First off I'd like to start by saying that they are better than "us", on average. Second, we all compare our achievements in life with others, the moment they are mentioned. It doesn't matter what school you went to, if someone mentions they went somewhere "lower" than your school, the comparison is immediate. Anyone who claims they don't compare, is lying. 

Third, the comparison isn't without merit. On average, these people do tend to achieve more and be smarter. The fact that it bothers the "rest of us" so much, is an indication of implicit acknowledgment. The question is, why does it bother "the rest of us" so much?

Abortion and guns aren't social issues, as far as I can tell. Social conservatism, as I define it, has little to do with these topics, arguments for which can be made from any number of political directions and spectrum and which are really independent of a "social philosophy" (although many will disagree. But the point is, one can make perfectly reasonable legal arguments based on the US Constitution for them)

Social conservatism is something else. I don't know how to define it yet, but I know when I see it. I know when someone wants to stick their nose in my business and wag their finger at me in the name of some religion or some social philosophy. That sort of social conservatism is not a winning strategy. And I don't say this because of any reason some might attribute to me...but rather because I don't think that sort of social conservatism is compatible with the liberties of the US Constitution. 

And at the end of the day, whatever personal beliefs most Americans hold over their life choices, few like to be preached at by politicians pretending to be holier than thou. 

I'm still not quite sure why some people insist on tying every issue in the US with "faith". Somehow it all comes down to "faith". Frankly this is where you are loosing a lot of people who would otherwise be on your side. 

We have to ask ourselves this simple question: do we want to live in a nation that is well-off economically?

Because if the answer is yes, then the side-effect of that is always going to be children that are far more expensive to raise and educate, and therefore you will always get a decreased birth rate. However, this is relatively unimportant, if, as America had always done in the past, we attracted the best people from all around the world.

Or...do we want a nation of high birth rate, for the sake of "faith"? Afghanistan has both high "faith" and high birth rates, yet it is poor. Trade-offs will always have to be made, and people in the US have made the conscious trade-off that they would rather be rich, than live in a place where having children for the sake of having children is paramount. 

It's basic economics. You ignore economics at your own peril. You also ignore the benefits of immigration at your own peril. Immigration is that "sacrifice" which made this civilization. It wasn't breeding. 

Hmm, why do we care about this? 

 i doubt there's a College Republican Group

You might want to check on that. 

You have faith in scientists.

They have faith in God.

Either way, it's a matter of faith.

Certainly these two positions are not comparable. Science is precisely based on the lack of "faith"

Reading all these posts about how to attract a particular ethnic group etc., has me feeling a bit jealous. Why is no one pandering to my ethnicity and immigrant class? We want attention too! (jk)

There is a relatively large literature in Political Science and other fields which has studies the issue of Asian participation and registration patterns. A lot of these questions have been answered there. 

Second, keep in mind that the largest and fastest growing sub-fields are not the Korean Christians we (almost certainly) speaking of here; it is Chinese and Indians (the former being the largest group, by far, and the latter the fastest growing group). Koreans in the US are the least likely to register and vote, out of these groups. 

Asians, unlike Jews, do not represent a homogeneous culture or  community. They represent about 1/3 of the population of the globe. 

Rather than turning off the radio and screaming obscenities I would suggest listening to his actual argument.

I have. I'm not impressed. By the time I hear them for the 10th time, the only option left is to turn off the radio. 

Hw can you claim you don't assume that, when I was quoting YOU saying that "we glorify the ignorance of Blue Collar workers"?!

Because it does not follow from my statement that blue collar workers are ignorant. 

The YECs are the loudest though and get the most press.

Yes I think that in this area, and most others, the problem is not necessarily the opinions of the majority of "conservatives", "Republicans", "libertarians" etc, but rather that the public opinion on them has been co-opted by the "loud minority". But this is how the minority turns the majority, so there is reason to be careful. 

Have you been on a college campus in the last 15 years?

I'm a PhD student. One would hope I have been on campus lately. 

He's not attacking every person who attends university, nor is he attacking all professors

Oh yes he is. 

See, this is exactly the kind of pompous ass-baggery so many of us detest in so-called "intellectuals".  Why do you assume that "blue collar" equates to "ignorance"?

I don't assume any such thing. The glorification is precisely of "ignorance". This is not only implicitly stated, it is explicitly stated in anti-academia discourse among some "conservatives". And this is becoming almost a "fashion statement". 

I don't think that's really fair. People you find in the media are largely from the "soft fields" because they're media professionals, a "soft field" profession

Well this goes to my point; they live in an echo chamber, and  think that the echo chamber of the "chattering classes" is representative of "science", "academia", "the university" etc. It is not. 

