The Volokh Conspiracy

An Example of a Certain Academic Mindset:

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.

Happyshooter:
I think that we are a few short years away from the public universities (the ones that have their own laws and police forces) executing people for the crime of being conservative.

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.
5.12.2008 10:39am
mga (mail):
Phyllis Schlafly was my seat mate in the civil rights class at Washington University School of Law in the mid-1970's. I did not and do not agree with everything she stood for, but she was a smart and effective advocate for her positions. One day, the professor arranged a debate between Ms. Schlafly and a prominent ACLU attorney in St. Louis. She wiped the floor with him. Based on her abilities and her career, Ms. Schlafly is certainly worthy of an academic honor.
5.12.2008 10:42am
Snarky:
It is nice that you have come to this conclusion about Academia based on something more than an isolated anecdote.

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?
5.12.2008 10:42am
Guest101:
So many liberals think that liberalism is intellectually and morally superior to conservatism. So? This is news? Are there not many conservatives who believe the opposite?
5.12.2008 10:45am
rarango (mail):
Unfortunately there are probably people who think a whole lot like Ms. Kathy G. With any luck they do not hold positions of power.
5.12.2008 10:46am
Inda Know (mail):
I'd like to read about the Michigan incident... do you have a link?
5.12.2008 10:48am
bobolinq (mail):
Is the problem that you think there's no such thing as a "far-right lunatic"? Presumably you would object to a school presenting an honorary degree to Farrakhan (as would I). Wouldn't you also object to giving David Duke, or any other overt neo-Nazi, an honorary degree? And if so, what's wrong with a person's objecting to giving an honorary degree to someone that person classifies in the same category as Farrakhan and Duke?

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.
5.12.2008 10:48am
Oh, well:
It would probably help the conservative argument here if it was someone other than Phyllis Schlafly at issue.
5.12.2008 10:48am
DavidBernstein (mail):
Imagine that! I'm not a conservative, yet I go out of my way to point out unfair attacks on conservatives. You might think that there's some principle involved or something.
5.12.2008 10:49am
DavidBernstein (mail):

Is the problem that you think there's no such thing as a "far-right lunatic"?
Nope. But if George W. Bush is a "far-right lunatic," that means that probably one-third or so of the U.S. population is beyond "far-right lunatic" (far-far-far right lunatic)? Calling Bush a far-right lunatic shows tunnel vision akin to calling Bill Clinton a far-left lunatic.
5.12.2008 10:53am
glangston (mail):
I take it this blogger would protest "gun freaks" like Dave Kopel too despite the fact that Dave is trying hard to present all the candidates fairly.....maybe too fairly.
5.12.2008 10:54am
Volokh Groupie:
@snarky

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.
5.12.2008 10:55am
DavidBernstein (mail):
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.
That's just a caricature.
5.12.2008 10:56am
rarango (mail):
Gogoling: I think your caricature of both liberalism and conservatism is quite simplistic--even for a caricature.
5.12.2008 10:57am
Cornellian (mail):
So she'd be ok with awarding an honorary degree to someone "genuinely distinguished" like William F. Buckley, or some conservative economist who's done something distinguished (a Milton Friedman type perhaps) or even George H.W. Bush but she draws the line at George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Jesse Helms.

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?
5.12.2008 10:58am
Volokh Groupie:
wow.

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
5.12.2008 10:59am
J. F. Thomas (mail):
The school charged him with public discussion of the salary issue

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?
5.12.2008 10:59am
TerrencePhilip:
I remember a college history textbook with the line, "Eisenhower was conservative, but he certainly was no fool" and thinking the guy who wrote that line must've thought he was bending way over backwards to be fair.
5.12.2008 10:59am
Snarky:

I think that we are a few short years away from the public universities (the ones that have their own laws and police forces) executing people for the crime of being conservative.


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.


The school charged him with public discussion of the salary issue...


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.


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.


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.


But Happy, you say, those can't be real charges. They are when left wingers own the police force.


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.
5.12.2008 10:59am
Anderson (mail):
I frequently see similar remarks by self-professed conservatives about Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, so I'm not really gathering what this illustrates about anyone other than the blog poster.
5.12.2008 11:00am
Volokh Groupie:
@cornellian

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
5.12.2008 11:02am
Snarky:

Imagine that! I'm not a conservative, yet I go out of my way to point out unfair attacks on conservatives. You might think that there's some principle involved or something.


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.
5.12.2008 11:03am
Happyshooter:
I'd like to read about the Michigan incident... do you have a link?

