Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, recently commissioned his own surveyof over 500 economists, drawn from members of the American Economic Association. Despite Adams’ day job (creating Dilbert cartoons), it’s a legitimate survey, conducted by a respected research firm. The results are interesting, and Adams’ writing about the survey (also here), as expected, is pretty funny.
The results are interesting –the majority favor Obama on 11 of 13 issues–but the part I want to focus on are the demographics of the sample: A random sample turned out to be 48% Democrats, 17% Republicans, with the rest being independent or "other".
You can look at this at least two ways. One is, "What do you expect from a bunch of pointy-headed academics? More evidence of a bias by the arrogant elites in college classrooms." That’s what we’d hear from the Limbaughs, O’Reillys and Hannitys of the world–if they were to acknowledge this survey (which they won’t).
The word elite is mostly a dirty word today, a label attached by conservatives to dismiss both wealthy Hollywood types as well as the highly educated. But it also has other meanings including, in the political arena, the best and the brightest. As Maureen Dowd said recently, "Elite is a good word, it means well above average." All other things being equal, I’d want an elite–say, a Harvard-educated lawyer–rather than Joe Six Pack or Joe the Plumber–say, someone who graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval academy–running the country.
Which brings me back to the survey sample, and the second way you might interpret those demographics. So, the majority of American economists are Democrats. As it turns out, the same is generally true for business, science, and law professors. And outside of those faculties, the percentages who lean leftward are even more striking. A recent survey found that 81% of humanities and 75% of social science profs describe themselves as liberal. Anotherfound that that at elite law schools, faculty who made political contributions overwhelmingly gave to Democrats. This is nothing new, of course. It’s been documented since at least the 1950s that academics tend to be more liberal than the public at large, although a comprehensive recent study shows that the largest group in most fields of study are moderates, not radical lefties.
Academics aren’t the only elites who park on the left. Surveys consistently find that the majority of US journalists are registered Democrats. Similarly, in Australiaand in New Zealand, more journalists are left-leaning than right-leaning.
Now, usually when such surveys are discussed in the press, the tenor of the discussion is that something insidious is afoot. The fear is that there's an "extreme partisan bias"that is bent on brainwashing students and the public. Frankly, it drives conservatives crazy, and many of the surveys that have demonstrated this trend have been commissioned by right-wing think tanks with an agenda of getting rid of all those old lefty profs or dismissing those pinko journos. I'm old enough to remember a book in the late 70s called Harvard Hates America that railed against the liberal intelligentsia. And as the title of that book suggests, the right wing equates being liberal with being unpatriotic. But while it is reasonable to discuss the lack of viewpoint diversity and its consequences--the usual focus--perhaps we might question why it is that the majority of "elites" are consistently liberal and Democrat. Here are some of the reasons typically offered:
- Discrimination in hiring and promotion. In other words, there are just as many good, conservative candidates out there, but we're just not hiring or promoting them. While some have claimed to have evidence of such a trend, it's pretty flimsy. And certainly in my professional experience -- 25 years in academia -- I just don't see it happening. Frankly, in the institutions where I've worked, if we think you're going to be a great teacher and publish like a fiend, you'll get the job or the promotion.
- Birds of a feather. Liberals are attracted to the profession because they know they'll work with like-minded people. I suspect there's some merit to this argument, although it's probably a minor consideration in most people's career planning.
- Unwelcoming climate. In other words, people whose views don't fit in with the majority are driven away from these professions. They feel uncomfortable and leave--or never show up because they choose different careers. I suspect this also happens occasionally, but most academics actually like an argument. Plus, note that for this explanation to hold water, it requires assuming that the status quo was already liberal.
- Academics--and to a lesser degree journalists--are idealists. That is, they don't live in the "real world" so it's easy for them to support a liberal agenda. Well, I think we're guilty as charged on being more idealistic than the average person. And to me, that's the way it should be. Higher education and journalism ought to challenge us to reach higher. And so should our political leaders. I don't accept idealism as a fault. And as for the "real world" bit, I don't know about everyone else, but my world is pretty real. I pay bills and taxes, raise a family, run a consulting business on the side, am on the boards of two charities, and work 50+ hours a week at my "day job."
Now, consider a couple of explanations you won't see in the mainstream press or the right wing blogs when discussing these survey results.
- The values of academia and journalism simply align better with a liberal worldview. Tolerance, openness to diverse opinion, critical thinking, and challenging authority are fundamental to academic work as well as journalism. For example, the university's role as the "critic and conscience of society" is enshrined into law here in New Zealand. Considering and respecting diverse views, gathering and critically examining the evidence, and then articulating a reasoned argument is what we're trained to do. Those practices just don't sit very comfortably with the socially conservative mindset that adheres to dogma, rejects inconvenient science, and is intolerant of people who are different.
- Academics and journalists are better informed than the general public. This may sound arrogant and elitist (rather than just elite), and that's not my intent. But it's just possible that academics and journalists make better, more informed choices than the general public. Isn't it interesting that the the majority of people whose life work is studying economics, science, business, and law consistently support Democrats and hold liberal/progressive ideologies? And that this trend is more extreme at the best schools?
Academics and journalists are in general far more engaged in political issues than the general public. They read, write, and talk more about politics than the average person. They have more complex views. (Right wingers may be disappointed, but
most of us have no interest in pursuing a strict Marxist-socialist agenda. Let me say it bluntly: People who, as a group, have studied the evidence most closely -- and are trained to do so -- overwhelmingly side with liberal-progressives. Now, I'm not saying academics and journalists are smarter than everyone else and their opinions should be somehow elevated. I've known lots of academics that I wouldn't trust to change a tire. And, as a believer in democracy, I strongly support every citizen's right to his or her own opinion and vote, (although I often have conversations with people that make me wistfully sympathize with Churchill's well-known quote, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"). What I am saying is that the fact that most academics and journalists lean a bit left can be interpreted in more than one way--and not necessarily as a problem. Most people just aren't that engaged with political issues. Maybe the next time you hear about media bias and liberal academics, you might think more deeply about why journalists and professors think and vote as they do.