X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Rod Liddle

The political wisdom of people who don’t even know what a circle is

Just because they might wish a shape to be a circle, that does not make it so

2 January 2016

9:00 AM

2 January 2016

9:00 AM

Why are liberals morons? I’m sure that this question has rattled around your mind before, perhaps when watching one of those fair and balanced debates between three ill-dressed but very liberal women that Newsnight puts on every evening, hosted by Kirsty Wark. You hear them tiptoeing through the -nether regions of some important political issue, carefully sidestepping the nub of the matter, obfuscating, denying the patently obvious even when it is staring them right in their smug faces, jabbering ineffectually about nothing in essence. How can these silly mares be this way, you may have asked yourself. How can they navigate their way through life on such slender mental resources? And you may even have come to a sort of conclusion: they are stupid because they do not see the world as it really is, but only as they would wish it to be. They have no handle on reality. They are in a state of denial. That is why they are morons.

The rather cheering news is that this thesis of yours, if indeed it is your thesis, now seems to have been proven by science. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology recently carried out a test in which they asked people to identify a shape. The shape was what I would call an irregular ellipse, a sort of vaguely oval outline, except quite inconsistent in its circumference. The researchers discovered that people who said the shape was ‘a circle’ were more likely to be liberals. People who correctly identified the shape as definitely not a circle, but something else altogether, were more likely to be possessed of conservative political views. Still more pertinently, those who looked at this sort of splodge and said yep, it’s a circle, were more likely to be welcoming to immigrants and more inclined to be tolerant of filthy and aberrant and sinful and sociopathic lifestyles. (The Journal didn’t quite report it like that, but you get my drift.) Interestingly, the scientists did not draw the obvious conclusion from their fine research. They did not stoop to judge. So given their professional restraint, I will judge instead.

The first and most obvious point to make is that objectively, the shape was not a circle, nor anything very much like a circle — so the liberals were factually wrong. I think this makes them stupid. The second point is that these findings fit in precisely with the stuff I was talking about before — Kirsty Wark and the three liberal women who agree with each other about everything on Newsnight. Much like the Newsnight debate I mentioned previously in this column, immediately after the Paris atrocities, in which one woman announced that the cause was the racist nature of Paris and another talked about a theory that it had been carried out by rival drug gangs. This particular debate still makes me convulse with grim laughter when I think about it, the debate in which the words Muslim and Islam were not used at all, at any point — long after we’d all seen film footage of the murderers screaming ‘Allahu akbar!’ and so on. It is more of that liberal wishful thinking, the refusal to see the world as it is; a severe mental impairment, I would call it. You can imagine trying to put them right on this point, perhaps shaking them by the shoulders, your frustrated spittle glistening in their hair. No, ladies. The shape is not a circle. No matter how much you might wish it was a circle, it is still not actually a circle. It is a different shape entirely.

[Alt-Text]


It is not generosity of spirit or -lateral thinking which leads liberals to say that something which isn’t a circle actually is a circle. It’s stupidity or self-delusion (and they are one and the same thing in the end).

This is the first time I have seen scientific research that proves that liberals are morons. Non-scientific evidence is all around us, of course. But it is nice to have the whole matter nailed down. There have been tendentious reports before which have attempted to prove the converse — that conservatives are stupid and liberals really clever. At the London School of Economics a researcher called Satoshi Kanazawa, suggested that liberals were smarter because they were ‘willing to espouse evolutionarily novel values’, i.e. those values that did not exist in our ancestral environment. But this is only Satoshi’s opinion and it proves nothing. It may well be that for mankind to progress we need useful idiots to espouse ‘evolutionarily novel values’ every now and then, even if 99 out of 100 of them lead us into a cul de sac of either evolutionary stasis or indeed grotesque depravity. One of them may take us forward: that’s not clever, that’s just the consequence of statistical chance. Not everything in the Guardian is wrong. Only almost all of it. Once every ten years or so they print something that might be useful to mankind, possibly by accident.

And then, in the USA, there was the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which reported that the average IQ of people who described themselves as ‘very liberal’ was 106. Whereas the average IQ of those who described themselves as ‘very conservative’ was just 95, which isn’t much more than a reasonably well-trained Doberman Pinscher. I’m prepared to believe this of people who describe themselves as ‘very conservative’. Being ‘very conservative’ is in itself a sort of paradox. But even here there is a problem, because the researchers discovered that while those smarties described themselves as ‘very liberal’, when push came to shove they actually were not. They did not trust the state to decide things for them, for a start.

So there we have it: a nice way to begin the year. Liberals think things that aren’t circles are circles. They are stupid. That is all ye need know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close