The Need for Hosts: Why Liberals Can Never Lose Control of the Universities
by Brian Melton | View comments |
Print This Post
Liberalism is, in practical terms, a parasitic worldview, and the universities provide a perfect field of potential hosts.
“Most of our students come in as good Republicans, but that’s just because they’re ignorant. We change that.”
– A distinguished professor of history
For the last decade or so, the general public has been regularly briefed on the fact that our universities, particularly the public ones, aren’t the places of balanced intellectual pursuit that they pretend to be. Yet study after study, report after report, and experience after experience argue the opposite: Intellectual “diversity” is often nothing more than variations on a liberal theme. Go too far away from the main leftist stream, and you aren’t being “professional” and aren’t a “serious” scholar. Therefore, university departments, schools, colleges, etc., feel justified in practicing what amounts to non-discriminatory discrimination. They won’t hire conservatives because, to paraphrase one chair of philosophy, “there are no intelligent conservatives to hire.”
It isn’t my purpose here to try to establish that liberals dominate the universities or to refute statements about all conservatives being stupid. The former has been handled elsewhere and with better depth, and the latter statement is too biased to argue with. I’m certainly not whining because I myself have personally faced discrimination. While other well qualified friends of mine have been turned down for jobs simply because a dean saw a degree from a religious school or a department chair visited a personal website containing conservative blogs, I have no first-hand axe to grind (I received job offers before I had even completed my degree and have had no problem thus far getting published in my field). What I would like to do is take the argument — which I believe is supported by the numbers — a step further. I think there is a very clear reason (one, perhaps, of many) why the liberal movement in general must exclude other competing views from the universities: Liberalism is, in practical terms, a parasitic worldview, and the universities provide a perfect field of potential hosts.
Another simple and well established fact is that liberals in general, and the Democrat Party in particular, are simply not having children. While the reason they are not probably varies greatly, the end result is that conservatives have babies, liberals often do not. As Phillip Longman wrote in USA Today, what’s one difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? “In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.” This was in response to the perceived “fertility gap” that researcher Arthur C. Brooks identified in 2006. Conservative families showed a whopping 41% advantage over their liberal counterparts, and, as various news sites argued, since 80% of children eventually return to the views of their parents, this trend could indicate a very conservative future for the U.S.
These statistics also demonstrate a very real, more immediate reality: Since, for whatever reason (career choices, abortion, contraception, etc.), liberals are not reproducing, they are forced by default to prey upon the progeny of their more conservative colleagues. In short, since they have no children of their own to carry on the proverbial flame, they must somehow steal those belonging to others. In this sense, the conversion of unbelievers takes on new meaning. They are, in effect, a breed of intellectual parasite that, for all their bluster against other traditions, could not continue to exist without them.
One obvious place where this occurs (but certainly not the exclusive place, i.e., Hollywood) is within the educational system. A stranglehold on the universities allows liberals the chance to influence students on two important levels. First, they have the opportunity to plant their ideas into the minds of the general university populace. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they have the chance to influence and control the teachers who will one day take over the classrooms of lower level schools. The best teachers often become surrogate intellectual parents to the students in their classrooms. This is especially true where, due to a society that has largely abdicated the role of parenting, teachers often spend more time with their students than parents do. So, the liberal movement has a vested interest in insuring that it retains a virtual monopoly on “educated” opinion: Without it, liberals have lost one sure way of large-scale propagation. Whether the issue is homosexual rights, abortion, neo-Darwinism, socialism, or what have you, if liberalism loses control of the universities, it will have lost one of its primary methods of propagating its worldview.
This is one of the reasons truly contrary opinions are not tolerated in the modern academy. The liberal worldview is often propagated through the use of the fallacies of argument ad nauseum and argument ad hominem. In the former, we repeat a weak argument over and over until, in the absence of competing theories, we bludgeon our readers into accepting our point of view (just look at the blogosphere, both conservative and liberal, for examples). In the latter, we attack the credibility of the person making the argument, and in so doing avoid having to answer the argument itself (the argument used by the philosophy chair mentioned above). The inclusion of alternative viewpoints negates both of these useful logical fallacies, particularly the ad hominem. It’s hard to demonize conservatives, independents, or Christians when students can see for themselves that they are none of the things they are accused of being.
One only need look at the Intelligent Design vs. Neo-Darwinian controversy. If Intelligent Design is so obviously self-refuting, then in a truly open academic community, Darwinists would welcome its study, learn what they could from it, discard what was useless, and then move on. Instead, it becomes literally illegal to mention competing theories. In a politicized academy more concerned with propagating certain preferred viewpoints than with finding truth and advancing science, competition cannot be allowed.
Now, let me add a few caveats. I don’t believe in some vast left-wing conspiracy to take over the nation’s youth. After all, the only people who are allowed to believe in conspiracies are liberals themselves. Nor do I believe that all college professors, let alone elementary or secondary school teachers, have some hidden agenda approaching the one of the distinguished professor quoted above. Still, for whatever reason the practical result is the same.
