[andyt]

Don't blame you. There really seems to be a je ne sais quois to who makes a successful leader. Paul Martin, doning so well as number two, totally falls apart as number one. I was a bit gaga for Iggy, because I'm a bit of a sucker for the intelligence argument, but look at what a dud he turned into. OTOH, look at Harper. Nobody can accuse him of being the brightest bulb in the chandelier, although he's certainly clever enough. He can't be accused of being a pretty boy either. I think a lot depends on the times - guess right now we want a politics wonk like him, in part because there's nobody to oppose him. Justin's dad got in because we wanted a hip new type of politician, tho in retrospect drap old Robert Stanfield would have been better.

I think Justin only stands a chance if things are looking up, and we want a new young guy to lead us into the shiny future. Or if things fuck up so bad we'll take anybody but Harper. Hell, I might even vote along those lines. At the moment, I can't really see voting for either opposition, tho if it looks like Harper would get a large majority I would vote against him just to slow him down a bit.

[raydan]

I'm just messing with you, Thanos... so, what do you have against university people?

[JaredMilne]

Getting back to the original question I asked, does anybody think that there's a reason why the left-wing professors are more likely to run for office, while the right-wing professors often work in supporting roles for parties or elected officials?

[raydan]

Nope...

[andyt]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Getting back to the original question I asked, does anybody think that there's a reason why the left-wing professors are more likely to run for office, while the right-wing professors often work in supporting roles for parties or elected officials?

The right wing, even in Canada is anti-intellectual, and anti elite anyting except wealth. Much worse in the states of course. Profs, unless they successfully dumb it down just don't stand a chance of being nominated/elected on the right. Don't trust them eggheads and their airy fairy ideas.

[raydan]

andyt andyt:

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Getting back to the original question I asked, does anybody think that there's a reason why the left-wing professors are more likely to run for office, while the right-wing professors often work in supporting roles for parties or elected officials?

The right wing, even in Canada is anti-intellectual, and anti elite anyting except wealth. Much worse in the states of course. Profs, unless they successfully dumb it down just don't stand a chance of being nominated/elected on the right. Don't trust them eggheads and their airy fairy ideas.

One example I have of the intellectual elite being elected is when the PQ were elected for the first time in Québec.

Even Wiki says so...

$1:

The first PQ government was known as the "republic of teachers" because of the large number of scholars who served as cabinet members.

[Jonny_C]

raydan raydan:

Let's face it, a lot of people argue that politics should not be a popularity contest where we vote for the one that looks or talks the nicest... now we're saying that intelligence is not OK either.
I'm confused.

Intelligence is only one characteristic that might suit someone for office. It's a poor measuring stick if you try to apply it in isolation.

Wisdom, charisma, sincerity, empathy, strength of character, personal values, "stage presence", intelligence, all of those things form a grab bag of characteristics that will exist in varying degrees within an individual and suit (or unsuit) them for office.

We pick candidates globally, meaning we form an overall impression. Complicate that with party affiliation and you have a very inexact way that we measure suitability.

I hope I elucidated your fuzzification.

[andyt]

raydan raydan:

One example I have of the intellectual elite being elected is when the PQ were elected for the first time in Québec.

Even Wiki says so...

$1:

The first PQ government was known as the "republic of teachers" because of the large number of scholars who served as cabinet members.

Nobody considers the PQ right wing, do they? The left has no problem with intellectuals.

[raydan]

andyt andyt:

raydan raydan:

One example I have of the intellectual elite being elected is when the PQ were elected for the first time in Québec.

Even Wiki says so...

$1:

The first PQ government was known as the "republic of teachers" because of the large number of scholars who served as cabinet members.

Nobody considers the PQ right wing, do they? The left has no problem with intellectuals.

I guess we all vote for the people that we consider to be the most like us.

[BeaverFever]

Thanos Thanos:

Who said that intelligence wasn't important? All I said was that university types are no more wise, or intelligent, or unbiased, than anyone else in society.

No, I think people who make a living conducting research, studying inputs and outcomes etc. are better informed than those who don't. The 'informed' right-wing opinion doesn't necessarily disagree with the 'informed' left-wing opinion behind closed doors, the difference between the two on general matters of public policy is usually whether the ends justifity the means (e.g. changes to spending, taxes, individual liberties etc.) which is a personal values question that cannot be academically proven or disproven.

I think what people see of most politicans on TV is laregly a puppet show; many politicians are not so ideologically entrenched as they make themselves to be in front of the camera. But of course, some unfortunately are.

