Quite an interesting article. What do you make of it?
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trouble is, they become conservative. Real conservative, not neo-con.And we could easily get a Republican president in the next presidential election cycle. As people age, they tend to become more conservative, so the demographics are not hopeless for conservatives.
I agree. I think that most Americans are most comfortable with conservative presidents. First of all, there is the whole "daddy state" metaphor, which tends to trump the "mommy state" of liberals. Given a choice between two fairly equal candidates for President, Americans will prefer the "daddy" candidate. Obama is essentially a moderate Republican who could never make it as a major candidate in the Republican Party. He is stuck with Democrats, and he keeps misunderstanding what the Democratic base is all about. He buys into the moderate Republican political agenda.Trouble is, they become conservative. Real conservative, not neo-con.
I believe it was Stephanie Miller, who, when speaking of conservatives who start to touch reality and look at facts for the first time in their careers.Quite an interesting article. What do you make of it?
Unfortunately, I don't think this problem is limited to the Right.
I question the claim that academic institutions are any less controlling of thought than think tanks. Sure, the latter starts off with a more specified agenda,I think that epistemic closure is more likely to occur in top-down institutions, such as the so-called think-tanks and newspapers described in the article. These institutions are, essentially, propaganda factories. If you engage in your own intellectual quest for the truth and arrive at the wrong conclusions, it makes the millionaire donor from Dallas angry, and you get fired. And Rupert Murdoch orders his minions not to give your ideas any publicity. So it would be advantageous not to follow the facts too freely, lest this endanger your intellectual purity and, hence, your job.
Contrast this to institutions in academia. For all its faults, academia is not a top-down institution. The American Physical Society is democratically run. Advancement and recognition and even tenure decisions are decided by groups of colleagues, not a single millionaire in Dallas. Indeed, look at Religious Forums, it's essentially bottom-up.
It would be short sighted to think that the problem is with rightish think tanks. The same phenomenon must also haunt leftish ones. Why do weIt seems that the exceptional thing about the epistemic closure among conservative think-tanks, this time, is it went too far. It's supposed to happen. But this time it actually became self-destructive. And indeed, that is the aspect that Bartlett emphasizes in his article: not that Republicans were wrong or harmed the country, but that they lost elections.
There is actually a pretty good documentary on this kind of thing:I question the claim that academic institutions are any less controlling of thought than think tanks. Sure, the latter starts off with a more specified agenda,
but academia is fraught with controlling cultures, & even they are beholden to source funding (eg, state government, private donors). I think of my alma
mater, & see narrow perspectives wher social & political influences intrude. It looks every bit as limiting as one would find in think tanks like The Cato
Institute or People For The American Way. The real vale of think tanks is in external rather than internal diversity.
It would be short sighted to think that the problem is with rightish think tanks. The same phenomenon must also haunt leftish ones. Why do we
discuss only shortcomings of those who lean right? Because it's lefties doing the analysis, & they believe they have the truth, ie, the correct views.
I don't think correction is possible.How do you think that should be corrected? By the right choosing to analyse things more, or by some other means?
It would be short sighted to think that the problem is with rightish think tanks. The same phenomenon must also haunt leftish ones. Why do we
discuss only shortcomings of those who lean right? Because it's lefties doing the analysis, & they believe they have the truth, ie, the correct views.
Emphasis added. I acknowledged that academia in practice has plenty of faults. The degree to which truly free intellectual inquiry and expression takes place certainly depends on the academic institution in question, and is debatable. But you are going way too far here, equating two things which are clearly not equivalent. Academic institutions are definitely less controlling of thought than think tanks; both in practice, and crucially, in principle. You have to subscribe to a narrow ideology to work for a think tank even in principle. By design.I question the claim that academic institutions are any less controlling of thought than think tanks.
Absolutely. I completely agree. The more academic institutions are organized like think tanks, with top-down funding and control, the more they will function like think tanks instead of being the bottom-up sources of new ideas and free intellectual inquiry that they claim to be.Revoltingest said:Sure, the latter starts off with a more specified agenda,
but academia is fraught with controlling cultures, & even they are beholden to source funding (eg, state government, private donors). I think of my alma
mater, & see narrow perspectives wher social & political influences intrude. It looks every bit as limiting as one would find in think tanks like The Cato
Institute or People For The American Way. The real vale of think tanks is in external rather than internal diversity.
I completely agree and that was indeed my point.Revoltingest said:It would be short sighted to think that the problem is with rightish think tanks. The same phenomenon must also haunt leftish ones. Why do we
discuss only shortcomings of those who lean right? Because it's lefties doing the analysis, & they believe they have the truth, ie, the correct views.
I agree with this, too.This sort of equivalency argument is popular, false, and misleading. There may be similar problems on both the Left and the Right, but at this point in time, the Right is far more intellectually insular than the Left. That may change in the future, but it's the case for now. Read The Republican Brain by Chris Mooney. You should educate yourself before you make such equivalency arguments.
You fall prey to the popular false false equivalency argument. It is quite common for people of a particular persuasion (either left or right...or other)This sort of equivalency argument is popular, false, and misleading. There may be similar problems on both the Left and the Right, but at this point in time, the Right is far more intellectually insular than the Left. That may change in the future, but it's the case for now. Read The Republican Brain by Chris Mooney. You should educate yourself before you make such equivalency arguments.
*Gasp!* An administrator was too busy to talk to him at that time? What are they hiding? Fascists!There is actually a pretty good documentary on this kind of thing:
We will have to agree to disagree. The university setting appears every bit as stifling as think tanks to me. But even more appropriate,Emphasis added. I acknowledged that academia in practice has plenty of faults. The degree to which truly free intellectual inquiry and expression takes place certainly depends on the academic institution in question, and is debatable. But you are going way too far here, equating two things which are clearly not equivalent. Academic institutions are definitely less controlling of thought than think tanks; both in practice, and crucially, in principle. You have to subscribe to a narrow ideology to work for a think tank even in principle. By design.
Just look at the article. A guy has an opinion--bang, the think tank fires him. It's not even controversial or scandalous, it doesn't do anything to harm the think tank's reputation. After all, that's what think tanks do--promote a particular ideology. This is totally opposite academia in principle. And thankfully, it's also very different from what happens in academia in practice, too.