I think the many silos of each group honestly make it nearly impossible to determine the balance. If you are asking which side of the aisle has more PhD's, then I concede that it's probably the left. But if you look at the titans of industry, many of whom are leading innovators, then I think that the answer starts to change.
Stop there because I don't buy the premise. I think the right has a big edge in small-business owners but not in "titans of industry." And remember that "titans of industry" receive huge material benefits if the right-wing movement gets its way politically.
I'm also a big fan of John Locke, another person who is long dead. As for what Friedman thinks of the modern right-wing movement, I say two things: First, I'm not married to the guy, so I don't have to agree with him on everything. Second, I don't love everything that's happening on the right these days.
I didn't say you do. Just pointing out that what is repelling intelligent people from the current American right-wing movement wasn't necessarily in effect in his time. I point that out because my issue isn't that there is an inherent anti-intellectualism on the right that makes it hard for intelligent people to identify with but that there is a current problem that has that effect. In Friedman's time, one could be more easily intellectually satisfied with the right movement.
I'm having this takeaway because you are repeatedly using terms like "the right" and "the right wing." You seem to be accusing me of a bias while ignoring your own as though you're staying perfectly objective. That's not being honest with yourself or me.
Hmm. If I thought I had any bias leading me astray, I would immediately correct it, as I'd assume anyone interested in truth would do. I don't think I accused you of bias in this thread, either.
We agree that the religious right holds less influence than they once did. But why do you think that I have to support the modern wave of populism in order to identify as someone who holds conservative positions on different topics?
You don't. I didn't say you did. I said that the character of the right-wing movement in America repels serious thinkers today, and then I got into some of the reasons for that.
I personally don't see why those things need to be an "and" statement. It's an "or" statement. Yeah, I think a lot of positions that the religious right holds are not good. I think that true populists hold positions that are not good. I think that the wing of the Democratic Party that identifies as democratic socialists hold positions that are not good. I really don't feel the need to place people into these kinds of buckets.
I was responding to this:
"There are some incredible thinkers on the right that are every bit as good than the best that the left has to offer."
Clearly there are buckets being referred to there. And sure everyone disagrees with other people in their own broad coalition. But what I'm referring to goes a little deeper than that. If don't hold climate science CTs, don't hold to any magical thinking in economics (I mentioned one--I could also mention beliefs about the effects of immigration or many others), aren't a tribalist with regard to race, aren't religious, etc., at some point, don't you stop thinking of yourself as being on the right in America? Or maybe *you* don't, but surely you can see why others might shy away from the label, even if they're, say, OK with rising economic inequality or something.
This is a false narrative that you've laid out. Both parties have done more than their fair share of political spin throughout the years. It's the very nature of modern politics. I think that the MSM has favored one side throughout recent years, and some people are sick of it.
It's not a false narrative. You can look at polls. Right-wingers are far more likely to simply reject information that comes from the MSM, and most hold the view you do (which I think is very false) about the MSM "favoring" the left.
If there are two sides to every story, they want to hear the side that echoes their opinion. Now, a referendum on media bias would be fine, but the issue with independent media is that it allows for anyone to say virtually anything without having to verify the authenticity of the data. Whereas MSNBC can present information in a slanted way, at least the story's facts are probably true. Alex Jones, on the other hand, can go out there and spout whatever he wants, and some people believe him. So that part isn't good, and verified news stories still hold value.
Yes! And this is clearly more of a problem on one side than the other.
And you pretty much said it yourself. Look at the places where the anti-vax movements have been the most successful. It's the Pacific Northwest, places like Vermont, and pockets like Colorado (Source: Centers for Disease Control).
Could be, but the right nominated and elected an anti-Vaxxer for president, while such a view would be disqualifying on the left.
There's nothing policing up the nonsense on either side of political aisle because there is no commitment to truth, only to ideology (and the country becomes further and further divided as people disappear further down their respective rabbit holes). As you've pointed out many times when discussing BLM, these are collectives, not organizations. So no one even can police up the people on their side of the aisle. No one group can speak or act on another, so the only ones responsible for anyone's words and actions are the ones conducting the speaking and doing.
On the first point, I think that is a real problem but that you greatly exaggerate the extent of it. Since this thread is partly about him, let me point to a recent Shapiro column that relates to this (that was kind of childishly written and presented but mostly right):
https://townhall.com/columnists/ben...-it-isnt-as-dirty-as-you-think-it-is-n2356623
Americans don't trust politicians. That's for good reason. Politicians fib to get elected; they pander to particular constituencies; they leave principle at the door in favor of convenience in order to maintain power and position. But they do not, at least not that often, murder people and collude with foreign governments.
But thanks to popular culture, that's exactly what many Americans think politicians do. If you watch "House of Cards," you're likely to believe that top-level politicians off each other on a regular basis -- and you might be more willing to believe conspiracy theories about the murder of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich. If you've seen "The Manchurian Candidate," you're more likely to believe that either former President Obama or President Trump is one.
President Trump, who was a layman until he became president, obviously believes a lot of the pop culture mythology surrounding politics. That's why he told Bill O'Reilly that it's not that big a deal that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills his political opponents. "You think our country's so innocent?" he said in jaw-dropping fashion. That's why Trump believes that politics is such a "dirty business" -- dirtier, even, than Manhattan real estate, where Trump worked with mafia figures. Politics, in Trump's mind, is the lowest of the low.
That means a more corrupt administration. If you believe, as Trump assuredly does, that anybody would take a meeting with Russian government figures to dig up dirt on an opponent, then you'll do it, too.
Follows with nuttiness, but what can you do?
And, yes, to your later point. But it still understandably makes it hard for some people who otherwise would be great champions of right-wing thought to identify with the group.