Conservatives need not apply? < "stupid people are generally conservative ">

Robert Brandon, chair of the Duke University Philosophy Department, gives this explanation of why faculties at U.S. universities usually lean to the political left: "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire." Professor Brandon, expounding on the 21st century implications of that 19th century British philosopher's observation: "Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."

That scholarly perspective was reported in Tuesday's Duke Chronicle, the "independent daily" at the school. So were these statistics from a Duke Conservative Union study that cross-referenced the university's faculty list with North Carolina voter registration records: Of the faculty members and deans included in the survey, 128 are registered Democrats, 8 are registered Republicans and 28 are unaffiliated.

In intellectual terms, Professor Brandon's smug thesis raises another question: If he's so bright, how could he be dim enough not only to believe such an absurd notion, but to hail it publicly?

Meanwhile, academics, like the rest of us, can be outstanding, mediocre or lousy at their jobs regardless of their political persuasions. Professors also aren't the only ones who advance interesting -- occasionally even persuasive -- theories on why conservatives are so rarely found on our nation's university faculties.

But no political party or ideology has a monopoly on intelligence -- or virtue. And that's a higher-education lesson to remember during this election year.

Deconstructivist Sublimations: Nihilism, dialectic postcultural theory and pretextual rationalism

Why would anyone want to redirect the urges of someone who seeks to destroy "art" created from corrogated steel and cinder blocks?
And what would the first theory and first counter theory be whan analyzing the rationalization for anarchy? How on earth could anarchy be rationalized before or after the textbook theories are applied, anyway? Apparently, the brilliant professor cannot even see the two oxymorons contained within one title.

What intrigues me, though, is that the entire concept begins with the premise that destroying lousy art is an act of rebellion against law and order. How obtuse.

(Are we having fun, yet? Let's make that challenge to Duke!)

Those brilliant professors, those accurate literary references: Prof. Robert Brandon, chair of the philosophy department at Duke, is quoted as saying (thanks to InstaPundit and Andrew Sullivan for the pointer):

"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.

"Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."

Well, here's the exact quote from Michael St. John Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill 454 (1954), quoting Mill's letter in whic he said this:

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the aw of the constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honourable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party . . . There is so much defense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."

What's more, here's the original statement to which he was alluding, from his Representative Government:

The Conservatives, as being by the law of their existence the stupidest party, have much the greatest sins of this description to answer for: and it is a melancholy truth, that if any measure were proposed, on any subject, truly, largely, and far-sightedly conservative, even if Liberals were willing to vote for it, the great bulk of the Conservative party would rush blindly in and prevent it from being carried.

Mill never said that stupid people are generally conservative -- he said that stupid people in the England of his era belonged to the Conservative Party. Mill, as a partisan, wrote a partisan rant about the Conservative Party; he said nothing about conservatives generally. It's hard to see how his comment has anything to do with conservatism in 2004. (Note that the problem can't just be explained as an error on the part of the Duke Chronicle; even if Prof. Brandon said "Conservative" and the reporter wrote it as "conservative," the problem is with Prof. Brandon's using a quote about a particular party as if it were a quote about conservatism generally. Nor is it easily dismissable as an obvious joke, especially given Prof. Brandon's talk about "Mill's analysis.")

If some liberal professors (who are probably pretty far from 1860s Liberals) want to express their contempt for conservatives (who are probably pretty far from 1860s Conservatives), then it seems to me that they shouldn't call on John Stuart Mill to support their prejudices.

I for one, find myself in agreement with the professor!

Conservatives are generally stupid!

We stupidly believe that our dignity and principles have an intrinsic value which should not be sold to the government in exchange for a little more supposed security.

We stupidly believe that a dollar earned is worth ten pilfered from other hard working individuals.

We stupidly place our faith in the wisdom of the common man making free and open choices.

We may be stupid, but at least we can take comfort that we live our lives in honor and not as as some two-bit sycophant who constantly has figure out what his boss thinks before he can develop his own opinion.

Finally, we are stupid enough to believe that as individuals we are responsible for our own happiness. Now for a stupid question. When is the last time you saw a happy liberal?

"Alas, the principles of Conservatism, such as smaller government, are looked down upon by those who depend on the government for their daily bread."
Oh how right you are there!
. In fact, most of the "Elite's" are incapable of doing anything but working as proffesors. Without the educational establishment to keep them in a job, it's a good chance they'd be part of the homeless community.

It also explains why the left are so consistent in their demands for more government spending on education. Hey: they gotta live you know!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.