In the end, the parasitic atmosphere maintained in many university departments illustrates the need for conservatives to take an active hand in the oversight of their children’s education rather than delegating it to others. A student who knows what he/she believes and why he/she believes it is best able to withstand the influence of proselytizing. High school graduates should seriously consider what sort of college they will attend; what will they be learning in addition to the knowledge base of their chosen career. Are they likely to receive fair treatment (as I did from my liberal professors) or will they face blatant bigotry (as a number of others have)? In the long run, that will be a far more effective answer to “Obama and Chelsea’s Momma” than all the other silly bumper sticker chants we’ll hear over the next few months. And if the statistics are right, it might make the future a bit more interesting.
bmelton@liberty.edu
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826217397/102-0313136-3504156?ie=UTF8&tag=intellectualc-20�
Read more articles by Brian Melton
[…] Conservative rant, but this: One only need look at the Intelligent Design vs. Neo-Darwinian controversy. If Intelligent Design is so obviously self-refuting, then in a truly open academic community, Darwinists would welcome its study, learn what they could from it, discard what was useless, and then move on. Instead, it becomes literally illegal to mention competing theories. In a politicized academy more concerned with propagating certain preferred viewpoints than with finding truth and advancing science, competition cannot be allowed. […]
Pingback by Darwiniana » If ID is so obviously self-refuting… | September 2, 2008
"If Intelligent Design is so obviously self-refuting, then in a truly open academic community, Darwinists would welcome its study, learn what they could from it, discard what was useless, and then move on."
Medical institutions don't study demonic possession or the proportion of the different humors in the body as causes of physical or mental illness, although in Med 101 these may be mentioned as old, discredited beliefs. They certainly aren't studied to see if they have anything to offer mainstream modern medicine.
For the same reason, ID is not studied in biology courses, though it may be mentioned as an historical aside, or even a current example of pseudo-science, with an explanation of why it's not science, and is therefore not a subject for research in mainstream modern science.
Comment by GalapagosPete | September 2, 2008
I live in what is arguably the densest concentration of Colleges in the world, and so on a yearly basis I am able to watch their students in action.
If such highly Liberal ideas and ways of thinking are so superior, then it follows one would see it demonstrated by their actions and deeds.
What I see are arrogant young people who believe rules do not apply to them; other people's right to peace and quiet are irrelevant. Vandalism and graffiti are rampant. Trash is everywhere, as carrying it to the nearest trash bin is somehow an onerous chore; not to worry - someone else will pick it up for them is their attitude. Public intoxication abounds; violent acts occur randomly but on a daily basis.
It would seem that the Liberal message, rather than grooming superior human beings, with morals, manners, ethics, and comportment, instead creates perfectly amoral little destructive monsters who care nothing about anyone, except self-gratification.
One of these Diploma Mills nearby was skewered by this city several years ago to stop "dumping" their students onto the backs of this community. The school agreed, and began to build several new student dorms on campus to house thousands - and then promptly increased the number of students it takes in by a nearly equal amount, thereby negating the solution.
I also know of a house here that was a "set aside" for people with serious physical or life issues. This house was just purchased by the same school to house yet more students; the residents are now being pressured to leave. Where is the social value in that? Throwing out, say, someone with severe disabilities, so as to instead warehouse yet more students for high rents and tuition?
Their message is bankrupt, and their proclamations are out-and-out lies. These institutions, their staffs, and students will publicly harangue Conservatives about their actions and statements, but then not actually meet their own lofty ideals.
How odd, isn't it, that the last paragraph above neatly describes the Obama campaign?
I went to one of these local Colleges as an adult, many years ago. I recollect that during a History class, the Professor spent a great deal of time slamming anything conservative, until I pointed out to him that this was all fine and well, but I was paying a lot of money to be schooled in History, not in his personal political views. This did not sit well with him.
I finally had to further point out to him that ultimately I was a consumer, and that he was failing to provide the product for which I had paid; being an adult in my 30s, he couldn't browbeat me as he could with his adoring pack of young people. And when all was said and done, he attempted to lowball my grade in the course, as how dare I challenge him and his "academic freedom?" Par for the course, in these institutions here in the Northeast. Fortunately, his Department Chair disagreed and made certain my grade was fair.
As was once said, "a tree is known by the fruit it bears." I can't precisely state what fruit these schools bear, but I do know it's empty of any nutritional value whatsoever.
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 3, 2008
“…if liberalism loses control of the universities, it will have lost one of its primary methods of propagating its worldview.”
Yes. All ideas start in the place that deals in ideas: the academy. That’s where the ideas of affirmative action, diversity, and equality of cultures originated and are promoted. They have since migrated out to the places of employment and government where it is forced on the employees and the citizenry at large. Employees, be they private sector or government, are captive audiences who have to regurgitate the company line.
