Educated voters’ leftward shift is surprisingly old and international(economist.com)
economist.com
Educated voters’ leftward shift is surprisingly old and international
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/29/educated-voters-leftward-shift-is-surprisingly-old-and-international
44 comments
[deleted]
for those who didn't read the article here's some quotes:
> Thomas Piketty, an economist, became famous for a book that analysed 200 years of data on wealth inequality in a wide range of countries. This month he published a paper, co-written by Amory Gethin and Clara Martínez-Toledano, which applies a similar approach to the relationship between demography and ideology. Its findings imply that the electoral victories of Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign in 2016 were not an abrupt departure from precedent, but rather the consequence of a 60-year-old international trend.
Opening credentials
> In 1955 both the richest and the most educated voters tended to support conservative parties. Conversely, both poorer and less-educated people mostly chose labour or social-democratic ones. Today, wealthy people still lean to the right. In contrast, the relationship between education and ideology began to reverse as early as the 1960s. Every year, the 10% of voters with the most years of schooling gravitated towards left-wing parties, while the remaining 90% slid the other way. By 2000, this had gone on for so long that, as a group, the most educated voters became more left-wing than their less-educated peers. The gap has only grown since then. This trend is strikingly consistent. It developed just as fast in the 20th century as in the 21st, and appears in almost every Western democracy studied. This includes both two-party systems and proportional ones, in which green parties now lure educated voters, and nativist parties attract the less educated.
This isn't just because of trump and while current right-wing narratives hate on universities for being echo chambers, the research says this shift has been occurring for a long time.
> Although the authors do not identify a cause for this trend, the simplest explanation is that it stems from growing educational attainment. In 1950 less than 10% of eligible voters in America and Europe had graduated from college.
This makes sense, institutions have largely had a consistent mission (we could maybe argue with the access to federal loans there's been more change to cash in while they can), however access has been increasing significantly over the last 70ish years.
> Thomas Piketty, an economist, became famous for a book that analysed 200 years of data on wealth inequality in a wide range of countries. This month he published a paper, co-written by Amory Gethin and Clara Martínez-Toledano, which applies a similar approach to the relationship between demography and ideology. Its findings imply that the electoral victories of Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign in 2016 were not an abrupt departure from precedent, but rather the consequence of a 60-year-old international trend.
Opening credentials
> In 1955 both the richest and the most educated voters tended to support conservative parties. Conversely, both poorer and less-educated people mostly chose labour or social-democratic ones. Today, wealthy people still lean to the right. In contrast, the relationship between education and ideology began to reverse as early as the 1960s. Every year, the 10% of voters with the most years of schooling gravitated towards left-wing parties, while the remaining 90% slid the other way. By 2000, this had gone on for so long that, as a group, the most educated voters became more left-wing than their less-educated peers. The gap has only grown since then. This trend is strikingly consistent. It developed just as fast in the 20th century as in the 21st, and appears in almost every Western democracy studied. This includes both two-party systems and proportional ones, in which green parties now lure educated voters, and nativist parties attract the less educated.
This isn't just because of trump and while current right-wing narratives hate on universities for being echo chambers, the research says this shift has been occurring for a long time.
> Although the authors do not identify a cause for this trend, the simplest explanation is that it stems from growing educational attainment. In 1950 less than 10% of eligible voters in America and Europe had graduated from college.
This makes sense, institutions have largely had a consistent mission (we could maybe argue with the access to federal loans there's been more change to cash in while they can), however access has been increasing significantly over the last 70ish years.
The saying goes, once you learn enough history you either become a Marxist or a liar.
The man whose name is now synonymous with “smart” has a nice essay about this:
“Why Socialism?”, by Albert Einstein https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
The man whose name is now synonymous with “smart” has a nice essay about this:
“Why Socialism?”, by Albert Einstein https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Another saying goes like this:
If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.
https://freakonomics.com/2011/08/25/john-adams-said-it-first...
If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.
https://freakonomics.com/2011/08/25/john-adams-said-it-first...
Das Capital should be read by everybody - after they turn 40 and have some experience.
In my opinion, it's a dangerous read, because it will turn you into a fire breathing totalitarian if you don't see the subtle flaws in it.
