It's the defense of a group think and collective interests
Vít Bláha sent me an interesting essay by Philip Patrick, a lecturer in Tokyo,
Patrick starts by noticing that many professors are really insane and very cruel – they also like to mock Trump's skin color and compare him to monkeys although the very same people consider these techniques "the ultimate crime" when Trump is replaced with members of some privileged groups. The double standards are absolutely stunning. But I don't want to discuss juicy symptoms of TDS here; this text is all about the question "Why".
First, we must realize that there is a certain variability among the anti-Trump fanatics. The youngest generation tends to be genuinely stupid and brainwashed, unable to understand even the most basic things about the society and willing to parrot the stupidest lies and insults that are served to them. Many of them haven't even considered the idea that it could be wrong to be a parrot; or the idea that a person who disagrees with them could be a fine person in any respect.
It's been said that young people who aren't leftists don't have a heart and old people who aren't rightwingers don't have a brain. There is some truth to this slogan, I believe – there is a real correlation that indicates that the right-wing values arrive with age, experience (especially when it comes to the experience with negative consequences of some leftist "ideals"), and the accumulated wisdom and responsibility. This mechanism also means that the older and old professors who say as stupid things, e.g. anti-Trump things, as the youngest people must have a somewhat more "rational" basis for doing so than the unhinged irrational young leftists, and I think that they indeed do.
Patrick says that it is all about their insecurity.
According to Patrick and your humble correspondent, the actual reason why Donald Trump drives these professors up the wall – and why Margaret Thatcher used to achieve the same – is the psychological dependence of these professors on the idea that their academic affiliation and degrees automatically give them a higher status in the society, a confirmation of their higher credibility, power, and lifelong relevance. And because Trump does clearly refuse it – and so did Thatcher – they feel existentially threatened which is why they feel the duty to do everything to destroy Trump (or Thatcher). That's why even a theoretical physicist whose "research IQ" is almost certainly above 170 may often behave as the unhinged IQ-70 monkeys when it comes to any political issue. I am confident that a big fraction of the readers have an idea whom I am talking about now but I can't tell you whether this guess is correct!
Lots of these professors already come from "academic families" where certain common assumptions have been transferred from a generation to another generation. The longer the sequence of generations has been, the more filtered and one-sided the wisdom has become (in average). And even when it is not so, these professors may have learned those things from their professors when the former were students.
At any rate, the "common assumptions" say: The university people are automatically "better people" because they belong to this environment and because they have degrees and affiliations that may be considered synonymous with knowledge and wisdom. And they need to remain perfectly "committed" to this environment and this culture (they need to be as conformist as possible, and maximally copy the group think), and that's the most important foundation for the civilization (but surely a foundation of the lives of these people). Everyone who doesn't share this vision is an enemy – because he or she undermines the "good of the society" or its proxy, the collective interest of the occupation of professors.
Well, Richard Feynman surely disagreed with those assumptions about the symbols and authorities – I think that he would be hated by these far left jerks today just like Trump is hated. More importantly, Margaret Thatcher came from a very practical household. Her father was a grocer. Margaret was a very good student and has made it to a "perfectly decent second-class research chemist", as someone accurately said, before she became a barister. Donald Trump has also had very practical ancestors, although much richer ones. But neither Trump or Thatcher nor myself have ever retrained ourselves or themselves to "rank and file mindless defenders of the collective interests of the average university people".
Both Trump and Thatcher – and also your humble correspondent – do care (or did care, in the Iron Lady's case) about the intelligence of the people (including ourselves). But we just don't use the degrees and affiliations to measure it at all because we think it is a completely stupid, pretentious, superficial, highly inaccurate, and increasingly misleading and corrupt technique to estimate someone's intelligence. So even when it comes to the intelligence or credibility or creativity (and other intellectual characteristics) of a given person, we just try to measure them completely independently of some "social infrastructure" – measure them more directly. We don't really care what other people say and we think it's the right approach.
