Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
College Freshman: Leftward and Sober into the Future!
UCLA has been tracking the attitudes of college freshmen on many topics for 43 years. Here's some data, courtesy of the always interesting Inside Higher Education, from the latest tally:
The proportion of students who describe themselves as "middle-of-the-road" politically continues to decline, hitting an all-time low of 43.3 percent, while the proportion who describe themselves as liberal and far left grew to 31 and 3.2 percent, respectively. "This is the largest percentage of students categorizing themselves as liberal since 1973," states the survey. The survey finds that 20.7 percent of freshmen characterize themselves as conservative, down slightly from 23.1 percent the year before.
The report finds increasing support among freshmen for liberal causes—including same-sex marriage. Support for environmental causes continues to grow.
Freshmen are also, apparently, partying less in high school. In 2008, 18.8 percent say they partied an average of six or more hours a week, half the 36.8 percent total in 1987.
The percentages of freshmen who drank beer (38 percent) and wine or liquor (43.9 percent) occasionally or frequently as high school students are also the lowest they've been in 43 years of collecting data.
Well, thanks George W. Bush, for turning a generation more to the left and making them sober up. Yet another legacy to be proud of!
Eighty-six percent reported that they "frequently or occasionally" discuss politics, an indicator of engagement that will doubtless garner praise from most quarters. That might be the one that fills me with sadness the most. Politics are of course crucially important, especially in an overweening state such as ours (and one that keeps getting bigger and bigger across every dimension). But politics is ultimately a grim zero-sum theater of operations. And life is so much richer in other areas of human activity.
It's hard to know without seeing the full survey (which costs a good deal of moolah to access) precisely what those students describing themselves as liberal are thinking in terms of government action. To be pro-gay marriage, for instance, could be a sign of an incipient libertarian streak in students, rather than a traditional big government liberal.
|1.22.09 @ 8:05AM|#
I'd be quite interested to see the same college freshmen answer
the same questions in ten years (excluding the ones who are still
in school). A few years in the adult world, with a real job (again,
not a job in academia) does strange things to one's politics.
Of course, in ten years we'll all be working for the fedral
gummint, so maybe their politics won't change a whit.
|1.22.09 @ 8:07AM|#
A bunch of drab socialista wealth appropriaters. greeaaat... bet the sorority chicks are fat too.
|1.22.09 @ 8:17AM|#
You miss the point stubby - the students who were identifying as conservatives in much higher numbers ten and fifteen years ago hadn't spent any time in the adult world, either.
Gilbert Martin|1.22.09 @ 8:17AM|#
"Well, thanks George W. Bush, for turning a generation more to
the left..."
How do you know he's responsible for it?
|1.22.09 @ 8:17AM|#
A few years in the adult world, with a real job (again, not
a job in academia) does strange things to one's
politics.
In what sense is working in academia not a real job?
Mark|1.22.09 @ 8:18AM|#
I think part of the problem might be high school civics classes. I think a lot more people (left or right) have libertarian leanings, but my high school social studies teacher (and the textbook)lumped libertarianism in with the anarchists and adherents of social credit, and had kinder words for socialists and communists. It's never really presented as a viable and respectable third party option. Even in a place like Canada, the LP was coming in fourth in Federal elections well into the eighties.
phalkor |1.22.09 @ 8:27AM|#
Personally I find that most people who I graduated with and work
with tend to have more libertarian leanings. It's just that they
would be hard pressed to identify these leanings as libertarian.
Noted, it gives me hope, not for the Libertarian Party, but for
people in general. I suppose as Ron Paul said once, "Freedom is
popular".
"Big L" Libertarianism will sadly, not ever be popular, but the
attitude certainly is.
Abdul|1.22.09 @ 8:31AM|#
There's no question that the conservative brand suffers with the
young folks because of the association between "conservative" and
"drooling gay basher." Kids today just aren't as judgmental about
gays as they were when I was in high school.
If the GOP wants to win over the youth, they're going to have to
break that association. It'll require guys like Dick Cheyney
treating his daughter as a social asset instead of a social
liability.
Bingo|1.22.09 @ 8:31AM|#
phalkor: Yeah, most people I run into have a libertarian streak, phalkor. But, politically, it all comes down to team red vs team blue.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 8:46AM|#
Of course students lean left.They heard Obama was going to
forgive their student loans.
I didn't check when the data was collected but %86 having
"political discussion" in an election year seems low.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 8:48AM|#
In what sense is working in academia not a real
job?
In every sense other than receiving a paycheck?
Naga Sadow|1.22.09 @ 8:50AM|#
Hmmmmmm. This sounds about right minus stubby's comment about
"real" jobs. I, too, have noticed the apparent trend in my fellow
students going FULL RETARD political wise.
