1)When doing the economic analysis, he moves his focus from the humanities to chemistry and law. Are conservatives qualified to be humanities professors somehow making more outside of academia?
The disciplines that he cites as having the opportunity to earn more outside of academia(at least the hard sciences) tend to be more conservative. Why would conservatives choose to be "in a quasi-socialistic working environment", when they could make more money in the private sector?

2)"conservatives are much more favorable..to the values of honor, personal courage..than liberals". I can't find the words to convey how silly I find this idea.

3) Distinguished right wing intellectuals: 1 nazi ,3 fascist sympathizers, and Hayek(whose vision merely leads to private tyrannies rather than public ones). Is this where you need to be to criticize this country from the right? Maybe he should not have dismissed his original reasoning so quickly.

I'm always vaguely amused, when this question comes up, at the thought of why other, similar questions don't come up nearly as much. You mention the fact that members of the military skew to the right, but dismiss it with a few lines about hawkish policies and personality politics. Why don't we wonder about CEOs' conservative tendencies? Almost certainly, they could be explained in an even shorter breath: they're voting with their (hefty) pocketbooks.

When we turn to those with a leftward slant, though, easy answers go out the window. You appear to assume that professors do not choose their liberal politics rationally; instead, you first remove them from the equation entirely, placing the "quasi-socialistic" work environment in the active opinion-filtering role. Then, you speculate that it's all a product of underhanded preservation of the in-group through employment discrimination. By the time you got to the herd behavior hypothesis, I had to wonder how these professors ever got their Ph.Ds when they couldn't even form their own political opinions!

I joke, but isn't it possible that liberal politicians simply better fund education, the arts, and social programs, and that this accounts for a large part of the academics' perceived preference for them?

Of course, what people mean when they self-identify as a "liberal" or "conservative" does not have the same meaning now as it did it previous decades. Voting Republican vs Democrat in previous elections cannot be used, as the Republican party is not truly conservative, nor is the Democrat party truly liberal, and the political philosophies of both have become more centrist over time. Additionally, if the actions of current major political figures associated with a particular philosophy are deemed to be significantly negative by a majority, people will tend to shift self-identification as a result. What they personally believe, of course, hasn't significantly changed, only the willingness to be associated with a group currently held in a negative light. What are generally viewed as significant errors in judgment by the Bush administration (e.g Iraq, Katrina, torture policy, the economy) have pushed people away from self-identifying as conservatives.

"I can't find the words to convey how silly I find this idea."

I think you speak out of ignorance, Nick. I have seen many examples supporting Posner's conjecture both in and out of the military. I have seen your empty counter argument before as well.

If a preference for academics has, at least to some extent, an origin in a "risk aversion" avoidance of the private-sector and the related possibility of real professional failures (rare in faculty life), then perhaps it makes sense that such a group of employees would share ideological similarities on the subject of the government's role in protecting the population at large from its own potentially self-destructive decisions.

"I'm always vaguely amused, when this question comes up, at the thought of why other, similar questions don't come up nearly as much. "

This question comes up since college is such a special, formative experience for millions of people. And parents implicitly place great trust in the professors their children will encounter. People are right to be curious about those being given such a long (and expensive) leash in ushering the young into adulthood and the "educated" classes.

A discussion about CEOs can occur when comparable data is available on their political views. I think the relationship between left-right / poor-rich is complicated. (Blue states, for instance, tend to be wealthier ones.)

I do think Posner's comment on how conservatives value "honor" and "discipline" more than liberals needs quite a lot of elaboration: these are big, complex words that can be understood in many different ways. As it is, honorable and disciplined lefties are not hard to find at all.

Judge Posner raises interesting points. Very interesting, in fact, based on the emotional and apparently uninformed replies above.

Reason, a founding tenet of our Republic, is in serious danger. One wonders whether any of the commentators have enough attention span to actually turn off the computer, the TV, the radio, the IPod, and similar distractions, and actually read a book.

Judge Posner has written quite a number of interesting books, you proles. Read one or two before you assault him.

This is a great discussion that reminds me of the old hedgefox vs fox debate. It makes sense for organizational and civic leaders to be more hedgehog-esque if it is their job to inspire followers and/or provide clarity to those that follow them. If it is someone's job to urge analysis and questioning, on the other hand, it follows (to yours truly, at least) that their thinking would be equally questioning of dominant cultural paradigms. When Dewey wrote about Liberalism and Social Change, I always think of the professor urging students to reshape their thinking on those things already existing in order to re-create these things in better forms for future generations.