Why do false ideas get promoted by employers and politicians? In the case of the employer, that’s what the intellectual world is doing, and no manager wants to appear ignorant, uneducated, and “out of it” by not adopting the latest intellectual fad. For the politician, it is so he will not appear to be a racist, sexist, homophobe, or any other tainted character. Since all cultures are equal to the Leftist, analyses that demonstrate the falsity of their thesis get dismissed.
Last Angry Man:
“…the Professor spent a great deal of time slamming anything conservative, until I pointed out to him that this was all fine and well, but I was paying a lot of money to be schooled in History, not in his personal political views.”
This is what is called academic malpractice. Academic freedom doesn’t give professors the right to talk nonsense to their students or take up class time on ideas that have nothing to do with the subject they are hired to teach. Professors have an obligation to teach their subject matter and not something else. In fact, the mission of the academy is the pursuit of truth, not advocacy. Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who seems to be alone in this, advises them to “save the world on their own time.” Your professor’s attitude demonstrates, in essence, that for him human knowledge in the liberal arts is now complete since any opinion contrary to his is an error. There appears to be a lot of similar academic malpractice occurring in higher education these days.
Comment by sedonaman | September 3, 2008
A true story from a couple of years ago:
My daughter was in her freshman biology class during the 2004 elections, and had to suffer through the daily rantings of her teacher who hated all Republicans and conservatives. He would begin each class with an unsolicited diatribe about Bush, the war in Iraq, how Republicans liked to starve young children and take away old people's social security — the typical liberal claptrap you get from a Michael Moore wanabee.
After a few weeks of this my daughter and some other students began to talk back. They didn't appreciate him forcing his personal beliefs on a captive audience, particularly in a subject area that had nothing to do with history or politics. This only emboldened him however, and he became even more virulent in his denunciations of Republicans.
Finally my daughter (who is not particularly "political", but who does pay some attention to politics and is a registered Republican) had enough. She spoke out loudly when he said that "the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats rely on facts and not emotions to form their opinions, while Republicans don't have any sense of history or know any facts at all."
Because of her strong reaction the teacher singled my daughter out and challenged her to a test to prove him wrong. He said he would select a key event in American political history, and if she could tell him the month and day it happened, she would be excused from class that day and receive an "A" in her science lab.
Now, not withstanding the fact that only a liberal Democrat would trade an "A" for the opportunity to make a political point instead of requiring her to actually earn the grade, it shows the vacuousness of his logic when he equates the possession of "facts" with the memorization of a specific date. What difference would it make if US independence was declared on July 3 instead of July 4? The "facts" of this critical event in American history have more to do with the content of the Declaration of Independence, and the colonists' socio-economic ties to England, than with memorizing a particular date on the calendar.
Anyway, my daughter figured that she had nothing to lose, so she accepted his challenge. He leaned back in his chair and smiled. "Tell me the month and day Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974." Without hesitation my daughter answered "August 9", picked up her books and began to leave the room.
Her teacher shouted to her to stop, and accused her of bluffing her response. My daughter stood her ground, and he quickly logged onto the Internet to search for the answer. There was silence in the room for about 30 seconds as this man (who interestingly didn't know the answer himself) stared quietly at the screen. Then, without lifting his head, he said in a subdued voice, "you may go."
The room erupted in applause, and my daughter left. Later here friends sought her out and asked her how she knew the answer. It was a complete coincidence that her teacher chose that question. What he didn't know was that her father (me), who has a Ph.D. in political science, has always joked that the only way he can remember his wedding anniversary is that it happened on the date Richard Nixon resigned from office.
So much for the moral superiority of the Left. When you're consumed by hate and lead with your chin, even a largely apolitical 18 year old girl can bring you down.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 3, 2008
Phil, I am a Moderator on a well-known science message board. Over the years, we have continually gotten people posting in our "anything goes" forum who feel that their Leftist message is just so gosh-darn important, they take the liberty to mention it virtually anywhere. If someone was discussing Macrame in a thread, these people would manage to throw in their tired Liberal screed. Usually we end by banning them; would that we could do that in the real world!
One wonders: on the face of it, isn't it an admission of defeat, to have to keep raising the same issue over and over, even during discussions where it is inappropriate? If your message is so solid and so convincing, why do you have to keep harping on it? One good session relating it to people should have them nodding their heads in abject agreement.
This is exactly what occurs in Academia. Since the message is hollow, it is repetitiously pounded into student's heads, until they are ground down into accepting it as "truth." I have personally experienced this.
I thank God I went into the military post high school, instead of right to College. Else, I too might be marching in quick-step to the same tepid beat. It taught me some mental clarity. Most young people haven't developed it yet.
Which shows just how cynical the Left is. Even on a good day, I wouldn't sit and plot how I might utilize prestigious academic institutions for the base purpose of filling young people's minds with my own political viewpoint while demonizing all others.
But isn't that exactly where we are at now? Stories abound about Conservative teachers scapegoated and smacked down for their opinions, while such ilk as a Ward Churchill are lauded and feted for theirs. Stories such as your and mine are commonplace.