Stubby,
Dude! I've been working since I was 14. Most of the people I know
have been working since they were 16. Could just be the fact that
everyone was a hell of a lot poorer in Mississippi about 15 years
back(before the casinos) though.
Naga Sadow|1.22.09 @ 8:51AM|#
SIV,
You nailed it. I call graduate students "indentured slaves". Think
about it for a minute. You'll get it.
|1.22.09 @ 8:53AM|#
In what sense is working in academia not a real
job?
LOL! Goddamn it, parse. That dry sense of humor just kills me.
|1.22.09 @ 8:58AM|#
They are freshman so they probably are quite libertarian in mindset but don't know the philosophy even exists. Get to them while they are in college and they can be effectively directed. They are students, afterall. I never heard the term until I got to college. I never thought of myself until after college but my experiences there solidified it almost as much as paying taxes when I got out into the real world.
|1.22.09 @ 8:59AM|#
Was this a study on college freshmen everywhere, or just in California, or just in UCLA?
|1.22.09 @ 9:08AM|#
I'm starting my day with a heapin' helpin' of calm optimism. I
decree that these most excellent young adults are using "liberal"
in the classical, uncorrupted-by-the-DemocraticParty sense of the
word.
You know, pursuit-of-happiness style liberalism, not nannytarian
liberalism.
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 9:27AM|#
To be pro-gay marriage, for instance, could be a sign of an
incipient libertarian streak in students,
Cheesies Crust, here we go again. How is gay marriage related to
libertarian principles again? It's a friggin argument over words,
and you guys are elevating it to a more important position than
taxes, guns, eminent domain, etc.
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 9:32AM|#
I suppose as Ron Paul said once, "Freedom is
popular".
Freedom for oneself is popular. Freedom for others, not so
much.
People will bloviate to no end about the greatness of freedom and
how grateful we should be to those that fought and died so we could
live our lives as we wish. Then when a neighbor wants to paint his
house purple, their true colors come out.
|1.22.09 @ 9:37AM|#
How is gay marriage related to libertarian principles
again?
It can be when people come at it from a "let consenting adults do
whatever they want" perspective than a "oh, those poor oppressed
minorities" stand point.
Young people are liberal right now because it means "anti-Bush."
Once it stops meaning that exclusively, it will shift back. And, of
course, the fine teaching moment when they open that first paycheck
and see that a 1/3 of it has been stripped away for benefit of
people who didn't actually work for it.
KT|1.22.09 @ 9:39AM|#
If anyone out there is surprised by this, smack yourself in the
head for me. I'd do it but I can't reach.
As for me, I'm not a liberal, but if my choices in the political
milieu are between "let's ban trans fat" and "let's invade other
countries and pretend like torture isn't morally repugnant", I know
which one I'm picking.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 9:48AM|#
KT,
I always go for the property rights option.
I prefer a tasty pie crust over the well-being of Khalid
Sheikh-Mohammed.
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 9:49AM|#
SugarFree, we're not talking about legalizing homosexual sex
here. And if you want to apply "let consenting adults do what they
want" to marriage law, gay marriage isn't nearly the end of it, as
Woody Allen, Sun Yi, and a bunch of polygamists would
testify.
In any case, my cosmotarian friends tend to blow gay marriage's
import as a libertarian issue out of proportion. It really should
be down there with legalizing ferrets.
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 9:51AM|#
But politics is ultimately a grim zero-sum theater of
operations. And life is so much richer in other areas of human
activity.
...like getting drunk? Seriously, Nick, you sound almost
disappointed that high schoolers are spending more time sober.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 9:54AM|#
It really should be down there with legalizing
ferrets.
Far more important than gay marriage.
Property rights.
Fluffy|1.22.09 @ 9:54AM|#
SIV's presentation of the choices involved would make more sense
if the GOP hadn't just increased the size and scope of government
at the greatest rate since the New Deal.
I also don't notice a lot of GOP politicians standing up for trans
fats. Maybe you could point them out to me?
There is very little Obama could do on the economic liberties front
that Bush didn't also do.
The choice between "Economic Freedom Party" and "Personal Freedom
[of a sort] Party" becomes easier when you realize that every word
the Economic Freedom Party guys say is a lie and every policy they
pursue is the opposite of what their rhetoric promises.
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 9:55AM|#
It can be when people come at it from a "let consenting
adults do whatever they want" perspective than a "oh, those poor
oppressed minorities" stand point.
