Tristan Rogers: "The Dearth Of Conservatives In Academic Philosophy"

I've got complicated views about this, but it's something of a problem IMO.
What explains it? Probably the background left lean of academia and undergraduate-aged kids. Also philosophy errs toward the theoretical, as does leftism. Also a lot of philosophy is crap. Also a lot of it is crap because it's just rationalization for what we already believe. Even optimists about philosophy ought to admit that there's juts an enormous amount of crap and rationalization in it.
   What about these explanations?:

Why are there so few political conservatives in philosophy? Some hypotheses stand out immediately. One may notice that philosophy requires a critical attitude that sits uncomfortably with the characteristically conservative respect for authority. As a profession, philosophy also does not offer career prospects that risk-averse conservatives may value higher than their more idealistic liberal counterparts. Lastly, as Peter K. Jonason has shown, openness to ideas and experience—the philosophical character trait par excellence—is associated with political liberalism, not conservatism.

Meh. Conservatives are the new liberals in this respect, at least in academia. That is to say: the left is the status quo/orthodoxy in academia. Conservatism now requires more independence of thought there. Hell, I'm not even conservative, but academia and philosophy have swung so far left that people like me, who are less subject to the tides of opinion than most, are left standing to the right of the mean, marveling and the insane things that are now apparently orthodox. This isn't a completely novel position for me to be in. In my youth, most people around me seemed to be stuck in an overly-provincial, conservative, and religious worldview. I was of a more independent and contrarian bent, and so was more prone to busting out of that perspective. Most others were less independent, less contrarian, and less willing to force themselves to think consistently. For the record, I probably went too far...a well-known tendency of the contrarian...but I did bust out.
   Currently, most philosophers seem to me to be analogous to the people back home. They're too much on autopilot, too much influenced by the prevailing orthodoxy...and, to some extent, they just don't want any trouble. Hence a smallish group of radicals exerts disproportionate anti-philosophical influence on philosophy. Consequently, philosophy, overall, acquires a decided lean to the left. You have a bunch of shrill radicals with megaphones (e.g.: control of the APA, control of major salient on the web) and a lot of political influence and armor...and everybody else. Most of them lean left, but they mostly don't want to politicize philosophy. But they also don't want any trouble, don't want to take on the loudmouths, and certainly aren't interested in staking out and defending some kind of contrary, anti-left position that will require a lot of time and effort...and will make them the target of a vicious, powerful and, frankly, somewhat unhinged radical faction... All of this together produces a fairly pronounced lean to the left--a hard lean in some quarters, and a more go-with-the-flow-y lean in others. But overall: a big lean.
   Look, a lot of that's basically stream-of-consciousness, and I've got the flu or something. So it's probably not terribly good.