>>> While there’s ample evidence of the professional class using its economic and educational capital to preserve its advantages — think of the clustering of pr

>>> While there’s ample evidence of the professional class using its economic and educational capital to preserve its advantages — think of the clustering of professionals into exclusive neighborhoods, or the early immersion of professional-class children into a world of literacy, art and science — its move left is evident even on questions of economic redistribution. My own analysis of data from the General Social Survey shows that in recent decades, as class inequality has increased, Americans who hold advanced degrees have grown more supportive of government efforts to reduce income differences, whether through changes to taxes or strengthening the welfare system. >>> On this issue, the views of the highly educated are now similar to those of groups with much lower levels of education, who have a real material stake in reducing inequalities. Even higher-income advanced degree holders have become more redistributionist, if less so than others. One of the benefits of higher education is access to higher income. As a person reaches a certain level of income, his or her ability to entertain broader issues and discussions tends to become more and more disconnected from the impact of the policies that such issues would derive into. So it is easy for a liberal to say that "coal mines need to be put out of business," while sipping a late at a San Francisco coffee shop instead of being a poor miner in Kentucky. Or the liberal can say "we need more Somali immigrants" from the comforts of the New York apartment and not the small community in St. Cloud Minnesota. So the answer for many liberals is that they are liberal because they can afford to be. Now, social liberalism has given us interesting discussions and expanded the rights of the population at large. Think inter-race or gay marriage, for example. So in these cases, these educated elites have been able to articulate how these changes for the most part do not affect the rights or life style of others. On the other hand, liberalism has also advocated for expanded role of the federal government without helping really address economic disadvantages in certain communities. I wonder if there is data to support the conservative notion that liberals are not job creators. It seems that there is a stereotype of the liberal elite as a person who has benefitted from cushy jobs in media, press or higher education. The article "The smug style in American liberalism" is a good read for those interested: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali... The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population that does not value liberty and the responsibilities that liberty conveys. Obviously that is also a generalization, so it would be interesting to write an article about "Why are the Highly Educated so Conservative?" or as another commenter mentioned here "Why are the Conservatives so Conservative?"