And that's not even it. Liberals are totally comfortable with
letting consenting adults do what they want, as long as it doesn't
involve owning property, making money, or (God forbid!) employing
people. Once you start engaging in those activities you're the
government's bitch.
Note: I've framed it in exactly this way to liberal friends, and
they agree; yet they continue to hold to their liberalism.
|1.22.09 @ 9:55AM|#
cunnivore,
I have no problem with polygamy. I don't give a fig if some guy
wants to marry one, in fact. Any intrusion into a person's private
life that the government makes is a teachable moment for
libertarianism over liberalism. It is a time to make the argument
against all intrusion, not just half of the menu. If marriage
equality brings people over to our side, I say: the more the
merrier.
Disclaimer: Yes, the proper response is to get the government out
of the marriage business, but since they aren't anytime soon, equal
protection carries the day.
!|1.22.09 @ 9:58AM|#
Who cares about homos? There are more important issues like being able to smoke on airplanes again.
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 9:59AM|#
The choice between "Economic Freedom Party" and "Personal
Freedom [of a sort] Party" becomes easier when you realize that
every word the Economic Freedom Party guys say is a lie and every
policy they pursue is the opposite of what their rhetoric
promises.
Considering that Dems wholeheartedly support the Drug War and
warrantless wiretapping (as long as the right people are in charge
of it), and oppose school choice, I don't see how there's any
significant difference.
After Taft-Hartley gets repealed, etc, I have a feeling you'll
notice how much less bad the Economic Freedom Party was on economic
freedom.
Fluffy|1.22.09 @ 9:59AM|#
Seriously, Nick, you sound almost disappointed that high
schoolers are spending more time sober.
I think there's a bias that overly-sober people tend to swing into
nanny statism with frightening ease.
Tell the truth - after you listen to an abstemious and earnest
crunchy yoga person [or a Mormon, to come at it from the other
side] list the things they won't indulge in, don't you expect their
next sentence to be a rationalization of why the government
shouldn't let you indulge in any of those things, either?
SIV|1.22.09 @ 10:00AM|#
Fluffy,
I didn't present the choices, I just picked one of KTs.I consider
my property rights to be more important than the treatment of a
murderer of 3000 innocent people (who killed them, in part, because
he wants to deny my rights to own pork products and alchoholic
beverages).
|1.22.09 @ 10:02AM|#
And another thing (not leveled directly at you cunny)... what's
with the "don't give gays the economic benefits of marriage" idea?
The main economic benefit seems to be two gay guys being taxed at
the lower married couples rates. Since when is it a bad thing to
deny government excess tax money in a legal way?
We may have no choice but to feed Leviathan, but I see not onus
that they must the choicest cuts.
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 10:02AM|#
If marriage equality brings people over to our side, I say:
the more the merrier.
There's no way it brings more people over to our side, as the left
has already taken that issue over. In any case, I highly doubt that
support for gay marriage, when coupled with support for
nationalizing industry and taxing the wealthy at 95%, is a sign of
incipient libertarianism, as the Leather Jacket Poobah seems to
hope.
!|1.22.09 @ 10:05AM|#
Hell we shouldn't even have trials for him, SIV, let's just string 'em to a tree if they look guilty!
cunnivore|1.22.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Fluffy, chicken and the egg. Is it soberness that leads to
nanny-statism or nanny-statism that leads to soberness?
I'm not convinced of either, to be honest, since I know way too
many people who were libertine in every fashion in their youth and
have since become supporters of every kind of govt-enforced
asceticism. And I myself have never smoked a cigarette and drink
about four beers a year, and think people should be allowed to
drink and smoke until their livers explode, scattering pieces of
blackened lung as shrapnel.
|1.22.09 @ 10:25AM|#
Yeah, cunnivore, I have to agree it is the "thinkers" that lead themselves to agreement that anyone should be able to imbibe whatever they choose, rather than those that actually did at one time imbibe anything they chose and then got sober as they aged. It's the "there's a time and place for that and its called College" mentality. "If you aren't in college, and you do drugs you must be a criminal, or fed the disease by the CIA, so it MUST BE STOPPED!!!"
|1.22.09 @ 10:26AM|#
The main economic benefit seems to be two gay guys being
taxed at the lower married couples rates.
"Human dignity" posturing aside, the major driver of gay marriage
activism is gaining access to the (significant) financial benefits
available to heterosexual married couples. Pension benefits,
insurance coverage, that sort of stuff. Big money.
I see a market opportunity ready to be exploited, but I don't sell
annuities.
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 10:40AM|#
I see a market opportunity ready to be exploited, but I
don't sell annuities.
I've already seen it. I work in an inn in a state near two states
that have recently legalized gay marriage, and we've already booked
three of them in the last two months. (They have the wedding in the
other state, ten minutes away, and then have the reception here.)