It is mind control and manipulation on a scale that beggars the imagination. Where it is taking this nation is anyone's guess, but I suspect the destination isn't a good one…
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 3, 2008
LAM: You now know why I made my career outside the academic world!
The pay is better, as is the intellectual honesty of the people I interact with.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 3, 2008
Phil:
I do indeed!
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 3, 2008
Are you seriously saying that you are having troubles finding the reason why the bright and educated tend to have liberal (or "leftist" if that sits better) ideas? Let me then give you a hint: It has to do with intellectual honesty and a vision that goes beyond "lower taxes and kill the enemy".
As for identifying the parasite. Consider the following approximation. Think of the history of human civilization as a line. At the far end of the line all resources were owned by one person. All along the line, the trend is that ownership of resources is distributed. At each point in history, there is a group of people saying that things cannot change. The most enlightened in the group will say that we realize that the distribution of resources has been beneficial for everyone up until this point but now things are different. The current name for this group is "the conservatives". It is indeed not a very proud tradition: at each and every point in history - fighting progress with all means available.
Comment by pajken | September 5, 2008
It is not up to "bright and educated" people, who are educated by other bright and educated people, who in turn are educated by other bright and educated people — all drinking from the same narrow cup and reinforcing their same self-serving beliefs (read Thomas Kuhn's “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” about paradigm biases) to tell us how to “redistribute” our resources. In a representative republic we do this through elections based on a constitution that, if observed, will define the acceptable limits of behavior.
In capitalism we take individual risks. I never asked the government to repay me for my business ventures that didn’t work out. And, I don’t expect the bright and educated people to now take my resources away from me because I was successful in other endeavors and give it to others just to be ‘fair’.
A certain amount of taxation, for appropriate means, is necessary to help any society function properly. But as someone who actually understands the academic process, the last thing we need to do is turn these decisions over to a self-defined intelligencia.
There are more bright people living in the backwaters of Montana who truly understand how the world works than in the isolated halls of Harvard, Yale — or the University of Chicago. These people don’t understand the difference between theory and reality. Just because it looks good on paper and appeals to a certain sense of liberal values doesn’t mean it makes any real world sense at all.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 5, 2008
Amen Mr.Jackson!!
Just today, in my American History class the teacher started in about the election, and then made comments about isolationists and Americas "manifest destiny". It realated, in a way, to the current topic, which is Columbus and his role in "discovering" America. The teacher linked it together by commenting about how we are part of an Atlantic world, interdependent on our Atlantic brothers and sisters trade of both goods and ideas, and that it has been this way since Americas inception into the old worlds global perspective. And I do not disagree.
However, he then ranted about how idiotic isolationism is because he feels the idea stems from some false concept that America has had an individualized history and that it was separted from the rest of the world, and entirley unique. He then sinically brought up the manifest destiney concept and poked at it for awhile.
Comment by Notebartello | September 5, 2008
oops, I accidentally hit enter
Anyway, the entire rant took about ten minutes, and ended having criticized isolationists, conservatives, the dangerous manifest destiny concept, and in away Christians, even though he wears a cross pin. During his spiel I'm thinking, these students paid good money to be taught history, and I, being military, am being funded by tax payers. If I wanted to hear these views I'd visit a liberal web site, or read the editorial page of any major American newspaper. Also, I'm a few years older than most of the students, and I'm fairly certain I am more knowledgeable about American history, I'm certainly not a scholar or anything, but I wonder how much of that rant was being soaked up into the students minds. The impression and prestige of "higher education", with a witty profesor and serious subjects, I wonder if today they walked away remembering more of the rant than of what was taught in class. Of course, because I am conservative, my perception of what happened today is different because I was offended. But I think the impressionability of professors should not be underestimated , and the indoctrination from them forcing their views-liberal or conservative- in the educational setting, is far more dangerous than the idea of a manifest destiny.
Comment by Notebartello | September 5, 2008
Notebartello: There’s no contradiction in acknowledging that the US has been heavily influenced by European culture and ideas, and rejecting the notion that only people of European ancestry deserve to live here. As far as isolationism goes, we live in a world today that requires us (economically and strategically) to look beyond our borders. Pretending it is otherwise is foolish, whether the person offering this thought claims to be a “true conservative” or isolationist liberal.
Manifest destiny is a historical as well as socio-political concept that needs to be understood in the context of those times, both within America and in relation to how other nations in the world behaved. Linking it to the Puritan notion of a “city on the hill” to mischaracterize American uniqueness misses the point. The US is a unique political system, if for no other reason than when Jefferson defeated Adams it was the first time in the history of the world the control of a government was surrendered to an opposing political philosophy without the threat or force of arms.
Different people can disagree honestly on their interpretation of historical events. The test of intellectual honesty is to state your biases clearly enough, and allow opposing arguments to be introduced as well, so that people can make an informed judgment; or, if students, appreciate the complexity of an issue rather than being force-fed a cartoon version of reality.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 5, 2008
Mr.Jackson
I've seen some of your posts and thoroughly appreciate your input.