I would also mention that liberals rarely self-define as religious (again, according to my own observations), but are simply acquiescing to the traditional definition of religiosity. Why not just identify themselves as zealots of science or evolution as equally a religious undertaking? Paul Davies had an interesting piece about this in the NYT sometime in November (science and religion equally dependent on leaps of faith) and I also was captivated by lines from a book review today on "The Lure of Heresy." Lee Siegel writes, "We have exhausted Romantic individualism, and we have twisted the uniquely individual, modernist escape from the self into 'self-expression.' Expression is everywhere nowadays, but true art has grown indistinct and indefinable. We seem now to be living in a world where everyone has an artistic temperament -- emotive and touchy, cold and self-obsessed -- yet few people have the artistic gift. We are all outsiders, and we are all living in our own truth." If this is the case with regard to religiosity, perhaps it would be worthwhile to actually survey the strange and foreign landscape of the so-called liberals' religiosity in order to establish how professors (or anyone else) want social change to emerge in the future.

Max, perhaps I should have explained myself better as my comment may have come off as a shock post. As DavidS pointed out these are not terms that either side can claim for themselves. Revolutionary movements, by definition liberal though not always in fact, would not occur if people on the left did not believe in these values. Risking one's life to challenge entrenched authority requires some of those values mentioned.

As Dan said, Judge Posner quickly dismisses military officer's conservative tendencies as owing to a love of honor, discipline, etc. What is overlooked is the perception that the Republican Party will give larger pay raises to the armed forces year over year, while keeping military jobs safe through the expansion of the armed services. As the Democratic party has become more hawkish, service members have begun to switch parties. Further, a four year commitment to military service is something that may tend to screen out liberals by its very nature.

B.T.W., I have read some of Judge Posner's works, I attend law school and he was on the summer reading list, though sorry if my post came off as ignorant. This brings me to another point, though perhaps most of the professors may be self-described liberals, the institution itself is not. It produces young people who will make a lot of money working for the establishment, and who will forget their Human Rights professor.

A few additional reasons why educators, as a collective group, are usually left leaning:

1. Since many of their salaries are publicly funded, naturally they would tend to support higher taxes.

2. Many of them are extremely competitve and hierarchical, which makes them resent those in the private sector who earn considerably larger salaries than they do, although the educators are more intelligent and make a greater contribution to society than many of their better-paid private sector counterparts (i.e., the same competitive drive that got them to distinguish themselves academically drives them to distinguish themselves financially--something they can't do on a normal educator's salary).

3. Republican politicians usually try to act like they are dumber than they actually are, while Democratic policians usually try to act smarter than they actually are. (Actually the Republicans have a better political strategy here. Who gets elected as the prom/homecoming king, the valedictorian or the quarterback of the football team?)

4. By courting the extremist, evangelical Christian vote, Republicans alienate intelligent, educated people. For example, currently self ordained "Christian Leader" Mike Huckabee is one of the top Repubublican candidates. He claims he "doesn't know" whether the earth is more than 6,000 years old and has joked about people who thought they were descended from primates.
Also, support for the extreme Evangelical Christians alienates Jewish people who, as Judge Posner correctly oberserved, constitute a disporportionatly large share of educators (i.e., Ann Coulter recently saying that "Jews need to be perfected").

5. Because many Repbublicans have been courting the "ingnorant/rascist/anti-civil rights" demographic in the south, which had been abandoned by Democrats in the civil rights movement in the 1960's--a voting block that is rightfully looked down upon by educated people.

Thank you Judge Posner for an interesting blog ... good topic, statistics, references, vocabulary, phrases prompting additional reading. Everyone should read your books -- you are an exquisite writer: "Public Intellectuals" was so stimulating as was "Catastrophe," "Age and Aging" "The Federal Courts" "Affair of State" ... looking forward to economic treatise of the law -- how could it not be outstanding ... it is interesting that your brilliant son writes a lot like you ... he was a very lucky young man to have you as a critic/fan for his early writing.

Something very similar exists here in the UK too. Often universities are full of kids with radical left-wing views which IMO are often encouraged by the universities themselves.

These are the same kids who marched through London saying the US was the 'real terrorists' and spitting on the memories of those who were brutally murdered on 9/11.

TBH it really turns my stomach. The only thing I can say is these kids gradually become more conservative as they grow up! Either that or they turn into Ken Livingston!

Judge Posner:

I hope you will address the second question regarding "consequences" as it is the only one that matters. My feeling is that it will be a lot less interesting because the consequences will be minimal to none.

I believe you have the explanatory factor of selection backward. It is rather that "people who are comfortable in a quasi-socialistic working environment" self-select to work at universities.

A more interesting theory on the relevance of religion is the degree of intellectualism within the religous culture. Jews have a long history and culture of "talmudic" erudition that well with the mission of the modern university. While a gross over-generalization, it is much less so within the Catholic and Evangelical communities, which have long been marked by cant, orthodoxy, and theological purity at the expense of intellectual inquiry and analysis.