That's about $5000 worth of business right there.
|1.22.09 @ 10:41AM|#
"there's a time and place for that and its called
College"
Drugs? I always thought that was a quote about lesbianism.
Zac |1.22.09 @ 10:44AM|#
As a recent graduate and former lefty, I find that more and more
of my friends are going in a libertarian direction. In fact, I
think that libertarians are as likely to gain new recruits from the
left as from the right. Particularly because the left is starting
to become infatuated with the idea that they can force people to
care about the environment and force them to live a healthy
lifestyle, and that this nanny shift is separating the
liberty-minded lefties from the totalitarian ones.
What made me a libertarian was the realization that many of the
issues I cared about as a liberal (drug policy, civil rights, civil
liberties) had an underlying theme: that a person should have the
right to pursue whatever interests they deem worthy so long as they
don't harm others in the process (thus preventing others from doing
the same). This "libertarian golden rule" won me over.
I didn't get into the free-market side of things until much later.
As I see it, there are a number of good ways to win liberal youth
to libertarianism, and none of them involve trying to convince them
of the wonders of the free market. Instead:
a) appeal to libertarian values/topics that liberals can appreciate
(drug policy, gay marriage, civil liberties, civil rights,
privacy)
b) show them that change by mandate - no matter how good the idea -
is still authoritarian ("You can't force people to do good".)
c) convince them that reform via state/local governments is not
only more effective, but allows a diversity of ideas to compete in
the real world, whereas federal mandate kills legislation by way of
black and white imposed "solutions"
Charles|1.22.09 @ 10:44AM|#
The choice between "Economic Freedom Party" and "Personal
Freedom [of a sort] Party" becomes easier when you realize that
every word the Economic Freedom Party guys say is a lie and every
policy they pursue is the opposite of what their rhetoric
promises.
I think the better description right now would be the "Economic
Freedom [except in most cases] Party" and the "Personal Freedom
[except in most cases] Party."
Tyler|1.22.09 @ 10:48AM|#
Capitalism has been demonized. It's difficult to expect people
to look further than CNN when there's a crisis on our hands. Young
liberals see that something is wrong, and it's all blamed on those
"greedy, greedy capitalists." Don't forget that the New Deal is
generally taught as a good thing in public high school too. Hell,
they're observant enough to know that the Republican Party along
with Bush talked non stop about the benefits of capitalism. When it
all goes to shit, who's to blame?
We might think it's obvious that the problems actually came from
government intervention. But might that be because we spend our
time reading Reason, Mises, Hayek and the like, instead of just
flipping on CNN like everybody else? If you are intelligent, but
aren't interested enough in economics to investigate it further
than the "capitalism sucks" message that is so popular, chances are
that you will vote Democrat.
So why is gay marriage important here? And yes, it is. It's
something that people can be very sure and opinionated about
without having to actually study anything like economics. The "live
and let live" message is very common among young liberals, it's
just difficult to translate that message over to support for free
markets.
Expecting more young people to identify as conservative is foolish.
The conservatives we know are the ones who yell the loudest (and
might be the most numerous too), and those are the gay bashers. If
you find yourself talking to a young liberal, try to describe to
them the meaning of classical liberalism instead of expecting them
to accept conservative views.
|1.22.09 @ 10:50AM|#
I think there's a bias that overly-sober people tend to
swing into nanny statism with frightening ease...blah blah blah
biased story...
I always get such weird looks when I talk about legalizing
drugs/whatever the hell else when I've never gotten drunk or have
done drugs or smoked cigarettes.
Honestly, have you noticed that the biggest drug warriors are prior
drug users? I was at a gas station in Detroit a month or two ago
and the cashier was selling weed to the customer in front of me.
Later I told my girlfriend (who was a prior "blazer") and she
nearly flipped out as she was calling the police.
|1.22.09 @ 10:56AM|#
This is what happens when hippie ideals are merged with consumerism. "Everyone should be treated as special and equal and we should all make sacrifices for the common good." Of course, they all want to lead the same lifestyle as a Real World cast member.
James|1.22.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Leftward and Sober into the
Future!
Just proves that the 21 age for drinking is working as
inforced.
|1.22.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Particularly because the left is starting to
become infatuated with the idea that they can force people
to care about the environment and force them to live a healthy
lifestyle, and that this nanny shift is separating
the liberty-minded lefties from the totalitarian ones.
Uh, Zac, those aren't new developments at all. Still, I hope you're
right that people are finally seeing them for what they are.
|1.22.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Later I told my girlfriend (who was a prior "blazer") and
she nearly flipped out as she was calling the police.
