Academia

Study: Only Nine Percent of Law Professors Identify as Conservatives

A new study offers further evidence of the alarming decline of ideological diversity on our law faculties. A study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez was featured on College Fix that finds that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools. Notably, a 2017 study found 15 percent of faculties were conservative. This is the result of years of faculty replicating their own ideological preferences and eradicating the diversity that once existed on faculties. When I began teaching in the 1980s, faculties were undeniably liberal but contained a significant number of conservative and libertarian professors. It made for a healthy and balanced intellectual environment. Today such voices are relatively rare and faculties have become political echo chambers, leaving conservatives and Republican students increasingly afraid to speak openly in class.

The trend is the result of hiring systems where conservative or libertarian scholars are often rejected as simply “insufficiently intellectually rigorous” or “not interesting” in their scholarship. This can clearly be true with individual candidates but the wholesale reduction of such scholars shows a more systemic problem. Faculty insist that there is no bias against conservatives, but the obviously falling number of conservative faculty speaks for itself.

In racial and gender discrimination cases, this type of pattern of de facto hiring preferences is routinely the basis for lawsuits. Obviously, intellectual diversity is different from racial discrimination.  This is no protected class and there is no statutory mandate to support challenges. Faculties know that it is near impossible to challenge their hiring decisions. However, the de facto result of years of biased hiring practices is reflected in the low number of conservative faculty at these schools.

When confronted, faculty will often shrug and say that they are open to promising conservative faculty but they simply have not found any. They will also question what is a conservative or a liberal — even though professors seem to have little problem in answering such polls with those terms. There is little sympathy for conservative and libertarian students who have few faculty offering opposing views — or liberal students who would like exposure to the full array of legal thought and interpretations.

Having taught for over three decades, I have never seen a more intolerant and orthodox environment. Schools have reached an ideological critical mass where faculties are replicating their own preferences. The overwhelming composition of faculties then serves to replicate and promote the views of liberal faculty on journals and in conferences.

For conservatives and libertarian students, the change in the environment is disheartening. For many schools, panels on decisions like Dobbs are composed of professors offering different views on why the decision is manifestly wrong without a dissenting voice in favor of the decision. Even on issues like dropping a school mascot, like GW’s Colonials, can feature panels without faculty offering the opposing view. Students also complain that conservative justices or theories are openly ridiculed in fundamental and required courses. When a faculty member shows such hostility to such theories in class, it sends a chilling message to students that opposing views may not be welcomed in class or in finals or papers.

There is obviously an academic freedom component to this problem. I take no issue with faculty members disagreeing with conservative interpretations. However, the complaint among students is that professors at various schools increasingly advocate in class and denigrate those with conservative jurisprudential views.

I frankly do not understand why professors want to maintain this one-sided environment in hiring. I was drawn to academia by the diversity of viewpoints and intellectual challenges on campuses. School publications and conferences today often run from the left to the far left. We have discussed a long line of incidents on this blog of conservative faculties being targeted by cancel campaigns with tepid support from their colleagues or administrations. We have become the face of intellectual orthodoxy and it is reflected in these numbers.

Even if one quibbles with these polls, most faculty will privately admit that there are few remaining conservatives or Republicans on their faculties. It is obvious and undeniable. This country is almost evenly divided politically. Yet, less than ten percent of our faculties hold views consistent with roughly half of the country, including many of our students. While no one is suggesting that faculties must reflect the political makeup of the nation, the reduction of opposing viewpoints has reached a crisis level for those who value intellectual diversity.

102 thoughts on “Study: Only Nine Percent of Law Professors Identify as Conservatives”

  1. Progressives don’t care one bit about ideological diversity, they want complete subservience to their ideological hive mind.

    Here is the progressive Democrat’s four tenets of “truth”…

    1. Progressive Democrats are right.
    2. Everyone else is wrong.
    3. Wrong is evil.
    4. Evil must to be destroyed.

    …that’s the dead end of the 21st century progressive Democrat’s ability to think critically.

    You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

    Yes I know, using the word “progressive” in this context is an oxymoron, their ideology is actually regressive.