In my opinion, it's a dangerous read, because it will turn you into a fire breathing totalitarian if you don't see the subtle flaws in it.
What are those subtle flaws? I’m not yet 40 so I guess I’m gullible like Einstein.
I would encourage you to read it - it's a book that is part of our civilization now. It starts off with showing the horrors of unchecked monopoly capitalism. And then it switched to the remedy - a collectivist utopia.
The horrors are so shocking that you're willing to suspend disbelief and accept the remedy.
So as you go through life, I would make one observation - just because someone can point out the flaws, doesn't make their proposed remedy nesessarily correct.
The subtle flaw in state enforced collectivism is that people will only work so much for 'the common good' - people want to see some benefit to themselves for their hard work and will basically 'shut-down' if they don't. To combat this, the state now has to force the people to work - with the threat of bodily harm. That ability to force people becomes a source of corruption and you suddenly have a totalitarian state run by despots.
All because Marx though people would happily and selflessly work for the common good. It would be nice if he was correct, but he isn't and we have to deal in reality.
The horrors are so shocking that you're willing to suspend disbelief and accept the remedy.
So as you go through life, I would make one observation - just because someone can point out the flaws, doesn't make their proposed remedy nesessarily correct.
The subtle flaw in state enforced collectivism is that people will only work so much for 'the common good' - people want to see some benefit to themselves for their hard work and will basically 'shut-down' if they don't. To combat this, the state now has to force the people to work - with the threat of bodily harm. That ability to force people becomes a source of corruption and you suddenly have a totalitarian state run by despots.
All because Marx though people would happily and selflessly work for the common good. It would be nice if he was correct, but he isn't and we have to deal in reality.
I reckon the flaws aren't subtle at all. Still it's a very good read if only to understand what the differences are between marxism and... gestures vaguely anything else being labeled as such. Because it's a fairly trendy insult nowadays to call somebody marxist if they suggest anything less than free market.
Paywalled.
https://archive.is/BrrUr
https://archive.is/BrrUr
The Bypass Paywalls extension removes the Great Wall Of Greed effectively.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal...
> removes the Great Wall Of Greed
How about the Great Wall of Paying Journalists?
How about the Great Wall of Paying Journalists?
Forcing people to sign up and pay for every article they read doesn't scale with the digital age. It could have been a solution back when the average person read say 3 physical newspapers and 5 physical magazines (made up numbers just to show the point), but now that the 30 articles one reads in a week could come from 30 different online publications, some of which could well be different the following week, the same solution doesn't scale anymore, and the money spent in commissions and taxes for all those micropayments could be significant. I don't say it's inherently bad per se, but that we could find options that scale better with the growing numbers of articles and publications we're exposed to.
Ironically, one of the best ways to monetize without actually have people moving money would be advertising; too bad it got rapidly out of control and what could have been say a page with 1/10 or its surface occupied by advertising is now filled with junk because there is no control over it, so people start using adblockers to remove it and we're soon back to square one.
Ironically, one of the best ways to monetize without actually have people moving money would be advertising; too bad it got rapidly out of control and what could have been say a page with 1/10 or its surface occupied by advertising is now filled with junk because there is no control over it, so people start using adblockers to remove it and we're soon back to square one.
How about a working micropayments system - your wallet is in the browser anyway and the extension should ask you "this article gonna cost you x cents, wanna proceed?". Then you decide for yourself where your money goes, aka voting with your wallet. Notice I didn't mention crypto or shady spotify-like practices, just real money for real stuff.
For some publications it’s more a wall of beg.
But still, thanks for the link.
But still, thanks for the link.
Hint: disable js. Works on most paywalled stuff.
It's completely unsurprising and much older than 1970. Hitler had a general disdain against the "educated elite" and according to old data a lot of Jews were highly educated.
I forgot to include.
Leftist are like the mafia, they recruit their own and place them in positions of power like universities.
You can see their behavior on these comment thread, meticulously down voting comments that are not in their favor.
If they spent that kind of effort in actual doing some good for the poor, nobody would complain.
Universities are churning out champagne socialists.
You can see their behavior on these comment thread, meticulously down voting comments that are not in their favor.