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.
5.12.2008 11:03am
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Nope. But if George W. Bush is a "far-right lunatic," that means that probably one-third or so of the U.S. population is beyond "far-right lunatic" (far-far-far right lunatic)? Calling Bush a far-right lunatic shows tunnel vision akin to calling Bill Clinton a far-left lunatic.

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.
5.12.2008 11:03am
Snarky:

Happyshooter, why don't you provide a link to your fantastical stories about these horrible liberals who are going to start executing 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...
5.12.2008 11:06am
Volokh Groupie:
@anderson

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.
5.12.2008 11:07am
Happyshooter:
Happyshooter, why don't you provide a link to your fantastical stories about these horrible liberals who are going to start executing conservatives?

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.
5.12.2008 11:07am
DavidBernstein (mail):
Cornellian, she didn't say W. wasn't distinguished enough to receive an honorary degree (a pretty hard argument to make re a president), she said he should get an honorary degree because he's a "far right lunatic."

JFT, your reference to "mythical liberal academia" discredits anything else you might have to say on the topic.
5.12.2008 11:08am
Michael B (mail):
It's good to know Kathy G. does not believe "conservatives" should never receive honorary degrees, it speaks to a certain "open mindedness" on her part.

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.
5.12.2008 11:09am
Tom952 (mail):
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.

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?
5.12.2008 11:14am
Snarky:

That's just a caricature.


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.
5.12.2008 11:14am
DiverDan (mail):

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.


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.
5.12.2008 11:15am
Sk (mail):
Aside from the specifics of this particular comment and this particular author, it is interesting to note the downward slide of Crooked Timber in general. Kathy G. fits in quite well at the site; she is probably a bit more harsh than the regular posters, but not more extreme in her views.

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.
5.12.2008 11:15am
Michael B (mail):
"Are there not many conservatives who believe the opposite?"

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.
5.12.2008 11:15am
Snarky:

JFT, your reference to "mythical liberal academia" discredits anything else you might have to say on the topic.


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...
5.12.2008 11:17am
Dave N (mail):
J.F. Thomas, the wonders of the Internet and Google make it quite easy to check out stories, even if there no links. For example, that such a controvery exists is easily verified. For example, here is the CBS News link to a story on it. Here's an admittedly more biased blog entry.

By the way, this herculean research effort took all of 10 minutes.
5.12.2008 11:20am
byomtov (mail):
Based on her abilities and her career, Ms. Schlafly is certainly worthy of an academic honor.

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.
5.12.2008 11:23am
Snarky:

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.


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.
5.12.2008 11:24am
alias:
Kathy G's entitled to her opinion. I'm not sure what's so objectionable about this. She's wrong, of course, and she probably wouldn't be a great colleague for a conservative academic, but so what?
5.12.2008 11:27am
Bender (mail):
Happhshooter:

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/
5.12.2008 11:29am
Guessing (mail):
There is perhaps a meta-observation to be made here: the VC bloggers often will enter the fracas in the comments fairly early on. However, their participation quickly ends.

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.
5.12.2008 11:34am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Snarky, wrong again. Doesn't that get boring?

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.
5.12.2008 11:37am
Volokh Groupie:
Good job Snarky--you buttressed your claim it wasn't a caricature by developing that same caricature even further.

Did you know liberals eat babies?
5.12.2008 11:40am
john w. (mail):
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.

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.
5.12.2008 11:42am
Deoxy (mail):

Last time I checked, libertarians advocated for price gouging.


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.


Basically, libertarians and conservatives are united in thinking that the poor deserve to be poor.


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:


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 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.
5.12.2008 11:43am
Randy R. (mail):
About the comment that conservatives try to limit liberty -- well, that's true isn't it? At least for religious conservatives, such as Shafly.

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.
5.12.2008 11:44am
DiverDan (mail):
Congratulations, Snarky, you've demonstrated through your post precisely the kind of smug, self-righteous, presumption of moral superiority that I was trying to address. You have successfully convinced many conservatives (myself included) that trying to have a meaningful discussion with liberals is largely a waste of time.
5.12.2008 11:44am
Michael B (mail):
byomtov,

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.
5.12.2008 11:49am
Meh (mail):
I second what DiverDan said.
5.12.2008 11:50am
SIG357:
liberalism is animated by the desire to help the weak

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.
5.12.2008 11:50am
Volokh Groupie:

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.


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
5.12.2008 11:51am
anon252 (mail):
The one glimmer of hope in all this is that Kathy G is blogging anonymously, so perhaps she realizes how infantile she sounds even to her academic colleagues (perhaps that's because she's in economics, which is relatively balanced ideologically).
5.12.2008 11:53am
Randy R. (mail):
I can't believe that anyone would actually defend Schafly's receiving an honorary degree, and thankfully, no one has. Instead, this thread to a turn to discussing whether conservatives oppose liberty.