I believe it is a diservice to all academics to lump their politics with their teaching. Professors publish their personal views, to the extent relevant, in their academic writings. In my experience, professors rarely bring those personal views into the classroom -- the teaching is fairly straight forward, particularly at the undergraduate level.

For the most part, the professors political leanings are irrelevant. A better question perhaps is one of collegiality within the various departments or universities. To pick a recent example from the US Supremen Court, there has been much "astonishment" that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia are long-time personal friends, even before their respective appointments to the Supreme Court. A (female) liberal German(?)-American Jew and a (male) Italian-American conservative Catholic. Profound legal and political differences bwetween the two to be sure, but tempered with respect and friendship. I'm guessing that such respect and comraderie is much more common in the university setting than one might conclude from the cited study or your blog.

Two points:

First, I think the author is overly dismissive of the argument that an intelligentsia is naturally liberal, "because a society can be attacked from the Right just as easily as from the Left". Even if this is true, conservatives' relatively greater emphasis on authority, obedience, etc. could plausibly lead to less attacks being made.

Second, in line with the interesting economic arguments, it's worth noting that the more conservative fields seem to be those that provide training for commercial work and, even for academics, offer good opportunities to switch fully to commercial work or to earn income by working part-time.

I'm suprised that "liberal" economists even exist to any degree. As a student of George Stiglers, if he were alive today I would pay $1,000 to see him debate Paul Krugman

I believe that academics are pro-the-state, and will tend to support whatever is the most pro-state of political parties.

This is because academics are mandarins, which are high-culture experts - and it is the state which supports and imposes high culture - which makes high culture 'official'.

(This can be seen clearly in France, where the State supports and subsidizes the French language, film industry, fine food etc. - but it applies to some extent everywhere).

Thus modern academics tend to be left-leaning because the left explicitly supports expansion of the role of the state in supporting culture. But 100 years ago in Germany, academics supported right-wing/ nationalist and conservative positions.

At that time socialism/ communism was seen as an international mass movement of labouring proletarians - hostile to national culture and high culture alike.

This goes back a long way - since the original main function of universities was to produce civil service officials (priests, lawyers, and later public sector teachers). In other words, (especially in Europe - not so much in the US) graduates were usually employed directly by the state. Victorian Oxford saw itself as mostly training elite civil servants, and at that time Oxford was very conservative - probably because liberals were a pro-free trade party.

If in the future liberals became anti-high-culture, and conservatives began to advocate an expansion of official support of high culture then I'm pretty sure that academics would switch their allegiance again - this time from left to right.

At a deeper level, academics are often (absurdly) anti-modernization in their stance - maybe because modernity tends to make many forms of intellectual and cultural expertise obsolete - and to replace deeply-cultured mandarins with narrowly specialist technocrats.

An interesting precursor to the Gross and Simmons paper is The Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy. In it, academic economists and ordinary Americans were asked about various economic issues. In some cases, there were great differences in their responses. For example, economists were much more in favor of free trade than the average citizen. I doubt that Richard Posner and Gary Becker have tried to explain this discrepancy by suggesting that academic economists are more sheltered from foreign competition in their “quasi-socialist institutions” of higher learning and therefore do not fear free trade. Instead, I suspect that would look for some reason why the average citizen was mistaken. Indeed, Becker has written an article on how pressure groups mislead the ordinary voter. Furthermore, I doubt that Becker and Posner would discuss how academics replicate themselves so that they still believe in comparative advantage. At the same time, I suspect that those economists (perhaps, some Marxists) who said that free trade is bad would argue that the economics profession had some built in bias (due to political discrimination and herd behavior, to use Posner’s words) that has allowed the economics profession to perpetuate wrong ideas over several generations.

Now we have a blog on the liberal skew in higher education. Since both Becker and Posner are conservatives (whatever that means) and perhaps lean more to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party, they don’t try to explain why the average voter is ignorant of social science issues when compared to the knowledge of the average academic about their specialty (economics, politics or sociology). Instead they try to find some explanation for the bias of academics (using phrases such as herd behavior, quasi-socialist institutions, and the like that I employed in the preceding paragraph).

So isn’t one general statement that we might come up with from all this is that when people agree with us, we do not try to explain why this is so, but when people disagree we search for explanations for their bias (and not ours).

This is not to argue that Becker and Posner are incorrect in what they say. However, I would be more comfortable with their theory if they could explain the persistent disagreements between academic economists and the public using the same model that they employ in explaining the liberal “bias” of academics.

I'm dubious about the reliability of self-reporting in this context; When university populations are well to the left of the general population, people there judging their own political identity relative to the people around them will tend to understate how liberal they are; The same would be true in reverse if universities were more conservative than the general population.

I'd rather see a survey asking positions on a wide variety of issues where conservatives and liberals split. This would be more accurate.

