Full employment usually means some ideal level of unemployment is reached, but people usually differ on what constitutes an ideal level. However, if you want your government to ensure a certain level of (un)employment, you are firmly left of the political centre in Europe and the US, regardless of whether the level is 0%, 5%, or 10%. No European country ensures it, nor are they planning to. Same for the US of course.
A government ensuring a certain level of unemployment would soon see that level rise. Left does not come from thinking something stupid. Whatever gave you the idea that a leftist means that they automatically hold untenable positions?
I don't think that the term is so vague when used as a political identity. Of course there is bound to be some variation in the definition but I would say that liberals classify themselves quite accurately on the political spectrum. No only that, their self-identification generally agrees with their voting, too. (At least in the US.) As an examples, you can see their views on the issues abortion and homosexuality in my last post. But it also seems to be true in a more general sense:
Abortion and homosexuality. Two things that are least likely to impact someone from a small town, but more likely than not someone from a small town is going to oppose both of them. Have you ever stopped and thought about why someone who doesn't have to deal with an issue would care about it? It's obvious to me there's something at play here that extends beyond simple political views, which is my problem with your analysis. You seem pretty satisfied with just listing off some political views and self-identification, but I already explained to you in my last post why that is ridiculous. Most people, including college professors, simply have not thought about it in any meaningful way. So it all falls back on upbringing, which is cultural, not political. Thus the stark contrast between city/suburban folk and rural folk, it's not a manner of differences in intelligence or common sense, but pure upbringing.
This is the problem with people making top-down analysis. You think that just because you have thought an issue out, and someone agrees with you or disagrees with you, that means that they have thought it out and not thought it out respectively, which is an idiotic notion, I'm sure you can recognize.
I'd say most people on this forum could have a good guess on the average liberal academic's view on discrimination, racism, political correctness, etc.
PC is a defunct issue from the 90's, why are you still bringing it up? Anyway, I also find it incredibly dense to lump PC in with liberalism, seeing as conservatives have their own way they like to pussify and dumb down language and art, like the idea that you shouldn't make fun of or belittle Christians, or the idea that you should not curse in front of kids, or what topics of conversation are acceptable and unacceptable to say in public. Also, do you think that a conservative would want a gay talking about how he ate out someone's asshole the night before? So the idea that there is some kind of adherence to polite language that only liberals ascribe to is simple brainwashing.
Also, the average academic lives in or has lived in a city, and thus can see the contrast between how poor ethnicities live their lives and how suburban ethnicities live their lives. If you saw that you might think there was something going on there too. Honestly though, it again comes from being cosmopolitan. In a rural neighborhood none of that would even be issues because everyone is homogenous.
I'm not sure where I've attacked academics unless you mean my comment 'We are doomed' (which was meant as a joke, hence the smiley). I'm also not so much worried about liberal views as long as we acknowledge the fact that liberal views are overrepresented in academia. However, I'm concerned when being intelligent and educated is strongly associated with being progressive or liberal. I've even seen liberals claim that their over-representation in academia is proof that liberals are in general more intelligent and educated.
Liberals ARE more intelligent and educated. That's what comes about when you promote your ideology based on fundamentalist religion, chauvinistic/jingoistic/reactionary nationalism, and traditionalism. Now, not all conservatives espouse every one of those views, nor are any one of those views inherently stupid. But it does attract quite a crowd of idiots, whom you have chosen to ally yourself with by being a conservative. But hey, that shouldn't be a problem if you believe in a strict hierarchy.
Besides, I don't know what you're complaining about. You're basically making the case for the other side. You want to say that liberals are not more intelligent and educated while lambasting them for being overrepresented at universities.
See the study above. Their views on many issues agrees with their self-identification.
Self-identification with a viewpoint does not mean you've thought it out.
That was not my intention at all. Please explain where I have demonised anybody.
Are you serious? I'm not going to respond to this. Please, I'm sure that if you reread the tone of your posts you would be quite aware of the demonization here. Either you're trying to convince me that the overrepresentation of liberals in academia is bad, or you're saying all this stuff in an encyclopedic manner. The latter just doesn't make sense.