For purposes of these discussions, it is always conflated with "right of center". Academics accept this as a forgone conclusion, or, at best, use some self-refe

For purposes of these discussions, it is always conflated with "right of center". Academics accept this as a forgone conclusion, or, at best, use some self-referential circular argument for why the conservative political allegiance is the domain of the less-enlightened, e.g., fewer conservatives went to institutions that are overwhelmingly liberal for career training (university, especially when advanced degrees are considered), or fewer white-collar workers are willing to express conservative views. Neither of these things have much of anything to do with intelligence or stupidity. Rest assured, there are plenty of blistering idiots on both sides of aisle, in equal proportions that match the idiocy of the general public (roughly 95/5). The amount of people who have the right combination of raw intellect, disregard for social convention, etc., to make independent and objectively defensible arguments that aren't simple regurgitations of the party line is probably 5%. This is true for basically every group and subculture (possibly except those that are so small they don't qualify as their own group/subculture yet). Even among groups that attract primarily intelligent people in the absolute sense, like software or physics, most don't have the social courage to speak up when they disagree or to align themselves with someone who is clearly in the minority, nor do they have the interest to consider material in-depth and fully understand it in a way that allows them to internalize its principles and detect fakes or imposters. For the most part, they'll happily follow the crowd, no matter how silly the basis.