From the moment I began reading this I wondered how Judge Posner would define "liberal" and "conservative." As a baby boomer college and law school educated in the 1960's my definition of "liberal" and "conservative" is rooted in that era's definition. It was a time of intense social and political discord and great achievements in the law with respect to racial equality. Were I to label myself, I would use the "Big L" coined by Leonard Bernstein in an op-ed piece in the NY Times many years ago to describe himself as one who was very liberal, socially, politically, and economically. However, today, many people, particularly those who are in their 30's tend to be liberal socially yet conservative economically. It would therefore be quite difficult to accurately place such individuals in either category. I plan on reading the articles Judge Posner cites. They will likely this question so that the entire article can be put in proper context.

Recent research, including the study of David Amodio ("Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism." Nat Neurosci 2007;10:1246-7), has revealed neurobiological differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments while liberals are more open to new experiences. Clearly, the latter is more consonant with the creativity required for success in the academy.

I would expect the largest percentage of professors in the upper echelons of education to fall in the ideological spectrum (radical-liberal-moderate-conservative-reactionary) of being "liberal-moderate". Upper level education has long been known as a "liberal" education, be it from the trivium, quadrivium, or whatever.

But, let's make sure that we use the term "Liberal" in it's denotative sense, not the connotative sense as has been perjorativly developed by the "conservative-reactionary" spectrum of the ideological scale as of late. The ability to make such a fine distinction, is the mark and sign of an "evil" Liberal education.

Just one question, "Is it still a prerequisite to own a Dictionary in the upper levels of Education these days"?

"conservatives are much more favorable to the use of military force, and to the values of honor, personal courage, discipline, hardiness, and obedience, which are highly prized by the military, than liberals are."

In fairness to Judge Posner, this observation was not central to his discussion. Nevertheless, it is difficult to read it as anything other than patronizing and offensive. I'm happy to be described as a liberal on most political questions, and simultaneously embrace the values of honor, personal courage, discipline, and hardiness. For me, robust, honest, meaningful liberalism is impossible without those values at its core.

Conservatives discriminate. I don't want them in universities teaching. Every religious college kicks out openly gay people just like the military.

For your next post you should talk about how gay people on average are better educated yet make far less than straight people.

Prof Posner makes a grand show of flopping around looking for explanations as to why those well versed in history, economics, sociology, English and other college level disciplines are more "liberal" than those in business, the military, or the general public of which less than 30% have graduated from college, except for the most obvious explanation.

Most obvious is that neither the stated policies of "conservatives" nor their actual policies would stand being held up to the rigors of academic debate.

Examples:

In economics (stated since Reagan) Would anyone want to try to justify the policy of cutting taxes, primarily for the benefit of those already wealthy, to the point of not paying our bills and running up massive levels of debt? In time of "war?"

Or the actual? Justify the setting of THE post WWII record for expanding the size and cost of the Federal Budget (by either percentage of GDP or absolute terms) before the bills for the war/occupation began arriving, while "conservatives" held all the gavels.

Healthcare: Given that we spend double the percentage of GDP on healthcare as our more civilized "competitors"; would anyone want to defend "medical savings accounts" and "tort reform" as policies even worthy of discussion?

Medicare: Given that it is NOT "going broke" due to the increasing numbers becoming eligible, but because of the continued rises of costs under our current "healthcare delivery system" does anyone want to suggest a "non-liberal" solution? and attempt to defend it?

Criminality and the "Drug War": Given that we lock folks up in the US at over 5 times the rate of the "civilized nations" and for much longer terms as well as having a higher rate of imprisonment than even Russia, would anyone have a ghost of a chance of making a case for yet harsher punishments and higher rates of incarceration?

Foreign Policy: Would anyone want to go up against a history prof on the side of building even bigger nuclear and "conventional" hammers, talking tough, and trying to scare others into compliance with our mandates as was tried in Vietnam and Iraq?

Energy: Who wants the side of "drilling our way out" be it ANWR, The Gulf, or some national park; w/o a STRONG policy of conserving what we now consume/waste? and developing supplemental sources? And "non-liberal" means?

Extra credit for economists: Who wants to make a case that there is a functioning market subject to the laws of supply and demand in oil and NG?

Bonus points for naming any commodity that comes close to being priced at five or more times cost of production w/o being subject to a cartel or government protection, ie Big Pharma. And, finally after determining there is not a functioning market in oil, suggest a "non-liberal" solution or set of solutions in keeping with "conservative" principles.

Education: Offer a rational proposal for raising median achievement levels while continuing to defend our current property tax based funding system which prejudicially underfunds the schools attended by kids who live in low priced neighborhoods. (And please........ if interested in actual results and "breaking the cycle" skip the rhetoric that begins with "parents should.....")

