Reply #1: Here's the winner: [View All]

[NewYorkerfromMass]

David Brooks's assertion (column, Sept. 16) that an increase in the electorate's level of education leads to a hardening of ideological positions contradicts the very purpose of higher learning.

I would expect that the more education a voter has, the more he or she can evaluate the soundness of an argument and identify a candidate's use or manipulation of rhetorical devices.

An objective and informed analysis would show that logical lapses can come from anywhere on the ideological spectrum, and that sometimes even those we usually disagree with can have a worthwhile idea.

ROGER GEISSLER
San Francisco

NYfM says: I agree with Brooks on ideological hardening and feel that this is in fact true.
The more educated we become, the more prone and quicker we are to "pigeonhole" and otherwise make judgements prejudiciously. Especially regarding the value judgements and assessment process required in the political arena. Gray areas can often be too much to contemplate for the average voter, and for most everyone take too much time to do properly. If you are a highly educated person, the chances are good you are too busy pursuing your career, if not also raising a family or dealing with other personal issues.
Political choices are more often than not subject to a very limited formulae of tests so as to expedite the decision making process.So while the writer of this letter is correct in principle, most voters DO NOT take the TIME to make an objective and informed analysis- even the most educated ones.