Thursday, November 13, 2014
Why Liberals Read More Books Than Conservatives
Wayne Allyn Root has some good points below but perhaps I can add something too. I also rarely read books these days -- though I used to read 2 or 3 books a week when I was a kid. I just don't have the time to read books because there is so much to keep up with online. I spend around 12 hours a day reading but I read stuff off a screen, not from books.
Another probable factor behind book reading is that liberals have a greater need to "tailor" what they see and hear. The content of a book is fairly predictable so the book can be chosen to tell you stuff you like to hear. You can stay comfortably inside your little Leftist mental bubble by reading mainly books. If instead you listen to radio and TV you might occasionally hear something that threatens your little fantasy world. You might for instance hear what those wonderful peace-loving Muslims of ISIS are doing these days. Horror! We don't want to hear that!
And you might even hear fleetingly that Israel invaded Gaza only after Gazans had rained thousands of rockets down upon Israel. Could those powerless but wise and heroic Palestinians do that? Much nicer to read a book by Jimmah Carter or his ilk telling us that Israel is an "Apartheid state". Never mind that Israeli Arabs have exactly the same rights as Israeli Jews and are found at all levels of Israeli society
A new study came out last week that proves that liberals (Democrats and Progressives) read more books than Conservatives (Republicans or Libertarians). Leading publishing executives even commented on it, saying that more books should be aimed at liberals because Conservatives just don't read. The inference, of course, is that Conservatives are ignorant, lazy, or just not intellectually curious. Meanwhile liberals will undoubtedly use these new "facts" to prove that they are intellectual heavyweights- the very kind of highly informed intellectuals who should be running our country.
What a crock! The truth is that facts are many times misleading- and this is a perfect example. The fact is that liberals have the time to read books simply because they are rarely in positions of authority or leadership- they do not own businesses, run companies, or serve in positions of great responsibility. It's easy to find the time to read a book on a couch or lazy-boy when you get off work at 3 PM daily- and have no responsibilities once you walk out the office door. Unfortunately for the rest of us in positions of ownership and leadership, our days never end. We are making business calls, participating in conference calls, and answering emails at all hours of the day and night. For the people defined as "conservative" our responsibilities never end- leaving us little, if any, time to even fantasize about reading books.
Who are "conservatives?" Conservatives are simply defined as the "producers" of our economy- Americans with important jobs; in leadership positions; with great responsibility; the type of people that are "on the go" 24/7- who make our economy go and grow.
No, conservatives don't have the time to read books. But they are busy creating, funding and shaping the businesses, industries, and jobs that make a difference in our world (and our economy). Reading books is not something they have time for in their busy schedules. They have mortgages, property taxes, income taxes, private schools and college educations (for their kids) to pay for. When you're bright and ambitious and want to provide a better life for your family, there are a lot of bills to pay- big bills. No, reading books is just not high up on the "priority list" for conservatives.
Equally misleading is the fact that, while busy entrepreneurs and executives (like me) don't have time to read books, we actually read far more than any liberal. We simply choose to read publications important to our careers, our success, and our understanding of the business world. For instance I rarely read a book- but I read 5 to 7 newspapers a day. My daily "must read" is the Wall Street Journal. I read it from front to back every morning. I also read the NY Times, LA Times, USA Today and my local Las Vegas Review Journal. But that's just the start. I read Forbes, Fortune, Robb Report and a multitude of other important business and political magazines.
By the way, I do "read" several books a month- but I do not have the time to sit and read them in traditional fashion. I read them by listening to books on tape. So while liberals are fancying themselves as "gifted intellectuals" because they read 2 or 3 books a month, I'm busy reading 50 to 100 business publications a month, while also listening to 20 books on tape. So who's really doing the most reading? I'd argue that reading the Wall Street Journal daily is far more intellectual and crucial to success, than reading 2 or 3 books (perhaps romance novels or psycho-babble by Dr. Phil) at the beach. Reading books is a good thing- but not nearly as good for society (or the economy) as working 24/7 to create and build businesses. Not even close. Liberals don't read more books than conservatives because they are smarter- they just have more leisure time.
The reason that Conservatives don't read books is the exact same reason that liberals fail miserably on talk radio. Just in the past few months, high-profile liberal talk radio networks Air America and Jane Fonda's GreenStone Media (feminist radio) both declared bankruptcy and went off the air. Why? Because radio is not something most people listen to at home. Talk radio is the perfect form of entertainment while driving in your car. And who drives in their cars (particularly during morning and evening rush hour)? People with jobs, businesses, careers- otherwise known as conservatives (at least fiscal conservatives). Talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts- they literally scream all day long about high taxes and wasteful government spending. You know why? Because the drivers listening to these shows are the ones who pay all the taxes!
Conservatives drive in the morning to work (sometimes an hour or longer commute), they drive back home at night, they drive in-between to business lunches, client meetings and sales calls. Then they drive on Saturday and Sunday mornings to their children's ballgames, karate classes, Lacrosse matches, and swimming lessons. These are people with families, big mortgages, careers. No wonder they are fiscally conservative.
SOURCE
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I used to read as voraciously as you suggest as well. Actually, what killed reading for me, was reading history. When you truly have a grasp of what happened, who did it, and why, especially last century, then much of the classics become a pile of ruins. Yes, I was mostly into the classics, though sci-fi, fantasy, and others, from time to time, were in the queue.
The reason the classics, and definitely most modern writings, in and out of fiction, became not only less than savory, but outright insulting, is that they are based on the dreams of socialism. History, last century particularly, took the shine out of the hopes of all those old writers. Between their dreams, and what happens when their dreams were finally tried, in many different ways, always to epically genocidal governance, ended any taste for such foolish notions.
Modern writers seem to by trying, as hard as they can, to ignore the very facts of what happened, and carry on with a dream for secular freedom though good, firm, solid, governance. There are a few writers who understand, or even seem to care. Worse, you can never tell, not until you dig halfway through a book. Half way through, only to find out that it's just another leftist cookbook for genocide, just kills any interest.
The other thing is that reading isn't active. Okay, let us say you learn something. Is it something actionable? Not from a book. Not in specifics. A book literally can't show you how to do something. Even old and weakened, I would rather do, such as blogging or commenting, than just passively taking in life. Better for women, who are feeling, not action, based. Well, liberals are feminine. So I guess that fits too.
Post a Comment