This methodology of ours is unsurprisingly considered an existential threat by those whose prosperity heavily depends on the degrees, affiliations, occupations, all the pretentious and snobbish glitz. Well, I think that this theory predicts that it is especially the people who became university professors despite their lousy natural IQ who are likely to become the (biggest) haters of Trump or Thatcher. And I think that statistically, this prediction is confirmed by the data because the least intelligent departments, namely the humanities (and especially the departments of grievance studies that shouldn't exist at all), end up being the most fanatical Trump haters. They got to the system due to affirmative action, fraud, good luck, or just some general collapse of whole portions of universities (which leads to the establishment of whole garbage departments, among other terrible things) and they know that if the system that has allowed them to get these jobs is eliminated, they are in trouble. So these people are really egostically fighting for their right to work as stupid parasites pretending to be intelligent scholars – an entitlement that many of them expect to last throughout their lifetime. Well, they were really promised by others to have this right for a lifetime and some laws actually encourage this (insane) assumption.
Again, I realize that this trait isn't universal (i.e. not all Trump-hating professors are below-100 folks in the grievance studies) and there also exist very intelligent people who end up being flabbergasting imbeciles and unhinged animals in political topics, especially in topics that revolve around people like Trump.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that scholars – and universities as the institutionalized framework for pure thinkers – have done amazingly important things for the civilization. In special situations, they keep on doing so even now, in 2020. But at the end, an essential dilemma that divides the people is the standard Mundia vs Modia conflict – whether the truth is ultimately decided by some voting and group think (Modia) or by the objective reality (Mundia).
When someone is educated as a Modia believer, a social dynamics-focused person, he or she is very likely to adopt the idea that "the interests of institutions called universities must forever remain the most important consideration for a good society". Whatever happens with the universities, the traits of the people in them, and the character of their work and impact on the society, these people will defend "things called universities" because they have been trained to consider similar goals as dogmas.
On the other hand, those of us who live in the Mondia – which has included Thatcher, Trump, me, and most of you – know that this attitude is just plain stupid. Whether an institution calls itself a "university", and similarly whether a person calls herself a "professor", doesn't mean a damn thing without a careful evaluation of the context. By themselves, these names mean as little as the name of a bird or the Wakalixes. And when the context changes, people calling themselves "professors" may easily become a group of stunning morons and aßholes, and "universities" may become centers to spread the stupidity, dysfunction, and corruption across the society. And indeed, we see ample evidence that this is what has largely happened with a huge fraction of university departments (or whole universities). Those of us who believe in Mondia, democracy, capitalism, and competition realize that every institution or a bureau – including "universities" – must have checks and balances not to deteriorate, otherwise they almost unavoidably do deteriorate! Someone's calling himself a professor or a university obviously can't serve as an exemption from the general principle that checks and balances are needed. And the academic freedoms (whose disappearance is mentioned at the end of Patrick's essay, too) surely belong among the essential checks and balances that are needed to protect any special qualities of the universities. When those go away, the institutions called "universities" cease to be real universities.
So at the end, the tension "Trump vs TDS suffering professors" is just a version of the Mundia vs Modia conflict. The older professors are more rational than the young TDS patients (such as the unhinged snowflake students) and they act "rationally" in the sense that they are defending their collective (and therefore personal) interests no matter what. They also employ the indoctrination of the students as one of the tools to achieve this totally egotistic, objectively unjustifiable, goal. And it's these students and younger people in general who may be saying the same things as the older professors who suffer from TDS. But the younger people don't fully understand yet why they're defending the indefensible things that they are defending. Many of them get immersed so deeply into this stinky left-wing cesspool at some critical moment that they feel that to stay there is a matter of their survival. So many of them become defenders of this left-wing would-be "elitist" rubbish because they think that everything else would mean the end of their life (or at least sufficiently problem-free life).
Most of these people have lived their lives – and constantly defended the violations of freedom etc. which (especially the new) leftists do all the time – that they have maneuvered themselves into a corner and they have lost their own freedom because they believe (slightly rightfully so) that to regain their honest thinking and behavior would be existentially threatening for them now. They keep on spreading outrageous lies and idiocy (including insults against a great U.S. president) because they basically concluded that it's needed for their survival.