"Conservative Talk Jocks" Does anyone want to stand-up for the mindless rants of Rushy and such? Or even explain why "The market" does not spawn at least a few shows in which A. The "host" (ie the ranter) is educated or even halfway prepared in the subject under....... rant? B. Why the "host" never invites guests with an education in .......... anything.

Unions: Who wants to take on a knowledgeable and non-partisan economist as to why wage and working conditions negotiations under collective bargaining to provide some balance against "price setters" that working folk MIGHT participate in annual productivity gains is a "bad idea?"

Gun control: Given that our gun slaughter rate is five or more times the rate of the more civilized nations, despite the numbers locked up and with many states having the death penalty, offer a "non-liberal" means of lowering our horrendous rate of gun death acceptable to "conservatives" and/or the NRA.

Political Science: Given that what's remaining of our democracy is being suffocated under piles of special interest money and concerted action of hordes of bag packing, rent-seeking lobbyists, does anyone have a "non-liberal" suggestion for campaign and election reform they'd like to try out on a historian, economist or one well versed in political science?

First, let me say, I am not a spam bot, I am a meat pop-sickle. If you get this joke, odds are, you have personally responded to this post, and are a liberal... or a Bruce Willis/Milla Jovovich fan.

I know posts after about #15 really don't get much attention, so I will aim this response to those readers who for some reason want to view every response. Perhaps you are interested in the social-science aspect of this post and one day want to conduct a data analysis similar to the one that Judge Posner cites above.

Disclaimer One: I agree with the statistical assessment that most academics agree more with the Democratic party than the Republican. This is largely because my alma mater, Northwestern, offered students in its creative writing sequence a largely/completely Democratic faculty. I do not recall having a single under-graduate professor who in any way represented his or herself as republican.

Double Disclaimer: I use the terms Democratic and Republican throughout this post, because I find the terms Conservative and Liberal totally inappropriate. Classic liberals-- John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism used to mean a belief in freedom of religion, freedom of economy, freedom of personal preference, or at least that was the stated notion. Classic liberals argued that they despised despotic and controlling government and supported a free market. This does not accurately correspond to what liberalism has become to mean. Marx would not have jived with "classic liberals". Nor would Hillary. On the other hand, the traditional definition of conservativism would mean a couple of things-- (1) conserving the environment (to the extent of being risk averse with the environment); and (2) it would mean supporting traditional ideas. Since these have changed so much in the last 100 years, the term loses potency.

It is my opinion that the Democrats are not classically liberal and the Republicans are not classically conservative. However, based on popular nomenclature, I suspect that most of the respondents to the data Judge Posner ("J.P.") cites mean "Democratic or Republican" rather than "Liberal or Conservative." Nonetheless, I recognize the fact that this sort of semantic confusion could greatly impugn or at least muddy the data results J.P. cites.

Triple Disclaimer: I am a huge J.P. fan. I studied under him at UChi Law. I am biased in his favor and in awe at the expansive areas of learning in which he is capable of scholarly debate.

That being said, I find the idea that academic institutions are notably Democratic to be unfortunate.

Let's look at Emotionalism. All humans are obviously emotional to some extent, and instinctively feel the need to choose sides, to clan up, to polarize. This clouds the objective intellectual process.

This is undesirable for professors.

Rs and Ds both pick specific & polarizing issues to pursue. These issues often create personal allegiance to the party, when in fact they should not logically extend allegiance to all issues.

The Republican positions on gay marriage or abortion should not taint people's opinions on taxes or free trade. But they often do.

One of my undergraduate professors, an assistant poetry professor, frequently brought to class GWB quotes. His position was that GWB butchered the English language. (Too true.) But after making his all-too-obvious point about W's awful grammar, the professor, now a tenured poetry Prof. at Maryland, proceeded to offer us his opinions about W's politics.

This prof. looked all of us in the eye and concluded we should and would vote for Al Gore. It was one of the most amazing and distasteful positions I have ever been in. If I disagreed, I felt I would incur the wrath of this professor, who was the sole decider of my grade. Since my grade would be decided by my poetry, a product that could not be reviewed for "correctness", I had to bend to his politic whim.

I thought about asking, "Excuse my, Prof. Weiner, but do you have a PhD in Government we weren't aware of, or are you using your platform as a poetry professor to try to affect your students' political leanings?"

But then I knew such an affront would only have negative consequences for me. In the end it did: I made an A with the previous professor, whom I consider to be uninterested in mixing her class with politics, and a B minus with the next professor after challenging him on political issues.

Let's not even discuss what happened when I named Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as one of my favorite books from High School in the same class. The Prof. stated that I should be embarrassed for myself.

Wow. This criticism came from a person who had received his PhD in English, not government or politics or economics or law. As a graduate of the University of Chicago's Law School, I am certain that I have more relevant in-class experience now, such as to decide whether I should be embarrassed that I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged when I was 16. I should not. Poetry is about the human condition, and expert use of language. Its review should concern personal political beliefs.

