- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
On the contrary, Trump's proposals as advertised set him against those who pretend to favor free enterprise, but in fact favor more government and centralized looting by the non-productive. It remains to be seen what his proposals actually accomplish.
If he just slows down socialism, thats all I ever expected from his presidency,. He isnt doing any successful re-education of the populace in the basis of free markets and individual responsibility
term: "Trump is definitely intellectually conflicted."
I don't see President Trump as having a philosophy, ideology, or even clear positions on basic issues.
- Should gov't spending be increased or decreased?
- Do you think US continue agreements to provide security for other countries, or should US dial back those agreements and let countries provide for their defense?
- Should we make moves to privatize Social Security, PPACA, and other social safety net programs, or should those programs stay in existence but be reformed?
- What do you think of asset forfeiture?
- What do you think of gov't surveillance on Americans not suspected of a crime?
I believe he has no idea on these. I think he has no idea if he's for socialism if you asked in a neutral way, something about hardworking American's money being used to help other native-born hardworking American's who've fallen on hard times. He's not for it or against it. He does not know. He knows what gets attention. If you were making a reality TV show and wanted to know just how much chest a woman should show to get people not to flip to the next channel, I believe he would know how much skin is too much and what the sweet spot is for getting eyeballs on that screen. If you asked him to think up three things that are kind of offensive but would get everyone arguing, he would know them off the top of his head. If you asked him unprepared what socialism is, he would struggle. If you asked him to use socialism in a sentence that would get people in line at a deli with a TV playing to look up and watch the show, he would have one.
The federal government deserves to be completely overthrown and socialists prosecuted for treasonous actions against the constitution, but such action rarely turns out well.
"You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it is illegal."
Ben Franklin in the movie 1776
I do this with most of what the establishment says. For example- global warming. I wont live to see any effects of the supposed global warming anyway, so why would I waste my personal time trying to analyze the data that the pundits are putting out there.
I get the distinct feeling that the establishment has a vested interested in global warming to advance their "control" agendas. It is immaterial to me if Trump, Obama, Hillary, etc are for or against the agenda. It is what it is.
As an engineer, I have a distinct impression that if indeed there is global warming, that it is more likely to be a result of some huge factors that have resulted in heating or cooling the earth for a long long time, and that are far beyond what we could affect as humans.
Additionally, establishment types cant predict whats going to happen this year, let alone the next 100 years.
Also, so what if the sea level goes up a few feet in 100 years. If I lived on the coast there is plenty of time to just move inland to the "new" coast.
Therefore, I ignore the establishment's comments about global warming without even bothering to say I agree or dont agree. I dont know.
As to whether soldiers like Trump, I dont know, and frankly dont care. There are more important things to think about than if someone likes trump or not.
Secession would never be allowed to happen, even to one state. Thats what the previous civil war was about and look how that turned out.
As its going now, in 50 years the USA will not be a good place to live any more. It will be filled with entitled people and a powerful government intent on staying in power. Not a great scenario. I am not sure that freedom loving people living today can really stop that at this point. The decline of the USA is deeply rooted in collectivism and religious nonsense, and entitlement and political correctness has taken over to the point that in the colleges are not even allowed to present free market ideas any more without violence erupting.
Should say "President Trump enjoys less support among indoctrinated citizens..." given that most college and university instructors are leftists.
Moreover, I have learned many facts and gained valuable insights from my Marxist professors, most especially the truly Marxist who invest a lot of hard work in their research. As von Mises said, in economics, advocates of the free market and socialists often agree on the facts, but they disagree on what the facts mean.
Gen. Mattis, Col. Urben, and LTC Dempsey all found that the officer corps is generally more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Educated conservatives tend not to support Pres. Trump and his policies. It cannot be blamed on liberal brainwashing.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Gen. Mattis, Col. Urben, and LTC Dempsey all found that the officer corps is generally more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Educated conservatives tend not to support Pres. Trump and his policies. It cannot be blamed on liberal brainwashing.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Do you include college education past 1970 at the nation's military academies? George Mason University? Hillsdale College? Your sweeping generality is an expression of emotion that reinforces assumptions you bring to the discussion, but is unsupported by the evidence.