In two paragraphs you summarized two ideas in an open minded thoughtful way.
After the Spanish American war, our out look on our selves and the worlds outlook on us changed, and after WWII even more so. The war definitely redefined our role in the world. We were the super power. Combine that with the technological age, which has changed entirely how the whole world relates to one another, and you are right, economically and strategically we are required to look beyond our borders. But we must always carefully think about our role and how to do whats right by ourselves and the responsibilities that come from our role in the world.
I'm not entirely an isolationist, but I think America can still follow isolationist policies to an extent. There's trade isolationism, diplomatic and military isolationism, how open or closed should our borders be etc. Agree with any level of those subcategories and you could call your self an isolationist. The problem I had, was that my teacher spoke of isolationism, a concept I'm willing to bet few in the class had ever heard of much less thought about, in the context of the "typical conservative" extreme, instead of like you said, presenting it so the students could make an informed judgment.
And of course, his notion of what he called the "dangerous" manifest destiny, is exactly the Puritan "city on the hill", and nothing more.
If it were political science class, I wouldn't have minded as long as he had presented all the facts and opposing views. But it was History, and ten minutes of time you the tax payer paid for.
If I were liberal, I would have marched straight to the deans office and whined.
..instead I blogged. :0
Comment by Notebartello | September 5, 2008
Mr. Jackson
You managed to miss my point. I meant that there is an obvious alternative to the explanation of why students tend to turn into evil liberals. If it is not the result of massive indoctrination, what can it be?
But since you brought it up; what should be the role of the intelligent and educated in a democracy? You are giving yourself (and your country) an enormous disadvantage in saying that they "should not tell us" how to run things. When you give away executive power, you better make sure that it is to someone who has the capacity to understand the system (s)he is responsible of. You really want them to scrutinize those who have the power and even become dissidents if that is necessary. I think that I could go on for a while here.
"In capitalism we take individual risks [and get rewarded accordingly]". I think that there are very few people who would not accept this. The problem is with "rewarding ownership itself", "rewarding the guys I know" and "re-rewarding the rewarded". If you cannot make the distinction between capitalism as defined above and "predator-capitalism/cronyism" your tool is simply not sharp enough.
And who do you want to decide what is the appropriate level of taxation? It is an enormously difficult problem and I assume that you will agree that zero is not the correct answer. Would you prefer someone who understands the issue or are you happy with the way things are (Joseph E. Stiglitz VF - Dec. 2007, but be careful - this guy would qualify as both "bright" and "educated").
Comment by pajken | September 6, 2008
“But since you brought it up; what should be the role of the intelligent and educated in a democracy?”
*** “Democracies” do not assign roles. They allow people to use their talents and abilities to achieve something. So, the obvious answer is, if you’re intelligent (which means you have a facility to actually understand things instead of simply mouth slogans), and educated (“educated” doesn’t mean a Ph.D. — a good plumber must be educated through trade school or apprenticeship training), and your society rewards this behavior instead of punishing it in the name of fairness and redistribution, you should have a good life relative to those who don’t fit this model.
“You are giving yourself (and your country) an enormous disadvantage in saying that they [intelligent and educated] ‘should not tell us’ how to run things.”
*** I happen to believe in the right of the people to elect their leaders, not the inherent right of the “intelligent and educated” to rule. This isn’t a class-based society, and it isn’t a dictatorship. If the “intelligent and educated” want power, let them run for office and get elected.
“When you give away executive power, you better make sure that it is to someone who has the capacity to understand the system (s)he is responsible of. “
*** You have some very curious language choices that you toss around freely. Elections do not “give away” power like I give away my old clothes to charity. In the US, they are about people competing against other people in a representative republic. The government doesn’t “own” power to give away or retain. The people allow the government the power to govern under a constitutional framework that protects basic rights. If you want a dictatorship or socialist paradise, just come out and say it. But don’t play games with words and pretend they have no relationship to the actual world in which we live.
And while you’re at it, exactly who certifies someone as “intelligent and educated”? I have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and an IQ to match. By your own logic, I am brighter and more educated than 99.9% of the population (perhaps even you). Unless you have a Ph.D from an equally prestigious institution and a matching IQ, by your own logic you should accept what I say without dissent because, as one of the intelligent and educated people who you think should be running things, I’m now telling you what to do for your (and society’s) own good.
Fortunately, I am intelligent and educated enough to know that this is a crock. Some of the brightest people I know never went to college, and some of the stupidest have Ph.D.s You are mouthing platitudes by speaking abstractly about “intelligent and educated” people. There is no real-world way short of a dictatorship to carry out your vision for society.
And, even if you ended up with an “intelligent and educated” ruler or ruling class, you haven’t explained how they would voluntarily allow new ideas to be introduced that threaten their power and privileges (read Kuhn as I advised), or understood that there isn’t anything close to unanimous agreement on socio-political issues among the intelligent and educated — unless you limit your viewing to MSNBC.
