Indeed it is. What terrifies and baffles liberals is the fact they can't wrap their heads around conservative morality. The don't understand irrational disgust and the need to constantly message disgusting ideas, they don't have the crazy ideas about purity, and mostly they are horrified at the clone nature of conservative group think, the kind of madness that drives lemmings into the sea.
Conservatives have a brain defect that makes them profoundly dangerous, totally immune to rational thinking, and driven by a constant fear of catastrophe and disaster. Now all of that is bad enough and enough to terrify anybody who is sane, but the icing on the cake is that CBDs will do anything to gain control and run things. It's like giving a mad man a gun and why they resist any kind of control.
We can only hope something comes along to change our political direction before the left becomes sufficiently numerous and sufficiently authoritarian to physically remove them as a threat, because then we will all be in another kind of fucked up mess.
I don't disagree completely with your remarks there. But to me, choosing to call myself "Liberal" is more about the common-sense of a level playing field. I could even say I'm a "fiscal conservative," but what I mean by that involves giving the electorate what they want in "public goods," while making the federal level as lean and mean as possible (without "mean-ness.") That's never going to give the Right what they want in "drowning government in a bathtub."
If it seems elitist, I can't discard my conviction that your average high-school grad has deficient "speed-reading" skills -- unless they'd planned all along to go to college.
There are outliers in the distribution. Bill Gates maybe had a year of Harvard under his belt before dropping out. Steve Jobs threw away a chance to go to Stanford. Gates has already signaled in many ways to support my inference that he'd recoil at Trump; Jobs -- now dead -- would undoubtedly have taken the same view.
A larger group of people, most likely the non-college folks, are likely to read the newspapers and absorb the material as "history." They're not going to go back and give it a fresh look. Meanwhile, newspapers will fail to print "new discoveries" in document releases to correct what they'd printed 10 or 20 years earlier.
So, for instance, you'll still find a lot of people who actually believe that Jane Fonda defeated us in Vietnam.
They HAVE the right to vote, as much as I might wish they didn't. And the biggest certainty about democratic elections is the "legitimation of authority." You can't count on majorities making "right decisions" unless certain conditions are met, and then you'd have to assume each and every voter capable of finishing "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" in two-weeks time.
The other side has shown an inclination to attack a mythical "Li-ber-al" college faculty. They complain that post-secondary institutions don't prepare people for the workplace.
And of course, times have changed. The market for sheepskins has given us either degree-mills or online schools who can't place students in jobs, robbing the taxpayer and other institutions of loan money.
If there is really some sort of "CBD defect," that makes it easy to explain. I just call it "intellectual laziness." And the Right, like George Wallace about "pointy-headed intellectuals," will insinuate that we're "intell-eck-shual homo-seck-shual."
