We think it is fair to assume that the Little Kitteh that came to dinner — above staring at things we don't see in the early morning light — is of above average intelligence and education in the school of hard knocks.
"I think it is fair to assume that most Harvard graduates are of above average intelligence and education and tend to believe in such things as evolution and global warming. It seems most Republicans do not," sniffs warmenist Edward G. Shufro, M.B.A. ’58 in a letter to the editor of the May-June issue of Harvard Magazine. Darwin's theory of evolution, yes. That's science. AGW? That's an article of faith. We were gratified to discover that Mr. Shufro — principle of a "targeted investment management" partnership co-founded by his father in 1938 — has generously supported, among other Democrat shining stars, three of our personal favorites, Joe Sestak (PA-7), Ed Markey (MA-7) and Carol Shea-Porter. Oh, and let us not forget Shufro's $2,300 gift to the Al Franken Recount Fund. Talk about above average intelligence.
Shufro's letter was only one of a number of spluttering tribal responses to an earlier letter from that rare thing, a Harvard alum who hadn't bought the narrative. Responding to an article in the previous edition of Harvard Mag that reported 90 percent or more of Harvard graduates in Congress are Democrats, Peter McKinney '56 had had this to say:
The development of independent and critical thinking in undergraduates should be a major goal of an education; otherwise the process is indoctrination. The statistics on the political affiliations of the incoming Congress suggest that this is not happening at Harvard College. Could this be a reflection of the ideological imbalance of the faculty?
Education or indoctrination? Thomas Sowell's words on the occasion of the railroaded resignation of Harvard President Lawrence Summers five years back come to mind:
His fatal flaws were honesty and a desire to do the right thing. That has ruined more than one academic career …
Even if every conclusion with which students are indoctrinated were true, unless those students develop their own ability to weigh opposing arguments, these conclusions will become obsolete as new issues arise in the years ahead. These "educated" people will have developed no ability to analyze opposing sides of issues.
Robert Stafford '86 exemplifies the type. Impervious to facts on the ground, he has holed himself up comfortably in his lamestream-media-facilitated anti-Palin Pauline Kael bubble, preferring not to be confused with the facts. His letter to the editor touches all the tribal hot spots, including class guilt:
In my grandfather’s GOP, a degree from an “elite” university was an asset: it was evidence that a politician was smart, or hard working, or, sadly, that he was at least from the right sort of family. In Sarah Palin’s GOP, “elite” is an insult. What’s more, in Palin’s faith-based GOP, candidates are all but required to espouse the view that the world is 6,000 years old, that the “theory” of evolution is false, and that anthropogenic climate change is a sinister liberal myth.
The poor guy has bought the media spin whole cloth. Joel Z. Eigerman '63, J.D. '67 seals the deal:
The second and greater fallacy is the assumption that because there are two major political tendencies in this country, properly educated people should divide roughly equally between them. This presumes that both are equally possessed of rational arguments, and this is unfortunately not true. Although the Republican Party, within living memory, disposed of leaders and ideas that could be called rational, for the last 30 years to be a Republican has increasingly meant to deny scientific truth, to subscribe to patent fantasies regarding our national history, recent or more distant, to espouse social and economic theories whose bankruptcy was demonstrated 80 years ago, to work for the enrichment of the few and the impoverishment of the many, and generally to substitute magical thinking for reason.
The poor fellow, like so many of our fellow Americans on the left side of the aisle, is projecting again. As we wrote in our post "Sissy Willis uses Darwin to utterly demolish Marxism":
"Sissy Willis uses Darwin to utterly demolish Marxism," twittered tahDeetz this afternoon. We'd sent her a link to one of our uber posts from way back in February of 2005, "Bloggers are 'cracking, popping, drilling and peeling their victims open." Take THAT, you leftists claiming to own Darwin even as your core collectivist beliefs fly in the face of the economic logic of nature and human nature that underlies Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Update: Lonely Conservative links:
If only we had all gone to Harvard …