If they spent that kind of effort in actual doing some good for the poor, nobody would complain.
Universities are churning out champagne socialists.
Educated people tend to hold white collar jobs. They are less affected by inflation, illegal immigration, corruption but have a greater pressure to virtue signal.
T
T
This topic is anemic without going back to the historical foundations of "left" and "right" wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_s...
From there:
The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp".
The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp".
From the same wiki article:
Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs.
Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs.
The most salient split in politics these days is between leftism and liberalism. Leftism is about a direction, liberalism is about a philosophy. The split is similarly old and international.
What we call liberalism nowadays is probably better called progressivism.
What we call liberalism nowadays is probably better called progressivism.
What's the difference between "direction" and "philosophy" in this context?
A philosophy is a set of beliefs. In the case of liberalism, though specific liberals may be all over the map in terms of what they consider the most important of these, they all share a common belief in liberty, consent of the governed, and equality under the law. Liberals, by and large, are happy with slow progress towards a better world. They get very suspicious when people start advocating plans of action that don't fit with the platform.
Leftists are interested in an ideal society, according to leftist political thought that's generally thought to have originated with Marx. Though individuals may have different ideals, they're all organized around certain lines. The ideal communist society and the ideal anarchist society both lie in a direction we call 'left', and the same sets of political tactics move in that direction. Leftists are more interested in the direction than in the philosophy.
The big political divide in the 17-1800s was monarchy over republic. Republics won that fight, now we're in the tail end of the fight between conservatism and progressivism. Now the left has to decide just what sort of course to chart to get to a better world.
Leftists are interested in an ideal society, according to leftist political thought that's generally thought to have originated with Marx. Though individuals may have different ideals, they're all organized around certain lines. The ideal communist society and the ideal anarchist society both lie in a direction we call 'left', and the same sets of political tactics move in that direction. Leftists are more interested in the direction than in the philosophy.
The big political divide in the 17-1800s was monarchy over republic. Republics won that fight, now we're in the tail end of the fight between conservatism and progressivism. Now the left has to decide just what sort of course to chart to get to a better world.
Good points. Why is this a division though? You said it yourself, they're "all over the map". We don't have people x vs y, we have lots of ideas and lots of resultant personal directions. The real problem is having only two parties to act on those directions, shoehorning anything different into their two main discourses.
The two-party division in the US isn't as big of a hindrance as is commonly thought. Both major parties are big tent parties that play the role that coalitions do in parliamentary systems. Third parties play the role of feeding ideas into the political system and serving as a barometer for where the winds are shifting.
Over the last century, there's been a trend of more jobs in education coming more from public dollars. We now live in a world where those, whose job it is to instruct students and form ideas in their minds, depend on the system to exist for their job to exist. It's no surprise that the product of a system that relies on an ideology should be biased toward that ideology.
We also have a system that is far more complex than before and requires education in many fields to understand it.
Our system requires an unprecedented level of cooperation between orgs and governments which appears to be more the left wing style of thinking (sort of). It’s difficult to have these growing nations with resource scarcity and still have a “hands off” policy.
Our system requires an unprecedented level of cooperation between orgs and governments which appears to be more the left wing style of thinking (sort of). It’s difficult to have these growing nations with resource scarcity and still have a “hands off” policy.
Not sure what you're trying to say. I wasn't making a comment on whether the system is needed or not, or good or bad, only that the existence of bias should be no surprise.
Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. Is it any surprise that those who went through these institutions come out ideologically lopsided? This is true for most of the countries I have experience with, it even holds true for a large part of pre-university education. Add to this the more recent phenomenon of trying to label all those who do not keep within the (narrow and shifting) window of allowed opinions and the recipe for producing an ideological monoculture is complete.
To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma.
To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma.
>> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum.
not sure what you mean here, what exactly are you postulating? Is it that there's a bias in any university curriculum? Is it that a large group of a younger (primarily 18-25) demographic create an echo chamber or that there's peer pressure to a specific ideology?
There's a lot to unpack in your comment, and it all appears that it isn't really in good faith.
not sure what you mean here, what exactly are you postulating? Is it that there's a bias in any university curriculum? Is it that a large group of a younger (primarily 18-25) demographic create an echo chamber or that there's peer pressure to a specific ideology?