As an Air Force officer (the first commissioned member of my family) I always felt I was swimming upstream against superiors that were more concerned with process than results. It mattered less to them of the outcome than finding the lowest risk to their own careers. I watched the most highly effective field grade officers winnowed out by an establishment bureaucracy. What remained were either "eye candy" brainless Steve Canyon wannabes, or avaricious, untrustworthy bureaucrats in uniform. The Navy upper ranks appeared even worse.
I never worked closely with "chair force" people, but from what I have seen - and there were downsides for me when I attempted to task a colonel - they are smart, conceptual, multi-dimensional thinkers.
On my blog, I reviewed a book,The Leaders Bookshelf co-edited by Adm. James Stavridis with contributions by other four stars. (Discussed in the Gulch also here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Among the books recommended was The General by C. S. Forrester. "Perhaps the clue to Curzon's development during this time [between world wars] is givern by his desire to conform to type." The book is, of course, a warning of what not to do to be a leader.
Once an Eagle is perhaps better explained here as a Keating-Roark story about two very different officers. "Massengale will never make an enemy and he'll never have a friend."
From my vantage point, I could disparage the higher-ranking sergeants above me, the staff sergeants and first class who got their rockers with time in grade, never actually leading anybody at anything. I have an air command chief who lost his fire for the job long ago but who holds on to it and I cannot get it. But it all would just be me making myself big by making them small.
We here like to believe that you are a cool guy and we like to put down politicians. But your story is just confirmation bias.
There were some generals that were a real pleasure to work with. The first commander of Space Command, General Hartinger, a four star who started as an A-20 rear gunner in WW II was a crusty soul who terrified the underlings who were worried about their careers, but he and I had great relations. Major General Neil Beer, my direct boss and a PhD nuclear physicist, was extremely sharp and gracious, but he made the mistake of advocating for a separate space service, and was "promoted" to an out of country three star position that would prevent his advocacy. Beer had the integrity to resign. Major General Tom Sawyer (no kidding), commander of space operations, was always ready to say to me (a Lt Col) "shut the door and let's forget about rank" when discussing contentious issues. True to his word, he never pulled rank to back away from a position he committed to in those closed door sessions. Sawyer was also considered for higher command, but he was considered to be too much of a "boy scout" (translation: not ready to protect the elite).
I also had the pleasure of serving under a Canadian two star under my "other hat" in NORAD, and he was a delight. I had contact with several admirals, with about an even split between the good and the bad, with one truly ugly, despicable individual.
I'd comment in more general terms about my discomfort with the intelligence community leadership, but most of that will remain undisclosable indefinitely (a rather neat way to cover your tracks, over-classification). I will say that no one should trust a single word out of former DNI Clapper's mouth.
"... have always been politicians in uniform." and "As an Air Force officer...". I never had the opportunity to serve in the military, but I'm betting we may know at least one AF General in common. LOL! Your post made me think of a rather funny incident having to do with politics that raised a lot of laughs with the guys, but GOD the General was PISSED! LOL!
1. Formally educated people in the US on average are not as smart as uneducated people because domestic colleges teach propaganda and/or incorrect information. As a result, enlisted people in the US military, on the average, are smarter than the officers and leadership.
2. President Trump is generally doing a good job by reasonable objective measurements.
3. Officers, on the average, can't see how good President Trump is (#2) because their education paradoxically makes them less smart (#1).
If the less educated are more capable at selecting the president, would we be better off if the military leadership also had less education?
