So, Barack Obama’s approval rating is falling so quickly that it may soon be journeying to the center of the earth.
So, the economy is in such terrible shape that those supposedly untouchable middle class tax cuts may expire.
So, Florida happens to have three of the most corrupt politicians in the country running for one of its United States Senate seats.
Instead of my usual weekly analysis of political happenings across the United States, I have decided to take a different approach with today’s article. A few nights ago, I stumbled across a very interesting study conducted by the American Enterprise Institute. Its purpose was to answer the age-old question of Who is Smarter; A Godless, Elitist Liberal or A Bible-Thumping, Good-Ole-Boy Conservative?
Okay, okay. The study did not include the theatrics, but you get the idea.
I must say that its results did not surprise me in the least. Lazar Stankov, a visiting professor at Singapore’s National Institute of Education, came to the conclusion that per individual, “conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, vocabulary, and analogy test scores” while, on a national level, “conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education”.
Now, before my leftist readers begin to break out the champagne, it should be noted that Stankov’s definition of conservatism does not apply to free market economics. Essentially, he is referring to extreme social conservatives — the Fine Folks who just love the idea of limited government except when People Who Are Not Just Like Them are added to the equation. At the instant that diversity comes into the picture, well, then all bets are off.
We see these social ultraconservatives jam packing Sarah Palin’s rallies on a daily basis. When interviewed by members of the press, they are more often than not unable to provide a coherent answer to questions regarding major political or cultural issues. They are, however, extremely proud of their “plain” or, more endearingly, “salt of the earth” attitude and outlook on life. Should one wish to waste his or her time and damage a few brain cells in the process, it would be advisable to browse through a few pages of the far right fringe discussion forum Free Republic. It will not be long before the person in question is able to attain a decent understanding of the socially ultraconservative thought process.
It is not a pretty thing, I can tell you that much.
The findings of the AEI’s study give reason as to why I do not describe my political ideology as uniformly “conservative”, but “Americanist” instead. One of the men I admire most in American politics is Nelson Rockefeller, who was Gerald Ford’s vice president and an unabashed capitalist. During his life, he was a strong proponent of Americanism — fiscal and domestic/national security conservatism merged with social centrism — which he recognized as a pragmatic and intelligent school of thought that was capable of bringing a vast majority of Americans together in order to fix the nation’s problems.
While many may decry my assessment of the study as “caving” or “capitulating” to the Left, I am doing nothing of the sort. You see, the study did not determine that leftists are intelligent — but that liberals, on average, were more so than social ultraconservatives.
As any student of American politics knows, there is all the difference in the world between a “liberal” and a “leftist”. Actually, I would say that, when all is said and done, leftists share far more in common with social ultraconservatives than liberals do with Americanists.
After all, both leftists and social ultraconservatives want to control your life — and we all know that the least intelligent of all personality types is a tyrant.