Guest-blogger Kathy G. at Crooked Timber, protesting Washington University's plan to award an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly, manages to express a certain academic mindset (all emphases added):
Nor do I believe that conservatives should never receive honorary degrees. There are conservative scholars who do work that is respected within academia—many economists, for example—and they would not be inappropriate candidates for such an honor. Nor would I have a problem with conservative pundits, so long as they’re sane and genuinely distinguished (which these days admittedly narrows the field to practically zero), such as the late William F. Buckley. I’ll even grudgingly accept the reality that conservative Republican elder statesmen are regularly awarded these things. Though even here there are limits—while personally I wouldn’t protest the awarding of a degree to George H.W. Bush, even though I find him pretty hateful, far-right lunatics like Cheney, Dubya, and Jesse Helms should be entirely out of bounds.... as much as conservatives may whine and scream to the contrary, liberalism and conservatism are not moral equivalents. Because, on the one side you have the thinkers and activists who have advanced freedom, social justice, and human rights, and on the other, you have those who have attempted to thwart all those things.
Not that this mindset is limited to academics, of course, nor, do most academics have such juvenile ideas regarding politics, but it's sufficiently common in academia that it's little wonder that bright young conservatives will think twice before going into the academy and potentially putting their career fates into the hands of those who think that they are presumptively "hateful," "lunatics," who are not "sane" and are attempting to thwart all that is good and just.
There was a case here in Michigan where a student protested the U 'hiring' a democrat who is running for congress to teach a weekly discussion seminar, at a full plus salary.
The school charged him with public discussion of the salary issue, and when he attended a meeting the university VP hit him. He was taping the assault so they charged him with illegally taping an assault.
But Happy, you say, those can't be real charges. They are when left wingers own the police force.
I guess you are facing a lot of abuse for being a libertarian at George Mason.
Finally, you do realize you are not a conservative, right?
I agree that the moral distinction between liberalism and conservatism is drawn too starkly, but it's not an entirely false distinction -- liberalism is animated by the desire to help the weak; conservatism is animated by the desire to let people sink or swim on their own. That's just true.
too bad study after study by author after author have confirmed this bias..then again, the little hit and run comment with nothing substantial to add was very effective
@Guest101
lets give the commenter a hand for reading comprehension--in a post where a purported academic admits they find those on the opposite end of the political spectrum 'hateful' and characterizes them as 'far right' (which is just lazy) and uses that to justify excluding them from a facet of the academic world, all you see is that differing ideologies disagree?
The sad part is that these people still try to say that academia is a sanctuary for free debate with a straight face.
And why is this news? If you read the whole quote instead of just the categorical stuff at the end it doesn't strike me as particularly unusual or surprising. I doubt that the term "conservatives" in her quote refers to all conservatives or she wouldn't have had the list of conservatives she'd be ok with awarding a degree to at the start of her quote.
I don't see many people around here trying to argue that GW Bush is genuinely distinguished, quite the opposite. Anyone here think Jesse Helms would be a good candidate for an honorary degree? That Dick Cheney is a champion of advancing liberty?
so david duke = dubya or cheney
then i'll throw in the stalin = gore/carter comparison
as for those simplistic definitions of liberal/conservative bobolinq, youre really just projecting your biases when you say that
for example what i imagine you would call 'fundies' are pretty well known for their altruistic efforts--they just prefer to do it through private means as opposed to public coercion--maybe that's a better way to distinguish it
I call bullshit on Happyshooter. I assume he is talking about the University of Michigan, which of course is a public university. And in Michigan, like most states, the salaries of public employees, including teachers and professors at state universities, are in the public domain.
In fact there is a website where you can look up the salary of any employee (teaching staff included) at the UM.
Happyshooter, why don't you provide a link to your fantastical stories about these horrible liberals who are going to start executing conservatives?
I agree that liberal public universities SHOULD set up there own court system, prosecutors, and prison system to supplement their police systems and they should use these minor extensions of power to execute people for the crime of being conservative.
But you know, these pussy liberals just don't have the stomach for it. They fail to recognize that conservatives are not just wrong, but evil. In fact, so evil that while liberals rightly oppose the death penalty for mass murderers who decide to rape the corpses of their victims (and who are surely nothing more than misguided souls who did not get healthy school lunches as children) conservatives should be the exception to any opposition to the death penalty that we may have.
Now I know you are full of it. Ther.e is no crime of "public discussion." The crime is "conservative advocacy." A crime that you have rightly pointed out, deserves the death penalty.
More conservative propaganda. The VP was merely using reasonable force to stop the dangerous crime of conservative advocacy. I personally think the VP should have straight out whipped out his samurai sword and executed your boy on the spot. I am all for due process, but when it comes to terrorism (also known as the crime of "conservative advocacy") I think we should realize that a different sort of due process is called for.