There's a lot to unpack in your comment, and it all appears that it isn't really in good faith.
The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true.
Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields. Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment.
Also, there is nothing to "unpack", the message is clear and honest: universities are currently - and have been for a long time - largely left-leaning, especially in the humanities but more recently also more in other fields.
Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields. Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment.
Also, there is nothing to "unpack", the message is clear and honest: universities are currently - and have been for a long time - largely left-leaning, especially in the humanities but more recently also more in other fields.
>> The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true.
fair
>> Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields.
you're asserting something, why shouldn't i be asking you for proof?
>> . Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment.
What's obvious about it?
We can go back and forth just asking open questions with specificity and being unmoved by any answers OR we can discuss what might be the roots of those arguments, e.g., what i brought up in a previous comment about empathy. The former is not in good faith. Like in the original comment:
>> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. Is it any surprise that those who went through these institutions come out ideologically lopsided? This is true for most of the countries I have experience with, it even holds true for a large part of pre-university education. Add to this the more recent phenomenon of trying to label all those who do not keep within the (narrow and shifting) window of allowed opinions and the recipe for producing an ideological monoculture is complete. To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma.
my reasoning for assessing the comment isn't in good faith: you're prescribing your assumptions as truth to reach a biased conclusion. Whether or not you're correct is inconsequential, just like with your comment here, you're saying this situation is "obvious" and if not there needs to be proof. The original article actually says that it isn't "obvious", only that there's been some changes occurring over the last 70+ years and they're getting more prevalent (not that they're extreme in one direction or the other, where the 'simplest explanation is due to more access to higher education'). You're not discussing anything with respect to what the numbers are showing, how much 'liberal bias' is actually occurring? Is it 10%, 20%, ...do you know? Instead you're broad-brush approach to saying it's "obvious" that university curriculum is producing an "ideological monoculuture" is purely speculation based on your own bias. Change the words from where anecdote is your defense to a larger discussion on where your perception stems from and we'll have a real discussion about the topic.
fair
>> Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields.
you're asserting something, why shouldn't i be asking you for proof?
>> . Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment.
What's obvious about it?
We can go back and forth just asking open questions with specificity and being unmoved by any answers OR we can discuss what might be the roots of those arguments, e.g., what i brought up in a previous comment about empathy. The former is not in good faith. Like in the original comment:
>> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. Is it any surprise that those who went through these institutions come out ideologically lopsided? This is true for most of the countries I have experience with, it even holds true for a large part of pre-university education. Add to this the more recent phenomenon of trying to label all those who do not keep within the (narrow and shifting) window of allowed opinions and the recipe for producing an ideological monoculture is complete. To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma.
my reasoning for assessing the comment isn't in good faith: you're prescribing your assumptions as truth to reach a biased conclusion. Whether or not you're correct is inconsequential, just like with your comment here, you're saying this situation is "obvious" and if not there needs to be proof. The original article actually says that it isn't "obvious", only that there's been some changes occurring over the last 70+ years and they're getting more prevalent (not that they're extreme in one direction or the other, where the 'simplest explanation is due to more access to higher education'). You're not discussing anything with respect to what the numbers are showing, how much 'liberal bias' is actually occurring? Is it 10%, 20%, ...do you know? Instead you're broad-brush approach to saying it's "obvious" that university curriculum is producing an "ideological monoculuture" is purely speculation based on your own bias. Change the words from where anecdote is your defense to a larger discussion on where your perception stems from and we'll have a real discussion about the topic.
https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea...
Sociology: 3% R, 26% L, 72% D
Literature: 6% R, 21% L, 74% D
History: 8% R, 29% L, 63% D
Philosophy: 10% R, 30% L, 60% D,
Political Science: 16% R, 36% L, 48% D
Only economics has an under-representation of D with 33% R/33% L /33% D - as far as I know the general population is not 33% L.
When looking for "conservative" professors the division is even more bleak with 8% in Sociology, 3% in Literature, 7% in History, 4% in Philosophy, 2% (!) in Political Science and, again, 27% in Economics.
