My view is that liberals treat the less educated with more respect than conservatives do. The liberal approach is that “if they just knew the facts” people would embrace the liberal positions. Conservatives, on the other hand, pander to people’s fear and emotions which really shoes their disdain of their constituents.
Are you saying it’s somehow better for liberals to sneer at you for being stupid because you don’t have more formal education than when conservatives do the same thing?
I remember seeing statistics that the demographic with the highest percentage of Trump voters was men with a high school education or less. (I think they were also white, but I can’t recall for certain.)
I wonder how many people who are onboard the whole global warming thing actually understands the science behind it. I understand only in the broadest sense imaginable but it’s not like I have a great knowledge of the scientific body of literature on the subject.
Generally speaking, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone just come out and sneer at someone for lacking an education. It’s more along the lines of “Why do these people vote against their own self-interest?” As if they understand what’s in their best interest better than the people doing the voting.
The thing is, it’s not primarily a lack of education. It’s a disdain for those who are educated.
There’s a difference between not understanding how the chemical bonds in CO2 and CH4 vs. N2 and O2 contribute to warming of the atmosphere vs. not believing the experts who do understand such things.
There’s a difference between not understanding viral replication, how the COVID-19 spike protein interacts with ACE receptors, etc. vs. thinking Dr. Fauci is a liar just because one doesn’t like what he has to say.
There’s a difference between not understanding the details of Big Bang cosmology (I know I certainly don’t) vs. thinking Sagan, Hawking, and deGrasse Tyson are a bunch of liars just because they don’t have a definitive explanation for every last detail of the origin of the universe.
The list goes on. It’s the disdain for those who do know better, not the lack of education on technical details, which is the problem.
Sure. But the standard isn’t “does one understand the chemistry of the carbon oxygen double bond in CO2, or the currents under the Antarctic ice shelves, or the names and structures of the proteins that plants use to conduct photosynthesis”, and so on. The standard should be “does one trust the experts who do understand such things, and follow their advice despite not understanding the technical details.” The latter doesn’t take education, it just takes not being a selfish person who cares only about one’s immediate future.
I’d honestly like to hear more from our non-USA posters on this. Both societies that have better established definitions of class and not, because while all nations have their issues, it seems pretty damn rabid in modern America.
As for my opinion on the OP, I do expect that I have a degree of prejudice against those with less formal education, but it’s not sneering, and it also acknowledges that they may well have skills and talents despite that.
One of my wife’s and my best friends never managed to get more than a few classes at college, and has a crippling stress/anxiety when it comes to classroom training, especially math. They’re smart as a whip though, and extreme skilled in computer networking systems. To the point when they tried to squeeze in some adult college classes in their own field, they were accused of plagiarism - only to find out that the online checker detected similarities between their work and an online source which turned out to be them.
And they make twice what my wife makes with her new PhD.
But I also know how a lack of formal education seems to make it easier (not causal, just easier) for people who “just do their own research” to find some bit of fluff online to support their own preconceptions and scoff at all the ‘experts’. This is the case for my estranged step-father, who almost died once from the two times he got COVID and still refused to get the vaccinated.
I do think that a lot of the attitudes reported by the OP are indeed classist - because of the assumption that anyone who doesn’t have a college education isn’t trying hard enough (looks at spouse’s mountain of student loans), but I will grant, however poorly I am doing it, that the resulting lack of education leaves you with fewer tools to analyze your own internal and external reality, and more options to be swayed by those who claim they and they alone have it all figured out.
One difference is that education is more objectively determinable, in my opinion.
It’s true that you can give someone an IQ test, but that at most measures one aspect of intelligence.
Donald Trump got a degree from what is now the number one ranked real estate department in the country, and may have also been number one when he went (except that they didn’t have such rankings then). I do not think this such an easy major — there must be a lot of math. And I think he graduated before the era of significant grade inflation. So I some sense he is intelligent and educated, even though he is very bad at evaluating conspiracy theories.
A lot of college grads never read nonfiction books after they graduate. Haven’t they forgotten most of what they learned by now? My wife did not go to college but is much better read, especially in history, than almost all college grads. Not a brag, just a fact.
I know so many idiots with degrees that I don’t think this is a problem for me. But I do have a disdain for willful ignorance. Being given the opportunity to learn and then choosing not to learn.
I don’t understand it and I can’t respect it.
For example, if I were talking to a conservative about an issue that I didn’t have a lot of knowledge about, let’s say economics, if they presented me with new information, I would check out that information, determine if it’s corroborated and assimilate it into my understanding of that issue, to the best of my ability. Doesn’t mean I would agree with their argument, but I would do my best to pick up whatever knowledge I could during the exchange, even if I thought they were mostly full of shit.
I have also sought out perspectives different than my own for as far back as I can remember. Because I like learning.
There are people in the world that are not like this. There are people who have zero curiosity and just accept at face value whatever aligns with their values and never question whether the evidence exists to support their values in the first place. I have always been frustrated by these people, literally since grade school. Learning for its own sake is a worthy end and it is critical to navigating the world effectively.
I just find it galling.
