|*Your*| Perception of who is Smarter, Leftists or Rightists?

Based entirely on your perception, who is smarter overall, Political Rightists or Political Leftists?

 

Well since I'm on the right, I doubt anyone on the left will take my opinion seriously, but judging just based on this forum, when I first joined in 2011 or there bouts, I thought that the left leaning members seemed smarter and had better arguments, and the right leaning members seemed more likely to revert to talking points. However over time it seems to be that those positions have flipped, and I see those on the right with the better arguments and the rhetorical skills to wield them effectively, and the left leaning members reduced to parroting talking points.

Obviously there are exceptions on both sides but I'm speaking generally.

 

Out of respect for mom and dad, whom were voting for Democrats, they did not fit the mold of democrats. They were religious. They cared deeply about family. Some of the best holidays were spent with them. They lived a moral life. They just did not understand politics. Had they studied, they would side with me. I changed due to putting in plenty of study time. Democrats accept things their leaders tell them and accept authority to the max.

 

I'm a leftist, but I would say that most of both are equally stupid and some rare people of both side are smart.

I assume the pretention of that point of view.

 

I think intelligence is an individual rather than a group quality.

 

My perception overall is that the divide is roughly something like 70/30 in favor of Leftists (70% out of 100% of Leftist ideologues on the Left are smarter, more educated with higher, more advanced degrees and political experience, knowledge and legal understanding whereas this only applies to 30% out of 100% of Rightist ideologues on the Right).

My experiences tell me that while extremely smart ideological rightists definitely exist they are a real minority. Most "Rightists" one tends to encounter are merely corporate types with a monetary agenda to serve their financial lobby with no real affinity and or dedication or interest to social conservatism or religion. Most are milking it for their companies lobbies. That's why they're there in the first place, because a market based entity sent them there.

The Left is just completely different. It has far less market influence directly. The left does have market forces influence on it however the Left still retains large majorities of "ideologues with no market affiliation" who are truly in it for cultural and technological and progressive national shifts whereas the average rightist is bought and paid for and may not even be an actual rightist, merely a corporate representative who won office on slogans to social conservatives desperate to hear what they want to hear even though there's no way to achieve it in a modern country such as the US which nobody can truly revert back to the days of Jones World religiosity.

In a nutshell the Left still has a majority of "Pure or near pure ideologues in its rank and file" with a minority of market forces influencing its overall internal agenda still whereas the Right is dominated within its rank and file by market forces and the Rights ideologues have long since been usurped and still are usurped internally within the Right by market interests that do not truly care for social conservatism Rightist ideology save for to elect their market lobby representatives.

 

Anyone who really believes it’s possible to divide the entirety of socio-political thought, principle and practical policy in to two distinct, singular categories is an idiot of the highest order. It doesn’t make any difference which of the imaginary boxes they think they’re in.

 

It is and you know it sir. Everyone falls into a basic left right paradigm. It's only a matter of how blended.

 

If it’s “blended” it isn’t two distinct categories as is being presented, that's my point. Reality is infinitely more complex and diverse which renders the labels as applied to individuals or groups less than meaningless. In truth, they’re generally only uses as weapons, because characterising all of your opponents as a singular group of “others” makes them easier to attack and dismiss without any of the difficulties or actually debating individual points.

I mean, all you have to do is look at the image in the OP. Can you really say that you unconditionally agree with everything on one side and unconditionally disagree with everything on the other. Heck, can you say you unconditionally agree or disagree with any one concept on there?

 

Generally, I believe that rightists (not too far right) are more realistic, except for the Trump base supporters, who for the most part, are
uneducated and uninformed and have no interest in becoming informed. The left is ideologically smarter, in my view.

 

Being "ideologically smarter" seems to be the opposite of smart.

 

50/50 split on ignorance

 

I am not sure. The Left, in my opinion, is definitely more intellectual, but this - of course - does not mean that they are more intelligent. As many above have already noted, I too do not believe that any side is smarter than the other. However, at the same as The Left is more intellectual, I feel The Right understands The Left better than The Left understands The Right.

It is a very difficult question to answer and I think it is something that needs broad analysis to draw any relevant conclusions.

 

I appriciate Marxist Sociology and think it offer great meta-analytical depth to understand society and politics.

 

I think the smartest people are the ones that aren't in either party

 

No one is politically neutral.

 

I agree.

 

When I saw the left described as "doves" I laughed myself silly.

 

It's more about ideology than party.

I mean, look at what the Democrat party has devolved into.

 

If you mean "street Smart", then yes

 

I'm a Trump supporter through and through.

You're welcome to test your theory with me.

 

I don't know how you would get "street smart" out of my comments.

 

My answer. YES.

 

Good point

 

Oh well. Tell me what you were referring to.