Why do liberals dominate university faculties? Bainbridge is unhappy with Farrell's claim that Republican anti-intellectualism is at fault…so unhappy that he loses his wits and makes a stupid argument.

Update2: Henry Farrell says my analysis of Chait's second point contains a non-sequitur and further opines:

Nor does the fact that Republican intellectuals exist contradict the fact that there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism to Republican Party rhetoric, and Republican attempts to appeal to voters (as, for example, the pillorying of Al Gore for using big numbers and complicated ideas). While this anti-intellectualism doesn’t completely explain the dearth of Republican academics by any stretch of the imagination, it surely helps contribute to the hostility of many in the academy, as does the open hostility of many Republicans to evolutionary biology and the very real scientific consensus on global warming.

One would have thought my point was obvious, but let me spell it out. Point one: There are a lot smart conservatives out there interested in intellectual matters and the life of the mind. They're qualified to be academics and likely would pursue an academic career if they had a fair shot at landing one. Point two: Even if Chait and Farrell are right that there is a streak of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party, so fricking what? Why does that justify the academic left's discrimination against conservatives? (You'll note Farrell just sort of glides past that point.) Would Farrell say that environmentalists should be excluded from the academy because some eco-nuts commit the grossly anti-intellectual act of vandalizing laboratories doing animal research? Of course not. So spare me your stereotypes and generalizations. And stop using Karl Rove's (highly successful) campaign tactics as your spurious justification for discriminating against conservative academics. Just because your Democrat party can't beat Bush doesn't justify taking our your anger on right-of-center job applicants.

I presume everyone can see the ridiculous error in his argument—we aren't talking about nutcases on the fringe of the party; the problem is that the Republican bigshots are anti-intellectual (Bush can proudly state that he doesn't read much), their campaigns, as Farrell has mentioned, exploit American anti-intellectualism, and their policies run counter to intellectual and scientific recommendations (Global warming? Evolution? Stem cell research? How many do I have to mention?) . When the Democrats make Ingrid Newkirk of PETA their spokesperson and rant about shutting down research labs, then nobody would be surprised if biologists left the party in angry droves. I would be greatly embarrassed, at the least, if my party did something so ghastly and so against the spirit of my chosen discipline. So why are conservatives supporting these anti-intellectual clowns? Why don't they even see anything contradictory in their support?

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that many conservatives are capable and willing to follow the "life of the mind." So why are they following the Republican piper (and Republicans seem to be a poor excuse for conservatives, anyway)? And why are conservatives surprised when a majority of the people who have committed themselves to a "life of the mind" find nothing attractive in a political party that uses the word "intellectual" as an insult? That's what is so fricking what.