Seriously. Off you go. Bye now. Come back when you realise that if there is any place in the States where being a conservative and choosing to vote Republican are different, it's the places where people have trained themselves to actually understand what the fuck is going on. There are significant numbers of conservative Democrats, and far more conservative Independents. Mixing the terms up when it suits you is pathetically sloppy.
Also on the subject of understanding what is going on, McArdle might want to consider her own grasp of, y'know, anything:
41% of the troops identify as Republicans (down from 62% just seven years ago), while 32% identify as independent, and presumably, 27% identify as Democrats.To reiterate: fuck off. You're supposed to be an economics expert but you've never heard of a "Don't Know" or "No Response" column? I suppose we should give McArdle some kudos for at least being able to sum to one hundred, at least.
I don't want to imply that this apparent political disparity isn't an interesting topic to consider. Nor am I suggesting that there cannot be any kind of bias occurring somewhere. I'd like to see some genuine research on this. This isn;t it. Indeed, were there people who believed that conservatives were unsuited for academic work, this kind of lazy bullshit would certainly lend credence to their position.
Which, of course, is the problem: McArdle is trying to argue that liberal academics look down on the skills of conservatives whilst demonstrating with great clarity just how poor her own skills are. Her intellectual laziness, sloppy inferences, and track record with refusing to admit mistakes or reconsider errors are exactly the flaws a good academic must avoid at all costs.
Which kind of brings us to the $64 000 question: does Ms McArdle consider herself of academic fibre? Because if she does - and her "U cant scare me cos all my fameelz academics FUR REELZ"-style of non-argument/defense mechanism implies that she does (and moreover that she considers academic skill to be hereditary) - then her entire position is based on a total failure to understand how academia works, and what makes someone suited or otherwise to pursue it.
On the other hand, if she is willing to admit she couldn't hack it in any situation where her editors would actually have to pay attention to the quality of her arguments, then whilst that would be nice (and a rare flash of self-awareness), it would immediately raise the question as to what in God's name she's doing as the Atlantic's business and economics editor?.
Unless she can answer that, dear readers, then I think we all know what it is she can do.
(She can fuck off).