Pointing out the notion there may be indoctrination styles other than Marxist, or as I said Marxist/PC - since PC is not necessarily a Marxist tenet, does not subtract from the fact of Marxist/PC indoctrination taking place on a rather large scale. With that said, I am not surprised that Catholic schools turn out students that may be over represented in ARI winning submissions. The reason is empirical for me as I live in a large metropolitan area with a very large Catholic population that includes many Catholic schools scattered all about - many attended by friends and family members. The schools, at least the ones I am personally familiar with - mainly high schools, even accept students that are not Catholic and allow many students to opt out of religious instruction classes. Furthermore, religious instruction (or as you prefer: indoctrination) is NOT brought into the usual academic classroom. The reason for this is purely economical as these schools need the funding to continue in existence and the population at large, Catholic or not, views these schools as high quality private education for their children. These schools have very high academic and BEHAVIORAL standards often not found in the public schools sometimes found on the same city block. These standards supersede tuition paid.
I know a bit about the history of Catholic education in America, not only from my own experience, but from a graduate class in local history of Detroit. Detroit had Catholic schools from 1800 because it was French before it was English and American. The first wave of Irish came there a generation to a decade arlier than the rest showed up in Boston. Following them came Germans and then Poles through the 1920s. Catholic schools were always the mainstay in Detroit and they created the middle class of the suburbs as people moved up and out. Personally, I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood in Cleveland, but I attended public schools because my family was anti-clerical for political reasons left over from Europe.
Anyway... I agree that Catholic education tends to be conceptual. The indoctrination into mysticism and altruism is based on and delivered via ideas that are identified and explained. Public education does not identify its implicit morality; and it has no explicit philosophy. They do not even hold to John Dewey's pragmatism. They just float...
That said, though, again, from personal experience, we had little Ayn Rand coteries in all the public schools that I knew from Cleveland. I was at a Model United Nations sponsored by the Council on World Affairs, very left-liberal and all, but all I had to say was "... that's not rational..." and some girl asked me out to lunch. "So you read Ayn Rand."
Just to say, I agree broadly with your perspective, but I think that there is more to it.
If we move our kids to another school, it would be a Catholic school. I know people from Jewish, Muslim, and atheist backgrounds who send their kids to Catholic school because the local Catholic school has its act together. They are really impressive. They do some indoctrination, but they also see problems and fix them. It seems while atheists argue whether a free market or socialistic programs are better at helping the poor, Catholics actually help them. And it's not just about helping the poor. They're good at helping themselves.
For you and me, though, I assume you would never use the word "educated" to mean indoctrinated in anything, even if the indoctrination were in conclusions you agreed with.
In the context of the OP, are you saying that on the average US military officers are not actually educated (in our use of the word) but rather indoctrinated in political dogma?
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Gen. Mattis, Col. Urben, and LTC Dempsey all found that the officer corps is generally more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Educated conservatives tend not to support Pres. Trump and his policies. It cannot be blamed on liberal brainwashing.
Trump has a brash, sometime embarrassing demeanor, but more than any of the past several Presidents he is forcing the resurrection of the separation of powers, and seeking to restore the power of the states. In that sense he represents a return to original Federalism, which should be a dream come true for conservatives. Unfortunately, modern conservatives are too obsessed with appearance than achievement.
How is he doing that? During the campaign and in office he keeps making statements disregarding the law in favor the Executive Branch, which has been long trend since at least WWII and maybe since the Whigs disbanded, and President Trump seems to be even more open about it.
It would be a more powerful demonstration of his belief in the Constitution if he acted the same way on issues that didn't politically work for him.
"it's almost like multiple personality disorder with Trump. He seems to have a knack for making statements that create more opportunities for his critics,"
I think he doesn't know or care much about policy, but he likes attention. He'd rather say something that makes him look possibly guilty of crime or possibly racist/sexist than to lie low.
I realized this when he made a statement that I found questionable in response to the violence in Charlottesville. He corrected it by releasing a more traditional statement condemning bigotry and violence. He clearly should have lain low and let his critics look bad by trying to milk the violence and death for all they're worth. Instead he opened his mouth and said something that sounded offensive. He didn't care that it wasn't the smart thing to do. People were talking about Trump again.
