Since Donald Trump’s election, “experts” are desperately trying to explain that inconceivable event. One of the most popular explanation (over 44,000 hits on Google Search as of November 17) is that “uneducated” people (especially white ones) voted massively for Trump, giving him power.
What is meant by “uneducated”? According to Pew Research, who broke down various demographics, the word is a code for people without a college degree. Non-college educated whites are the single largest group that voted for Trump: 67 percent compared to 29 percent for Hillary Clinton.
In other words, people without a college education are deemed stupid, as shows in this opinion piece from Newsweek that says that Trump performs best “in states that occupy those lower rungs on the education ladder, like Alabama” – which, incidentally, was Democrat for most of its existence.
I wonder why people never ask the question the other way around: why are college-educated people so massively voting for Democrats? Why would their electoral preferences be considered more enlightened? Because by looking at the present state of higher education, one might wonder if getting a bachelor degree is synonymous with intelligence. While this tweet summarizes it perfectly, let’s look at how modern U.S. higher education works.
Critical Decisions Taken Too Early On
Young adults age 18-19 are just out of high school and they are expected to pursue higher education “because their wage prospects are higher.” While this is true on average, a closer look at the numbers is necessary. Architecture and engineering, and anything computer/math related, earn their graduates over $75,000 on average yearly. In comparison, Monster.com states that the most an English major can hope to earn is $67,000 as a sales account manager. Otherwise, the average salary is usually in the $50,000s.
At such a young age, one is usually not prepared to know what one wants for the future. I can look at myself as an example. During my first bachelor degree (2004-2007) I was rather uncaring about my results and ended up with a GPA of 2.98 out of 4.33. When I returned to college to get the necessary credits for a political-economy degree, I was much more focused on my studies and ended up with a GPA (for the classes in the major) of nearly 3.7, a few hundredth points short of an A-.
During my first degree, I quickly noticed how some majors are usually pretty quick to get down in the street when it was time to protest: theater, literature, language-specific majors (French, English), political sciences – in other words, majors with usually limited job opportunities like government worker, researcher or professor. While these majors are no doubt enriching for knowledge, how will it be applied practically?
A Sterilized Education
In addition to being put in life-changing decisions so early on, too many students are put in an environment more sterilized than an infectious disease lab clean room.
Before Trump’s election, many campuses have waged an ideological war against speakers not propagating the #newspeakliberal Gospel. Ben Shapiro, for example, has been barred from speaking at DePaul University because (it seems) the administration gave in to protesters who pleaded that Shapiro disturbed their “safe space.”
Speaking of which, “safe space” is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. A safe space is supposed to be one where people can go to and not feel physically threatened, like a fire station or a gay bar for LGBT+ people. In a college, a safe space is basically a place where people can “feel safe” when people with disturbingly different ideas from theirs have “triggered” them.
Not only is it a mockery of real trauma like PTSD, but it shows the complete disdain of critical thinking on the part of newspeak liberals. How are young adults supposed to see the world as what it really is by barring at least half of the ideas that exist on the planet?
A Fake Sense of Certainty
As a result, so-called intellectuals and too many college-educated people show that Friedrich Hayek was right: intentions are more important than facts or the consequences of the intentions. In other words, as long as an idea “sounds good”, they can propagate it despite the dire consequences.
Take the minimum wage debate for example. The Democrats have been fiercely militating for a federal MW of $15/h nationwide because it’s deemed a “living wage.” They therefore ignore that the MW was created for the exact opposite reason: to put people out of work. It was the explicit intent behind the adoption of the Davis-Bacon Act in 1931, and in 2016 it’s still destroying jobs for the very people it’s supposed to help.
When American Samoa increased its MW, unemployment increased sevenfold and completely destroyed the largest employers, two tuna canning factories. The continental U.S. is also feeling the consequences of increasing the MW beyond what people are ready to pay. A study shows that Seattle low-skilled workers have been affected negatively by the hike in the MW. In Los Angeles, American Apparel cut jobs when the city hiked the MW to $15/h; the clothing company is now thinking about moving out of California since the state wants to follow suit on MW increases of various large cities.
So, why would a college-educated voter’s opinion be more highly considered than an “uneducated” voter’s? Considering their insulation from facts – they even create “safe spaces” to push them further away – one might think that their opinions should matter the least. Their central planning ideas have wreak havoc in “deep blue” urban centers like Detroit, New York, Baltimore and many others. And yet they keep voting Democrat.
Alternatively, one might also question why people vote altogether – voting for a master every four years still makes one a slave, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner. But that’s a whole other debate in itself…