I hope you dumped her on the spot, Butts.
|1.22.09 @ 11:15AM|#
Jacob-
Is she still your girlfriend? If yes, why? IMO, a libertarian and a
nanny state significant other are just not compatible.
|1.22.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Libertymike,
we just broke up for different reasons.
Uhh..I'm not sure if you know this but girls at my age(i'm 24)
there is almost always an inverse relationship between coherent
political beliefs and hotness.
|1.22.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Uhh..I'm not sure if you know this but girls at my
age(i'm 24) there is almost always an inverse relationship
between coherent political beliefs and hotness.
fixed
|1.22.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Just throwin' it out for consideration, but I'd be interested to
see ethnic constitution of the freshman class with that
data...
I suspect it may be a mitigating factor at UCLA.
BDB|1.22.09 @ 11:32AM|#
"Public health" liberals are to the left what evangelicals are to the right.
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 11:37AM|#
IMO, a libertarian and a nanny state significant other are
just not compatible.
I know for a fact this is not the case.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 11:42AM|#
"Public health" liberals are to the left what evangelicals
are to the right.
Where have evangelicals sought, and more importantly achieved
restrictions on our liberty?
Public health liberals creed is far less tolerant.
冉爽慷|1.22.09 @ 11:45AM|#
I was a liberal when I was a freshman, too. One reason is that, superficially, liberalism can appear as more freedom-friendly than conservatism. Liberals tend to be pro-freedom on what I call the "big-ticket" items, the ones like abortion and gay marriage that are controversial and headline grabbing, but actually effect a relatively small number of people. It was a long, long time before I realized they were nit-picking our freedom to death in the details, the more mundane things that effect your everyday schmuck on a day-to-day basis like smoking, emissions testing, taxes, etc. that conservatives tend to be better with.
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 11:46AM|#
El,
You GF is a libertarian? Wow!
The best laughs are cheap. However, since dogfighting is still
illegal, I have the upper hand! MWAHAHAHAHA!
BDB|1.22.09 @ 11:47AM|#
Abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, among others, but nothing you care about SIV so it really doesn't count.
BDB|1.22.09 @ 11:49AM|#
"Liberals tend to be pro-freedom on what I call the "big-ticket"
items, the ones like abortion and gay marriage that are
controversial and headline grabbing, but actually effect a
relatively small number of people. It was a long, long time before
I realized they were nit-picking our freedom to death in the
details, the more mundane things that effect your everyday schmuck
on a day-to-day basis like smoking, emissions testing, taxes, etc.
that conservatives tend to be better with."
This is 100% true.
BDB|1.22.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Oh yeah, and evangelicals bitch about dirty music, violent videogames, and girly magazines at Wal-Mart (strangely enough they agree with the public health-type liberals on this!) They're really very similar.
|1.22.09 @ 11:55AM|#
IMO, a libertarian and a nanny state significant other are
just not compatible.
I know for a fact this is not the case.
I think this depends on how much you like to talk about politics
and how the other party likes debate and discussion.
I had a very liberal girlfriend who would get pissed at me anytime
I tried to engage her in a political discussion. She just didn't
want to to talk about it. She pretty much had an agree to disagree
mentality. I tried to give it a go but I quickly realized I need to
talk about it. So half our conversations would end in awkward
silence anytime someone (usually me) accidentally brought up
politics.
Needless to say I got bored and walked.
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 11:58AM|#
I think this depends on how much you like to talk about
politics and how the other party likes debate and
discussion.
I consulted for the college debate team she ran. Needless to say,
she likes to argue, so that ain't a problem.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 11:58AM|#
BDB
Abortion? Legal last I checked.Most pro-lifers would call it murder
and they aren't using metaphor or hyperbole.
Gay marriage? how does this restrict liberty one
way or the other?
Terry Schiavo? Still dead. FL followed her husband's wishes and
killed her.It wasn't the Federal governments business as was
ultimately determined by the courts.
Public health liberals? Well there is the War on Drugs for
starters.....
BDB|1.22.09 @ 12:01PM|#
Yeah, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, they were just a bunch
of flaming libs, thats why they upped to drug war.
Oh, I forgot. Reagan was just an innocent bystander and Tip O'Neil
shoved it down his throat. Okay, whatever helps you feel
better.
BDB|1.22.09 @ 12:03PM|#
"Abortion? Legal last I checked.Most pro-lifers would call it
murder and they aren't using metaphor or hyperbole."
They have nothing to back that up except their very strong feelings
and personal beliefs.