    What’s happening at our colleges is anti status quo and anti-American and it’s absolutely absurd.

    This really is quite simple.

    If you can’t recognize the fact that there’s a serious problem with the nearly extinct ideological diversity on our 21st century college campus’s and that the administrations and faculties are actively turning the campus’s into “progressive” ideological bubbles that poison students against the United States of America and its Constitution and our representative democracy form of government and indoctrinating students into becoming direct democracy totalitarians then you are part of the culture shifting problem.

    Yes, it really is that simple.

    Apathy, ignorance and blind tolerance without courageously speaking out and engaging in civilized public actions against the irrational totalitarians and their ignorant hive-minded foot soldiers will allow the irrational totalitarians to destroy the United States and all that it stands for.

    Your liberty, freedom and individual rights really are on the line.

  2. The all too polite and deferring conservatives gave up their rights in the 50’s – 60’s as the onslaught of “new-age” thinkers began invading academia. It was the “new” way of approaching the world, one that would use the UN to settle conflicts and everyone would seek peace and harmony and if you spoke against all this you were ostracized. I blame the conservatives, like myself (I’m 71) who passively stood back and let these crazies take over everything. Now, what do yu do with a nation full of crazies who have sloughed off all sense of order and agreed upon cultural moorings. How do you contain a nation filled with chaos and anarchy?

    1. Alma, I’m not so sure that is all true. The State-of-the-United-States maybe seen as a Political case of “Who let the Dogs Out”,
      but the Tradition of “Little Pink Houses” and “Housing Projects” still remains. Only today they are 5000 sq.ft Homes in “Gated Communities” and “Affordable Housing”.

      You are correct in the assessment of the Conservative drift to allow Liberal policies. However the Politically Demographic History shows the opposite is also true. Texas is a prime example, it was a Democratic State from 1846 until 1979 [You will Recall JKF & LBJ in the 60’s] But by 1981 as Ronald Regan took Office That had changed (Regan, Bush I & II). That’s Blue to Red/Left to Right.

      California has also gone through these passages as well:
      https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/

      You mention “cultural moorings”, I often refer to this as an Individuals ability “To make a Morally Correct Decision”.

      In my opinion this has to do more with The “Fourth Estate” and now including the “Fifth Estate” [Internet Technology] of the Realm.
      The proliferation of Ideological Norms as “cultural moorings”. The ability to permeate Society in a flash (a Tweet) and enable ‘Influencers’ (TicToc/YouTubers) with financial rewards or just gratification, has led to a decay in an Individuals ability “To make a Morally Correct Decision” unencumbered of outside impact (Foggy Choices at Best).

      Wilson Bryan Keys was hip to this (from an Advertising Prospective).
      The World has become “The Clam Plate Orgy” online.

      Wilson Bryan Keys:
      Subliminal Seduction 1973
      The Clam Plate Orgy 1980
      The Age of Manipulation 1989

      P.S.: I liked your post Alma – Please keep commenting

  3. Academia leftward bias has been observed since the publishing of THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND in 1987. In the intervening 35 years the problem has greatly intensified and, to my knowledge no solution has ever been presented. Here is a solution, appropriate for public universities only: All hiring, tenuring and promotion of faculty should be based on recommendations from an external a board of subject experts. This board would be appointed by, and accountable to, a state Board of Regents, which is in turn, accountable to the governor (or state legislature). The aim would be to staff such boards of subject experts with individuals dedicated to hiring on the basis of scholasticism rather than ideology. This solution rests on the premise that public universities are public institutions and ought not be captive of a progressive clique. This solution will create an external accountability to public universities which currently operate as a law unto themselves.

    Consider this analogy. Suppose a vacancy on SCOTUS was filled by selection carried out by the remaining eight justices, rather than the current method. Suppose the majority of the remaining eight justices were of the ilk of Sotomayor. In this case one could never hope to see a conservative justice appointed, and SCOTUS would be permanently captive by the progressive majority. The public would never abide such an arrangement and there would be an outcry for a constitutional amendment to create external accountability. Likewise, the public ought not abide our public universities being captive of a progressive clique. We need to create external accountability.

