And that over-broad generalization makes it impossible to explain the existence of the numerous conservatives who support protectionism.
Give it up, Sam. There simply is no meaningful, specific ideological claim you can make about “conservatives” that applies to all conservatives, so you’re just going to have to bite the bullet and use qualifiers on your statements.
Making meaningful statements about broad ideological categories is tough enough already, without having to clean up after all these sweeping generalizations.
The reason it’s an over-generalization is because it’s completely tiresome to have to explain every fringe movement and sub-movement difference within conservatism. It should also go without saying that, while conservatism itself is pro-market, pro-free trade, and anti-regulation, individual conservatives may be none of the above, for the simple reason that they are hypocrites. Just like there are plenty of leftists who claim to be all about sharing and caring for the poor and helping the environment, yet live in big mansions, get easements passed to kick the poor off of beaches near their homes, oppose wind power where they can see it, and fly around in personal jet aircraft (see: hollywood).
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
The reason it’s an over-generalization is because it’s completely tiresome to have to explain every fringe movement and sub-movement difference within conservatism. [\QUOTE]
The problem is, who is to say what true conservatism, or true liberalism are? When discussing the topic, you continually end up with counterexamples thrown into your face, but if you try to say “oh yes, but they are a sub movement or a fringe movement” then you are dancing with a True Scotsman. I don’t say this to be combative, it’s just a problem for all sides.
All right, now this rhetoric has passed out of the realm of over-generalization into the realm of batshit craziness, if you ask me. As Princhester notes, this is a True Scotsman argument, pure and simple. It certainly does not go without saying that “conservatism itself” is necessarily, e.g., pro-free trade or anti-regulation; it depends on the circumstances of the trade, the kind of regulation, and which conservative(s) you’re talking to. There are respectable traditions of conservative thought on both sides of many major issues. You can’t simply declare that “conservatism itself” agrees with the position you happen to favor and expect to get away with it.
After all, one could know all the intricacies of the human nervous system, or how to design a rocket, but know remarkably little about political issues. In my experience, scientists and engineers tend to be astonishingly arrogant, often without knowing it, which could affect their view on political issues and will affect their stubbornness.
Personally I find that making unfounded and insulting generalizations about an entire group of people based on their profession displays a remarkably arrogance and vanity. Namely, the arrogance to believe that one’s personal observations generalize to populations as a whole, as well as the vanity to belief that one’s pre-conceived notions aren’t full of crap.
That is merely a possible explanation of why academics (in subjects not directly related to politics) would have and proclaim political views at all. But why would vanity dispose them mostly to one side of the political spectrum and not the other?
So how about jounalists? They’re more entrenched in “the Real World” than most people by virtue of their jobs. They’re exposed to a wide variety of people and situations, and they see them first hand. And yes, they too have to deal with all the crap that a “regular job” can carry with it.
Yet, the media is liberally biased. Broadly brushed, of course.