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?
5.12.2008 11:53am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
What's amazing is not that Snarky thinks like this, but that he has no problem letting the world in on it.
Either he thinks he's perfectly right, or he doesn't care how many normal people think he's nuts.
Wow.
5.12.2008 11:55am
SIG357:
About the comment that conservatives try to limit liberty -- well, that's true isn't it?

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?
5.12.2008 11:56am
Deoxy (mail):
hypocracy: rule by hypo? heh - hypocrisy, OK? (sorry, pet peeve).

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).
5.12.2008 11:56am
Michael B (mail):
Essentially, this is being discussed with a pronounced Leftist mindset that can't so much as bring itself to demand that someone like a Walter Duranty be dispossessed of his Pulitzer. And Walter Duranty positively knew he was aiding and abetting a genocide - for the sake of the proletariat.

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.
5.12.2008 11:56am
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):

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.


Too easy.
5.12.2008 11:57am
Jiminy (mail):
The source of Kathy's discontent; Ms. Schafly, leaves a little to be desired in terms of honorarium...

Whoa
5.12.2008 11:57am
darelf:
Randy, are you saying that there were no conservatives, let's say as an example Abraham Lincoln, who weren't willing to do everything in their power, and even place their careers and very lives on the line, in order to give blacks the same rights as everyone else? (Just to grab one example from your list)

Have you even touched a history book?
5.12.2008 11:58am
Volokh Groupie:
@Randy R

The discussion that is occurring is completely legitimate as 'Kathy G' used Schafly's case to make more general points
5.12.2008 12:00pm
Adam J:
darelf- I'm not going to argue in any way that Kathy G. is correct, because she obviously is making a sweeping and ludicrious generalization of conservatives, but I wouldn't call old Abe a conservative, the Republican party back then was a different animal then it is now.
5.12.2008 12:02pm
pmorem (mail):
What I want to know is...

How is a commie-loving pinko statist like George W. Bush a "far right" anything?

There's a clear difference in perspectives here.
5.12.2008 12:02pm
SIG357:
Kathy G

"Do you enjoy the ugly and vicious character of political discourse in George Bush’s America—the way conservatives cast aspersions at everything from their opponents’ patriotism to their gender identity? The way every political issue under the sun becomes fodder for cheap and sleazy sensationalism? Well then, you would just love Phyllis Schlafly."



And you'll REALLY love Kathy G.
5.12.2008 12:02pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Anderson - it has revealed a lot about some commenters as well.

Nick
5.12.2008 12:04pm
rarango (mail):
I suppose Burkean Conservatism has gone the way of Millsian Liberalism. Damn shame for both.
5.12.2008 12:06pm
SIG357:
How is a commie-loving pinko statist like George W. Bush a "far right" anything?

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".
5.12.2008 12:06pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
I actually agree with the bulk of the substance of DavidB's post for once! He's completely right that he post he's criticizing characterizes conservatives as presumptively not "sane," unworthy of honorary degrees due to their political positions, etc. Where I disagree is with the characterization of this as an "academic" mindset. It's more the mindset of the hyper-ideological and/or hyper-partisan—the left-wing analogue of the people who characterize Barack HUSSEIN MOHAMMED [1] Obama as a far-left "socialist."

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.
5.12.2008 12:07pm
Volokh Groupie:
@Elliot

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
5.12.2008 12:13pm
SIG357:
the left-wing analogue of the people who characterize Barack HUSSEIN MOHAMMED [1] Obama as a far-left "socialist."


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.
5.12.2008 12:13pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Kathy seems to think she's okay with her colleagues when she says something like this.
If true, this says something about her colleagues which some, or many, have been at pains to deny.
5.12.2008 12:19pm
jazzed (mail):
Level playing field? You might as well believe in the tooth fairy and Officer Friendly. There's no such thing, and in trying to create a level playing field, the only real result I can fathom is the redistribution of inequities (or iniquities, if you prefer). I would never advocate that we simply accept without reflection the societal factors that retard a person's success. I would suggest, however, that some of the so-called "solutions" that have been implemented have caused other problems that are abhorrent and damaging in their own right, and that some people value those effects just as poorly as the initial problem that was being "corrected."

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.
5.12.2008 12:21pm
Thoughtful (mail):
So many comments, so little time:

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).
5.12.2008 12:21pm
DeezRightWingNutz:
Randy R.,

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.
5.12.2008 12:22pm
Randy R. (mail):
"Randy, are you saying that there were no conservatives, let's say as an example Abraham Lincoln, who weren't willing to do everything in their power, and even place their careers and very lives on the line, in order to give blacks the same rights as everyone else? (Just to grab one example from your list)."