"it's being naive about expecting too much out a Congress led by a Republican majority at war with itself."
I get a strong sense of that. He wanted to deliver on his promises and really didn't realize Congress would actually oppose him and he would have to play politics to get even basic things to pass. I don't think he ever thought he'd win. I think he was going to use the campaign attention to build his brand and start a new TV network or something and by some fluke he won.
"Democrats are having much the same civil war between the socialist-leaning and the conventional more moderate liberals"
I truly think socialist-leaning Democrats have more in common with Trump supporters than with moderate Democrats. They both want to increase borrowing, slightly increase spending, and spend the money helping Americans. They both think there's a cabal of bad or corrupt people causing the problems in their lives. I hope I'm wrong or that they're a minority if I'm right.
I heard someone from the NYT The Daily podcast this morning telling the liberal side of tax cuts. It's all about figuring how what percentage of "available income in the economy" are steered to which groups, the economist said. It makes me afraid socialists are the majority.
I have a feeling that if Sanders had won, we'd be seeing many of the same stories about how frustrating it is for him to see how hard it is to enact many of his promises.
Yes. And we'd seen spending growing a few percent, and the deficit increasing by roughly $150 billion, the same as now, and the same as if Clinton were president.
I do not think Trump supporters really want to reduce the size of gov't. They want gov't to do something to bring back old jobs that paid a living wage. They have a simplistic view that jobs and wealth are a fixed pie that gets distributed based on "the economy" and gov't policy. Sanders supporters want basically the same thing. It's rare to find people who actually want to close military bases, stop paying medical assistance for their parents' nursing care, close prisons, stop federal grands for constructions projects, stop insurance subsidies for their aunt who's fighting cancer, stop unemployment payments. Whichever ones of those they benefit from, they want those expanded. They want gov't to do more for good hardworking people like them and people they know and less for people who are different, scary, and/or undeserving.
I'm really concerned about this for the long-run. Not only is the spending not sustainable, but the spirit of wanting government to solve your problems, of being a victim, and of seeking to make other Americans feel uncomfortable are all corrosive. It's also related to the denial of reality, not just disagreeing on the facts but seeing the world as opinion only and reality a function the social/political models in the viewer's mind. The US is amazingly prosperous and free, but we have this Roman Empire decadence.
Likewise, reverting to strictly domestic sourcing (MAGA) ignores over $7T invested by foreign firms in American-based production centers. It's not about the companies, but the jobs, and many American jobs are provided by foreign companies. Bluntly, delusional.
Populism sounds great, whether socialist or nationalist, but neither is rationally good for the people.
I also think only buying from domestic vendors compounds the stupidity of a massive new gov't program.
"... are you saying that on average..." I'm saying no such thing. I know many career military officers who are highly educated in the non-indoctrinated sense of the word. I also know a well educated very very high ranking officer who is a "dyed-in-the-wool" liberal. I would trust his judgement on many things, but NOT how to run the country or who to vote for.
I didn't mean to say you might slip and make mistake. I mean you don't actually think education can be the same as indoctrination, even if you it's teaching conclusions you believe in.
"I know many career military officers who are highly educated in the non-indoctrinated sense of the word."
The OP article says officers approve of Trump less than enlisted people. People are saying it's because Trump is actually the better choice, but education is often just political indoctrination, and that indoctrination makes officers less supportive of Trump.
If you're just saying you don't trust the voting judgment of people who vote for candidates you disagree with, that sounds like a truism. I was talking about the relationship between education and support for Trump.
I do not know what the relationship is. The arguments that a) Trump is actually better and education makes you too stupid to see that or b) Clinton is actually better and education makes you smart enough to see that are not helpful.
Thanks for reading me take four paragraphs to say I don't know the reason for this phenomenon. :)
1) The military is also like a fraternity or exclusive club and you are a member or you are not. Trump is not and as a result will never be fully accepted and approved by some members no matter what he does.