If this sort of emotional and partisan bullying is what results from having an entirely democratic faculty, then I guess I have become a staunch supporter of diversity. It would have been a diverse experience for me to have had an under-grad professor who felt that both sides of the coin needed to be explored and respected.

It was because of this one-sided treatment that I chose the University of Chicago for law school. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't that I wanted to avoid democratic minds-- my classes with Stone, Samaha, Strauss and Sunstein were some of my favorites. But I also knew Richard Epstein was going to be there, and going to call out "current democrat/liberal" propaganda every step of the way.

What I sought was objectivity and balance. I believe I found it at Chicago. I wish more academic institutions were that way.

I find it quite interesting that party affiliation has now taken the place of belief structures, i.e. Democrat as Liberal and Republican as Conservative. And all this from a law school graduate to boot. No wonder the country has the problems it does.

Walker: I can see the allure of Rand to a 16 year old who likes their heroes as clearly defined as in the Western movies of the same era, but I found the fantasies of Isaac Asimov more interesting better written. Did you tire, after a while, of all the heroes being decked out in "crisp white shirts or blouses?" Did you figure out, later, why her prose would tend to cause English profs to upchuck? Anyway the message must have stuck with you, as I note your post is peppered with warnings of emotionalism vs her brand of ""objectivism".

Great too that you're beginning to develop some insight into the asymmetric vote splitting tactics of today's political battles for power.

I wondered if you found the Bush admin's staunch positions on abortion and stem cell research sufficient cover for their wholesale rejection of classical conservative policies? Here I'm concerned that "Atlas" may well shrug under the weight of keeping up the payments on $9 trillion. Did Milton or the other Chicago cats teach DEBT?

"The Republican positions on gay marriage or abortion should not taint people's opinions on taxes or free trade. But they often do."

........... indeed. Just about any tactic to avoid dealing with the tough questions, eh? Jack

Dear Judge Posner,

Could you write a blog on your recent experiences in Israel? I understand that your trip generated quite a lot of media coverage (which really says a lot when talking about Israel!), especially the your debate with Aharon Barak before an audience of 1,000 that audibly crowned you the victor.

Best regards,
David

Manupatra is presenting a Seminar on Rubric of the New Competition Law Regime in India- Challenges and the Path Forward. All the law professionals interested in corporate law and competition law are cordially invited to be a part of the seminar. Seminar will be conducted at Yamuna Hall, Shangri-la Hotel, New Delhi on 12th January 2008 between 9:30 am to 5 pm.
Get details at http://www.manupatra.com/seminar

The left-right split on campus appears to be correlated with faculty salaries, e.g., humanities professors make much less than business professors at most schools.

The left-right divide in academia--as everywhere in a free society--reflects two competing yet complementary psychologies in every human: improvability and fallibility, better known as Optimism and Pessimism.

These two psychologies are, in turn, manifestations of human primal instincts, best noticed by the two separate functions of the front teeth and the back teeth in every human skull.

When evolutionary psychology and political psychology are better developed as sub-disciplines, it will become clear that all moral codes, all theologies, all economic theories, and all political systems are biological.

Posner: In contrast, business, medicine and other health sciences, and engineering are much less liberal, and the natural sciences somewhat less so, but they are still more liberal than the nation as a whole; only 32 percent of the business professors voted for Bush--though 52 percent of the health-sciences professors did.

Please note that in the Gross-Simmons study, "health sciences" do not include medicine. Gross and Simmons say they sampled only professors who teach undergraduates, and therefore "health sciences ... in our sample means mostly professors of nursing."

It seems to me that professors of nursing, who typically have master's degrees, have followed a more practical or vocational path than other academics. The fact that nurses didn't go into medicine suggests they may have lacked the temperament for long years of schooling, consistent with being "less academic" (in this case, more Bush-supporting).

Or, it might have been economic rather than temperamental reasons that led them into nursing rather than medical school. Gross and Simmons found that, "the most distinguishing characteristic of academic Bush voters is that they come from lower social class backgrounds on average than do non-Bush voters."

Aren't professors in social sciences and the humanities predominantly liberal because it is in there self-interest to be so? Interventionist government polices need intellectuals, including university professors, to study social problems, propose government solutions, monitor these solutions, and perform the process all over again when when the government program does not work. University positions are added to conduct such study, professors receive grant money,serve as government consultants, and move back and forth from academia to government as part of the academic-governmental complex. A conservative, who says government solutions do not work as well as market solutions, has a role in academia and government that stops after he states this position.

Seems to me you need to apply some historical perspective to your postulated causes. (I was also in college 59-63 and agree, except for support for civil rights, the profs weren't terribly liberal.) So, has the proportion of Jews on college faculties, particularly the elites, risen dramatically in the last 50 years? Has the gap in compensation, etc. between the world of commerce and the world of thought widened over 50 years? Do think tanks pay better than universities or do they carry a prestige greater than that of a university? Or, to specify more tightly, did universities swing left in 1970, or 1980, or 1990? And did these trends correlate?