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.
5.12.2008 12:27pm
KWC (mail):
DavidBernstein:

(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.
5.12.2008 12:28pm
Volokh Groupie:
Randy R--you mean like the dems who opposed civil rights legislation in the 60's?

if you want to make such a blanket statement, pointing out one or two anecdotes won't help
5.12.2008 12:32pm
harsh pencil (mail):
One commenter writes:

So many liberals think that liberalism is intellectually and morally superior to conservatism. So? This is news? Are there not many conservatives who believe the opposite?


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.
5.12.2008 12:33pm
SIG357:
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.

It's a denial of liberty as you concieve it. Not everyone sees it as the role of the state to faciliate such notions.
5.12.2008 12:33pm
hawkins:

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.

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.


Jon W - please just ignore Starky. Countering with equally ignorant accusations does nothing but lend credence to his argument.
5.12.2008 12:34pm
KWC (mail):
The problem re: libertarian thought is that it isn't about true liberty. Libertarians want minimal government only NOW that the entire infrastructure is set up in favor of rich and rich white people. This country (nad most of the West) could not have been built on those principles. It required taking liberty from individuals (blacks, native americans, chinese, mexicans, etc.).

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.
5.12.2008 12:36pm
Thoughtful (mail):
Darelf asks Randy if he is aware that Abraham Lincoln and people like him were "willing to do everything in their power, and even place their careers and very lives on the line, in order to give blacks the same rights as everyone else?" and concludes by asking Randy if he ever reads any books.

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.
5.12.2008 12:37pm
Volokh Groupie:

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.


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.
5.12.2008 12:38pm
SIG357:
By definition, liberals are progressive. They attempt to advance thought to fight against the status quo.

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.
5.12.2008 12:39pm
KWC (mail):
So, in other words liberty is only that which SIG357 is willing to give us. Well, let us know when we can get married.

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.
5.12.2008 12:39pm
Meh (mail):
KWC, was your comment a joke?
5.12.2008 12:41pm
Connecticut Lawyer (mail):
"[L]iberalism is animated by the desire to help the weak; conservatism is animated by the desire to let people sink or swim on their own."

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.
5.12.2008 12:41pm
SIG357:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it

Of course that was political spin. Lincoln was elected as the abolitionist candidate, and his election was what sparked the Civil War.
5.12.2008 12:42pm
Meh (mail):
Wait, I just refreshed the page, KWC's comment at 12:28pm wasn't a joke? Those are some comical "definitions" he has. I wonder what dictionary he's using.
5.12.2008 12:45pm
byomtov (mail):
Michael B.,

I made no statement about Kathy G. I merely said that your description of her fits Schlafly quite well.
5.12.2008 12:47pm
SIG357:
So, in other words liberty is only that which SIG357 is willing to give us.

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?
5.12.2008 12:49pm
Latinist:
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

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.
5.12.2008 12:52pm
Meh (mail):
SIG357, I don't agree with everything you've said, but if KWC isn't just trying to appear crazy for some reason, he's not someone with whom a rational conversation is possible.
5.12.2008 12:54pm
SIG357:
byomtov

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.
5.12.2008 12:55pm
Kathi Smith (mail):
Encouraging to see that the blogger agrees that social justice and human rights are "good". But I think the blogger over-reads the protester's complaints: "not-sane" is not a generalization about all conservatives, but rather, is a debilitating characteristic.
5.12.2008 12:57pm
rarango (mail):
KWF: your island/tool thing describes "the state of nature," about which Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau--among many others-- most famously wrote about. In very brief summary: trading off some absolute liberty for some benefits that the individuals derive from that trade-of because their states of nature sucked.
5.12.2008 12:59pm
SIG357:
Of course, in "the state of nature", individuals don't exist at all.
5.12.2008 1:02pm
josh:
DB says: "JFT, your reference to "mythical liberal academia" discredits anything else you might have to say on the topic."

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.
5.12.2008 1:03pm
Volokh Groupie:
@Latinist

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.
5.12.2008 1:05pm
SIG357:
are you seriously claiming that O'Reilly's opinions are more easily avoided, and less widely respected, than Kathy G.'s?


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.
5.12.2008 1:06pm
Volokh Groupie:
wow josh

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
5.12.2008 1:07pm
john w. (mail):
When two people who are in love are prohibited from marrying each other, that's a denial of their liberty to get married.