And the reason why the "chattering classes" come from those fields, and have inundated the airwaves, is because of the self-importance that people in those fields place upon themselves; self-importance which allows Dennis Preger or some other commentator to assume that their experiences in their limited field are transferable to other fields. With all due respect, they are not. Criticize your own field if you must, but don't criticize "science" or the rest of "academia". 

Look at the argument posed above by John Grant: Barney Franks went to college, hence...

Maybe you can't attack history or philosophy with your science?

Which of course, I did not. 

trying to argue their apparently unassailable fact that society is best ruled by "experts", scientists, and intellectuals (progressives), not the collected wisdom of the community deffused through the ages (conservatism).

I am quite sure that the appropriate construction techniques for building a bridge, or an airplane, are best left to the experts. As is the composition of atoms, or human hormones. 

The problem is that the "fashion" these days, among some "conservatives" is not to argue the point you just made (which obviously I agree with).

The "fashion" is to hold a universal disdain for all things "college", all things "academia". If Dennis Preger went on his radio show and said "you know, these particular people who teach philosophy and polisci are hacks", I may agree. But he doesn't say that. Instead, he equates his experiences in these (irrelevant imho) fields, with the entire university, and attacks, not only through association, but directly, every person who seeks to expend their knowledge through the university. 

We glorify the ignorance of blue collar workers. Incidentally, this populist approach can never lead to "smaller limited government". Populism always leads to bigger more intrusive government. 

The responses here demonstrate why people think Republicans are anti-intellectual. Are you somehow demonstrating the opposite of the "group think" mentality you think universities instill on people? Or are you also repeating the same "spoon-fed" arguments which you heard on the Dennis Prager show? 

But I'll say something more on this. It amazes me that close to 100% of the accusations against the university, particularly from people who are university professors (e.g. Dennis Prager, John Grant etc.) come from people who are from the "soft fields". These people have lived their entire lives in the soft fields in the universities, and not only proclaim to detest these environments, but also proclaim that the entire university consists of their own experiences. 

I'd like to ask you a question? Do you detect a hint of self-importance? Do you think that the soft-fields from whence you come from, are representative of other sciences and field? Maybe, the soft fields are precisely irrelevant? Maybe, you can't attack science through your experiences in Russian history or philosophy?

Just saying, do you think engineering and science academicians find your broad accusations to be insulting?

Universally, without exception, the number one reason all the people I know think Republicans are anti-intellectual is because of religion

No. You want to know why people think Republicans are anti-intellectual? I'll give you an example: I'm driving down the road and I'm listening to talk-radio (because there is nothing else worth listening to). On comes Dennis Prager.

He gets on some rant about some issue, and almost universally, the rant ends up with a sentence which begins with "...and you can only believe this if you went to college! Only a university graduate could believe such and such!..."

At which point I immediately turn off the radio and begin yelling things at my radio which would break the Ricochet code of conduct. 

Really guys? After it has become the pinnacle of "conservative" fashion to attack the university, intellectuals, academia etc., you are now surprised that people think you are anti-intellectual?

I would have through that was the intent. 

Another point to consider on "social conservatism". The concept is not uniformly applied in all these cultures. In the US the concept has become synonymous not with how one lives one's life, but with how much one is concerned with the way others live theirs. 

From my limited exposure to Asian cultures, particularly the Christian Koreans (which really is the only group being spoken of here which  would be attracted by the American social-conservatism), these people are not concerned with the way others live their lives. Such issues are internal to the family, and more so because they generally don't mingle with others outside of their community (at least the first generations). 

This is also a fundamental characteristic of all immigrant groups to the US (firstgen at least); they don't care about how others live their lives. These people left all their families and communities behind to come here for a purely selfish reason. We expect them to care about the dissolution of the black family in Mississippi? This is why they don't vote on social issues even if they may be "socons" in their private life. Private life is separate from public policy. 

I agree with everything said by TheSophist, but it seems to me we are, once more, going down the road of identity politics. A large number of Chinese/Korean/Japanese are Christian (mostly Koreans) and social-conservative (allegedly),  therefore social conservatism is not a hindrance. 

Well, two issues with this observance:

1) the question is not asked, what business is it of social-conservatism in government? Is the intention to do the same thing the left did through government; legislate behavior? Or is it to get government off of legislating behavior? The answer to this is independent of the ethnic group you are trying to get to vote for you.

2) While you may attract a number of Asians (mostly Koreans) through a Christian-based approach (although there is no guarantee of getting them to vote GOP, because of the anti-intellectualism), the question isn't asked: what consequences does this policy have for the rest of the electorate which is becoming less religious, especially on college campuses? This is not a winning strategy, long term. 

But this is identity politics, just as the left. Every group in the US has differences. Lets focus on the commonalities, instead.