Actually, I'm not. I just wrote that tag to get you to read my post. But now that you're here, give me just 30 seconds okay?

Conservatives do not mistrust educated thinking people. That is a common misconception that simply isn't true. We go to the same doctors as liberals, hire the same lawyers and accountants, and even hire the same IT guys as the rest of you. We actually value education very highly.

Neither are we non-readers. I would venture to guess that I read more intellectually challenging books and magazines than most of you here. Do I read the same books you do? Probably not. But then again, you aren't reading the ones I am either.

No, the primary difference in approach between liberals and conservatives is this: Liberals tend to believe that those who have received a specialized higher education are most qualified to lead and the rest of us should just trust their judgement while conservatives tend to believe that those who are educated in areas I am not are useful consultants to help me make informed decisions in my own best interest.

So, when I go to the doctor, I want his insights into what is wrong with me and what the treatment options might be. But I do not just sit there and allow him to order tests and treatments without my understanding what he is doing and why. When I talk to my lawyer about a legal problem, I want him to inform me on the intricacies of the law. But I don't want him to decide how to handle the matter without my understanding or consent. When it comes to my health, my finances, or my business, I am the final decision maker.

Of course not every doctor or lawyer likes doing business that way. Many of them prefer the clients who just passively accept whatever they prescribe as the proper remedy. I don't use those doctors or lawyers either.

So, for you liberals tired of the label of elitist I have a suggestion. Try to remember that we consider ourselves to be free people. We have no intentions of handing over the reins of government to the "experts" who are convinced that the books they read or the college they attended make them the ones most fit to lead a nation of ignoramuses.

If you believe that your education, reading, and introspection has given you insight with which you wish to counsel us, by all means offer it. We will listen and consider your point of view. But the decision is ultimately ours. You get a vote. But then again, so do we.

him what to do, based on what the liberal has read on the internet. The conservative trusts the doctors long years of training and experience, and follows that advice. Or if he doesn't trust the doctor, he gets a new one, one he does trust. And that, my friend, is the difference in the two.

Gosh, thanks so much for opening my eyes to how mindless and dumb I am. I had no idea that I could actually be a participant in my discussions with doctors, lawyers and other smart people. As a liberal I've felt obligated to just mindlessly follow the instructions of intellectuals, accepting the fact that as graduate of a lowly state school, I must put my trust in those who went to Harvard and Yale.

Silly me. I thought loyalty and obedience were the cardinal values of the GOP. Thanks for your detailed explanation.

Sawaro, do you read Slate much? One of the most common themes around here is that middle class and working people vote for the GOP primarily because they are too closeminded to see what is really in their own best interest. One person even claimed that allowing the uneducated to vote was the functional equivalent of disenfranchising enlightened people like himself.

So of course I don't expect you to consider yourself one of the masses who must be led - after all, you're one of the enlightened, right?

@ The true conservative:

Perhaps that was once what conservatives were about, the kind of conservative my father and grandfather have always been.

But this was before we had a president who valued loyalty above knowledge. A president who took a hard-line ideological approach to science, resulting in eight years of stagnation and falling behind the rest of the world. A president who didn't listen to intelligence that didn't support his agenda. A president who populated the White House with crooks like Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo to find out how to twist constitutional law into allowing exceptionally heinous practices.

You're describing a world that doesn't exist anymore. When Sarah Palin says she couldn't answer straight questions competently due to liberal media bias, that's anti-intellectual bullshit. Because it matters if she can name offhand concrete examples of her judicial philosophy. When she said that being Alaskan governor gives her foreign policy cred, it's anti-intellectual because she pretends that what she knows is sufficient.

The Bush administration has been aggressively anti-intellectual, even to the point of one official being quoted mocking "reality-based" policies. Loyalty to cronies (see, e.g., "Heckuva job, Brownie") and ideology (see, e.g., questioning people being interviewed for jobs in Iraqi reconstruction about their views on abortion) completely erased any need for merit, training or ability for even the most important jobs. The result is corruption and incompetence at every level of government.

Are all "conservatives" anti-intellectual? Of course not. Karl Rove realized that at least for 2 elections dividing people and creating fear was the way to (narrowly) win. If that meant playing "anti-intellectual", well, it worked for awhile, didn't it?