2) Many career military (officer corps) like the fraternity to be "tidy" in certain respects. That is, the leadership is expected to maintain specific traditional behaviors and "face". Trump breaks those rules and shows a non-traditional face from time to time. [side note: Often the media snipes on him for being "non-presidential", which is the same thing.] This seeming superficiality is upsetting to traditionalists and blocks them from seeing what Trump is really all about. Therefore, they disapprove of him no matter what else he does.
If the speculations I just offered are true (especially the second, since all officers are educated), then perhaps separating out "education" as a meaningful stat is just a meaningless red herring.
I'm sure there are more possibilities.
Thinking "out of the box" is generally discouraged, despite admiration for historical figures who were victorious because they exercised unconventional strategies or tactics. For all the praise heaped on figures such as Admiral Halsey or General Patton, those officers would not survive in today's politicized military.
Eisenhower is the icon for the modern military: a pure administrator, with no combat experience, he became the ultimate politician, negotiating between conflicting interests in the alliance, often to the detriment of the mission. His decision to give priority to British Marshal Montgomery's failed assault on key bridges in the Netherlands (retold in the well made movie "A Bridge too far") prevented General Patton from driving through a diminished German defense, and allowed the Nazi offensive remembered as the Battle of the Bulge to take place. That decision was strictly political, meant to restore British pride, when an American armored assault toward the Rhine was the obvious best strategy.
My hope is that Secretary of Defense Mattis will look to clean out the chicken coop of the politicians in uniform, but I'm not holding my breath. Those vermin have developed an uncommon skill for survival. When Donald Rumsfeld tried to root out the self serving upper rank fraternity, they very effectively used their substantial media and lobbyist connections to undermine him.
The administrative mindset , not rocking the boat,
An upper rank fraternity that is self serving is not a
Fertile ground for innovation or for fiscal prudence.
The defense industry revolving door lobby, all figuring out how to extract all they can legally with laws they and their friends create.
Thinking out of the box is appropriate when a real desire for an answer or solution is the goal and everything else is tried and not working.
Lobbyists are the worst cats in the canary cage. It disturbed me, when I was overseeing the development of new space systems, that the competing contractors were my best source of information on what budgets I should expect in coming fiscal years.
Decades ago, as a young teenager, I read a biography of John Paul Jones. He became my first example of out-of-the-box real life heroes. Then came the likes of Thomas Edison and Michael Faraday and many more.
There's a very nice bronze of him near the Niagara power plant I've driven by numerous times and when I point it out to others that may be with me, I find very few knew who he was or the fact he made the plant possible. Tesla's ideas and Westinghouse's money. Great combination!
I'll be looking forward to the movie.
This and what DrZarkov99 says below makes sense. It's unfortunate the military leadership has politics in it. I get what you're saying about the politics rejecting the non-traditional and outside-the-box ideas. Not all outside-the-box ideas are good. They can be outside-the-box because they're intelligent but reject orthodoxy or they can just be wrong. My impression is President Trump is any apparently radical foreign policy ideas are more a case of lack of knowledge and experience than due to him understanding and rejecting the prevailing views.
More to the point are the people here who verbalize around Pres. Trump's own socialist ideas (national socialist) about bringing back good-paying jobs. His attitude toward women and his behaviors speak deeply about his true nature, and yet, they excuse, justify, and deny.
To me, the touchstone in this discussion is that among these conservatives even the military is not exempt from charges of Marxist indoctrination. This was the propaganda of the far right in the 1950s and 60s when the John Birch Society followed Sen. Joseph McCarthy's accusations of traitors within the military. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army–Mc... )
Since when is bringing back good paying jobs a national socialist idea? Let's see how the jobs are brought back before making that stretch in judgment.