      1. Catherine Cassidy wrote, “With all due respect, I think that the trend began long before 1987.

        There’s actually “a chronological paper trail” of what happened and when it happened.

        Many years ago the author of the following book was socially tarred as a crack-pot conspiracy theorist but looking back at the totality of what she wrote it’s become clear that she might not have been such a crack-pot after all.

        The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
        A Chronological Paper Trail
        by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

        FOREWORD
        Charlotte Iserbyt is to be greatly commended for having put together the most formidable and practical compilation of documentation describing the “deliberate dumbing down” of American children by their education system. Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists.

        Mrs. Iserbyt has also documented the gradual transformation of our once academically successful education system into one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes. This is how fascist-socialist societies train their children to become servants of their government masters. The successful implementation of this new philosophy of education will spell the end of the American dream of individual freedom and opportunity. The government will plan your life for you, and unless you comply with government restrictions and regulations your ability to pursue a career of your own choice will be severely limited.

        What is so mind boggling is that all of this is being financed by the American people themselves through their own taxes. In other words, the American people are underwriting the destruction of their own freedom and way of life by lavishly financing through federal grants the very social scientists who are undermining our national sovereignty and preparing our children to become the dumbed-down vassals of the new world order. It reminds one of how the Nazis charged their victims train fare to their own doom.

        One of the interesting insights revealed by these documents is how the social engineers use a deliberately created education “crisis” to move their agenda forward by offering radical reforms that are sold to the public as fixing the crisis—which they never do. The new reforms simply set the stage for the next crisis, which provides the pretext for the next move forward. This is the dialectical process at work, a process our behavioral engineers have learned to use very effectively. Its success depends on the ability of the “change agents” to continually deceive the public which tends to believe anything the experts tell them.

        And so, our children continue to be at risk in America’s schools. They are at risk academically because of such programs as whole language, mastery learning, direct instruction, Skinnerian operant conditioning, all of which have created huge learning problems that inevitably lead to what is commonly known as Attention Deficit Disorder and the drugging of four million children with the powerful drug Ritalin. Mrs. Iserbyt has dealt extensively with the root causes of immorality in our society and the role of the public schools in the teaching of moral relativism (no right/no wrong ethics). She raises a red flag regarding the current efforts of left-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives (radical center) to come up with a new kid on the block—“common ground” character education—which will, under the microscope, turn out to be the same warmed-over values education alert parent groups have resisted for over fifty years. This is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work.

        The reader will find in this book a plethora of information that will leave no doubt in the mind of the serious researcher exactly where the American education system is headed. If we wish to stop this juggernaut toward a socialist-fascist system, then we must restore educational freedom to America. Americans forget that the present government education system started as a Prussian import in the 1840’s–’50’s. It was a system built on Hegel’s belief that the state was “God” walking on earth. The only way to restore educational freedom, and put education back into the hands of parents where it belongs, is to get the federal government, with its coercive policies, out of education. The billions of dollars being spent by the federal government to destroy educational freedom must be halted, and that can only be done by getting American legislators to understand that the American people want to remain a free people, in charge of their own lives and the education of their children

        You can still find this book in various places online. I got a PDF copy of it years ago.

  4. Turley loves to tell his Trump cult45 base how badly conservatives are being treated, but fails to tell them the courts are up to the brim with them. They have 6 conservatives on the SCOTUS that just took away rights to millions. Turley also does not make the differences between what conservatives were, and what they are now. The Trumpists are NOT, conservatives by any historical measure. Or any measure.

        1. I’m not going to humor someone trying to hijack a topic to satisfy their own agenda.

  6. Yes conservatives are going the way of the dinosaur. This country is changing big time and there is nothing we can do about it. Who thought cars would be forbidden, free college, 4 day work weeks, 87 thousands IRA agents, and the list goes on and on, one more thing , 2 thousands illegals in our Country living at our expense. As a conservative I Give Up.

    2. I don’t. We’re half of the country and we’re armed to the teeth. Not going “gently into the night”. I’d sooner see it all burned to the ground first and to hell with future generations.

