In an earlier thread — under a post made famous by its violence toward women and its Steve McQueen fantasies — Nishi asks rhetorically, “where are the conservative professors, filmmakers, comics, scientists, actors, artists?” Her point being that a (perceived or actual) dearth of prominent conservatives in those fields equates to a population among conservatives of those who can cultivate neither the requisite intellect or social sensibilities to join those ranks.
“Yes we can’t's” answer seemed particularly forceful:
I don’t know. Where were the anti-Soviet professors, filmmakers, comics, scientists, actors, artists in Russia from 1917 to 1989? They didn’t exist, either. Lefties deliberately like to purge “their” institutions of dissenting voices by making life a living hell for anyone who doesn’t toe the line, and then they use the success of such purges as an argument for their moral superiority! Talk about chutzpah!
Larry Summers was the youngest PhD ever to graduate from Harvard. Larry Summers was liberal icon Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. I disagreed with Larry Summers on a lot of stuff, but it was apparent that he was a decent man, and a genius, to boot. And he gets up at Harvard and gives a speech about how his little girl plays with dolls and his boy plays and it’s funny cause it just happened that way without any parental intervention, so maybe there’s some nature at work along with nurture … and what did Harvard do? They drummed him out. Lesson: no amount of liberal bona fides can save you when the witch hunt starts. Think about it. If Larry Summers super genius and friend of Bill can’t fit in at Harvard, then who the fuck in his right mind who isn’t part of the gleichschaltung would want to be part of that environment? I’ve been in academia. I’ve been in the arts. Once those people discover that your not on board with their politics, they make it their mission in life to make you miserable. Again, who wants to work in that environment? Why would any normal man work in a place where he can lose his job for saying, “I’ve noticed my son is different from my daughter”?
Also, look at your list: professors, filmmakers, comics, scientists, actors, artists. These are all people who are 1) Often on the take from the government, and with the exception of scientists are 2) insulated from any real experience of cause and effect and 3) live in an imaginary world and 4) don’t require the systematic accumulation of capital in order to ply their trade. Actors? They draw a huge paycheck for being pretty. They don’t have to save up money to buy a new oven for the restaurant, or a new packaging machine for the assembly line, so why would they care how high taxes are? As long as they have enough money for blow, who cares? As far as scientists go, notice that the harder the science the more libertarian they lean, generally. Engineers with a lot of experience tend to be very practical about politics because they have learned through hard experience that the intended effect of something is different from the actual effect and that there is a real world out there.
Like our commenter, I have spent time in both the arts and academia, and as my late unpleasantness with Professor Kiteley made abundantly clear to me, I was no longer welcome in the company of either, at least, so long as people like Kiteley are willing to read heretics out of the party, and so long as “the arts” and academia are de facto progressive guilds (anyone who’s sat in on faculty hire interviews for an English Department slot can tell you that, while politics are generally not specifically broached, a candidate’s politics — and thus his or her fitness — are easily discoverable through an examination of his or her theoretical sensibilities).
It strikes me, too, that Nishi — in her initial list — likely would have included mainstream journalism, were it not for FOXNews and its success. Still, even there the strategy has been to suggest that FOXNews is but a propaganda arm of (depending on whom you ask) the GOP or the “far right” — a characterization that will prove useful when “media reform” begins to take shape, and organizations like FOXNews don’t qualify for government subsidy on the grounds that they are not really “news” outlets.
Nishi is fond of saying that science is the heresy that destroys orthodoxy. And yet it seems to me that it is the orthodoxy that is ascendant in the fields she describes.
Where are the heretics responsible for troubling the orthodoxy, one might ask? Where is the science in such social scientific gloatings?