"His attitude toward women..." Yes, some off color locker room guy talk has some people running about insanely proclaiming Trump is somehow 100% misogynistic - begin hand wringing and nail biting. VP Pence says something the opposite and gets roasted as if they expect him to be a playboy and he refuses to act out their script - more hand wringing and nail biting. Little people can stand before a mole hill and convince themselves it is a mountain.
"...even the military is not exempt from charges of Marxist indoctrination." They aren't. Why should they be? IMHO though, if a charge is brought, there should be proof. Even career military individuals could be part of the swamp that needs draining. Joe McCarthy wasn't wrong all the time.
If uneducated people took over the military leadership, they would be the establishment. Then the view of not trusting the educated would be in conflict with not trusting the establishment.
I guess I've become an old-man "conservative" or whatever you call it. I think usually (not always) in any organization the "establishment" got to be in charge because they showed up and did the work using their education.
This is the crux of it, right? This is a radical claim. Education, real education, should not indoctrinate dogmas. I see no indoctrination happening. I have two kids in public school. I pulled them out of a private school because of disagreements with them. The public school is pretty good, considering it's provided for "free" and run by the gov't. Compared to private business, it's not that great. There are some great people there, and there are some people younger than I am who are counting the years until they're eligible for retirement. I see a huge problem there of treating kids like babies. Kids can't just run outside and play for recess. Their games must be pre-approved by teachers. They're not allowed to refuse to play with someone. They're not allowed to pick up sticks. The list of proscribed activities is staggering.
But I see no politics there whatsoever. There are all sorts of things I don't like. Since I do not like them and I do not like President Trump's public persona, I could try to contort them into "indoctrination". Esp with policies I don't agree like the drug war, which I think is a tragedy that threatens liberty way beyond people caught up in the war, I could say the reason everyone can't see it my way is the schools are indoctrinating them in it at a young age. Most people who agree with elements of the drug war have been brainwashed, I'd (wrongly) say. If only they could be like me, freed of the dogma, they'd see the light.
What intellectual masturbation that would be! I have to accept that intelligent people think drug prohibition, even war-like prohibition, is a good idea, and it's not because they're brainwashed. I actually have to ask them what they think. We have to see if we disagree on the goals, or how much we're willing to pay for prohibition if it does work. We could also see if we disagree on the facts we're using. There are hundreds ways to dig into this issue. Or I could just say they must be brainwashed not to agree with me, which would be intellectual junk food way worse than Taco Bell.
Really what I think happens is people buy into the self-serving claims of politicians, that say either President Obama or President Trump are the incarnation of everything that's evil or incompetent. There is a lot of evil and incompetence in the world. If you believe in the self-serving political rhetoric, that means there's a lot of Trumpism or Obamaism in the world. But it's complete and utter nonsense. Contrary to what they'd have you believe, we have pretty good education here. We are amazingly prosperous and free, by historical standards.
It's like really stupid tabloid-level thinking has found its way to websites that non-tabloid-followers read, and otherwise reasonable people believe absurd claims like there's a massive political indoctrination program. I find it absurd on its face, but it's like how if "Big Brother" in a totalitarian country repeats something enough it starts to sound reasonable. This is not "Big Brother", but just millions of "little brother" friends sharing absurd ideas.
Maybe this is what people mean when they say the country is politically divided. I imagine people who accept the brainwashing-in-lieu-of-education claim would claim that I too have been brainwashed since I believe Clinton would by far a better choice than Trump. I don't know how to dig into that if the person denies me agency and thinks I've been massively duped at a young age. I'm basically doing the same thing back when I say they're saying something absurd that's been made reasonable on account of being echoed by millions of "little brothers".
This strikes me as what Adams was afraid of when he said democracy isn't turning power over to "the rabble". That's precisely how it seems to me when people say education is sham, our institutions are all corrupted by cabals of powerful people, and what we need is rule by "working people" instead of the institutions of a democratic republic.