"In capitalism we take individual risks [and get rewarded accordingly]". I think that there are very few people who would not accept this. The problem is with "rewarding ownership itself", "rewarding the guys I know" and "re-rewarding the rewarded".
*** Yeah, we all got it the first place. You don’t like capitalism, and therefore think I’ve been unfair to you and others for working my ass off and succeeding. Fortunately, I don't live in China or Cuba, so there are no intelligent and educated people able to take the fruits of my labor away from me because they consider it “predatory”.
“And who do you want to decide what is the appropriate level of taxation?”
*** The people we elect to government. That’s why I work hard for candidates who share my beliefs. When I lose, I pay through the nose because my guy lost — I don’t insist that we now scrap the system and impose a dictatorship of intelligent and educated people who see things my way.
That’s the fundamental difference between us. You think that you and others are smart enough to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. I’m willing to let the people decide through honest elections that express the public’s will. I’ll do my best to educate the public as to why I think position X is correct, but I won’t force my beliefs on them in the name of “intelligent and educated” policy (which just means, “intelligent and educated” policy you happen to agree with produced by people you are willing to certify as appropriately intelligent and educated).
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 6, 2008
Mr. Jackson,
As you probably have understood, English is not my first language. Judging from your response, I would have to say that it now appears that it is not even my second language any more.
*** Yeah, we all got it the first place. You don’t like capitalism.
No, you did not get it. I am saying that there are different forms of capitalism and that I do not particularly like the current US incarnation. I believe that it is important to reward risk-taking and effort. I do not think it is correct to reward ownership itself and to punish the less fortunate. Did you read the article? It also seems that it is not a very efficient form of capitalism.
*** There is no real-world way short of a dictatorship to carry out your vision for society.
So, if I say that it would be good if the application of the democratic processes would give executive power to a competent individual and that his/her actions should be scrutinized by competent people (officially appointed and not), I advocate dictatorship? Hm, there is not much room for nuances around here, it appears.
*** Some of the brightest people I know never went to college, and some of the stupidest have Ph.D.s
I have the same experience. What is your point?
As for credentials; for the purpose of this public discussion, assume that I am a lint collector with an IQ to match. I am sure that this is not difficult to do. (If you think it is important I will share my credentials in a private e-mail)
I will try to clarify my position. The US is the most powerful democracy on the planet. Up until a few years ago, I was under the impression that the democratic processes were robust and working quite well. Now I find that there are a few things that do not add up. I think that it is very difficult to understand how the current incumbent was elected for a second term. After such a massive mistake, I would expect that the majority of the voters (who elected him) to either take a very long and hard look at their way of selecting who to vote for or to simply decide not to vote at all. Of this I see nothing.
I see three possible explanations:
1. Mr. Bush has qualities and accomplishments of which I am not aware.
2. The democratic processes do not work any longer.
3. The political climate and/or the general attitude of the voters make the processes fail.
I came to this forum to try to understand how the intelligent conservative reasons. In the discussion so far, I have suggested that there are alternative ways of looking at the current situation and I have been told in no uncertain terms that what I want is a socialist dictatorship. I think I got one more piece of the puzzle.
Comment by pajken | September 6, 2008
pajken:
It's no one thing, but mostly #3:
Pathological Politics
“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote. Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate affect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs. Understanding the politician is therefore extremely frustrating for those who value precise statements. But note that this problem is not the fault of the politician; it is rooted in the rational ignorance of voters, the distribution of conflicting sentiments among voters, and the nature of collective endeavor. What all this means is clear: Political communication is rarely conducive to rational or efficient allocation of scarce resources. This does not mean that the individual politicians are irrational in their choice of language and symbolic activities. Waving the flag and kissing babies are practiced because of their tactical value in an activity that is at once a rational game and a morality play; in that conjunction lies the endless fascination and frustration of politics.”
Beyond Politics, Mitchell & Simmons
Comment by sedonaman | September 7, 2008
“I believe that it is important to reward risk-taking and effort. I do not think it is correct to reward ownership itself and to punish the less fortunate. Did you read the article? It also seems that it is not a very efficient form of capitalism.”
*** I spent most of my academic carrier immersed in reading and responding to Marxist ideology. The only acceptable limitations on an economic system (capitalist or otherwise) are those that the people in a constitutional, representative republic impose on themselves; not what some abstract theory decides is fair, justifiable, non-predatory, etc.
Ownership of the means of means and control of production does not belong to the state. Nor does the state have the right to impose a value judgment (“predatory”) on this process. What you (or your experts) consider predatory, I (and my experts) may not. Why should your bright and educated people be allowed to impose their judgment on me?
The proper role of a government in a system where its power is derived from the consent of the people is to establish acceptable parameters of behavior within the confines of the constitution. The US constitution does not outlaw capitalism, nor does it assign different values to “ownership” of capital.
