Chris's comments on this post discussing Lefty Academics & creativity were SO well crafted and pointed that I thought it was worth bringing 'em to the forefront of the blog.   His formulation is far more direct than Kling's original argument which I liked so much:

The vast majority of creativity is owned and operated by the private sector. Neither Britney spears, nor anyone that you can buy a CD of in your local store, is an academic. None of the "artists" involved in making movies, be they the director, the camera man, the gaffer, the wardrobe person, the matte painter, or even the actors are academics.

Academia is not about creativity (well, except in the women's studies and african studies departments). Indeed, Academia is mostly about cushy jobs, with the occasional academic pursuing his favorite hobby with a passion.

Why is it a mystery that people who want to be in a system with few decisions and little room for monetary advancement should tend to be liberals? Why is it a mystery that people who want a highly structured and comfortable but not affluent life should think that socialism is the answer? Why is it strange that people who want to be part of one of the more colossal failures of mankind (the american educational system) should generally vote democrat?

When I was a teaching assistant while getting my master's, I was constantly amazed by the failure of our classes to teach any undergraduates anything (I exaggerate, but not by much). Why do people wonder that the same people who want to be a part of this system with great ideals and miserable results also want socialism?

Well said.