Now, if only these universities could go farther and set up their own judiciary and prison systems they would not have to rely on the prosecutorial discretion of county district attorneys to prosecute these crimes. See, the problem with county district attorney offices is that they are often infiltrated by terrorists (i.e. those who engage in the crime of "conservative advocacy") I mean, what is the point of having your own police force without your own court system and prison system complete with execution chambers for terrorists.
she's probably willing to award an honorary degree (despite her criteria) because she knows nothing of him
I bet you if she watched early Firing Line or checked out one of the Vidal debates she's change her stance on that
Not really. If you were at all familiar with politics, you might be aware that conservatives and libertarians have formed some sort of alliance based on their shared desire to screw the poor.
This is the blog for the group opposed to the do-nothing job for the dem: http://petersreport.blogspot.com/
It is one sided but a good start.
Gee David, apparently Obama is a Nazi, Socialist, closet Muslim, seeks the destruction of Israel, Hamas supporter, probably has a commie flag tacked up in his garage and has gone so far as to peel 'W' bumper stickers from cars (to paraphrase Charlie Daniels).
You manage to find one hyperbolic quote and tar mythical liberal academia as being incredibly hostile to all conservatives.
Actually JF Thomas, what I think we should do is not try to get Happyshooter to reveal the truth of these stories to mainstream society. That might threaten our bastion of academia. Instead, I think we should lure Happyshooter to come to campus to speak, and then arrest him for "conservative advocacy" and execute him on the spot.
What we don't want is the truth getting out there. Shh... I mean, liberal universities have their own police forces, but the public hasn't been paying attention...
really? by conservative academics? saying they're so hateful they don't deserve an honorary degree or shouldn't be given a voice through the academy?
I'd love to see it. If its true I'd be pretty repulsed--though to be fair squelching other points of view isn't just endemic to partisan lefties.
That is funny that you thought it was Michigan I was talking about. They do have a pretty bad free speech code.
I think now that left wing despots that rule the Us are writing the laws and they own the armed police, the next step after this current one...bogus academic and legal cases to punish belief...is prison sentences and camps. Then comes the Crystal Night.
JFT, your reference to "mythical liberal academia" discredits anything else you might have to say on the topic.
What goes uncommented upon here is what might be thought of as the obverse side of the same coin she's trading in - i.e. the ready facility with which she elbows her way in to arbitrate the matter, the self-appointed quality, the halo of presumptive moral superiority she awards herself, and all of it without the slightest self-doubt on evidence.
She also needs to review her history better and more conscientiously. Pol Pot, to take a salient example, when he studied on the Left Bank in Paris, wasn't studying Locke and Montesquieu.
That is a stunningly conceited, self-centered, narrow-minded viewpoint, appropriate only for a policial pundit. Is Kathy G supposed to be a serious thinker?
It also happens to be a true caricature.
Last time I checked, libertarians advocated for price gouging.
Basically, libertarians and conservatives are united in thinking that the poor deserve to be poor.
Remember, the conservative and libertarian answer to every economic problem is "personal responsibility." That is, the poor deserve to be poor because they are such screw ups.
See, the conservatives and libertarians realize something that liberals do not. If you end up living in a ghetto with a bunch of other poor people, you will learn your lesson and take "personal responsibility" in the future. So, it is not indifference to the poor that leads conservatives and libertarians to joyfully tolerate ghettos, usurious interest rates, predatory lending, price gouging and the like. It is the realization that the only way poor people learn is through pain. It is not that conservatives and libertarians hate the poor. It is that conservatives and libertarians understand that the poor are like Pavlov's dog.
No, Boboling, that is NOT "just true." That is just your own conclusion, reached from your own observations, through lenses which are admittedly warped by your own political and philosophical beliefs. Isn't it just possible that the real differences between many liberal positions and their counterpart conservative positions are arguments about effective means, rather than desireable ends? For example, the knee-jerk liberal reaction to someone who opposes race-based affirmative action programs is that that person must be a racist, intent on maintaining an oppressive status quo, when in fact the person opposing race-based affirmative action just MAY be firmly in favor of eliminating racism, but trying to argue that: (a) race-based affirmative action programs almost inevitably help only those who are least in need of the help -- they almost NEVER assist the persistent black underclass; (b) when they DO reach members of the persistent black underclass,the programs often do more harm than good, by placing an ill-prepared individual into a position where failure is the most likely option; and (c) the social backlash engendered by race-based programs directly undermines the ultimate goal of eliminating (or at least marginalizing) racist attitudes. When liberals assume a moral superiority and refuse to listen to or address these arguments about the efficacy of liberal programs in reaching mutually desired results, it reinforces conservatives' beliefs that liberals are just ignorant and impractical.
And it wasn't always like this. Crooked Timber, and, for example, Matt Yglesias (and perhaps others) have, over the last half decade or so, evolved from left-wing folks who are trying to engage in a battle of ideas to left wing folks who are simply engaging in polemic. Whether its due to Dubya, or the frustrations of actually attempting to engage in ideas with whom they disagree, or something else, I don't know. But it was only a few years ago that Crooked Timber and Yglesias were leftwingers that were interesting to read. Now, Crooked Timber is reasonably well represented by Kathy G (a guest blogger), and Yglesias* is just a spaghetti cook: vomit out an idea and see if it sticks ('sticks' = 'produces lots of commentary').
