I think LarryK's list defines some pretty good "lines in the sand". And I think that everyone would feel more comfortable with Larry's list if they were able to more clearly describe the "why" of each point. As black and white as they are, without the ability to explain each position, they sound "accusatory" rather than descriptive. But I will grant that they seem rather even-handedly "accusatory". :^)

And I think CarolC's response to it is a very astute observation -- and EXACTLY why the conservatives I know have never been comfortable with Bush.

As to why "intellectuals" seem to favor the left, I have a few theories...

1. The observation that intellectuals favor liberalism, as made here on what used to be a folk music oriented site, is skewed in that the majority here, both intellectual and dullard, are aging folkies. That's two reasons why this place is overbalance with leftward thinkers -- music and the arts in general, and folk music in particular attract more leftward thinkers.

If this was a science oriented site (or a NASCAR site, yuck yuck....I kill me) the "intellectuals" would be divided more evenly, and more conservative points of view would be more commonplace, hence, the appearance of a more even distribution of "intellectuals".

2. There's "intellectual" and then there's "intellectualism". Intellectual is a worthy goal (were you to ask me). It honors the pursuit of knowledge. IntellectualISM is a social disease. It is mental gymnastics run amok.

Intellectuals have always and rightfully taken great pleasure in noting that the obvious is not always the true. The observation of things that, at the time of discovery seemed counter to "common sense" marked the intellectual as the superior thinker. That kind of intellectual moved the world along in science and logic.

But that pleasure in noting that the obvious was not always true became both a sign of being intellectual (as said before, a worthy goal), but a bit addictive in a social climbing way ….. and a bit too much of a sign of superior thinking than it deserved. That is, a good mind with less-than-honorable goals of feeding their self-esteem and lording knowledge over peons helped create the pseudo-intellectual.

This false intellectual is very practiced – not at displaying a talent for discovering truth that seems counter to the obvious, rather, at making falsehood appear to the naïve as truth.

And while I can't help but cede to the proposition that liberals seem to have more intellectuals, it seems that way at least in part because I think that liberals have (and attract) CONSIDERABLY more pseudo-intellectuals, AND the infrastructure of academia whose job it has become to blur the line between the two. Allow the naïve to add up the true intellectuals and the pseudo-intellectuals and he will conclude a bigger number of intellectuals because the naïve, when counting, can't tell the difference between the two.

3. The brighter mind doesn't like what appears to it to be conformity. Even if conformity is the right thing to do, bright minds tend to bridle against it. Yes, one might argue that both sides of the political spectrum have their dogma to which one would adhere to include ones self in that camp.

….but the difference is, as I said, the appearance of less conformity is on the liberal side. Everything that is antisocial, or was once considered to be, has found its home in modern liberalism. Liberalism is the home of the "naughty". Sex, drugs, and Rock&Roll are the driving forces of so much of modern Liberalism. Conversely, the appearance of being "uptight" is the private domain of the conservative.

For this reason, popular entertainment is almost solely liberal. It has to be. Nobody in entertainment can possibly afford to appear "un-hip". Popular entertainment being what it is promotes the liberal POV better than its politicians do. Especially from the angle of psychological need for public acceptance.