You suggest a ratchet effect, whereby once a department swings left, it would stay left. The causes you ascribe would, however, apply the same to a right-leaning department. Issues of conformity and discrimination in selection should perhaps have kept Harvard as conservative as John Harvard wanted it to be.

Finally I note that Senator Joseph McCarthy certainly did not agree with you (and me) that universities were middle of the road in the 1950's.

Ha! George, I'd love to hear your theory on the self-serving? relationship of medical professionals, insurance companies and military suppliers!

BTW I've been waiting decades for "private industry" to bring our medical costs down 50% so as to be at least somewhat in line those of the "socialist" nations where medical bankruptcy is unknown and their currencies have nearly doubled by comparison the our own in less than a decade.

疫情通報

怪物中國社會在變，人類被人獸牛狗雜種怪物交叉傳染到變異狂犬病和瘋牛病病毒，變異退化，

病毒就象愛滋病模式傳染，具有傳染性和遺傳性。

繁殖到第三代牛狗特徵顯露可怕，大都象侏儒，或者骨胳亂長、腦殘等等變異導致的殘疾，

淺顯區別在分泌牛、狗氣味、長尖狗牙、性交精液呈臭魷魚氣味等等變異症狀。

人類被怪物中國共狗雜種政權勢力和 腦電波雷達設置太多不安定的因素及困擾，例如:邪教法輪功練習者、美國9.11慘案等等案例。（雷達腦電波跟腦電圖波型生成反應相同原理，共狗叫意念發生器，說是秘密武器、或神經武器。）

被外在發生的表面事物所吸引，

導致人類時代滅絕!

http://www.blogtw.com/blog.php?user=hlx1971
http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/news/fjzzhhj71/
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/fjzzhhj
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/fjzzhhj71220
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/fjzzhhj71220
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/kingkong-jack
http://blog.pixnet.net/fjzzhhj71220
http://fjzzhhj71.blog.youthwant.com.tw/

黃慧傑.龍香(姬昌)

疫情通報

怪物中國社會在變，人類被人獸牛狗雜種怪物交叉傳染到變異狂犬病和瘋牛病病毒，變異退化，

病毒就象愛滋病模式傳染，具有傳染性和遺傳性。

繁殖到第三代牛狗特徵顯露可怕，大都象侏儒，或者骨胳亂長、腦殘等等變異導致的殘疾，

淺顯區別在分泌牛、狗氣味、長尖狗牙、性交精液呈臭魷魚氣味等等變異症狀。

人類被怪物中國共狗雜種政權勢力和 腦電波雷達設置太多不安定的因素及困擾，例如:邪教法輪功練習者、美國9.11慘案等等案例。（雷達腦電波跟腦電圖波型生成反應相同原理，共狗叫意念發生器，說是秘密武器、或神經武器。）

被外在發生的表面事物所吸引，

導致人類時代滅絕!

http://www.blogtw.com/blog.php?user=hlx1971
http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/news/fjzzhhj71/
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/fjzzhhj
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/fjzzhhj71220
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/fjzzhhj71220
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/kingkong-jack
http://blog.pixnet.net/fjzzhhj71220
http://fjzzhhj71.blog.youthwant.com.tw/

黃慧傑.龍香(姬昌)

I find this all quite amusing. Considering the fact that those in the higher echelons of education ought to be versed in the "Evil" Liberal arts of the Trivium, That is, grammar, rhetoric and logic. Since the beginning of time, the Universities, or their equivalent, have always been under rhetorical attack by the political powers that be, simply to muzzle them. Nothing works better than maintaining or taking power than to muzzle the culture's intelligentsia. Hence, the battles for academic freedom in times past (is what we're seeing today simply a continuation of that battle?).

As a simple example from history, wasn't it some teacher from Athens that was condemned, tried, sentenced and executed for heresy and the corruption of the youth by a jury of his "peers" during the Golden Age of Ancient Greece?

Perhaps, I shouldn't have mentioned this. It shows my "Evil" liberal education and background. Just remember, the ability to think critically and creatively, is the greatest defense man has against Despotism. Be it from the Right or the Left.

Have you considered the possibility that it may simply be that a "conservative" worldview (I use the term loosely) is more difficult to maintain when one has achieved a very high level of education? The contrast between "technical" and "non-techincal" fields (as you call them) on such issues as religiosity is, in my view, highly instructive. A microbiologist is not equipped by his formal education to engage in the literary, philosophical, historical and sociological analyses which usually cause individuals to embrace agnosticism and/or atheism. By contast, it is very difficult, when one is trained in the liberal arts, to take the arguments of Abrahamic religion seriously. Interestingly, astrophyscists (or so I understand) are rarely religious, despite being in a "technical" field. This may result from the particular insights they gain into what one could loosely call metaphysics, which render teleology of the Abrahamic sort (amongst other things) entirely absurd.