Maybe rightwing sites have done the same thing, though this one and Instapundit certainly haven't done so. Free Republic? I think Free Republic has always been the rhetorical equivalent of what Crooked Timber has become (which is sad, both for Free Republic, and for Crooked Timber).
Sk
*To Yglesias' credit, he doesn't censor views he disagrees with, unlike the academically based Crooked Timber.
Obviously so, for that is in the very nature of one ascribing to one set of views vs. another. But to ascribe to a set of views does not preclude, in presumptive and insinuating mode, more genuine forms of tolerance than is often evidenced on the Left.
And in that vein, I could be wrong - I'm relying upon a remote memory from some article read long-ago - but I believe Schlafly does have some substantial academic and related (e.g., influential books) bona fides.
I don't think you want to advocate the position that one or even many really flawed positions discredits everything else you have to say. Because, in that case, everything you say would be discredited. I have read quite a few crazy things from Bernstein...
By the way, this herculean research effort took all of 10 minutes.
Perhaps you should read the actual post at CT. David didn't provide the link, so here it is.
It might change your mind about Schlafly's intellectual "achievements" and insights.
Michael B. criticizes Kathy G. for, "the halo of presumptive moral superiority she awards herself, and all of it without the slightest self-doubt on evidence." That sounds like a good description of Schlafly to me.
Query: What is the conservative plan for fixing the underrepresentation of certain minorities in obtaining a higher education?
Oh wait. I remember. The plan is to blame the victim. And to say that people should sink or swim, totally ignoring their individual background.
A conservative is someone who is stupid enough to think that the children of Harvard professors and someone who grows up in South Central Los Angeles are playing on an even playing field.
A liberal is someone who is smart enough to realize that individual success is to a large degree a social product, in addition to a product of individual initiative.
End of story.
Thanks for the link. This is useful substantiation. I'm going to repost your link, because it shows how fascistic higher education in this country has become. Any who don't believe check out:
http://petersreport.blogspot.com/
I attribute this common pattern to the fact that many discussions (like this one) quickly devolve into fruitless finger pointing.
But, by all means, let's all go on believing that they're just too busy or have been rendered speechless by our logic and evidence. Or, perhaps they are cowards. However, before I lay blame on a VC blogger, I would do well to remember that I came to them.
Thoughtless rhetoric bears about as much resemblance to real argument as masturbation does to sex.
The amazing thing about this is not that Kathy G might think like this, but that she thinks it's just fine to tell the world.
So either she doesn't think there's a thing wrong with this--living in an academic diving bell--or she doesn't care how nuts she looks to normal people.
Did you know liberals eat babies?
No. Liberalism is motivated by the desire to pretend to help the weak (using somebody else's money) so that the liberal can 'feel good about himself/herself.' Conservativism is motivated by the desire to teach people how to swim so that they don't have to sink.
No, libertarians advocate for strong property rights, beleiving that government control of stuff that is supposedly yours is WORSE than any private "price gouging" might ever be. If you can come up with a solution to "price gouging" that does not involve the government (for all proactical purposes) claiming ownership of people's stuff, I suspect the vast majority of libertarians would be interested.
I'm a conservative, and I do NOT think most of the poor "deserve to be poor", and I know many others who feel this way as well.
But I haven't yet seen a solution to the problem. All the claimed solutions I have seen are at best very, very short-term, and most are actively counter-productive immediately (not just in the long term).
This doesn't mean that I think the poor deserve to be poor - indeed, it means I don't want to make their situation WORSE, which is what many government actions do.
But, since I disagree with liberals on the MEANS to cure poverty, it just means that I think people deserve it, eh?
As the old saying goes, "Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."
OK, and I refreshed before I submitted this, so here's one more thing:
Thanks for the perfect example of what I'm talking about.
You see, I don't think those two are on a "level playing field", and I'd LOVE to see a solution to that problem! But I haven't seen a real solution that actually works, short of taking all children away from their parents and having the government raise them (do we really need to discuss why this is bad?).
Yes, I've looked. What I said earlier about solving poverty applies well here.
So, to restate what you said:
A liberal is someone who is stupid enough to believe that their chosen method of solving a problem is perfect and wonderful and only an idiot would deny it.
A convervative is someone smart enough to actually check the results of attempted solutions.
"End of story."
See, we can both play that game! But it's really not very helpful. Of course, that's the usual treatment (hence the quote earlier), so I don't know why I bother anymore.
They oppose any sort of gay rights, or gay marriage. They believe a women's place is in the home. Until fairly recently, conservatives, at least in the south, weren't exactly marching in the streets to give blacks civil rights. Was it the liberals who opposed interracial marriage in the 60s? Nope, it was, you guessed it, conservatives! Who is always trying to stop people from having sex? Who is it that wants to stop the sale of sex toys in Georgia and Texas? Who is always trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution in schools in favor of creationism or it's stupid twin, ID? Who is always trying to push religion on people who don't want it?
Yup, always the conservatives.
Now, I realize that many conservatives see themselves as champions of rights and liberty, especially when it comes to gun rights. And they see enviromentals as trying to limit rights (I disagree, but I understand their viewpoint).
