I am HYPED for the chance to tell you you're wrong! Or, well, missing something.
1. One issue I've seen a lot that I do think stems from academia is the idea is that I think it way overestimated "teaching people things to change their values" as a theory of change. The idea that "teaching people the evils of capitalism" is an effective vehicle for fighting capitalism seems very doubtful.
2. There's a real tendency to overestimate how singularly important ideological frameworks are. For instance, there have been plenty of times where anti-capitalists have done great things for workers, but it was the stuff like unions and the political parties that anti-capitalists built that did that, not necessarily the anti-capitalism itself. When Catholics started building their own unions to push back, they were really good at it!
3. I get the impression that the academy overestimates how coherent peoples' thoughts on politics are. If you talk about how people should buy this great, manly, foreigner-beating electric truck, there are worries that it'll reinforce certain beliefs about masculinity or xenophobia, rather than the important part about "selling EVs!"
4. You see a lot of focus on "we need to change how we talk about X" in left-wing politics. It makes sense in an academic context, where the way we talk and write about topics really matters, but in a political context, it's different. If Democrats change the way they discuss issues, will voters even notice or care? If they do, will it be in a way that actually increases your support? (My guess is that when this does work, it's mostly when the framing moves to be more centrist.)
The core problem is arrogance and lack of empathy. You can sometimes convince people to change their mind if they think you're on their side. But if someone reads you as an enemy - especially one who looks down on them - there's nothing in the world you can do to convince them.
Class insularity is enough to produce that problem on its own, but the nature of the class in question does make it especially bad. Woe to any country ruled by academics.
Unfortunately, I think the previous president made clear that "supercilious dickishness" is in fact quite viable as a political position, if you can scare enough people into not wanting to cross you...
I am HYPED for the chance to tell you you're wrong! Or, well, missing something.
1. One issue I've seen a lot that I do think stems from academia is the idea is that I think it way overestimated "teaching people things to change their values" as a theory of change. The idea that "teaching people the evils of capitalism" is an effective vehicle for fighting capitalism seems very doubtful.
2. There's a real tendency to overestimate how singularly important ideological frameworks are. For instance, there have been plenty of times where anti-capitalists have done great things for workers, but it was the stuff like unions and the political parties that anti-capitalists built that did that, not necessarily the anti-capitalism itself. When Catholics started building their own unions to push back, they were really good at it!
3. I get the impression that the academy overestimates how coherent peoples' thoughts on politics are. If you talk about how people should buy this great, manly, foreigner-beating electric truck, there are worries that it'll reinforce certain beliefs about masculinity or xenophobia, rather than the important part about "selling EVs!"
4. You see a lot of focus on "we need to change how we talk about X" in left-wing politics. It makes sense in an academic context, where the way we talk and write about topics really matters, but in a political context, it's different. If Democrats change the way they discuss issues, will voters even notice or care? If they do, will it be in a way that actually increases your support? (My guess is that when this does work, it's mostly when the framing moves to be more centrist.)
The core problem is arrogance and lack of empathy. You can sometimes convince people to change their mind if they think you're on their side. But if someone reads you as an enemy - especially one who looks down on them - there's nothing in the world you can do to convince them.
Class insularity is enough to produce that problem on its own, but the nature of the class in question does make it especially bad. Woe to any country ruled by academics.
Unfortunately, I think the previous president made clear that "supercilious dickishness" is in fact quite viable as a political position, if you can scare enough people into not wanting to cross you...
No, he's boorish and bullying, which is a different animal. I would never use "supercilious" to describe the Bad Orange Man.
i have seen the creep the same as you. the smug aspect of liberals really annoys me, especially they explain history to me.