Similarly, much as traditional forms of religious faith rely on a simplistic and reductive view of metaphysics and human history, so too does "conservatism" often rely on simplistic notions regarding human nature, "right and wrong", and the role of government. In general, conservatism seems most prevalent in the most insular portions of society: rural areas in general, and in the U.S., the South. It seems co-extensive with a substantial ignorance of the outside world, ignorance which is difficult to maintain while obtaining advanced degrees in the humanities.

As an aside, I don't think "fiscal" or "economic" conservatism are helpful terms. Such people are liberals, in the classical sense of the word, following in the footsteps of Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Isaiah Berlin and F. A. Von Hayek. They may, at one time, have appeared conservative in comparison to other "progressive" forces like socialism or communism which sought to up-end the existing economic order, but the economic "conservatism" of such types is usually a reasoned position based on a cost-benefit analysis, not the result of a Burkean temperament.

Decades ago(a little more than two when I was young,I decided to see if the less intellecyually challenging the maajor,the higher conceentration o Democrats.I constructed a test asking sstudents-at Michigan,wiscconsin,Indiana and ND various questions.I also asked them to rank majors in terms of difficulty;then I threw out their own.Unsurprisingly,math/physics were considered the toughest.Education or sociology the easiest.(I think chemistry was third,then business.)a couple of pertinent points,I asked students for their SAT scores.The perceived difficulty of the major was nearly identical to the SAT ranking.At most,there was a one digit place difference.And the least intellectually(perceived) majors were solidly Democratic.
This lead to a friend waggishly-I've always wante to use that term-saying,"he was a social science major.And a Democrat.But I repeat myself.
Look,this isn't meant to mean you can't be first rate in a humanities major.But you certainly don't have to be to attain a degree.And the hum's departments are becoming sinecures for PC incompetence at some places.As an economics based forum,I wonder if it doesn't devalue a degree.Once,a bachelor's in anything from say,Michigan- asideGO BLUE-meant ssomething.I doubt it does now.But do people disagree with my observations?
And two things.One:all were state schools and Two;We only included white students,because we didn't want to hear of cultural bias depressing the SAT's of blacks when compiling the numbers

Posner's key line in dividing conservatives from liberals regards their view of the role of government. Subsequently, his analysis is based upon the perceived role of government from different professions/disciplines.

That doesn't seem particularly relevant in this context.

A pro market attitude is consistent with being against drug laws (ask Milton Friedman), pro choice, in favour of gay marriage, in favour of gun control, against theocracy etc with these latter, liberal, views perhaps more important for determining one's political assesment of oneself (especially for non-economists).

Therefore, many people that Posner would call a conservative, may call themselves liberal.

Moreover, recent conservative administrations (papa/baby Bush) weren't more anti state or pro market than liberal administrations (Clinton) making it even less relevant for a conservative (as regards state/market) but a liberal (otherwise) to call himself "CONSERVATIVE".

Judge Posner writes that a brilliant law professor could expect to make more money as a private practitioner. That might true for some who work at a law firm that allows them to write briefs to the Courts of Appeal, but there are many who couldn't even make partner at a top law firm.

I have had the good fortune to work for two decades at a top law firm in the Midwest with many individuals who were (or at least considered themselves) brilliant. Top-ten schools, Supreme Court clerks, that sort of thing. Some were equipped for the rigors of private practice, many were not. Their brilliance when pondering theory did not translate to brilliance in quickly answering client questions, winning strategic encounters with opposing counsel, ability to overcome ridiculous pressure or the social intelligence to woo a potential client.

I don't know whether this has anything to do with the blog post.

I see a lot of speculation and stereotyping in this post. Why ignore the elephant in the room: individuals who are skilled at critical thinking are naturally skeptics, and they naturally challenge the status quo. Those who challenge the status quo are likely, these days, to be left of center. It is thus no surprise that acedemia trends to the left, and that academics on the "right" tend to be less "doctrinaire" in their conservative thinking and more "libertarian."

I read almost every word of the comments that preceded this post, and I failed to see a significant reason why I think more college proffessors are considered liberal. As a history and political science major, I have come to realize that most if not all of my proffessors are deeply committed to ensuring that students become better people, not ideologes. They are committed to making this country a better place by supplying it with better citizens.

If they are trying to teach us anything it is to think for ourselves, and analyse all sides of every issue. If using reason, critical thinking, and having a healthy sense of skeptisism tempered by a passion to affect change is partisan; than yes, colleges are trying to corrupt our youth by turning them into raging socialists.