But on many of the big issues of the past, and today, conservatives are the one who are saying no. They might have their reasons, but in the above examples, they are on the wrong side of history. And then you wonder why the younger generation thinks you are against liberty? It may be an *unfair* characterization, but it's certainly not entirely without basis.
Oh, and let's not forget hypocracy, which is the real award that Schafly should get. She is the leader of the anti-gay movement in America, yet her own son is openly gay. That's a fact that she finds rather uncomfortable.
Are you suggesting Kathy G. does evidence even a whisper of a hint of self-doubt? Is so, I'd like to see that supported.
The issue here is the awarding of an honorary degree, something variously awarded to people ranging from sit-com stars to world leaders and including all manner of dubious notables. The issue is not abortion or any number of other policy issues.
Not at all. Liberalism is animated by a desire to increase the power of liberals. The weak, or global warming, or civil rights, or any other justification, are merely excuses. The justification may vary but the "solution" is always the same - surrender power to the wise and good liberals. It's a branch of socialist thought.
hahaha
you do realize that there are black sons and daughters of harvard grads right (in fact some of them could be in the white house soon enough)
how does your myopic view of affirmative action work at all when it's the kid who's parents make 100k+ but happens to be black or native american who benefits at the expense of some kid in appalachia struggling in a family at the poverty line who is too privileged?
Bush actually advocated a more socio economically sensible 'affirmative access' program back in texas http://www.newsweek.com/id/62914?tid=relatedcl
but then again i doubt crooks and liars or dkos ever featured that
But what has this woman done to deserve this honorary award? Just because she is famous? She's a crackpot and a looney tune, and frankly, if I were a conservative, I would be embarrased to call her one as well.
So far, I haven't seen anyone defend her -- thank goodness. So I guess we all agree that she doesn't deserve it?
Either he thinks he's perfectly right, or he doesn't care how many normal people think he's nuts.
Wow.
No. Conservtives try to limit certain liberties and maximise others. Liberals do the exact same thing, only the specific liberties in question vary.
Who is it that opposes freedom of contract? Who is it that opposes freedom of association? Who is it that opposes free speech? Who is it that opposes economic freedom? You guessed it, liberals.
They oppose any sort of gay rights, or gay marriage.
What does "gay marriage" have to do with liberty?
While I agree that religious converatives often try to restrict some rights (the "teaching of creation vs evolution" thing is a different issue, actually), I see the left as at least as bad.
Environmentalism, for example (but you said you see that one) - if you want MY property used differently, BUY IT FROM ME.
Speech? Yeah, sure... if it isn't one of many "beyond the pale" topics.
How about freedom of association? Trashed to combat racism (in such a manner that it promotes racism, no less).
I could go on. BOTH sides are fairly strongly against liberty... which is why "libertarians" don't fit into the "conservative/liberal" specitrum at all.
I call myself a convervative, and that's largely correct, but I have a strong libertarian streak... which, in the current environment, pushes me further into the "conservative" camp, as they are the ones pushing fewer liberty restrictions (though they aren't remotely perfect in this area, of course).
That's a fact that has been documented, but perhaps it falls within Kathy G.'s conception of "progress," so is to be given a pass.
Too easy.
Whoa
Have you even touched a history book?
The discussion that is occurring is completely legitimate as 'Kathy G' used Schafly's case to make more general points
How is a commie-loving pinko statist like George W. Bush a "far right" anything?
There's a clear difference in perspectives here.
And you'll REALLY love Kathy G.
Nick
Is this a serious question? I mean, the man says "nukular"! Case closed!
"Far right", to the left, is a cultural marker. It has almost nothing to do with actual policy positions. Nixon was one of the most liberal Presidents in American history, but they hated him with an undying passion because he was "not on of us".
I'll admit that left-wing academics of this type are a lot more common, and more accepted in academia, than their right-wing counterparts, who are relegated to think tanks and the like. I'll agree that this is disturbing, but this attitude is hardly characteristic of academics.
[1] Apparently without concern for the fact that "Mohammed" is not even part of his name.
I agree with you that this isn't symptomatic of liberals. I think the disconcerting part is that the liberal analogues tend to be in positions which are then falsely accorded respect (academia) whereas on the right I can just simply choose not to watch the O'Reilly factor or visit free republic/atlas shrugs or whatever
A few problems there, but we can start with the one that the "people who characterize Barack HUSSEIN MOHAMMED Obama as a far-left "socialist" are non-existent in higher ed. So your attempted parallel fails at the first hurdle.
If true, this says something about her colleagues which some, or many, have been at pains to deny.
I guess my frustration is just with the fact that people are under the delusion that (a) you can actually have a level playing field that's fair to everyone, (b) that you can create one without damaging anyone else, and (c) that everyone is entitled to one.
