Pretty obvious which side he comes down on!

Wow. Having actually read the article, I couldn't disagree with it more. This is a ludicrously oversimplified dichotomy. While trying to draw these black-and-white lines, with "professionals" voting democrat, and "managers" voting republican, the author admits that professionals voting averages have been just 52% democrat, 40% republican. A significant margin, but not staggering. Yeah, I know he qualifies it at the end with "this isn't the only factor", but come on - this is "mondeo man" thinking at its worst.

It depends on what you make of that 52/40 split. Whilst I'll admit it's not the most insightful piece of political science--it's an op-ed--I think you do it some substantial injustice. Historically, the split amongst workers who are as affluent as either 'professionals' or 'managers' would be expected to be far more heavily Republican. Thus, Brooks is trying to describe a fairly major shift in voting patterns. Let's put it this way: if Islington (or the stereotype of 'rocket salad-eating Islingtonites) all of a sudden split 52% conservative, it would be pretty big news. ;) Merely because it's not black and white doesn't make it notable.

Fair enough. But this classifying of (effectively) practical-thinking republican voters versus theoretical-minded democrat voters is pretty clearly an attempt to imply that the latter are living in cloud cuckoo land. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but I think the recent dogma against "liberal educated elites" and the like needs to be stomped on, hard.

A) Yes, I think you're being overly sensitive. Brooks, whilst mildly conservative, seems to do his best to match his put-downs tit for tat in this one. B) Stomping on the concept of 'liberal educated elites' will be incredibly difficult, though you're welcome to try. We could try looking at voting patterns of university professors (far more liberal); voting patterns of university students (markedly more liberal); and then I suppose we could go anecdotal: exactly how many discussions, at meetings and such in Oxford, did you ever find in which more than one person took my side? ;) It was not exactly a haven of conservativism. Unfortunately, you're going to run into a brick wall of statistical fact here...

Perhaps I need to explain why I'm so against the concept - and it is related to the way that Brooks phrases his article. The phrase "liberal educated elite", taken literally, isn't all that offensive - its saying that there are a set of highly educated people who have liberal political views. Your statistics support this idea. But the concept isn't used in this literal fashion. Its supposed to project an idea of wishy-washy, pie-in-the-sky thinkers who have no understanding of the real world. See Brooks' subtle digs at this group: "Democratic candidates — from Clinton to Kerry — often run late." "They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective." (my emphasis) "Republican administrations tend to be tightly organized and calm" Its this idea that the liberal educated elite is populated by people who are disorganised, lacksadaisical, impractical thinkers which bothers me. I've said I may be being over-sensitive, and there may be an element of that; but as an outsider who has seen the US press in action and watched US politics with interest, I've had a strong sense of this anti-intellectual strain of thought. Its always been a subtle thread running through people's discourse (though occasionally a more overt attack), but its still been visible, to me. So anyway, I'm not objecting that intellectuals don't tend to be more liberal (though, without having seen any statistics, I doubt they're that extreme, notwithstanding anecdotal evidence from your Oxford experience). Rather, I find the resulting negative judgement disturbing.