Is the Left better informed?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Sadly in the US the concept of social conscience has been actively (and successfully) demonized as "class warfare", to the point of considering something like empathy a bad word. It has become a discussion for the role of the state in regulation of private enterprise because public enterprises are inherently dirty (or so it has been sold).

In reality there is no actual Left in the US, there is a center-right party (the Democrats) and a far-right party (the Republicans), and there are very few voices that truly come from the Left.

Think of the 21st century US as the dreamland of Giovanni Gentile a century ago. 

[Aggie]

From my perspective as a union representative, I'd say that I would not only want people to be informed, I would want them to have convictions and resolution, and a willingness to act upon them, too.

This is a good point. I think that often informed-ness is leaned upon as a (poor) substitute for action.  In many cases, socially conscious people hold the position that "Hey, we know how things should be because we've read up on the issues.  If everyone knew the issues, the world would be a perfect place.  Therefore, it's the ignorant that are responsible for all the world's problems."  I am guilty of this.  Ideological adherence doesn't make a whit of difference if one's not prepared to act; however, if one is relatively comfortable with their position in life, they are loath to risk what they've got in order to make a change to the injustices in the world. It doesn't take much muscle-flexing from the state to convince a population with things to lose that they would be best served to keep their mouths shut.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

You are correct, Zono:  there are no real liberals left in the USA, at least not in public office.

One "tell" is the continuous cow-towing to religiosity that is so prevalent these days.   Someone who was truly liberal about their world-view, would know that keeping his/her religious ideas quietly to him/herself is the best way to avoid offending anyone else's religious views.  Yet, these days, if a politician does not overtly pay omage to the christian god?  He/she's in deep trouble, politically.

Or so it seems to me, from where I sit.

[Swatopluk]

Which is actually explicitly condemned in the gospels. To paraphrase: If you pray, don't do it in public like the pagans do but go into your private room and lock the door behind you.
Also the gospel seems not to like wordy, flowery prayers and for that reason provides the Our Father, which is as bare-bone as it gets while covering the essentials.

[Swatopluk]

I think this study has some relevance for the discussion. If not even college students learn critical thinking (esp. when studying business)...
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/441115/huge_numbers_of_students_don%27t_learn_critical_thinking_in_college

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Mmm, less people going to a university learns critical thinking, although more people goes to the university now. According to this chart the percentage of the population that attained a higher education in the US in 1947 was about 6% while now is close to 28%, then the question is how was the critical thinking then not only of those with a higher education but of those that didn't have one. While I don't have those numbers I suspect that more people is capable of critical thinking now than then.

On the same token I suspect that the "redeeming" features of the political discourse haven't changed much in the past one hundred years, but that the discourse is now amplified by all the media outlets and the internet. I would even go so far to say that people is less partisan today than how they used to be, but we hear more of the partisans now than then.