1. I agree with Bernstein that Kathy G's comments are worthy of note and discussion. I'm guessing, from what he italicizes, that it's not merely her unwillingness to grant honors to the likes of Bush, Jr. and Cheney—an unwillingness I share—it's the underlying assumptions of her position: "It's not that conservatives should NEVER get academic honors". How nice, just not frequently, because of course they don't deserve them very often. And the end line which quite explicitly (and with little understanding of economics or history) links modern liberalism with advancing freedom and (perhaps somewhat less unreasonably)modern conservatism with thwarting it. I find these underlying assumptions, far more than the claim that Cheney is a "far-right lunatic", disturbing.
2. I'm not sure why Bernstein subsequently claims that if W. is a far-right lunatic then a large percentage of the American public must be "far-far-far right lunatics". Is it because they voted for him? Doubtful, since voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't prove much. And many Americans didn't vote. Is it because Bernstein sees Bush as not very much to the right, in terms of his huge expansion of non-military spending? This is certainly true, but I'm guessing that Kathy G was thinking about those little matters of invading Iraq and pushing the PATRIOT Act. And here I don't think Bernstein would have any evidence to suggest that the majority of Americans want even more of this sort of thing than Bush does.
3. Bernstein claims he's a man of principle, which explains why he, a libertarian [not a conservative] is highlighting an unfair attack on a conservative. This is certainly plausible. I await his highlighting of an unfair attack of a liberal by conservatives, and even more breathlessly his condemnation of an unfair attack of a Palestinian by an Israeli. Please note the latter may be either an academic or actual attack.
4. Snarky, who may wish to consider changing his handle to "Doesn't Read Much" wonders what free-market types want to do about the plight of the inner cities, and education of the underclass. It's as if he never heard of school vouchers, tax-credits for education, ending the drug war that is destroying the inner cities, a negative income tax for the poor, to name just some ideas, all of which were discussed in Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, published over 50 years ago. This was the same "conservative" Friedman who was the #1 intellectual advocate for the successful ending of the military draft, responsible in the 1960s for the deaths of so many black draftees. Liberals at the time were strong proponents of the military draft, the Vietnam War being a liberal war (Kennedy, Johnson).
I fail to see how the teaching of evolution vs. creationism is a question of liberty, but rather a question of whether or not the curriculum is gettting the science right.
The curriculum is determined at some level, either by the teacher, department head, school board... In a public school this is an agent of the state. I guess I don't see how "the decider" choosing evolution increases or diminishes liberty any more than choosing to teach creationism.
Now, having the curriculum be set by an agent of the state, I see how that impacts liberty, regardless of the choice that is made.
I do agree with your broader point about religous conservatives often being opposed to liberty, but I don't know if it happens more often than it does in liberal circles. There's a continuum of statism for every issue, and both conservatives and liberals fall on the statist side of many issues.
Not at all. I'm saying that many conservatives have in fact been on the wrong side of history. Not all, of course. But when it comes to advancing liberty, conservatives at the least have an image problem, like it or not. It was conservatives who opposed women the right to vote back a century or so ago. That's just the baggage you have to live with.
If you don't like it, then do something to change the image. And you can start that by repudiating religious right wingnuts who are the scourge of much of conservatism.
What has gay marriage to do with liberty? When two people who are in love are prohibited from marrying each other, that's a denial of their liberty to get married. You may state that there are reasons to oppose this type of liberty, but it certainly is a denial of liberty. As for the gay movement overall, conservatives again have been at the forefront of denyings gays any rights at all. For instance, the amendment in Michigan that was just interpreted to deny not only marriage rights, but even domestic partner benefits to gays was not lead by the liberals in the state.
(1) Everyone knows that most conservatives don't go into academia not for fear of persecution, but for fear of poverty. Most conservatives view law school as a necessary evil to advancing their ultimate goal of getting rich. Nowhere in that plan does academia fit. Your comment also ignores the obvious: If more conservatives went into academia, it wouldn't be dominated by liberals, and presumably discrimination wouldn't exist.
(2) By definition conservatives are not forward thinkers. They desire preservation of the status quo and long for the good ol' days before non-whites and sexual minorities started asserting their rights. They value "hard work," even though most of them don't know what it means to work hard to get where they are (see, e.g., G.W. Bush).
Indeed, the rich in the group are the masterminds. They play on intolerance and subtly suggest to the white poor masses who are willing to listen that they are better than their black or gay neighbor, even if they are poor. That is, they have something better -- moral superiority. And so the poor "Chrisitians" vote for people who ultimately don't represent them at all and end up penalize them for being poor while favoring the ourtageously wealthy. All with the hope that one day they will achieve the American dream that their "lazy" black neighbors or "morally bankrupt" gay people or "illegal" Mexicans will not.
By definition, liberals are progressive. They attempt to advance thought to fight against the status quo. To evolve. This is the essence of academics.
if you want to make such a blanket statement, pointing out one or two anecdotes won't help
Exactly. Conservatives think liberals are stupid or incorrect. Liberals think conservatives are evil.
Second, it was commented that no one will defend Phyllis Schlafly receiving a doctorate. I will. What other woman of her generation (she is 83) has had as much of an impact on American politics? Like it or not, she's a pioneer. She was instrumental in changing the Republican party from being controlled by East Coast banker types to a more populist, conservative, grass-roots party.
It's a denial of liberty as you concieve it. Not everyone sees it as the role of the state to faciliate such notions.
