and it was seen by millions. He was a staple in the news media, constantly giving interviews and engaging in public debate. He traveled the world and spread his ideas to other countries. He was a giant, and his death was a tragedy for libertarianism.

Ronald Reagan, lampooned as a buffoon by the left, was actually a deep philosophical thinker. He was well read of Hayek, Friedman, Kirk, Burke, and others, and his ideas and policies were always grounded in solid conservative/libertarian philosophy and economics. And he wasn't ashamed to talk about it, and use the Presidential bully pulpit to extoll the virtues of the market and freedom.

Ayn Rand of course was massively influential among young people in the 50's and 60's, and her books are still cited as some of the most influential of all time.

Robert Heinlein, though a 'mere' science fiction writer, espoused a libertarian philosophy that was deeply compelling to millions of young people, and he had a tremendous influence on the culture of the 50's and 60's.

William F. Buckley made it cool to be a conservative on campus. He made conservatism look like the smart person's politics. He was a one-man refutation of the liberal notion that conservatives were dumb hicks. As such, he showed a lot of very smart people that it was okay to be a conservative.

These people are now all dead, and their influence is waning.

There has been no one to really step up and take their place. There are no great conservative/libertarian thinkers who are both intellectually rigorous and yet able to capture the public's attention. They've been replaced by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who have replaced deep thinking with sound bites and angry tirades. When they write books, they aren't books which make intellectual arguments championing freedom, such as Friedman's "Free to Choose" - they are partisan polemics which exist merely to point the finger of blame at the other side.

Maybe this is the result of Republicans being in power for so long. Perhaps a few years in the wilderness will cause them to search for their principles and turn to people who can mount a principled defense of limited government that is economically sound. I sure hope so. Because without the balance of a vigorous defense of freedom and limited government, the rapacious growth of government is going to be a disaster for us all.

[Rand Rover]

In my experience, as long as your post actually has merit and is supportable, anybody with a brain will respect your opinion.


I disagree with this assessment.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's a remarkably honest appraisal. I imagine it's pretty difficult to own up to the fact that one's side has lost its way, as it must be for the left when the same thing happens.
I disagree with this assessment.
Well, that figures. ;)

[ToeJam]

I'd say that this is because the board reflects the real life endorsements.

The issue was pointed out in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489378) and further so in Post #20.

If you truly consider this board to be filled with "smarter than average" people, then I'm not surprised that there is a lean to the left, not because of Liberal vs. Conservative political parties, but just simply because of the way the intellectual endorsements have gone.

[Little Nemo]

And I as a conservative of course believe all these things.

Seriously, a piece of advice, Dopers: the best way to be taken seriously is to not be ridiculous. Admit that the other side is not necessarily the dumbest thing you've ever heard, and that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a victim of a severe head injury or inbreeding.The problem with this is that these really are things that Conservatives have said in this campaign about Barack Obama. And there really are people stupid enough to believe them. So Conservatives are trying to win over the idiot vote.

Now, admittedly, it may work as a tactic for winning elections. But if Conservatives want to form a political alliance with the stupid fringe, they shouldn't be surprised when their movement gets discredited for it.

[Plan B]

The problem with this is that these really are things that Conservatives have said in this campaign about Barack Obama. And how does that compare with the things said about Sarah Palin?

Getting back to some of the earlier ideas expressed, I just don't have an hour or two to put together a list of cites. It's just not worth it to me. I'm sure that if you look at the quantity and quality of statements made about Palin vs. Obama, you'd see a big difference. How many Dopers actually said Obama is a Muslim? Or a terrorist? How many dragged his children into the debate? But I have to go to work tomorrow. Someone has to keep the economy going.

[Bootis]

I also want to know who the main reoccurring characters in the Star Wars movies were, but it's a serious question, so I don't want anyone to mention anyone named Skywalker, Solo, Fett, Palpatine, Vader and so forth. Come up with some different answer please.

Now now, I was just looking for more than the obvious quick answers. If I asked about the Star Wars characters I'd exclude the same ones you did, because I'm not looking to find out something I already know.