The state has the authority to regulate aspects of the capitalist process (anti-monopoly legislation, FDA regulations, etc.). But this is a far cry from doing something to diminish “ownership itself” because that ownership is presumed by some bureaucrats or group of so-called experts to “punish the less fortunate.” That is a socialist dictatorship, not a capitalist democracy.
“So, if I say that it would be good if the application of the democratic processes would give executive power to a competent individual and that his/her actions should be scrutinized by competent people (officially appointed and not), I advocate dictatorship? Hm, there is not much room for nuances around here, it appears. “
** Exactly correct. There is no “democratic process” that “gives executive power to a competent individual”. Power in a democracy [i.e. a constitutional, representative republic] comes from the consent of the people as expressed through elections that conform to the limitations imposed by the constitution. There is no provision for giving “executive power to a competent individual and that his/her actions should be scrutinized by competent people (officially appointed and not)”.
Again, this is a socialist dictatorship, not a capitalist democracy. In America, the only “scrutiny” our government is permitted is the overlapping jurisdictions of the three national branches of government, the federal-state relationship (which permits some things and prohibits others), and the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review.
Even here there is a great debate about whether one group has usurped authority over another. I can’t even imagine a situation in this country where an executive would be given or assume power outside this constitutional process to determine whether our economic system is functioning “efficiently” and non-predatorily (two highly subjective conclusions), and then impose changes on that system.
If someone feels strongly about this issue, the present system allows an opportunity for those opinions to be aired through elections. Anything outside this process, as you described, is socialism un-democratically imposed.
Just because you still want to call it capitalism doesn’t make it capitalism. The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, for example, is neither democratic, nor a republic.
“Some of the brightest people I know never went to college, and some of the stupidest have Ph.D.s I have the same experience. What is your point?”
*** You keep talking about bright, educated experts making decisions on the public’s behalf. Well, exactly whow decides who is qualified to be a bright, educated expert? My 10 people would probably have radically different educational backgrounds and life experiences from yours, and the same would be true of our choices compared to others.
Saying “intelligent and educated” is a meaningless term, because it is so subjective. The people who govern us in a constitutional, representative republic derive their power from elections, not appointments.
“As for credentials; for the purpose of this public discussion, assume that I am a lint collector with an IQ to match. I am sure that this is not difficult to do. (If you think it is important I will share my credentials in a private e-mail).”
*** Absolutely not. I don’t care what a person’s education or “IQ” is. I’m only concerned with their ideas. I only brought up the issue as a way of illustrating the internal-inconsistencies of your argument that educated and intelligent people should make decisions for us because they are intelligent and educated.
“I will try to clarify my position. The US is the most powerful democracy on the planet. Up until a few years ago, I was under the impression that the democratic processes were robust and working quite well. Now I find that there are a few things that do not add up.”
*** That’s your opinion. Mine is different.
“I think that it is very difficult to understand how the current incumbent was elected for a second term.”
*** Easy. He won more electoral votes.
“After such a massive mistake …”
*** Again, your opinion. Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one. If you listened to the “educated and intelligent” who teach in schools and run the media, Bush is a war criminal moron. But truth is not the sole province of these individuals. Electing Kerry in 2004 would have been a “mistake” — in my opinion. Who’s right? Neither of us. There is no arbiter of value judgments (appointed or elected). There is only a constitutional process for electing people to office. I thought Bill Clinton’s two terms were mistakes. Because I understand and accept the basis for our social compact that created our government, I did not call for overturning the will of the people and imposing my choice on them.
“I would expect that the majority of the voters (who elected him) to either take a very long and hard look at their way of selecting who to vote for or to simply decide not to vote at all.”
*** And you would be 100% wrong, because all you are doing is mouthing your opinions about a system of government you seem to know little about and appreciate even less.
“I see three possible explanations:
1. Mr. Bush has qualities and accomplishments of which I am not aware.
*** Quite likely.
2. The democratic processes do not work any longer.
*** It works just fine. You just don’t like the results of that process.
3. The political climate and/or the general attitude of the voters make the processes fail.
*** Again, you insist on imposing your own value judgment (“fail”) on an outcome you don’t like. “Success or failure” is not the result of whether you like the outcome or not. It’s whether the process was respected and followed.
“I came to this forum to try to understand how the intelligent conservative reasons. In the discussion so far, I have suggested that there are alternative ways of looking at the current situation and I have been told in no uncertain terms that what I want is a socialist dictatorship. I think I got one more piece of the puzzle.”
*** Hopefully, this will make it clearer to you. You are substituting your own personal value-laden judgments for a true understanding of what the US system is, where the nature of its power derives (from the consent of the people), how it is expressed (through a constitutional, representative republic that imposes limitation on the expression of that power), and are confusing outcomes you agree or disagree with, with the system’s “success or failure”.
By the way, I appreciate the respectful way you’ve engaged in this debate, in contrast to the way some others “debate”. Please don’t take any direct statements I make as insults. I’m just being precise in my answers.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 7, 2008
***By the way, I appreciate the respectful way you’ve engaged in this debate
This is of course compared to the way you are used to engage in debate. I would have to say that it was a very long time since I discussed with someone so quick to draw the wrong conclusions and then so eager to defend the nonsense with vigor.