      1. CurrentSitGuy,
        Based off your handle, I am going to take a WAG and say we have something in common: Military background.
        As I have stated in the past, civil war is a path we must NOT take.
        However, for a moment let us consider the inconsiderable of civil war.
        As a society advances, things once considered as abhorrent can be justified and disguised as progress e.g. the sexualization of children, or “minor attracted persons.” The society can indulge in things outside of the more base of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs being Physiological and Safety. I would argue the leftists are even outside of the top of Maslow’s pyramid as that would require them to accept things like facts, problem solving, morality.
        Once a society has reach this point, society fails as those within Maslow’s hierarchy struggles against those outside the hierarchy.
        Conflict is the end result.
        In real conflict, in-coming has the right of way, and as the conflict lengthens from months to years, such progressive ideas fall to the wayside as the base of Maslow’s pyramid come more and more to the forefront. How much does one care about biological men competing in women’s sports if you have to wonder where your next meal is coming from? Or if you are going to survive the next arty barrage? Yesterday, you witnessed half of your friend’s head removed explosively from sniper fire. Today, are you next?
        As horrible as the idea is, burning it all down to the ground, for people to get back to what is really important than say, pronoun usage, might be what is needed.

  7. As a Liberal Arts Grad. (Univ. of Toledo), I felt the Poly-Sci Department was very important to developing my perspective (Personal Growth) to be “Open to Diverse Opinion”. That said, however I can see that some Classes (like Western Civ.＊) could come under-fire as Bias and purporting a False Narrative.
    Students pursuing other Degrees whom were “Required” to take Poly-Sci Courses, I imagine did not take-away the ‘development’ intend by the Poly-Sci Requirement being in their core-curriculum.

    In summary, I can see your point of having Diverse Political Teaching Staff in the Poly-Sci Department,
    but I question the ‘Efficacy’ of the Staff upon the Student Body studying a broad range of Disciplines.

    University of Berkley / Univ of Michigan: In my day these Universities were the ‘Hot Bed of Political Movements’
    That changed after Ronald Regan. Today I see Diploma Mills, not Intellectual Institution or even extreme Left/or/Right Political Training Camps.

    ＊With all respect to Eugene Weber the ‘The Western Tradition’ Produced by: WGBH Boston.

    [ I 💘 Doonesbury Cartoons by Garry Trudeau @ WaPo ]
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/comics/strips/?name=doonesbury

    We are ‘Lemmings’ – National Lampoon (Circa 1973)
    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61pAIKC0OhL._SX466_.jpg

  8. There’s an irony that many Trump voters and Tea Party voters may want to consider.

    In the mid 1990’s, many of the above voters supported Ross Perot’s warning about the off-shoring of good paying jobs as a result of NAFTA – supported by Democrats back then. Perot also warned about not balancing national budgets with excessive national debt and deficits along with trade deficits. Most Trumpers and Tea Partyiers strongly supported these issues.

    The above mentioned voters also supported “Made in the USA” products and buying more products primarily made by American workers in economically depressed areas like Detroit and Ohio.

    Fast forward to 2022. Biden (and mostly Democrats) just passed a new law that legally mandates “on-shoring”. Foreign companies must locate their factories – using American high paid workers – in the United States or a nation with an approved Trade Agreement with the United States. China is currently not part of many of these agreements.

    Nations like China can change it’s ways to comply with America’s trade agreements, but Biden currently has prohibited China from certain products and services until it improves it’s human rights and worker standards.

    Some Democrats, that want to buy cleaner vehicles, are currently not happy with these Biden policies since the tax credits don’t apply to all foreign nations. Most of those new cars have to be built in the USA.

    Places like Ohio will be manufacturing microprocessing chips right here in the USA using well paid American workers. A primary cause of high inflation in new car prices.

    Trumpers and Tea Partyiers may want to look up their Republicans Congress members’ voting record, most Republicans voted AGAINST these “on-shoring “Made in the USA” laws.

