I don't think there's much of a question anymore.

Actually it's a little more nuanced than that. Personally I think there's two distinct categories of 'liberal' and perhaps three.

The first camp consists primarily of the young, college-age and a little older, that simply don't know anything about real life and, with the dismal state of American "education", have no idea what the facts are or what history is. In fact, many of them are taught that "facts" and "history" are relative anyway, so even if they know it, it doesn't matter because the collectivist philosophy doesn't allow for reality. Trust me on this. I went to Penn State and got a full four-years worth of indoctrination.

The second camp consist of your "elites": the professors, professionals and power brokers. For the most part, these individuals have convinced themselves that their ideology is correct regardless of the facts and that mankind simply hasn't come around enough to get it right. Call these folk the 'true believers', the ones who can spin Stalin and Mao into being 20th century freedom fighters who lost the uphill battle for utopia on Earth.

A third camp, or perhaps more precisely a subset of the first, are the single-issue zealots who find natural camaraderie with the power lust of the Left. Nothing else matters to the Environazis, PETA psychos or other special interests except imposing their will on the entire populace. Because Conservatives and the philosophy of liberty in general is more or less a 'live and let live' doctrine, these people naturally gravitate toward the Left because of their authoritarian ambitions.

So that said, is it more ignorance or arrogance? Let me try it this way: It's both. I know that's not thorough, but it's true. And depending on into which category a given liberal falls, the ignorance/arrogance tab will slide left or right accordingly.

All liberals are arrogant but not all of them are ignorant.

Some of them, however, are just stupid.

Russ