What about the property rights of the mother?
cuernimus|1.22.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Don't forget that access to the internet (lots of Europeans) and
other types of media will bring more young people into contact with
socialist creeds than with any other ideology. College freshman are
just a year out of that 4-year experiment in popularity that we
call high school, of course they are going to see being a leftist
as the way to go.
The internet is great for libertarians though, as both parties want
to do naughty things to it, and nothing will bring more people into
the fold then having the government try to tell them how they can
or cannot masturbate.
|1.22.09 @ 12:10PM|#
BDB,
Woman can own anything they like, but a uterus is public property.
No 3rd Amendment for uteri.
BDB|1.22.09 @ 12:11PM|#
"SugarFree | January 22, 2009, 12:10pm | #
BDB,
Woman can own anything they like, but a uterus is public property.
No 3rd Amendment for uteri."
Are you serious? Are your testicles public property then?
|1.22.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Sarcasm, dude. Didn't you read the dramatis personæ handout that came in your reason.com membership packet?
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Where have evangelicals sought, and more importantly
achieved restrictions on our liberty?
Well, they succeeded many times in the past, though thankfully the
forces of liberty or whatever overturned most of their egregious
crap from yesteryear.
For example, censorship. It was once illegal to send public health
information and materials regarding contraception through the mail
(in some places, illegal to possess it at all), never mind the
ownership and transmission of pornography and erotica. I hasten to
mention, not all of this nonsense has been successfully expunged
from the laws and regulations we live under.
The "temperance" (prohibition) movement was fueled in great part by
evangelicals, who you will recall at the turn of the century were
in alliance with your hated progressives. (William Jennings Bryan
should ring a bell.)
Evangelicals interfered and continue to interfere with what can and
cannot be taught in schools, stooping to changing legal definitions
and throwing teachers in jail for mentioning scientific
theories.
|1.22.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Are your testicles public property then
A man can dream.
I think I would retain them as private property, but freely grant
performance and likeness rights.
|1.22.09 @ 12:25PM|#
n what sense is working in academia not a real
job?
LOL! Goddamn it, parse. That dry sense of humor just kills
me.
Always happy to amuse, Sugar Free, but it wasn't intentional. I
hear people use various permutations of "academia is not part of
the real world" fairly often--certainly the phrase "ivory towers"
is not unknown to me, and I have a notion of what this is meant to
imply, but when you get right down to it, I don't understand quite
what people mean to suggest when they adopt this meme. In all
seriousness, can anyone be a little more explicit about why we
should regard college campuses as located somewhere outside of
reality?
|1.22.09 @ 12:39PM|#
To be pro-gay marriage, for instance, could be a sign of an
incipient libertarian streak in students, rather than a traditional
big government liberal.
If I wanted to be a niggling pedant, I would suggest that
demonstrating an enthusiasm for getting the government more
involved in the private affairs(!) of individuals is not
necessarily an indicator of incipient libertarianism.
Somebody else brought that up earlier, I think, but I sometimes get
the urge to use the phrase "niggling pedant".
|1.22.09 @ 12:40PM|#
parse,
As someone who works on a college campus and who deals with
academics from all over the world, I can tell you that they don't
have the outlook on work and society that people who work in the
private sector do. While there is more than a small bit of truth
that they are in an environment that reinforces idealism rather
than shattering it, I think the real problem is much more
fundamental.
Academics just don't work very hard for the amount of money they
make. They don't face constant deadlines, their job is almost never
on the line, there is no larger organization that their individual
actions can destroy. They also get lavish benefits, rarely have
children, and have enormous freedom at work to speak and behave
however they feel like. This freedom is often used to worry over
social issues and silly economic flights of fancy. In this sense, I
think it's valid to say they don't have "real" jobs.
Since the human tendency is to only imagine how other people live
through the lens of your own life, they assume that other people
don't really work very hard in their own jobs and have all the
freedoms they do. This leads them to think that people who would
rather keep their money rather than give it away are somehow
greedy, as opposed just feeling like they deserve to keep what they
have worked for.
(I expect a flood of "Academics work hard" rebuttals. Trust me,
they don't. I see it everyday.)
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.09 @ 12:45PM|#
More importantly, the entire spectrum has shifted left to the
point where what was centrist two decades ago is now considered
right wing.
To illustrate: JFK is a Reagan Democrat and was more conservative
than either of the Bush presidents.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Many of you are using evangelical as interchangeable with
"progressive" and "main line protestant".Prohibition of alchohol,
drugs and tobacco all have their origins and rationale in public
health.