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.
5.12.2008 1:12pm
Meh (mail):
Volokh Groupie, you're right about Josh. It was funny to see him argue that "attack-your-opponent comments don't prove your case" and then seen him write that "Americans would continue to approve of [Bush] whether he pranced through the Rose Garden naked or shot someone in the face (oops, wrong guy)" and "[n]ot unless all you want to accomplish is partisan argument."

Josh belongs with KWC in the unserious department.
5.12.2008 1:13pm
SIG357:
Um, Sadly, no. Bush has an approval rating hovering just about 25%.

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?
5.12.2008 1:13pm
Roger Schlafly (www):
When two people who are in love are prohibited from marrying each other, that's a denial of their liberty to get married.
So you say, but I would bet that most recipients of honorary degrees in the last 20 years were against same-sex marriage. Bill and Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage. Wash. U. gave an honorary degree to Jesse Jackson while he opposed same-sex marriage. If the same-sex marriage issue is so important, why not protest all the other honorary degrees?

Wash. U. defends its decision here.
5.12.2008 1:14pm
Michael B (mail):
byomtov,

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.
5.12.2008 1:15pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
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.

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.
5.12.2008 1:16pm
SIG357:
Marriage (involving consenting adults) should be a private contract

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?
5.12.2008 1:17pm
Randy R. (mail):
"Randy R--you mean like the dems who opposed civil rights legislation in the 60's? if you want to make such a blanket statement, pointing out one or two anecdotes won't help"

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.
5.12.2008 1:18pm
SIG357:
Apparently you don't ever watch the man, because that is exactly how felafel boy describes people he disagrees with.


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.
5.12.2008 1:21pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
I'm afraid I'm not going to take the word of an anonymous commenter for that. Cite, please.


There are entire websites devoted to Bill O'Reilly's lies and outrageous statements but sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com (an organization of hope) is my favorite.
5.12.2008 1:27pm
Roger Schlafly (www):
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 ...
McCarthy has been dead for 50 years. Can you even name one person whose free speech rights were limited by Sen. McCarthy?

These are really some bizarre and farfetched arguments against conservatives getting honorary degrees.
5.12.2008 1:27pm
SIG357:
True, soime dems opposed civil rights legislation, but most approved it. That's why it became law, over the objections of the conservatives.


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.
5.12.2008 1:28pm
Paul Schofield (mail):
Another interesting point that has been largely ignored (and in some posts completely contradicted) is that Kathy G explicitly states that she does not oppose giving such people a voice in accademia. She notes that she would not have a problem with Schlafly coming to give a talk. She has a problem with her being rewarded by an institution the aims of which are largely seen as polar opposite the aims of Schlafly.

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.
5.12.2008 1:28pm
MXE (mail):
Wow, lots of class warriors trolling this morning. Guess this thread hit a nerve somehow.

I hear conservatives also burn needy children to power their gigantic SUVs. What's up with that, anyway?
5.12.2008 1:31pm
mischief (mail):

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.


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.
5.12.2008 1:32pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
And "gay marriage" is an example of your "liberty" presuming to tell everyones else what they have to do.

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.
5.12.2008 1:35pm
KWC (mail):
Yes, I am crazy. Just like scientists who believed the world was flat were crazy to their narrow-minded contemporaries.

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.
5.12.2008 1:36pm
Jim Hu:
It may be easier on average to avoid Kathy G than O'Reilly (thankfully, I don't have to deal with either). But since she is described as an academic, it's much harder for her students to avoid her than it is to avoid O'Reilly or Schlafly.

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.
5.12.2008 1:36pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
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.

Can you please provide a cite for this. Because


According to the U.S. Department of Education, in the year 2005 blacks earned 136,122 four-year bachelor’s degrees from American colleges and universities. The number of blacks earning bachelor’s degrees increased nearly 4 percent from the previous year. In that year the number of African Americans earning bachelor’s degrees reached the highest level in this nation’s history. It was more than double the number of bachelor’s degrees earned by blacks in 1990.


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.
5.12.2008 1:43pm
Tern (mail):

I can't believe that anyone would actually defend Schafly's receiving an honorary degree, and thankfully, no one has. Instead, this thread to a turn to discussing whether conservatives oppose liberty.


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."
5.12.2008 1:47pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
I hear conservatives also burn needy children to power their gigantic SUVs. What's up with that, anyway?

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.
5.12.2008 1:47pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
Snarky wrote:

Query: What is the conservative plan for fixing the underrepresentation of certain minorities in obtaining a higher education?

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?
5.12.2008 1:47pm
Volokh Groupie:
@Randy R

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
5.12.2008 1:49pm
SenatorX (mail):
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.

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.
5.12.2008 1:51pm
(