Jon W - please just ignore Starky. Countering with equally ignorant accusations does nothing but lend credence to his argument.
How many libertarians would be willing to get rid of all this infrastructure built on the backs of slave labor in order to REALLY start from stratch. Let's start over on an island somewhere. With equal tools and true liberty. Let's see who would survive.
Darelf is referring to the same Abraham Lincoln who famously said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Thus does Darelf's comment about reading books become a self parody.
Yeah because liberals never suggest they are 'better' than their counterparts.
Liberals also never ever write books like 'what's the matter with kansas' and then echo it in posts like yours where they point out they're just trying to advocate what's best for those red staters in the hinterlands who for some reason are more concerned with the 'moral values' they seem to hold dear as opposed to the extra welfare services they could reap if they only signed onto liberal platforms.
Liberals certainly don't facetiously quote terms like 'christian' that indicate they are the only ones that understand true definitions of religious/cultural movements/beliefs.
Liberals also don't stereotype their opponents for apparently doing the same thing and in one fell swoop conflate issues of prejudice, legality and morality in order to make a squeamishly intellectually bankrupt accusation.
Did you seriously make that post as an attempt to be taken seriously? All I've seen so far is stereotyping and biased claims.
How does liberal opposition to the war in Iraq correspond with this self-image? What about liberal opposition to changes in Social Security, or welfare, or the power of the central government?
Liberals in many respects are the most reactionary people in America. They want to preserve a lot of the status quo, and only change those bits of it they dislike.
According to SIG357, slavery is not a deprivation of liberty, so long as some people believe that the state shouldn't facilitate notions of personal freedom for black people.
I think it would be more accurate to say that liberalism is animated by moral vanity, by the desire to take other people's money and give it away in a manner that will make the person directing the taking and giving feel morally superior.
Of course that was political spin. Lincoln was elected as the abolitionist candidate, and his election was what sparked the Civil War.
I made no statement about Kathy G. I merely said that your description of her fits Schlafly quite well.
So, in other words liberty is only that which KWC is willing to give us. Everyone believes in ordered liberty. Different people have differing notions as to what principles liberty should be ordered on. "Liberals", so called, downplay many sorts of liberty, such as freeom of association and contract, in order to elevate other sorts of liberty which are more to their liking. I notice you managed not to address this point at all in your obnoxious diatribe.
According to SIG357, slavery is not a deprivation of liberty
I bet you had to get a university education in order to learn to lie about what other people have said so expertly. How about an apology?
Now hold on: are you seriously claiming that O'Reilly's opinions are more easily avoided, and less widely respected, than Kathy G.'s?
Anyway, I don't really like Kathy G.'s arguments here either; but before we go off on how this reveals that the academy is full of liberal fascists who want to execute conservatives, it's worth noting that Kathy G. does not, in fact, get to decide who gets honorary degrees. In fact, her whole gripe in that post is that Schlafly is going to get a degree. So this isn't really overwhelming evidence that liberals are denying conservatives respect in academia: just that at least some liberals would, to some extent, like to.
I would also point out that it is absolutely commonplace among conservative critics of academia to claim that all mainstream liberal academic work in the humanities is utterly worthless at best and fraudulent at worst (I mentioned this in the comments on that Alan Kors piece posted at VC a few days ago). Which does slightly weaken complaints about liberals not respecting conservative ideas.
I made no statement about Kathy G. I merely said that your description of her fits Schlafly quite well.
I make no statement about Schlafly, but "Kathy G"s comments about Schlafly fit Kathy G quite well. Except that the wretched Kathy G has already been awarded an actual degree, proving that intellectual disability is no handicap to graduation.
Why post then? This is about as childish a response as I've ever seen from DB. Believe it or not, people don't all agree on the liberal academia conspiracy. Ad hominem or other attack-your-opponent comments don't prove your case.
DB also said "Calling Bush a far-right lunatic shows tunnel vision akin to calling Bill Clinton a far-left lunatic."
Um, Sadly, no. Bush has an approval rating hovering just about 25%. The data suggest that these 25-30% of Americans would continue to approve of him whether he pranced through the Rose Garden naked or shot someone in the face (oops, wrong guy)
On the other hand, Clinton was immensely popular at the end of his presidency. From a strictly Philip K. Dick-ean measure of lunacy/normalcy, it is not the same to call each a lunatic.
Not unless all you want to accomplish is partisan argument.
I should be clearer when I say something like 'accorded respect'. What I mean with that has nothing to do with which views are more popularly heard or respected (O'Reilly does probably reach over a million people or so, far more than I imagine Kathy G does) but instead refers to the objective standing they're accorded. O'Reilly is not deemed a scholar in the formal sense and is known as a partisan commentator. He is the ideological analogue of a chris matthews or olbermann--a known quantity. Kathy G however hold an official academic standing wherein she's been qualified as an expert in some subset of an academic field. In so far as this isn't inherently a position she earned because of her political leanings, she is accorded more objective respect. That's why Joe Schmo can send his kids to be taught by Kathy G as opposed O'Reilly.