    1. Ash Your Ross Perot points are well taken. But Had Ross not ran his third party campaign in 1992 and 1996 and sucked of so-called conservative votes Bill Clinton would not have won. Ross did know how to work the halls of Congress to achieve legislation to reduce his tax burden upon selling his company. Little big eared crazy aunt in the attic did know the system.

    2. Points well taken. I would add that when it is financially unfeasible to domestically manufacture I would give preference to this hemisphere. a sort of “Americas First”. The more Central and South America develop economically, the less incentive there is to wade the Rio Grande.

      The first thing the entire hemisphere should be working on is a rail and transportation link through the Darien Gap. It would create an unbroken link from Ushuaia to Nome

  9. On diversity in law faculty I keep thinking of the mantra l grew up with in the practice: a good defense lawyer has to know plaintiff’s case better than plaintiff does. How does a law faculty with unbalanced diversity turn out graduates with the zeal and ability to master both sides of an issue for the client-the whole object of the exercise?

    1. I had a brilliant professor in CRIMLAW in the late 80’s. Can’t remember his name. He was young at the time with an arm with a birth defect. Anyway, the class hated him because he would not teach us the elements of the crimes and all the other stuff we needed to know for the final and the bar exam. All he did was talk about this dichotomy between Classical liberalism and social welfare-ism. Every issue, whether search warrants or conspiracy or whatever, was always subject to competing arguments from these two competing schools of thought. The thing is, these two competing schools of thought were not politically identifiable. Republicans would find themselves in the classical liberalism camp as often as they would find themselves in the social welfare-ism camp. I might have been the only guy in the class that “got him.” He was giving us a tool kit to argue any legal issue from any side of the argument. I aced his test.

      1. The CRIMLAW prof you remember was almost certainly Michael Nussbaum. I worked on a big case with him in the 1980’s. He was indeed a brilliant lawyer who could see things no-one else could see. One of the finest.

  10. “Conservative” lawyers defended slavery, supported the KKK, opposed giving women and non-whites the vote, opposed inter racial marriage, opposed civil rights, and now are trying to make it illegal for doctors to save the life of women who are having miscarriages. “Conservative” lawyers are genuine POS. It is a wonder that there are any “Conservative” law professors.

      1. Lin,
        I just want to say your posts have an amazing capacity to state things in a highly intelligent, concise, no nonsense like manner.
        Even more so with a reply with 8 characters and one space.
        Thank you.

    2. Oh Sammy. You really need to study history a little bit. Look into who Eulogized the Senate Grand Kleagal of the KKK. It wasn’t Republicans. It was Delusional Joe and Saint Obama. Go back to sleep.

    3. You might be on to something. “Conservative” is not a very good label for what we are talking about here. Anyway, Democrats throughout history did most of what you listed, and anything the “conservatives” were purportedly trying to conserve has long since been lost in our hyper progressive society. We need a label that is more revolutionary, because things definitely need to change. “Reactionary” maybe, but no one wants to put anyone back in chains, maybe selectively reactionary, or counter revolutionary. I’m not good with meaningless academic buzzwords. Traditionalist? Legacy American?

    4. Sammy: Correction – “SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS” lawyers defended slavery, supported the KKK, opposed giving women and non-whites the vote, opposed inter racial marriage, opposed civil rights.

      Also, what proof do you have that “Conservative Lawyers are are trying to make it illegal for doctors to save the life of women who are having miscarriages” ??? You may be able to find an example or two, but I would suggest to you that this is no more a main stream conservative position than that of liberals wanting to allow abortion right up to and including the time of birth for no reason other than the mother’s preference.

      Your arguments would have more impact if you stopped cherry picking extremes and better represented reality.

      1. You are entirely correct in saying “SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS” defended slavery, supported the KKK, suppressed votes, opposed inter-racial marriage, and opposed civil rights. Those southern Democrats made up the vast majority of the white evangelical church. When I point out most of those Democrats ultimately became Republicans, beginning when the military was integrated but really picking up steam during the civil rights movement. People scream (despite the evidence) it isn’t true. There can be no argument those same white evangelicals switched to backing the Republican Party while holding those same views. Trying to blame Democrats solely for current actions is way off base, they mostly stand by and watch these days.