It’s pretty dead-on. Rich white people flat-out hate poor white people, don’t want poor white people around, and disdain their opinions, entertainments and interests; middle classers hate poorer white people mainly because they take their behavior cues from the rich ones and copy their attitudes. Tarring poor white people with the broad brush of “deplorables” (and if I hadn’t had reason to distrust and dislike the Clinton woman before she said that, that statement of where she really stands with regard to her quondam inferiors would be all I needed) is mostly a way for the imitative middle class to feel superior to poor white people and to suck up to those above them on their ugly social ladder.
Thus, their grovelling respect for the kind and direction of soi disant education which reinforces the power imbalances necessary to maintain their self-defined superiority.
I can’t speak for the majority of less educated white people but I do fall into that category myself. Most of the people I associate with fall into that category. It is my impression that the majority of us would really not even think about politics. When we feel it is threatening to our society or families of course we take interest. Racism and homophobia are almost non existent. Migration issues have nothing to do with racial issues. As for nationalism, there is nothing I can see about nationalism that isn’t just a voting issue. Conservatives feel like they are being unfairly labeled for favoring positions that have been part of this country for as far back as any of us can remember. But they are certainly not villains.
Look at the US healthcare debate for an example. A liberal would think that presenting the facts that every other industrialized country in the world spends less money on healthcare, covers everyone, and has better outcome is sufficient to convince someone. A conservative just says “socialism and death panels”. To me, the former shows more respect. And yes, in some cases one does no more about what is in someone’s self interest than they do. I regularly rely on other people knowing more about what is in my self interest than I do.
I pretty much agree. But, again, you have a lot of educated people telling others that global warming is a hoax. And when you’re not very educated, it can be difficult to see through that kind of baloney. I know there have been a few times I’ve spotted some grade A bull%#$% simply because of some half-remembered facts from the Biology 101 course I took as an undergraduate. I do wonder how many people who follow the facts when it comes to their beliefs are actually following the facts. i.e. Are they actually following the facts and listening to experts or are they just following their peer group or adhering to political orthodoxy?
The liberal in your example isn’t taking the point of view of the conservative into account. He’s making the assumption that the conservative shares the same values as the liberal. i.e. That prioritizing money spent or covering everyone over other concerns is the right thing to do, so obviously once the conservative is made aware of this he’ll fall in line. Which is rather disdainful I think even if I tend to side with the liberal’s point of view here.
Chris Arnade discusses the divide between those who once were front row kids, and those who chose seats in the back row. Its an interesting lens for understanding social class in America.
We had compassion for those who got left behind, but thought that our job was to provide them an opportunity (no matter how small) to get where we were. It didn’t occur to us that what we valued wasn’t what everyone else wanted. They were the people who couldn’t or didn’t want to leave their town or their family to get an education at an elite college, the people who cared more about their faith than about science. If we were the front row, they were the back row. …
When communities and towns are destroyed, partly because of the front row’s policies of globalization, the front row solution is, “Well, just move.” What matters is growth at all costs—even if it is brutal—and that requires everyone, always, to be economic migrants. The front row likes to say that the U.S. is a country of migrants, where people have always moved for jobs. It has been done before—the Dust Bowl, the northern migration of African Americans. But those migrations were responses to failure, not signs of success.
the corollary is that there has always been an anti-intellectual tendency in US–the “common sense” vs “egghead” ethos. Just look at how the US supposedly values education, but the economic fallout from underfunded inner-city or rural schools, and underpaid/undervalued teachers, not to mention the high cost of higher education, makes that a questionable claim.
I don’t agree that assuming common values is being disdainful. The values being stated here are basically universal. People of course would prefer to pay less and get more. And no one but a monster would want people to suffer if they can be treated while everyone else is also better off. These aren’t things that the liberal values because they are liberal.
The issue is generally that the conservative doesn’t believe these facts. They don’t believe that you can pay less and get better care. They don’t think you can cover everyone without making things worse for everyone else.
Sure, in theory, there could be some other concern that liberals haven’t thought of, and that conservatives find more important. But then that would be on them to articulate said concern. “Death panels” and “socialism” clearly aren’t that.
I tend to assume most conservatives are decent people who believe stuff that is false. Rarely are my moral values and those of any conservative I know very much out of line. I do not think that is being disdainful.
So people should just shut up and listen to their betters, is what you’re saying. Because we can’t possibly know or understand the situation as well as the experts who are held up as authority figures.
It’s disdain for those who claim to know better, so we should all do what they say. As if “the experts” weren’t bought and sold every day; as if “the experts” didn’t get proved wrong. We’re just supposed to accept what the guy in the white labcoat says because he’s an “expert”, he’s a “scientist”, and has a clipboard in his hand with numbers all over it that prove he’s righter and smarter and better than you, and so we should fall in line.
Just for fun, I looked up the verbatim quote in context.
You can see it at:
Can you point out anywhere in there where “deplorables” is equated to “poor white people”?
As Sunup pointed out, your interpretation of her words is the polar opposite of the point the Clinton was actually making with the Deplorables comment. What she was actually saying was that while some portion of the Trump base were die hard racists and bigots (this is undeniable) not all of them were. Some were misled and could be reached and so it was important not to paint them all with a broad brush. But of course all this got lost in the soundbite.
deleted my post. It came out a bit more snippy than intended