As for the second paragraph, I think you're correct if youre saying in this instance there is no danger of a liberal group denying a conservative anything. However, the sentiments expressed by Kathy G, which were in fact more general than just in this case, suggest that (along with a number of academic studies and countless hiring committee controversies) some of this ideological stubbornness does in fact effect the overall nature of the academy.
As for conservative critics disrespecting humanities work--that's a weird contention to me. Things like the sokal hoax and similar criticisms are more often the work of scientists (a wacky and varied bunch) as opposed to conservatives.
Are you seriously claiming that O'Reilly's opinions are in some sense equal and opposite to Kathy G's? I don't watch the man, but I'm pretty sure that he's never described liberals as evil and insane and the enemies of all that is pure and good.
first you critique JB in your first line and then make yourself look like a childish partisan in your second statement
then you have to gall to rail against partisans
The whole 'gay marriage' thing is a red herring. The State should not have any role in deciding who can marry whom in the first place. Marriage (involving consenting adults) should be a private contract and/or a religious sacrament only; Big Brother ought not be telling *anybody* who they can or can't marry, and He also should not be granting people special privileges and financial incentives based on their marital status.
Josh belongs with KWC in the unserious department.
It takes an Olympian leap of faith to get from there to the conclusion that Bush is a "far right-wing lunatic". Congress has an approval rating lower than Bush's. Is Congress also populated by far right-wing lunatics? What are Reid and Pelosi?
Wash. U. defends its decision here.
That's fine and I won't rip on what that seems to tacitly imply for Kathy G.
But I will note you miss the larger issue, which "is the awarding of an honorary degree," not setting policy via diktat. Schlafly was an advocate, others from other sides have been advocates, and I'm not aware that Schlafly (I honestly and simply do not know) has ever advocated that a college or university should be precluded from awarding an honorary degree to someone simply because that someone held an opposing policy position concerning a vital and controversial issue.
Apparently you don't ever watch the man, because that is exactly how felafel boy describes people he disagrees with. The only caveat I would put on it is that O'Reilly is not a pure conservative but kind of a Buchananish populist.
The word "contract", in its legal sense, denotes a non-private arrangement to which the state is a party. In that sense marriage is not and cannot be a private contract.
Big Brother ought not be telling *anybody* who they can or can't marry
Why not? Especially if they are seeking state sanction?
True, soime dems opposed civil rights legislation, but most approved it. That's why it became law, over the objections of the conservatives.
One or two anecdotes? I've provided quite a few, actaully. But here's a few more. Joe McCarthy was a conservative, and no one tried harder to limit free speech, and actually succeded, than he did. AND he is praised by today's conservatives, such as Schafly, and Ann Coulter.
The KKK -- loaded up with conservatives or liberals? You decide. Anti-immigration? Conservatives again. (Even though in this instance, I agree with their position about illegal immigrants, but sometimes this position looks often like anti-hispanic)
Look, I'm a liberal, but I also know that conservatism has a lot to offer as well, and I respect a lot of conservative positions. But the image that conservatives have built up for themselves over the past century is that they do oppose rights for lots of groups. And yes, opposing gay marriage and/or domestic partnershiop benefits is a restriction upon my liberty to get married. Spin it any way you like, but that is the goal of most conservatives.
As I said, if you don't want to be tarred and feathered as a party that opposes rights and is on the losing side of history, then you have to admit that a) the conservative movement was wrong, wrong, wrong to oppose voting rights for women, civil rights for blacks, employment and housing rights for gays, pushing Christianity into the public arena, pushing creationism in our schools, opposing environmentalism and conservation on principle, and so on, and b) that the religious right wing nuts, such as Schafly, do not speak for real conservatives.
This younger generation is shunning the Republican party because of this problem. A large majority reject the label of conservative. Argue all you like with me, but if you don't want to find yourselves in a permanant minority for the next generation, you should do something to address these issues.
I'm afraid I'm not going to take the word of an anonymous commenter for that. Cite, please.
The only caveat I would put on it is that O'Reilly is not a pure conservative but kind of a Buchananish populist.
What would the Founders have thought of "populism"? I'm pretty sure they were populists too.
There are entire websites devoted to Bill O'Reilly's lies and outrageous statements but sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com (an organization of hope) is my favorite.
These are really some bizarre and farfetched arguments against conservatives getting honorary degrees.
Dishonest mixing of terms. You use "dems" and "conservatives" as if they are antonyms.
the conservative movement was wrong, wrong, wrong to oppose voting rights for women
Can you offer any evidence that there was some "conservative movement" which opposed voting rights for women?
And yes, opposing gay marriage and/or domestic partnershiop benefits is a restriction upon my liberty to get married.
Your "liberty" ends at the point where it starts making demands on other people. And "gay marriage" is an example of your "liberty" presuming to tell everyones else what they have to do.
You're a communist, you have merely swapped "liberty" for "equality" as an justification for your desire to control everyone else.
The examples listed in the article are pretty decent as far as that goes. While cutting the woman out of academia as a whole might be totally out of line, institutions should not reward those who have worked for decades against their own mission.