[Little Nemo]

And how does that compare with the things said about Sarah Palin?The answer is much larger. There was certainly talk that Palin isn't competent, was picked solely because she was a woman, that she abused her office for family business, that she's too extreme in her religious beliefs - but these are all opinions based on some degree of actual facts. The only thing that was said about Palin that was outright false was the story about her not being Trig's real mother - that was wrong but it was quickly dismissed and never got the kind of continuing play that stories like "Barack is a secret Muslim" have received.

[Punintentional]

Wow, reading this thread (i did only get 10-15 posts in..) it seems that 'left-wing' is to 'SDMB' as 'SDMB' is to 'internet'.

[UncleNito]

It's not just Buckley that the right is missing. Almost all the intellectual standard-bearers of the right are dead.

[snip]

These people are now all dead, and their influence is waning.

There has been no one to really step up and take their place. There are no great conservative/libertarian thinkers who are both intellectually rigorous and yet able to capture the public's attention. They've been replaced by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who have replaced deep thinking with sound bites and angry tirades. When they write books, they aren't books which make intellectual arguments championing freedom, such as Friedman's "Free to Choose" - they are partisan polemics which exist merely to point the finger of blame at the other side.


And many of the remaining conservative intellectuals have jumped ship. See, e.g., Christopher Buckley ("To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, 'I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me.'"); Charles Fried (endorsing Obama in part because of the Palin nomination). The current Republicans have embraced anti-intellectualism with a gleeful abandon I don't remember ever seeing before in my 30 mostly right-leaning years.

I suspect this is because a lot of their ideas got a fair hearing and lost. The verdict is in on global warming. Supply-side economics turned out to be bunk. Universal health care actually seems to outperform the alternative in the real world.

Eventually the right will start changing their views to fit the evidence instead of vice-versa, the ignorant populists will once again be distributed evenly across the political spectrum*, and there will be a vibrant intellectual right. I'm wearing my Republicans for Obama button as I type this, and I look forward to that day.

* This is not to say that everyone on the right is an ignorant populist, only that it seems ATM that most ignorant populists are on the right.

[Lemur866]

Conservatism on the SDMB is at a low water mark because conservatism in the United States is at a low water mark. After 8 years of Bush/Rove/Cheney the conservative movement has crashed into the ground and then got out shovels and started digging. Eight years ago I would accept the label "conservative" because that label would be more helpful than not in allowing people to understand what my political positions were.

Not today. My political positions haven't changed (much), rather the conservative movement has turned itself into a cheerleading section for the current administration. Today, "conservative" means one thing: "I'm one of the 17% who think Bush is doing a heckuva job. And Sarah Palin is gonna be even better!"

And so there's no way I'm going to self-identify as "conservative" nowadays.

It would be nice if there was a viable political party that was in favor of cutting government spending (or at least slowing the growth of spending!), free markets, free association, education, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. As of October 27, 2008 it seems to me that the Democratic party and Senator Obama are the best I can expect.

[Sam Stone]

I suspect this is because a lot of their ideas got a fair hearing and lost. The verdict is in on global warming. Supply-side economics turned out to be bunk. Universal health care actually seems to outperform the alternative in the real world.

I think it's actually the opposite - liberal ideas have been so out-of-fashion that people have forgotten how bad they are. It's always easy to have high-minded principles and big ideas when you're not the one having to govern and make difficult decisions. It's easy to make ideas look good when they haven't been tested by reality.

As for the ideas of the right having lost... You need to take a better look around the world. Europe is full of countries with low taxes and regulations ('new Europe' especially). The most libertarian world leaders such as Vaclav Klaus had tremendous influence in the new European countries. Corporate taxes have declined around the world. Government-managed industrial policy, once the 'wave of the future', has been largely abandoned. Japan, that 80's 'shining example' of the marriage of business and government, is economically moribund. Union membership around the world is at an all-time low. Most countries have much flatter tax rates today than they did 20 years ago. The value of free trade is accepted almost universally.

So no, I don't think the ideas of the right have lost. I think the right in the United States has been hijacked by 'compassionate conservatives' like the Bush's, and by the religious right. They pay lip service to conservative economics but don't really care about them, and don't know how to implement them or how to defend them. So the right has been tarnished through association with them. George W. Bush has presided over the largest growth of government in U.S. history. He's no conservative. The steel tariffs he put in place were not conservative. The Prescription Drug Benefit was not conservative. Almost doubling the budget of the Dept. of Education was not conservative. About the only thing he can lay claim to that was conservative was low taxes, but he never cut spending to match, so his tax cuts were reckless.

