Universities have a reputation of being bastions of liberalism. Even in my private, evangelically oriented college, there was little evidence that the faculty considered conservatism to have much of an intellectual underpinning. Everything I learned about Edmund Burke I studied in a community college or after entering the work world.
And of course, the epicenter of liberalism is the University of California at Berkeley. So, would you be surprised to learn that Berkeley is adding a course on the study of "right wing movements."
Of course, "right wing" has become pejorative among progressives in the same way liberal has become "the L word." But a major university treating conservative intellectual thought with any amount of seriousness is a major step toward students being exposed to a broader range of ideas.
The diary (American Conservatism: Thinking It, Teaching It, by Paul Lyons) is fascinating and reassuring, at least about our students. Lyons's class was split almost evenly between liberal and conservative students, who had no trouble arguing with each other. They seemed to understand what thin-skinned professors wish to forget: that intellectual engagement is not for crybabies. The students had loud debates over Reagan's legacy, Bush's foreign policy, religious freedom, abortion, even the "war on Christmas" — and nobody broke into tears or ran to the dean to complain. And the more the students argued, the more they came to respect one another. According to Lyons, liberal students learned that that conservative guy was no longer just the predictable gun nut or religious fanatic. And the conservative students learned that they had to make real arguments, not rely on clichés and sound bites recycled from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
I think on The Batavian we've had some good debates on healthcare reform recently. Many people of various ideological perspectives have brought some thoughtful arguments and competing facts to the discussion. There has been little rancor. That's how policy should be debated in an open society.
I do think there needs to be a greater understanding among the politically minded of how broad and intellectually diverse the right side of the political spectrum is.
In his essay on the Berkeley course, Mark Lilla wonders how many liberal professors can distinguish between the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute -- three ideologically different think tanks. I wonder, too, how many self-identified conservatives know the difference?
Or that not all conservatism favors intrusions into bedrooms or into foreign countries.
I grew up in the Cold War era. The only thing I knew of conservatism was anti-Communism and "the domino effect." It took Bill Kauffman to expose me to pre-Cold War conservatism and I realized there was a sound conservative argument and tradition for non-interventionist, small military thinking. Lilla observes, too, that conservative thinking changed a lot in the 1950s:
"It is a convenient left-wing dodge to reduce 20th-century American conservatism to Cold-War politics, since it implies that conservative ideas are embedded in a world that no longer exists and never should have. In fact, in the 1930s American conservatives were far more obsessed with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his domestic legacy than with Joseph Stalin, and looked askance at all foreign entanglements, including the Second World War. The anti-Communist cause was first conceived by Cold-War liberals, not by conservatives."
I wonder if Kauffman will be taught at Berkeley?
(The quotes from this essay by Mark Lilla (also linked above). Read the whole thing. Pictured above, Edmund Burke and Robert Taft.)
This is so true! The late
This is so true!
The late Paul Lyons, a professor at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey until his death, in January, recognized the problem but proposed something far more radical than anything David Horo witz has considered. And that was to persuade his liberal colleagues to teach courses on conservative political thought. Lyons was an American historian who wrote about the 60s and made no secret of his liberal politics or his loathing of Reagan and post-Reagan conservatism. But he was also disturbed by how few colleges offer courses on conservatism, treating it as a "pathology" rather than a serious political tradition, and by reports from his conservative students that "most of their liberal professors blow their comments off." So he not only posted a course on American conservative thought in 2006 but also kept a diary about his teaching experience. That diary has now been published, along with some of his own essays, in American Conservatism: Thinking It, Teaching It (Vanderbilt University Press).
The diary is fascinating and reassuring, at least about our students. Lyons's class was split almost evenly between liberal and conservative students, who had no trouble arguing with each other. They seemed to understand what thin-skinned professors wish to forget: that intellectual engagement is not for crybabies. The students had loud debates over Reagan's legacy, Bush's foreign policy, religious freedom, abortion, even the "war on Christmas"—and nobody broke into tears or ran to the dean to complain. And the more the students argued, the more they came to respect one another. According to Lyons, students learned that that conservative guy was no longer just the predictable gun nut or religious fanatic. And the conservative students learned that they had to make real arguments, not rely on clichés and sound bites recycled from Fox News.
You would think this would be
You would think this would be the well thought out, critical thinking style that The President would bring to the table. The one who was going to be a great uniter, and put partisan politics aside for the greater good. And yet he fell quickly into the trap of blame and stereotyping and couldn't even resist the "clinging to their guns and religion" comment.
