I looked at that already, indeed I do criticized them in the past for it, but Orrin Hatch (R) continues to cover their backs.
A lot of the realities of social sciences are just more compatible with liberal beliefs. If you seriously study, say, development economics, there is just no way to get around that colonialism did have a lasting negative impact, neo-liberal policies had a disastrous effect in many countries, and that public health and education systems really do benefit nations. It’s not really a matter of ideology when the evidence is there and quite clear.
So a die-hard conservative is either going to do some serious questioning of their beliefs (and likely see the other side), or will stick with their beliefs and likely be choose another field.
There are a few areas where a conservative bias triumphs though. For example, households with two parents are far less likely to be in poverty compared to single-parent households. Similarly, strong religious faith tends to be correlated with better health, although admittedly the people with less religious belief aren’t atheists or agnostics but rather degenerate/narcisstic superstitious types.
Things must have changed since the dark ages of Technology in the sixties, seventies and eighties when every other IT worker seemed to be a liberal hippy with long hair and an attitude problem!
In Europe, the US Democratic Party would be considered center-right. So there’s a distinct problem with calibration in these arguments.
ETA:
…though not at IBM.
Its not so much that the Democrats are all uniformly centre-right as that the Democrats are the only broad tent party left contains everybody from centre-right types to somebody like Bernie Sanders on the left.
Wha?
Cite that two-parent households significantly skew conservative compared to single-parent? Are you honestly suggesting that liberals are all divorcees and unwed mothers?
I don’t even understand your last sentence.
Of course not. But conservatives are more eager to promoting marriage (well heterosexual marriage at the least) .
I meant that more religious people tend to be healthier but that this is because its not that atheists are unhealthier but because what’s usually went by “less religious” people are those low-IQ/self-control types (usually lower-middle class or lower although there are some upper-middle class types like that too especially in beach cities, and who are of all races) who could care less about a deity (although they would eagerly read the daily horoscopes) and who waste away their lives via an excess of sex, junk food, and drugs; read no books except for trashy romances and diet books; and consider gangsta rap or Justin Bieber to be the height of musical art.
Sorry if it seems like a rant…
Yes, I agree that’s an accurate characterization.
But there’s another effect is well. Consider that Carter’s American was more conservative than Thatcher’s Britain, both in terms of taxes and access to universal health care. Back during the 1970s, I’d argue that the Dems had somewhat more nuttiness than the Republicans did. That was a time when Nixon called for wage and price controls while President Gerald Ford raised taxes on the wealthy and corporations as well as supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. The Democrats passed unsustainable increases in Social Security benefits (addressed by the Greenspan commission during the 1980s) and glommed on to proposals such as the nuclear freeze which was arguably a gimmick.
The point being that relative to the rest of the OECD, the US has always been pretty far to the right.
The availability of divorce also correlates with increased status of women in society and a decline in domestic violence. So it seems the possible benefits are “more money” vs “being a slave, being beaten up and possibly being murdered”. I’m not at all convinced conservative bias triumphs.
(If someone were involved in certain areas of the social sciences they might come across such information, and would probably be less likely to view marriage as something that should be supported for its own sake.)
Who said that divorce should be banned for all reasons especially in cases of spousal abuse? I meant in cases documented here http://american.com/archive/2013/may/nudging-the-right-to-harness-behavioral-science:
Yes, who said that? Not me, anyway.
While you’re probably aware of this, state funded public health measures like vaccination, sanitation and primary health are not the same thing as healthcare in general. If you’ve studied development economics, you’ll know those are ‘public goods’. No conservative economist will say government should not fund these. You cannot extend that to saying a lot of development economics is more compatible with liberal beliefs, of which government funded healthcare is one(I think). Nor is the evidence at all conclusive that neo-liberal policies themselves had a ‘disastrous’ effect in many countries.
Conservatives’ thinking tends to be more concrete than abstract. They are more comfortable with black and white concepts, often expressing things as absolutes. In the extreme, they say things like “A=A” without any apparent embarrassment at all. The social sciences can be very uncomfortable if that is your cognitive style.
It’s self-selection.
In re: the divorce tangent: Nobody reasonably argues against the idea that having more than one provider/caretaker allows for greater resources or support.
Conservatives don’t care about how families are doing. They care whether other people are following the “rules” and prefer to shame and condemn, if not legally interfere with those that don’t.
Nobody argues that vaccination campaigns in their own country is a bad idea.
But it’s an objective, inarguable fact that the Bretton Woods one size fits all “structural adjustment” approach of the 80s and 90s encouraged poor countries to gut their health and education systems, which directly led to poor outcomes, and in cases like drug resistant TB, actual lasting disaster. Even the IMF has backed off of this line of thinking, because in practice it failed terribly. Today, changes in IMF policy and the changing roles of NGOs (who have taken over what many would consider basic government services) has filled in some of these gaps.
It was perfectly ideologically sound, and it didn’t work.
The IMF gets involved to provide loans in cases where countries have balance of payments issues. As lenders, they impose conditions on the countries and encourage practicing austerity. They do not encourage countries to gut their social spending. Social spending gets gutted because these countries typically have bad governments. The failure of neo-liberal ideas did not happen because the ideas were wrong. That failure happened because the ideas were not sufficient and needed to be supplemented by better institutions. That is the change in thinking that has occurred. Not some ideological shift from a conservative to liberal perspective, and your characterisation of the change as such was what I take issue with in the first place. There is considerable evidence in fact, that allowing old fashioned market economics to work delivers massive developmental gains. China and India alone are sufficient evidence.
With the caveat that I try not to have political opinions anymore[li], something feels deeply ironic about the quoted statement: it reflects a very black-and-white perspective on conservative and progressive thinking. There are too many exceptions to make that rule feel reasonable to me. Progressives may outnumber conservatives in the social sciences and humanities, but please note that in absolute terms there are still a great number of conservative persons in such fields. [/li]
[* For any belief you’d care to name, individuals smarter (and dumber) than I am likely hold it. What hope has anyone of even accidentally stumbling across the truth, let alone accepting it over the innumerable alternatives? Frankly, the black-and-white absolute thinking rears its head as not as conservative thinking, but as any kind of “I have the truth; you’re totally wrong”. To which adherents of any political ideology seem equally prone.]
Since when is India an old fashioned market economy?
Are you seriously holding up China and India as examples of Washington Consensus success? Your realize both these countries told the IMF to fuck off, right? And that neither one of their governments manages the economy with a particularly light touch? They did the opposite of austerity.
Structural adjustment just didn’t work. That’s not a matter of ideology, and all you are demonstrating is why being stuck to such an ideology is a bad fit for actual acholarly analysis.