Don't believe that source? Here's The Harvard Crimson with the same message:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/9/disappearance-co...
Your reasoning for calling my argument not good faith is as biased as you ascribe my intentions to be. Again, please, show some proof of your statements. I can only assume that you do not have any proof - which would be difficult given the actual facts - and therefore take to the method of trying to discredit my intentions. This is a well-worn but ineffectual tactic when there is actual proof of the facts.
Sociology: 3% R, 26% L, 72% D
Literature: 6% R, 21% L, 74% D
History: 8% R, 29% L, 63% D
Philosophy: 10% R, 30% L, 60% D,
Political Science: 16% R, 36% L, 48% D
Only economics has an under-representation of D with 33% R/33% L /33% D - as far as I know the general population is not 33% L.
When looking for "conservative" professors the division is even more bleak with 8% in Sociology, 3% in Literature, 7% in History, 4% in Philosophy, 2% (!) in Political Science and, again, 27% in Economics.
Don't believe that source? Here's The Harvard Crimson with the same message:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/9/disappearance-co...
Your reasoning for calling my argument not good faith is as biased as you ascribe my intentions to be. Again, please, show some proof of your statements. I can only assume that you do not have any proof - which would be difficult given the actual facts - and therefore take to the method of trying to discredit my intentions. This is a well-worn but ineffectual tactic when there is actual proof of the facts.
It is true, the left has no bars when it comes to pushing its agenda into the curricula. Even targeting children for social engineering.
come on, there's no conspiracy going on, what you're calling 'the left' is probably rooted in empathy for others (which spirals into things the gov can do, e.g., provide resources, perform more functions/expand, etc.) - while there's a definite need for balance and consideration of what the gov should be responsible for/pay with via public funds, there again, isn't a 'targeting' of anyone
It is not directly "a conspiracy" but it is the result of a conscious approach of getting people in educational institutions who are willing to be activists for ideologically "left-wing" causes. This has exploded in the last few years with more and more institutions taking up critical theory as a guideline for their curriculum, leading to demands for "diversity, equity and inclusion" in more and more fields.
If you disagree I'd like you to explain where I am wrong instead of just downvoting this post. Explain it in clear terms, using words which were in use in the 90's, which can be looked up paper copies of dictionaries from that time. This seemingly strange request stems from the recent trend for dictionaries to change the definition of terms to fit a narrative, Merriam-Webster being one of the examples of a dictionary guilty of this transgression.
If you disagree I'd like you to explain where I am wrong instead of just downvoting this post. Explain it in clear terms, using words which were in use in the 90's, which can be looked up paper copies of dictionaries from that time. This seemingly strange request stems from the recent trend for dictionaries to change the definition of terms to fit a narrative, Merriam-Webster being one of the examples of a dictionary guilty of this transgression.
>> If you disagree I'd like you to explain where I am wrong instead of just downvoting this post. Explain it in clear terms, using words which were in use in the 90's, which can be looked up paper copies of dictionaries from that time. This seemingly strange request stems from the recent trend for dictionaries to change the definition of terms to fit a narrative, Merriam-Webster being one of the examples of a dictionary guilty of this transgression
Dude, language evolves... this is such a weird thing to be hung up on.
Dude, language evolves... this is such a weird thing to be hung up on.
Yes, language evolves, a natural process which happens over an extended time period. What I am talking about is the online dictionary changing the definition of words a few hours from when someone used that word in a context where it does not fit, to make it fit that context. This has now happened a few times in the last year, did you miss that?
This is not language evolution but language revolution - or revolutionary language - and it is not a natural process.
This is not language evolution but language revolution - or revolutionary language - and it is not a natural process.
I often see the reasoning that the right is less educated as proof that they are the wrong unwashed masses.
What I do not see mentioned, that experts of propaganda clearly know that more educated people are more susceptible to propaganda.
For those who want sources for this, please refer to Jacques Ellul: Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes.
This is my own wording (and like a poor one): for propaganda to work, the population must be educated. There is little room to inject your machinations to the simple and straightforward thought processes of less educated men.
Those who deal with more abstract and complex thought, the more educated, are easier to lead astray with minutiae.