But anyway, we'll have a better idea of which ideas, conservative or liberal, are better in the U.S. in about 8 years. Because the U.S. is about to take a drastic turn to the left, and we'll get to test out those ideas. Actually we did just test some out - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were big-government liberal ideas - using the government to change the rules to help poor people buy houses they could otherwise not afford. It was social engineering on a large scale. How did that work out?

[Really Not All That Bright]

George W. Bush has presided over the largest growth of government in U.S. history. He's no conservative. The steel tariffs he put in place were not conservative. The Prescription Drug Benefit was not conservative. Almost doubling the budget of the Dept. of Education was not conservative. About the only thing he can lay claim to that was conservative was low taxes, but he never cut spending to match, so his tax cuts were reckless.
You can't have it both ways. Ronald Reagan did the same thing Bush has done - ie. increase spending and decrease taxes simultaneously. Is he not a true conservative either?

Anyway, while conservative economics might be winning - and that's certainly not a settled argument - conservative social policies are clearly losing.

[Sam Stone]

You can't have it both ways. Ronald Reagan did the same thing Bush has done - ie. increase spending and decrease taxes simultaneously. Is he not a true conservative either?

Anyway, while conservative economics might be winning - and that's certainly not a settled argument - conservative social policies are clearly losing.

I don't agree with that either. Liberal social policies such as multiculturalism are now being reconsidered around the world. The Netherlands were once a bastion of liberal social policy, and they're turning back towards the right. Here in Canada, our liberal social policies such as hate speech laws and gun control are under attack. Our human rights tribunals have turned into kangaroo courts that are being mocked even in left-wing newspapers. Even the concept of international criminal courts and the supremacy of the UN as a 'world government' is being seriously challenged again.

Some conservative social ideas are failing or have failed, and good riddance. But so have many grand liberal social ideas. I don't see the pendulum moving in any particular direction.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Some conservative social ideas are failing or have failed, and good riddance. But so have many grand liberal social ideas. I don't see the pendulum moving in any particular direction.
Really? Consider the last hundred years - we've had universal suffrage, the repeal of sodomy statutes, equal employment/housing/rights legislation, minimum wages and the 40-hour work week...

[Lemur866]

But anyway, we'll have a better idea of which ideas, conservative or liberal, are better in the U.S. in about 8 years. Because the U.S. is about to take a drastic turn to the left, and we'll get to test out those ideas. Actually we did just test some out - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were big-government liberal ideas - using the government to change the rules to help poor people buy houses they could otherwise not afford. It was social engineering on a large scale. How did that work out?

I may be wrong, but I've wagered via my vote that over the next 8 years Barack Obama will run a more conservative administration than George Bush has over the past 8 years.

So I suspect that the US is NOT about to take a drasitc turn to the left. In fact I suspect the US is about to take a modest step to the right. Taxes might be higher, but how else are we going to pay off the trillions of dollars of borrowing of the last 8 years? George Bush went on a spending spree, how can we call it "leftism" when the next administration tries to pay down our debts? Such a thing used to be called "fiscal conservatism". If we want to keep the massive expansion of government spending we've seen over the last 8 years we're going to need a massive expansion of taxation to pay for it. High government spending and high taxes might not be my first choice, but better that than high government spending and low taxes.

[Lionne]

When Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, wrote that he was voting for Barack Obama he was canned from the National Review..Nitpick: He wasn't canned; he resigned from writing the column. Said as much on his recent appearance on The Daily Show.
Cite (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWEwZmYwNDE0YWI4OGI2ZTZlN2EwYTBhNmZlZDliMjc=)

[Little Nemo]

But anyway, we'll have a better idea of which ideas, conservative or liberal, are better in the U.S. in about 8 years. Because the U.S. is about to take a drastic turn to the left, and we'll get to test out those ideas. Actually we did just test some out - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were big-government liberal ideas - using the government to change the rules to help poor people buy houses they could otherwise not afford. It was social engineering on a large scale. How did that work out?It's hardly going to be a fair test. Bush started with a country that had a working economy and general peace. Obama (assuming he wins) will be starting from a much worse situation. He'll be spending a lot of his energy trying to get back to the point where Bush started from.

[mudkicker]

Cos we is smart.