Although not exactly my personal beliefs some might think an unborn
child's right of self ownership (life) should trump the
inconvenience
of a woman who decides she wants to "break the lease" on her womb
:)
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.09 @ 12:52PM|#
I don't understand quite what people mean to suggest when
they adopt this meme. In all seriousness, can anyone be a little
more explicit about why we should regard college campuses as
located somewhere outside of reality?
Lifetime job security for starters.
Everything Sugar said.
Plus on major campuses many of the professors do not teach the
classes, Grad Students do. So, the parents pay tens of thousands of
dollars to send their kids to schools who promise them the best
teachers on earth only to discover they've been swindled.
Bait and switch. Look at our faculty roster! Except your kid is
going to be taught by a grad student.
And, it was a good gig for Mrs TWC. She was incredibly well paid to
teach undergrads while she was working on her advanced degree. Beat
the crap out of slinging hash or working in day care.
|1.22.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Nick,
You discuss politics several times a day. You chose a career
devoted to discussing politics.
Maybe you could do a Scared Straight type of dealie with the
college kids. Then again, that jacket would probably glamorize
it.
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Prohibition of alchohol, drugs and tobacco all have their
origins and rationale in public health.
No, no, and yes. Alcohol prohibition was through-and-through a
religious movement. "Drugs" is broad as hell; it's certainly not
true of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, but is probably (more) true
of the more modern drugs (MDMA, LSD, PCP).
I'll give you tobacco, sort of. Certainly its the only one that the
entire medical community has gotten behind. Underneath that,
though, really what's driving it is people whining about have to
breathe other people's smoke. "I'm allergic! WAHHH!!" That's not
public health, that's just bitchiness.
|1.22.09 @ 12:58PM|#
I prefer a tasty pie crust over the well-being of Khalid
Sheikh-Mohammed.
Only bad guyz whose names you know get killed in wars.
economist|1.22.09 @ 1:04PM|#
Damn, college sounds depressing these days. It's one thing to be drunk and talking about bringing down The Man, but it's entirely another to say it while sober.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 1:16PM|#
joe,
I was referring to torture. Reportedly (not that I believe it) only
3 guys got waterboarded.
I know the name of one of them.
Pie crusts are best made with lard but I try to be tolerant of
vegetarians so I'll accept trans fat as a substitute.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 1:38PM|#
El,
We've been all through this countless times before but here is
the origins of American drug prohibition
Religion isn't a part of it excepting the progressive urges of
mainline protestantism.
Prohibition is a bit more complicated although wiki cites a
scientific origin in the US One
suggestion had come from one of the foremost physicians of the late
18th century, Dr. Benjamin Rush. In 1784, he argued that the
excessive use of alcohol was injurious to physical and
psychological health (he believed in moderation rather than
prohibition). Apparently influenced by Rush's widely discussed
belief, about 200 farmers in a Connecticut community formed a
temperance association in 1789. Similar associations were formed in
Virginia in 1800 and New York in 1808. Within the next decade,
other temperance organizations were formed in eight states, some
being statewide organizations.
Prohibition was a political movement that triumphed as part of the
Progressive agenda along with women's sufferage.There was a
signicant religious constituency largely of mainline
protestants.Evangelicals are a rejection of the worldliness of ml
protestantism although that doesn't mean they oppose prohibition
but it isn't really their "thing".
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 1:50PM|#
We've been all through this countless times before but here
is the origins of American drug prohibition
I find it amusing that the article you link to pretty much says
that drugs were outlawed *because of RACISM*. That was the long and
short of it. Sure there were other pretexts (including, every once
in a while, "medicine"), but at bottom it was about controlling
"negroes" and "chinamen". Read the damn article.
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 1:52PM|#
FWIW, part of the problem in the wider argument is that it is
hard to separate out the social agenda of mainline churches with
evangelical churches, and these days the two blend together in
bizarre ways.
Also, while many of the arguments were originally started and
brought forth while mainline denominations were still atop the
Christian world in the US, the evangelical community has been more
than happy to pick up the ball and run with it into the modern
age.
SIV|1.22.09 @ 2:08PM|#
El, Back in the Progressive era RACISM was known as
"science".Most junkies at the start of narcotics prohibition were
white women.
The original enforcement was targeted at Doctors rather than
minorities.
The claim that cocaine caused Negroes to crave raping white women
while improving their pistol marksmanship, while racist, was
offered by a Physician as his scientific opinion.
Also, while many of the arguments were originally started and
brought forth while mainline denominations were still atop the
Christian world in the US, the evangelical secular
progressive community has been more than happy to pick up the ball
and run with it into the modern age.
Elemenope|1.22.09 @ 2:23PM|#
So, SIV, can you explain why it's the *left* wing of the Democratic party that is gung-ho to repeal drug prohibition, while the centrists are left holding their dicks?