Posted by Jeff Allen on
Posted by Jeff Allen on September 13, 2009 - 3:38pm
You would think this would be the well thought out, critical thinking style that The President would bring to the table. The one who was going to be a great uniter, and put partisan politics aside for the greater good. And yet he fell quickly into the trap of blame and stereotyping and couldn't even resist the "clinging to their guns and religion" comment.
Who is stereotyping who?
These photos were taken at the March on Washington.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225019439
I'm not stereotyping, those
I'm not stereotyping, those were his words.
Jeff, The people in those
Jeff,
The people in those pictures legitimized the President's statement.
They, those at that rally, stereotyped themselves.
The President used those
The President used those words during the campaign.
I am 62. I recall my senior
I am 62. I recall my senior year in High School(1964). We had an elective course called Economics which I took.It covered all the "stuff" we might need as we severed our ties with education at the secondary level and moved on. Like check book balancing, credit cards, jobs, filling out Income Taxes, Stock Market etc. But our very smart teacher( His name was VETTER) also covered politics, both Liberal and Conservative.. He felt obligated to let us know what they were both all about, let us all argue each side during the year, AND MAKE UP OUR OWN MINDS. We covered Viet Nam. Laos, Berlin, and elections. That is where I believe my general toughts were developed. I have carried them my entire life. I thank him to this day for allowng us the time to make up our own minds. I'm sure most of the stuff we covered was not in the agenda of the Department of Education, or the local School Board. It was life as it was in 1964 and actually today. Thanks Mr. Vetter. It's good to see colleges are finally offering the same thing.
We have family discussions
We have family discussions almost nightly about politics, world views, economics, and what my kids learn at school. I am a Democrat committee member and my wife is a Conservative committee. My kids since they were about seven years old hve been actively involved in our discussions. To this day my wife and I have never argued about politics. Trust me, we've had some real arguments just like every married couple has, but never over politics. We discuss everything with our children. We encourage them to sometimes pick the subject and I'll change it up at times and make them argue the opposing view instead of what they beleive. We have fun doing it at the dinner table and sometimes we'll turn off the TV just to continue a discussion or even start a new topic. The rule is you can't get angry or get personal. You can only discuss the topic rationally. I also discourage out-landish claims or ridiculous comparisons. My daughter especially has gotten very good in the past few years. She holds her own very well for any age even though she just turned 14 last week. Fred, just like Mr. Vetter, I want my kids to be as prepared as can be. I want them to have as much information as possible so they can make up their own minds. I don't care what political party they join, what religion those may or may not choose, what they persue as a career or college degree. I just want them to make a decision based on what they know and not what some said they should do.
Bea, my setting the tone with
Bea, my setting the tone with the Presidents prior comments was probably not the best course of action on my part. What really needs to change is the conversation the two sides have with each other, and I am glad Howard brought this article into the discussion. There really is common ground in the healthcare debate, the energy debate, Social Security reform, the economy, and more. The issues are clouded by the rhetoric and the broad brushstrokes with which we(the right and left, not you and I) are painting each other.
If one side continually uses Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity for their arguments then the conversation is pre-loaded with terms and phrases that don't lead to issue-driven debate. If on the other side however, all the talking points are ferreted out from Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz, then the conversation is equally skewed.
Conservatives are, for the most part, intelligent, well spoken, well mannered, good citizens who are passionate about their beliefs and values, just as are most liberals. If we can agree first on those points, then find the common ground in the issues, real progress is achievable. We just need to get Albany and Washington to sign on to the process.
Jeff, I enjoy discussions
Jeff,
I enjoy discussions with those who see things differently than I. Your very gracious post indicates that you do too.
All of us, I'm sure, have one or two things that are more on one side than the other. I, for one, for a multitude of reasons am against abortion especially when it is used as a form of birth control. I choke when I'm labeled a 'baby killer'. One would think that having five children would indicate that I'm not.
On the other hand, I recognize that there may be medical reasons to terminate an early pregnancy.
I don't believe that patriotism is owned by one party or the other.
I am as religious, if not more, than some. However, my religion is a personal choice. I don't wear it on my sleeve; I don't use it as a bully pulpit for political gain.
We will, someday find that common ground.
Thanks, again, for your wise words.
I think most of this comment
I think most of this comment section has missed the point of the article