Myself, I see that kids accept their families as normal. Liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, house painter or auto mechanic, you inherit what you are given. Some people break from that, some completely. But in all my years, while I have heard Objectivists tell of disassociating themselves from their families, I never heard it from a conservative. And never from a liberal. If anything Democratic or mildly liberal parents turn out progressive and radical left children. But conservative parents raise conservative children to be conservative adults. That makes sense, if you accept the traditional value of traditional values.
As for the other points, I tend to agree with your perspectives. I am not a fan of former Sen. Clinton. I do not like her or her coterie. But I grant that she is a "policy wonk." She thinks - evilly - about big ideas, long range plans, deep consequences. I give her that. Donald Trump offers the simplicity of fascism.
As you note about Adams and the other Federalists, brought to our world for a comment, they would see Donald Trump as a modern day Andrew Jackson, raising up the rabble.
I wonder if this is happening under my radar. I wonder if some dispute happens and the teachers resolve it by utilitarianism. Or I wonder if it's part of the curriculum.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Gen. Mattis, Col. Urben, and LTC Dempsey all found that the officer corps is generally more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Educated conservatives tend not to support Pres. Trump and his policies. It cannot be blamed on liberal brainwashing.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
People choose.Your claims that liberals indoctrinate people fails to explain the basic facts of Galt's Gulch.
My son was a semi-finalist in the high school essay contest, got a hundred bucks for college went to a tech school -- came out all in for liberal causes turned away from Rand's philosophy.
Reason and liberalism are not a doctrine.
"Where professors can be openly Marxist but have to hide any interest in Rand?"
If that were true, would that make people have a positive view of President Trump? I try to imagine a thought experiment where most of the educated people in society, commissioned officers, executives, professionals, got an education that promoted Marxism. This is an absurd hypothetical to me; just a thought experiment. I can't imagine if that world would produce more or less support for Trump. I guess it depends on which brand of Marxism they indoctrinated. I could see it breaking either way.
"critical thinking" skills I see among the sheep who consider themselves "educated""
If that were true, would people with better critical thinking skills tend to support Trump. It sounds like you're saying in an uneducated state, people are split, but education in our society isn't very good. (This seems patently wrong, since people come to the US from around the world for education and research, but I'm going with it hypothetically.) If it were, you say, it would cause increased support of Trump. Why? I can't imagine how if my classes had been different in college I would vote for someone different.
The officer corps is generally more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Educated conservatives tend not to support Pres. Trump and his policies.
For some reason this is an intriguing mystery to me. What you're saying makes sense, but couldn't the same thing be said about Clinton: emotional rhetoric aimed at providing things for the disaffected and unhappy, not a better future they make for themselves, but one delivered by a leader.
Maybe the difference is Trump offers simplistic villains as scapegoats. Maybe less educated people like the notion of problems coming from bad guys and more educated people like complicated plans. Clinton supposedly had detailed policy books on various issues.
BTW, this has been true for me. Even through college I thought if business leaders and politicians just made helping people and fixing the world's problems a priority, the problems would be solved easily. I used to think people who said the problems were complicated were just offering an excuse for not implementing a fix. I remember reading parts of a book when I was 25 that said if only gov't taxed a few percent more of everyone's income, all the problems would be solved. They added up the costs, and it all added up. That sounds laughable to me now. Once you actually try to run something simple, like a development project, a professional org, or church committee, you realize things not working is the normal state. "Who's the villain responsible for this project's failure?" People ask that question, but it's wrong. Maybe the Trump voters are more like me at age 20, having not run things, and imagining if I were in charge of a company, I would, like, totally make sure everyone got a living wage and we didn't harm the environment.
I call this an "intriguing mystery", but it's also sad. You can vote for candidates with arguments for gov't spending/intrusion geared toward the education or the uneducated, but you don't get any arguments for decreasing gov't.
This ties in with the earlier post here, "Do You Know Your Military?"
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Gen. Mattis, Col. Urben, and LTC Dempsey all found that the officer corps is generally more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Educated conservatives tend not to support Pres. Trump and his policies. It cannot be blamed on liberal brainwashing.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...