SIV|1.22.09 @ 2:39PM|#
So, SIV, can you explain why it's the *left* wing of the
Democratic party that is gung-ho to repeal drug
prohibition
How can I explain what isn't so.
The only call for repeal I here is from libertarians and a minority
of conservatives.
There are mumblings on the left about taxing weed and substituting
"therapeutic" sanction and control for other drugs.
|1.22.09 @ 2:41PM|#
They have nothing to back that up except their very strong feelings and personal beliefs.
What about the property rights of the mother?
Property rights don't apply when someone's life is at stake. If a
door to door salesman collapses with a heart attack while talking
to you at your front door, on your private property, uninvited and
all, you can't legally just shove him out onto the sidewalk and
ignore him. You have a legal obligation to call emergency services
on his behalf.
Likewise with the unborn in the womb; when an occupant is not able
to leave your property, and the only option for enforcing one's
property rights is to kill (or make die) the unwanted occupant, the
property rights take a backseat.
|1.22.09 @ 2:42PM|#
SugarFree gets the win with:
""there's a time and place for that and its called College"
Drugs? I always thought that was a quote about lesbianism."
joe\'s Mom|1.22.09 @ 2:46PM|#
SugarFree wins all the threads. Just don't tell joe, let him think he is the winner.joe is a very sensitive boy.
joe (ish)|1.22.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Joe is the thread winner
Joe is the thread winner
Joe is the thread winner
Joe is the thread winner
gotta keep my search stats up!
Head|1.22.09 @ 2:58PM|#
for the record: if Lesbian until Graduation is still out there somewhere - call me...
BakedPenguin|1.22.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Academics just don't work very hard for the amount of money
they make.
Took me a while to figure this out. So now I'm angling for a job
there.
Racism was a big motivator for all of the anti-drug movements. A
lot of the original prohibition arguments were anti-Catholic.
BakedPenguin|1.22.09 @ 3:02PM|#
BTW, there was absolutely no connection between those two statements.
|1.22.09 @ 3:21PM|#
A lot of the original prohibition arguments were
anti-Catholic.
"Fekkin' leprechauns!"
|1.22.09 @ 3:23PM|#
"Racism was a big motivator for all of the anti-drug movements.
A lot of the original prohibition arguments were
anti-Catholic."
Or anti indian?
BakedPenguin|1.22.09 @ 4:28PM|#
domo, I think the Indians were already smacked down by the time prohibition was enacted.
renniejoy|1.22.09 @ 4:34PM|#
I don't understand why it would be better to get the state out
of setting the standards for marriage. We have thousands of
religious sects; each of them can say what they want regarding the
marriages of members. What about the millions of people who are
"unchurched", for lack of a better term? Whose standards are they
supposed to follow? As it stands, civil marriage is the foundation,
with basic standards (age of consent, consanguinity, etc.) set by
the state. Those couples who feel the need to, can additionally
conform to the standards of their religion, to add the
ceremony.
If it had been Terri and Michelle Schiavo, we never would have
heard of them. in the absence of LEGAL spouse, the parents are
automatically regarded as "next-of-kin". It is completely legal to
leave long-term partners out of the loop entirely, even to the
extent of not allowing them to visit loved ones in the hospital
because they are "not family".
For a different take on the argument,
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/074401.pdf
This is a law review article (102 page PDF) suggesting that the act
of entering into a civil marriage is an "Expressive Behavior", much
like flag burning, and therefore should not be limited to
heterosexual couples on First Amendment grounds (other than freedom
of religion).
Peter McWilliams wrote a book called , exploring the rise of
"victimless crimes".
|1.22.09 @ 6:12PM|#
BakedPenguin @ 3:00pm
A lot of the original prohibition arguments were
anti-Catholic.
Wait, I can't believe I didn't figure it out before. You're a
toking nun, right?
|1.22.09 @ 6:16PM|#
BDB @ 12:11pm
Are you serious? Are your testicles public property
then?
Testicles are dangerous weapons, and they ought to be registered.
You think I'm joking? Ha! We've already outlawed open carry.
冉爽慷|1.22.09 @ 6:25PM|#
If it had been Terri and Michelle Schiavo, we never would
have heard of them.
And that's a bad thing?
zoltan|1.22.09 @ 11:16PM|#
If a door to door salesman collapses with a heart attack
while talking to you at your front door, on your private property,
uninvited and all, you can't legally just shove him out onto the
sidewalk and ignore him. You have a legal obligation to call
emergency services on his behalf.
Question, would this be a law in Libertopia? I suppose it is a
brother to the flagpole on fire argument.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245