I'm grateful that, now that we have so many serious issues to deal with in the country, people are so much less likely to be distracted by the stirring up of a false class warfare by the Republicans.

No, the primary difference in approach between liberals and conservatives is this: Liberals tend to believe that those who have received a specialized higher education are most qualified to lead and the rest of us should just trust their judgement while conservatives tend to believe that those who are educated in areas I am not are useful consultants to help me make informed decisions in my own best interest.

I'm sorry, but this little theory is just so much BS. Do you actually have any evidence for this? Even anecdotal evidence? I really doubt it. It's just some little story you've concocted that fits in with the narrative you've created in your head about what amkes conservatives good and liberals bad.

Not to say there aren't plenty of these BS theories coming out of liberals either, but I get really tired of listening to people's pet theories about what makes thier side better than the other.

DelayedKarma:

No, the primary difference in approach between liberals and conservatives is this: Liberals tend to believe that those who have received a specialized higher education are most qualified to lead and the rest of us should just trust their judgement while conservatives tend to believe that those who are educated in areas I am not are useful consultants to help me make informed decisions in my own best interest.

I'm sorry, but this little theory is just so much BS. Do you actually have any evidence for this? Even anecdotal evidence? I really doubt it. It's just some little story you've concocted that fits in with the narrative you've created in your head about what amkes conservatives good and liberals bad.

Not to say there aren't plenty of these BS theories coming out of liberals either, but I get really tired of listening to people's pet theories about what makes thier side better than the other.

Ummm . . . Well now, actually, I do have evidence to back up my contention. Have you read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" The whole point of that book is that conservatives only think that way because they are dupes.

Oh, and you have to believe that embryonic stem cell research is a moral good. The scientists tell us it will be very useful. If you disagree, you are anti-science.

And you can't have a smoking section in your resuraunt. And you must wear your seatbelt. And you musn't sell Oreos that actually taste good. The poor dummies can't possibly know what's good for them or take care of themselves.

In every case, it is always the libs who will tell you they know better and must take care of you whether you like it or not.

Liberal TELLS the doctor what to do... tells based on some third party source which may or may not be appropriate for him. Because the liberal thinks he has better judgment than the professional he's paying.

All analogies break down, but try this one. A liberal goes into the auto shop, is told he needs his fuel injectors cleaned. He tells the mechanic just to put more air in the tires, because he read that poor gas mileage comes from under inflated tires.

Silly me, I thought I was paying the doctor/mechanic for his expertise.
If I didn't trust him, I'd be in a different office/shop.

Stop-truth-decay:

Liberal TELLS the doctor what to do... tells based on some third party source which may or may not be appropriate for him. Because the liberal thinks he has better judgment than the professional he's paying. All analogies break down, but try this one. A liberal goes into the auto shop, is told he needs his fuel injectors cleaned. He tells the mechanic just to put more air in the tires, because he read that poor gas mileage comes from under inflated tires. Silly me, I thought I was paying the doctor/mechanic for his expertise. If I didn't trust him, I'd be in a different office/shop.

We heard you the first time, "Stop-truth-decay." It was a dumb analogy then, and it's dumb now.

Most of your post seems to be a rant about liberals legislating things like seatbelts and trans-fats. That's a whole different issue than the one I replied to. Your story wasn't about liberals forcing you to do what your doctor advises. It was about the choice to follow that advice or not.

Bringing it back to your original theory, you seem to feel that because liberals agree with experts more often than not, they don't think for themselves. First of all, that's a big jump in logic. You could just as easily claim that means that liberals are smarter (I'm not claiming that, although I've heard plenty on these boards that do).

Second, I don't think it's correct. What about economic policy? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of economics experts you'd hear from (until very recently) are free market oriented and favor free trade (how many socialist economists do you know of?). Liberals, at least of the less moderate variety, tend to lean toward more government regulation and against free trade. According to your theory they'd do the opposite.

This is the same stupid stereotype as the one that says conservatives are all robots that blindly follow leaders like George Bush even when they're exposed as incompetent. People follow those who they trust and agree with. It's just who those people are that is different.