I've had professors who served as ADMs and/or senior policy advisors for more than 1 ruling party in Ontario, (in one case, a professor who served through all 3 parties as an ADM)and they've all said that about 85% of the policy that a particular government rolls out during its term is generally non-partisan, non-ideological, practical ideas, often ideas that have been kicking around for a while under a few different governments and "whose time has finaly come" and that most often these ideas come from the professional public service rather than politicians or outside sources.

[Caelon]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Getting back to the original question I asked, does anybody think that there's a reason why the left-wing professors are more likely to run for office, while the right-wing professors often work in supporting roles for parties or elected officials?

I'll take a stab at throwing up a strawman for others to tear apart. First we need to establish the stereotype for left versus right professor. The left would be leaning towards the state assuming more of a parental role and deciding what is best for the population, while the right favours fewer restrictions and a more open marketplace driving policy.

So if the left leaning prof follows the stereotype above then by nature they will assume that their opinion is the one that is best for the people and will seek office in order to act upon it. You could be facetious and use phrases like 'whether you want it or not' or 'shove it down your throat'.

The right taking mor of a free market approach does not see teh need for more controls and likes to stay in the back room where the 'real' power is as opposed to public display. They can pull the strings without shouldering the blame. We can use phrases like 'manipulating', 'taking care of the rich at the expense of the poor', etc.

Remember the statement 'those who can do and those who cannot teach'. Does not leave a favourable impression of the ability of those from academia.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

The left would be leaning towards the state assuming more of a parental role and deciding what is best for the population,

To be accurate, 'the state to deciding what is best' is not necessarily an accurate description of a 'statist' policy. For example, a public program likely originated after extensive public consultation and polling and various 'floating' and 'test-driving' ideas in public forums and of course the party's election platform. A public program doesn't also necessarily exclude individual choice - you may be able to opt in or out of the program, or choose from different options. The way I see it, a 'pro-government' outlook is that envisouns the governemnt as either the game's referee or one of the players on the field, depending on the circumstances. It is not surpising to me that those who value the role of government would be more likely to want to be part of government.

Conversely, if we describe 'right-wing' as a dim if not contemptuous view towards 'government' then it is not surprising that few of that persuasion would want to be government. Who in their right mind would want a job that they fundamentally view as a 'necessary evil' that should limit itself as much as possible? It would make sense in this context that their preferance would be to control government (for the purpose of restricting it) rather than BE part of a government that is restricted.

[JaredMilne]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

The left would be leaning towards the state assuming more of a parental role and deciding what is best for the population,

To be accurate, 'the state to deciding what is best' is not necessarily an accurate description of a 'statist' policy. For example, a public program likely originated after extensive public consultation and polling and various 'floating' and 'test-driving' ideas in public forums and of course the party's election platform. A public program doesn't also necessarily exclude individual choice - you may be able to opt in or out of the program, or choose from different options.

To build on this, one can also point out the fact that conservatives have been just as apt to embark on nation/province-building projects in Canada when they're the ones in the driver's seat. Just look at John Diefenbaker getting actively involved in finding new markets for Prairie wheat, embarking on health care transfers and created the National Council on Welfare. Look at conservative provincial premiers like Danny Williams, Peter Lougheed and Robert Stanfield who all heavily invested in public works, infrastructure and social programs, often by raising natural resource royalties.

And like BeaverFever said, not all programs are mandatory. Some provinces have programs to facilitate things like child support, for example, but the people who give and receive child support are not obligated to use it. Many people choose to make their own private arrangements, but those who want to use the public option can do so. It's all a matter of choice.

Besides, it's not as if the left has a monopoly on the state deciding what's best for people. If a left-wing nanny state takes care of people from cradle to grave, the right-wing nanny state often seems to run on a "Father Knows Best" model. Under the right-wing nanny state the state decides what kinds of people choices can and cannot make by restricting people from getting abortions, doing drugs, getting married if they're gay, and so on.

[Thanos]

raydan raydan:

I'm just messing with you, Thanos... so, what do you have against university people?

Nothing at all. They're no better or have more common sense than anyone else though. To wit:

1) Pierre Trudeau: university professor, highly intelligent, his legacy includes nearly ripping the country apart due to the total lack of common sense and overwhelming arrogance he approached regional issues with.

2) Tom Flanagan: university professor, highly intelligent, didn't have enough wisdom to see that the ideas he helped develop for the Reform movement had zero attraction outside of a West that was still pissed off at Trudeau and enraged at the recently-departed Brian Mulroney; if it weren't for the conservative schism that Flanagan had helped to create, the despicable Chretien government could have been tossed out of power as early as 1997 and no later than 2000.

3) Stephane Dion/Michael Ignatieff: university professors, both highly intelligent, and today most Liberals would agree that the less said about both of them the better.

[PluggyRug]

The world is full of highly educated derelicts.