For a contemporary example, just look at MMT and the mother of all bubbles forming right now. A simple man might say if you print more money, money will be worth less. He would be at a high level quite right. Even if he gets many details wrong. The more educated mind might be more inclined to try to understand QE, money velocity, money supply etc, to the point where in the end he is probably less wise than the simple man.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
What I do not see mentioned, that experts of propaganda clearly know that more educated people are more susceptible to propaganda.
For those who want sources for this, please refer to Jacques Ellul: Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes.
This is my own wording (and like a poor one): for propaganda to work, the population must be educated. There is little room to inject your machinations to the simple and straightforward thought processes of less educated men.
Those who deal with more abstract and complex thought, the more educated, are easier to lead astray with minutiae.
For a contemporary example, just look at MMT and the mother of all bubbles forming right now. A simple man might say if you print more money, money will be worth less. He would be at a high level quite right. Even if he gets many details wrong. The more educated mind might be more inclined to try to understand QE, money velocity, money supply etc, to the point where in the end he is probably less wise than the simple man.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
There is education and "education". I think the general understanding what it means to be educated (in this context) is that the people have been exposed different philosophical worldviews, from the left to right, and they can choose from these.
In this sense, middle-class is often uneducated, despite receiving education. For example, neoclassical economics was (and still is) often taught in economic schools at the expense of economic history and political economy, which are more colorful. How many basic economic textbooks talk about Cambridge Capital Controversy before using word "capital"?
> For a contemporary example, just look at MMT and the mother of all bubbles forming right now. A simple man might say if you print more money, money will be worth less. He would be at a high level quite right.
A simple man might think that MMT is the cause, but it is rather an explanation of these bubbles. In MMT, money are endogenous, and the bubble originates outside of the government control. The people who applied QE knew very well, that the neoclassical monetarist theory is no use, because they came from praxis (central banks). They were educated in the practice, not in theory, and it told them that theory is useless (and dangerous). Of course they could have used helicopter money than QE to banks with the same or even greater effect (as Steve Keen recommended), but it wasn't quite in their self-interest.
So the problem with "simple man" is that he assumes there are only two sides in the argument. The crisis of 2008 itself shows there are not - there was neoclassical monetarists and people believing in them, despite this being empirically wrong; then there was central bankers (and other politicians at the revolving door), who knew better, wanted to save the economy, but didn't care about the common man; and finally, there was a common man, who got into debt, because he was told so, and now was confused why banks are being saved and not him. So he opened economic textbook, found about Friedman and Hayek, and was like, ha, I knew you're doing something nefarious!
In this sense, middle-class is often uneducated, despite receiving education. For example, neoclassical economics was (and still is) often taught in economic schools at the expense of economic history and political economy, which are more colorful. How many basic economic textbooks talk about Cambridge Capital Controversy before using word "capital"?
> For a contemporary example, just look at MMT and the mother of all bubbles forming right now. A simple man might say if you print more money, money will be worth less. He would be at a high level quite right.
A simple man might think that MMT is the cause, but it is rather an explanation of these bubbles. In MMT, money are endogenous, and the bubble originates outside of the government control. The people who applied QE knew very well, that the neoclassical monetarist theory is no use, because they came from praxis (central banks). They were educated in the practice, not in theory, and it told them that theory is useless (and dangerous). Of course they could have used helicopter money than QE to banks with the same or even greater effect (as Steve Keen recommended), but it wasn't quite in their self-interest.
So the problem with "simple man" is that he assumes there are only two sides in the argument. The crisis of 2008 itself shows there are not - there was neoclassical monetarists and people believing in them, despite this being empirically wrong; then there was central bankers (and other politicians at the revolving door), who knew better, wanted to save the economy, but didn't care about the common man; and finally, there was a common man, who got into debt, because he was told so, and now was confused why banks are being saved and not him. So he opened economic textbook, found about Friedman and Hayek, and was like, ha, I knew you're doing something nefarious!
There's no shortage of very striking counter-examples to what you're saying in recent events. I think it's far more accurate to say that the educated can be led astray by complex ideas that are difficult to prove and the uneducated equally likely to be led astray by ideas that are laughably easy to disprove.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_Ideology
(His earlier Capital in the Twenty-First Century is more well-known.)