This whole thread has become stupid. True conservative started with the arguement that the liberal flaw is to blindly trust those they think are more informed while conservatives think for themselves.

Next comes Stop Truth Decay who goes the exact opposite way and insists the flaw of liberals is rather than listening to an expert's advice and making a decision, will uninformedly tell the expert what is best.

The two of you are aruging exact opposite points while trying to make the same case.

Probably everyone can think of plenty of anecdotal evidence of both liberals and conservatives either completely trusting a specialist or telling the specialist what they need.

[Most of your post seems to be a rant about liberals legislating things like seatbelts and trans-fats. That's a whole different issue than the one I replied to. Your story wasn't about liberals forcing you to do what your doctor advises. It was about the choice to follow that advice or not.]

Actually, you've got it backwards. The whole doctor/lawyer thing was just an example to make my point that in political issues, liberals tend to think that if the majority disagrees with their opinions, then that just proves the majority are stupid/narrow-minded/uneducate­d/bigots (you choose the correct label for the situation) and their wishes should be ignored.

So you end up with legislators who feel it is their duty to make sure you eat healthily, to make sure waitresses ande customers who are too stupid to know tobacco smoke might hurt them can't ever go into smoky resturaunts, and to make sure you wear your seatbelt. You end up with judges who use the term "unconstitutional" to describe any legislative action they personally disagree with. And you end up with Barak Obama saying people in PA only "cling to their guns, their religion, or to antipathy to people who don't look like they do" because they are mad that the global economy left them behind.

My point is that the resentment of "liberal elites" is created, not because liberals think differently, not because you went to a more expensive college or might make more money, but because all too often your side has given up on persuasion as the tool for implementing your policies and have resorted to coercion.

[Bringing it back to your original theory, you seem to feel that because liberals agree with experts more often than not, they don't think for themselves.]

NO, not really. I believe that your side just assumes that when conservatives hold different opinions than you do, it simply means we are too incompetant to form worthwhile opinions.

tribble22:

This whole thread has become stupid. True conservative started with the arguement that the liberal flaw is to blindly trust those they think are more informed while conservatives think for themselves.

Next comes Stop Truth Decay who goes the exact opposite way and insists the flaw of liberals is rather than listening to an expert's advice and making a decision, will uninformedly tell the expert what is best.

The two of you are aruging exact opposite points while trying to make the same case.

Probably everyone can think of plenty of anecdotal evidence of both liberals and conservatives either completely trusting a specialist or telling the specialist what they need.

It is you who don't get it. We are both arguing that it is the liberals who tend to set themselves up as the unquestionable authorities.

You're either being disingenuous or you weren't very good at making your point in the first post. In that post you said:

No, the primary difference in approach between liberals and conservatives is this: Liberals tend to believe that those who have received a specialized higher education are most qualified to lead and the rest of us should just trust their judgement while conservatives tend to believe that those who are educated in areas I am not are useful consultants to help me make informed decisions in my own best interest.

This is not the same point as:

...liberals tend to think that if the majority disagrees with their opinions, then that just proves the majority are stupid/narrow-minded/uneducate­d/bigots (you choose the correct label for the situation) and their wishes should be ignored.

or

We are both arguing that it is the liberals who tend to set themselves up as the unquestionable authorities.

The only way these are the same point is if you are claiming that all people who have recieved higher education are liberals, which I don't think you are.

All your doing is throwing out one theory, then the next, then the next, without much thought about reality. The check on whether the theory is true isn't with reality, it's with whatever preconcieved notions you have in your head about conservatives and liberals. Conservatives do this, liberals do that. It's just a bunch of BS. You say liberals have given up on persuasion and resorted to coercion, but do you really not see conservatives doing the same. Liberals may pass smoking bans and trans-fat bans (which I don't necessarily agree with), but conservatives try to pass abortion and gay marriage bans. Both sides think they're fixing a societal problem while the other side is infringing on personal choice and responsibility.

Both sides coerce when they can because persuasion doesn't seem to work. I think the reason is that too many people are taking on their political beliefs as their identity (like naming yourself "The True Conservative" on a message board, for example). When you do that you're closing yourself off to pursuasion. Now I don't just have to change your mind on an issue, I have to change who you are. That's a much more difficult task.