        It’s unfair as you stated to condemn all conservatives as having extreme views on abortion policy, just the politicians (who stopped being conservative some time ago).

  11. Eh, nine percent conservative would make it the most arch-conservative department or organization in all of government, where departments regularly sport a 98% or greater level of ideological purity. I’d say it’s time for a purge against the rest of those racist insurrectionists professors. Drive them from the public square, or better yet seize their cell phones, like Eastman. You can’t have a Fabian slow motion Marxist revolution without the gradual capture of those institutions. Then when you get critical mass, it’s time to strike. What do you think the ideological make up of those 87,000 new IRS agents are going to be? Who do you think the targets of their audits are going to be? Government has become a racket to take money away from conservatives and give it to progressives. I could name progressive organization all day that are funded by tax dollars, starting with government itself. Can you name one unquestionably conservative organization out there getting government funding? I’m sure there might be some exception that proves the rule, but I cannot think of one. The student loan Ponzi scheme and loan forgiveness fiasco is just another mechanism to shovel tax dollars to progressive university administrations. Relax, it’s all part of the plan.

  12. Someone has to do a story about how very good colleges in rural areas can charge $80,000 while NYU charges $80,000. Where does the money go for even non-ivy league in low costs areas like Amherst, Oberlin, Colgate, Bucknell, Hamilton, Davidson, Tufts, etc….WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?

    2. My guess is bloated administration, including vastly expanded DEI staff, and excessively high salaries for both teachers and administrators.

  13. Democrats have been fighting a fascist civil war for years! Now go look at flow of money. When the Federal Reserve Prints $9 trillion….100% goes to wall street and the finance machine. A few dimes might be used for food in Wyoming. Travel to update NY to see imploding society while “A” banker makes more in a year than entire towns. Democrats have succeeded in 80% of all Federal dollar traveingl to Democrat Wall Street, to DC, large cities, state capitals, Silicon Valley and liberal universities!

    The ONLY defence…is to cut 50% of federal spending, move 75% of DC to the heartland, end all federal aid to colleges and cities and a 5% tax on the Gross Value of all wall street transactions or movement money offshore! We need to take away the power of DC and Wall STreet…it is BREAKING the country!

  14. It seems like this has been the goal of the left for some time – to drum out any opposing thought. </i

    Becuase the left always lose in the arena of ideas.

  15. Being on the inside, Professor, and noting this fact I would suggest you offer some solutions.
    I feel that state supported schools can lead the way here in rebalancing their faculties but it may take the state legislature to do this with new instructions and requirements to the Boards of each university. Removing the hiring of faculty from the faculty’s hands or markedly decreasing their input into the hiring process or making sure the University Board has final say over all faculty hiring in targeted schools in the University . The other means might be to diminish the length of time that tenure is enforced and encourage more turnover in the faculty. Having lived next door to a university Dean for many years who was a close friend, he gave me a phD level course in how to manage tenured professors or even get rid of them. Incredibly interesting. But it has to be a conscious decision.
    It can also be a messy decision, rife with legal ramifications, having also experienced that but for an open society we need it.
    For myself I enjoy hearing the contra argument because there are usually so many holes to shoot through when you get up to review a presentation.
    I had a chief who was an equal opportunity offender. He knew his specialty so well that he could go after any presentation from multiple points of view and with obvious glee. We fellows sat apart because we did not want to be caught in the backsplash but it was incredible teaching and he kept us all humble.

  16. I don’t think this is a deliberate exclusion conservative professors or hiring practices. The reason may be much simpler than Turley would like to admit. Conservative thoughts or ideas are not as prevalent as it is believed to be. It may just be a shrinking ideology and the few that remain are the more extreme. This would explain why “traditional” conservatives have fallen on the wayside.

    The loudest and most vocal “conservatives and libertarians” today are more likely those who were once on the extreme fringes of the ideological spectrum and those views are not widely accepted. But, they are now the norm thanks to Trump. Think MAGA crazies and their conspiracy theories.