I hear conservatives also burn needy children to power their gigantic SUVs. What's up with that, anyway?
Because blacks never got any degrees from college before the civil rights movement!
In fact, blacks were earning more and more degrees steadily before and after the movement. There was no change in the rate of increase until affirmative action came along -- at which point the rate decreased.
Please note, BTW, that a lot of affirmative actions have been put into place, around the world. Untouchables in India. Malays in Malaysia. It's had the same effect in those places, too.
As far as I know, none of the gay marriage proposals would actually require anyone to marry someone of the same sex, so I don't see what you are getting at. It's not like you are going to go in to get your hair done and get forced into a gay shotgun marriage.
Or maybe that is the nefarious plot.
The Republican party is destined to crack. It's glued together by such weak links. The libertarians, the moral conservatives, and the "patriots" will soon realize that they are different groups and will split. When this happens these fringe groups will be seen for what they are: radical opinions held by relatively few people.
One thing to note - they're giving her an honorary degree, not inviting her to be the commencement speaker. The commencement speaker is that noted right winger Chris Matthews.
Would I have nominated her for an honorary degree? Probably not. I do wonder if it's part of a deal to soothe conservative donors about the extent to which past honors have gone to lefties.
Can you please provide a cite for this. Because
Now it's hard to imagine that the number of bachelors degrees earned by blacks doubled in any 15 year period (except maybe during the nineteenth century when it probably went from a handful to a couple hundred) pre-civil rights act and affirmative action.
I'm not going to make a stab at defending Schafly's worthiness to receive an honorary degree, or even the others, because that's a red herring. The problem with Kathy G is her apparent claim is that most conservatives, by virture of their ideological beliefs, are inherently unworthy of receivning such an honorarium. Or, in her words, they are "hateful."
I'm sure they would if there were any conservative scientists. Unfortunately, as we all know, scientists are all left wing socialists who dreamed up global warming to destroy the economy of the U.S. They are hardly going to invent a cheap alternative fuel for SUVs.
Before we worry about getting minority kids into college, we should be preparing them to succeed in college. I (and many other conservatives) would say that the first step would be to improve K-12 education in what is euphemistically referred to as "inner city" schools. Care to make a WAG as to who has been in charge of the dysfunctional Detroit, DC, NYC, Los Angeles, Philly, Baltimore. etc...education establishments?
w/regards to a perception problem I'll generally agree with you especially considering the republican/democrat and conservative/liberal alignments haven't been consistent through out history.
I will take exception with some of your examples though. Breaking the civil rights opposition down to conservative/liberals it was conservatives who were in general against it. This is also generally true with the women's rights movement.
However some of your other examples are less clear. There's likely a greater intersection of the kkk with populists (and in fact with opposition to the civil rights movement as well), a group that isn't necessarily one or the other.
Joe McCarthy is not the plainly evil and always in the wrong character that is often portrayed by the media and in earlier textbooks. In fact, he did help to expose many communist elements. The entire interpretation of McCarthyism has been changing over the past 25 years as newer evidence (eg venona cables) has came out (in fact, liberals like Radosh have been punished for opposing the establishment view.)
Anti-Immigration is again a complicated issue which has many non racist/prejudical motives behind the position. In fact, many of the attempts to brand those who oppose illegal immigration or further legal immigration as racists are done by opponents who otherwise do in fact lack substantive arguments.
As for that last sentence, it comes across as somewhat unhinged. You admit that there weren't neat division between those who opposed civil rights but use it in your claims. You then somehow lump in pushing conservatism into the public arena and pushing for creationism as an alternative theory in our schools as limitation of rights (while this maybe an overextension of religion there are certainly meritorious arguments for both of those views, and none of them inherently limit the rights of others)?
Finally you're veering into snarky territory with that 'opposing environmentalism/conservation' on principles. That is a caricature and is akin to somebody saying that NARAL prefers to kill babies on principle.
As for your broader point, I do agree that younger generations are getting liberal in some areas, but they're also remaining conservative in others. Becoming more liberal isn't an inherently positive thing in every area (especially since what the true liberal positions in some areas are isn't that clear).
And you also neglected to mention that rights which liberals continuously try to limit, namely right like the freedom to contracts, right to bear arms, freedom of speech (would you describe canadian and european conceptions of free speech as liberal?), etc.
The irony is that the rights you believe liberals do protect along with the rights I mentioned which they oppose all point to the fact that many liberal conceptions of what is just hinge upon allowing more authoritarian control--unsurprisingly at the hands of enlightened liberals
The main problem I have with this statement is that from my perspective Social Justice runs opposite to human rights and freedom. You can have equality before the law but anything past that any attempt for social justice will cause the state to reduce individual freedom and citizen rights. There is no method of achieving "social justice" that doesn't have the state taking from one citizen and giving to another. I guess this is one of those things that people on the right see that people on the left don't. The right has come to grips with the fact that you can have freedom or equality but not both.
She has turned truth on its head. She is right that there is no moral equivalence, the right has a superior argument and the left is stuck in ignorant idealism. Idealism which under their mistaken belief in doing good they do much harm.