Popular opinion will have it that has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion with a conservative/republican. As soon as you are identified as someone who do not share their opinions fully, you will be labeled as communist/socialist/terrorist or something else that is easily identified as the crazy and evil enemy who is wrong, by definition. This to avoid getting into discussing the real issue at hand. I decided to try it anyway and you can see the result above.
You embarrass yourself by trying to guess my political preferences. If I in fact were a socialist, I would have no problem in admitting this. You do not know what my preferences are because I have not told you and you are quite far off the mark. Nevertheless, you keep guessing based on nothing. Consider this; I was trying to make the distinction between the form of capitalism that is implemented by the current administration and what it could be. Only suggesting that there could be an alternative immediately makes me a socialist, of course. The problem is that my definition of the alternative applies to the form that was implemented by both Clinton and Roosevelt. By your logic, the US was a socialist state during their respective terms in office.
One thing with shooting from the hip is that you frequently tend to hit your own foot.
I am pro dictatorship because I do not like the result of the application of the democratic processes (= I do not like that Bush was elected). What I really wanted to discuss was that what I perceived as being a strong and efficient democracy, lately seems to fail (sedonman: You showed that at least one person was able to understand my point. I thank you for that.) In fact, my problem with the 2004 elections is that that there were two bad candidates to choose from – and that is really an indication that something wrong with the process: there was no good alternative. But wait a minute – why would I care about the well-being of the democratic processes. According to you, I think that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.
… and that is the other foot!
And all this to avoid me getting into discussing things like the article by Stiglitz (this is the third time I refer to it and I am sure that you did not read it). The prospect of that happening must really scare you. What is not right with this picture? The self-proclaimed genius will stop at nothing trying to avoid discussing an article written by a Nobel laureate with someone that he clearly thinks is vastly inferior. One would have thought that you would jump at the opportunity. Maybe this is because you would feel awkward to label this the most cited economist in the world today a socialist for the same reasons you labeled me. Or maybe it is just that you know that once we get down to the actual issue you would be lost. Really, it is just safer to ramble on…
I will not waste more of my time talking to you – your tool is indeed not sharp enough.
By the way, just a small comment on your rhetoric style: Contrary to what you believe, using quotation does not magically provide you with “a point”.
Comment by pajken | September 9, 2008
pajken: Speaking of dull tools, you've offered nothing but platitudes. Calling you a socialist isn't an insult. It's a description that fits your convoluted theory. Your “distinctions” about what is, and what could be, bears no relationship to the real world. It’s the kind of fluff we often see from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a wish and an analysis.
Since there’s no point in discussing a wish, and since you’re offended by having your opinions challenged, there’s no point in continuing to educate you on the actual way capitalism operates within a constitutional, representative republic.
I’m always amused by people who find it “impossible” to actually react to anything I say specifically after I’ve taken the time to go through their position point by point. It’s also somewhat sad when someone has to continually point to an article written by a “bright and educated” person because they have no ability to discuss the matter themselves.
Spend a little more time understand the system of government and its economic framework you purport to critique, and you’ll avoid the embarrassment of looking silly and vapid in your future comments.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 9, 2008
Oh, and I understand why you'd be embarrassed to have me quote your words back to you. But after all, you're the one who said it — if you get my "point".
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 9, 2008
Regarding the article written by that Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, he’s a former member of the Clinton Administration (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers), who’s a big believer in government intervention in market economies. A brief passage from Wikipedia puts his work in perspective.
Stigliz’s book “Whither Socialism?” has been subject to various critiques. The conclusion is that "Stiglitz's main insight is generally correct – that the state cannot be ruled out or that it should be ruled in –, but leaves open the grand constitutional questions: How will the coercive institutions of the state be constrained? What is the relation between the state and civil society? His book fails on these political aspects because it has not addressed the broader constitutional concerns that James McGill Buchanan Jr.and other economists have raised."
Hmmm. Seems pretty close to what I said about recognizing the proper role of the government in regulation and taxation, but only within the limitations established by a constitutional representative republic. To wit —
Ownership of the means of means and control of production does not belong to the state. Nor does the state have the right to impose a value judgment (“predatory”) on this process. What you (or your experts) consider predatory, I (and my experts) may not. Why should your bright and educated people be allowed to impose their judgment on me?
The proper role of a government in a system where its power is derived from the consent of the people is to establish acceptable parameters of behavior within the confines of the constitution. The US constitution does not outlaw capitalism, nor does it assign different values to “ownership” of capital.
The state has the authority to regulate aspects of the capitalist process (anti-monopoly legislation, FDA regulations, etc.). But this is a far cry from doing something to diminish “ownership itself” because that ownership is presumed by some bureaucrats or group of so-called experts to “punish the less fortunate.” That is a socialist dictatorship, not a capitalist democracy.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 9, 2008