    1. In Svelazworld they are all happy with the great legal minds like Lawrence Tribe.

      Saying that there are not many conservatives 60 days before an election that will be won by conservatives is a special kind of stupid, a stupid of the Svelaz kind.

      1. Hullbobby,

        “ Saying that there are not many conservatives 60 days before an election that will be won by conservatives is a special kind of stupid, a stupid of the Svelaz kind.”

        That’s no longer assured which is what Mitch McConnell has conceded. His reason behind his tempered outlook on the midterms is on the “quality” of the candidates meaning there are too many Trump crazies running and they are not real conservatives in the traditional sense. They are the zealots and extremists. Look at Sarah Palin’s loss in Alaska to a democrat.

        Conservatives ARE being pushed aside by Trump “conservatives” and they are the new norm.

        Their ideas are not popular with the majority of the population. Look at what happened in kansas with the their abortion amendment. It’s considered a deep red state but the reality is the perception is based on a few extremists and the landslide win to keep abortion rights in a red state is an example of what I’m pointing out. Conservative ideas or views are not as accepted as it is believed because and the ideology is shrinking because of it. It still appeals to those on the crazy fringes of the conservative spectrum.

    2. “Turley would like to admit. Conservative thoughts or ideas are not as prevalent as it is believed to be”

      Popularity is the proper metric.?

      Our host’s detractors claim he is shilling for conservatives… Claiming…They never challence his analysis of the law, or Constitution.
      We are a nation of laws, not men (or majority)

      1. Please remember what you wrote about “We are a nation of laws, not men {or majority] if or when Trump gets indicted.

        1. As we all know, the DOJ can get an indictment of a ham sandwich. And in DC, that ham sandwich would be convicted of anything and sent to the cooler for life. We all know that.

          1. “As we all know, the DOJ can get an indictment of a ham sandwich.”

            Ham sandwiches aren’t Kosher.

    3. Sure there are. It is just currently they tend to go into the private sector, rather than academia or public service. in other words they go to where the big money is.

    4. “I don’t think this is a deliberate exclusion conservative professors or hiring practices.”

      That is your problem. You don’t think.

      SM

  17. When your side knows all the answers, any other viewpoints will just impede “progress”

  18. John: Upon current realities, How do you feel about your school’s Alma Mater?
    [Northwestern, Univ .of Chicago, Georgetown, Tulane]

  19. There really aren’t many real “Conservatives” left in America today. Few would agree with Barry Goldwater, Reagan or George Will.
    Since George W. Bush we have no fiscal-conservatives left in the Republican Party.

    Please use the proper label “Unconstitutional-Authoritarian” when talking about these guys (officials that perceive themselves as above the law and above the U.S. Constitution subverting American elections). “Authoritarian Professors” would be more accurate label.

    1. In my view, one major factor that has led to this sad reality is that, ironically, a major pillar of today’s “liberal” political strategy is complete intolerance (to the point of meanness) of any view that disagrees with theirs. As they have become increasingly progressive, their positions have become more based on feelings and less on logic and reason. As a result, rather than actually debate the true merits of either side’s position, they just simply shut down the other side with name-calling and word manipulation. There is no real discussion of any data and facts that support their views. A good current example is our President calling people who believe in policies like America First or controlling our borders semi-fascist without providing any specificity for why that is the case. Just calling them evil means plenty of gullible people will believe it without asking “How is that exactly?”, and that achieves their goal of feeling good about themselves and getting and staying in power.

    2. I agree with what you wrote except St Ronnie of Reagan talked a good game of “fiscal-conservatives” but not in practice.

      1. I won’t argue the point that in the 80’s we spent our way into a huge fiscal hole, largely in an attempt to bankrupt the USSR. In the end that worked, but I would have preferred some openness about that goal. I think it was a laudable one and there would have been a lot of public buy-in just like there was during WW2.

  20. It seems like this has been the goal of the left for some time – to drum out any opposing thought. We see the effort in politics and social media too. When their ideas cannot win, they must defeat conservatives another way – by demonizing conservatives and censorship. It’s apparently working quite well as Big U, Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government are all working to the same end, to silence conservative thought so liberals maintain power.

Comments are closed.