An Outsider Inside Academia
For the last few years, I have found myself using the phrase "I am not a social conservative" before explaining my positions on a number issues. The last thing an academic within some disciplines wants is to be accused of being a conservative. It would be career suicide within some university humanities departments to be a self-identified Republican, and I cannot imagine being an outspoken "Tea Party" supporter within some fields. You might as well admit you also don't want publications, conference invitations, and the all-important tenure.
I'm a free-market capitalist, vehemently opposed to both crony capitalism and overzealous central planning. We have allowed the elite to control both government and commerce, strangling the true free market. Big companies get the regulations they want, while pretending to oppose them. It costs pennies per customer for McDonald's to comply with laws regulating nutritional disclosures, but that same law costs dollars per customer for a small regional restaurant. Government is now picking winners and losers in the economy, and that worries me.
My "liberal" and "progressive" colleagues have an odd distrust of government, while believing the "right people" can somehow magically, centrally, plan a better society. The contradiction is lost on many progressives. Central planning never has and never will work as intended. In large organizations, including the massive government, the workers start to argue they have no responsibility, no connection to the decisions made at the center of power. "Just following procedure" isn't far from "Just following orders" in my mind.
Planning gone bad in business is, eventually, punished by stockholders and the free market in our system. Bad planning by government? They simply redefine the desired results. Government gone bad isn't easy to correct, which is why I'd rather have government do as little as necessary. I'm willing to debate what is necessary, but I'm not willing to expand the role of government to meet desires — it should only deal with needs.
Adam Smith believed in the rule of law, the legal process, and a sense of common good. He was not, contrary to some mythology, a radical laissez-faire capitalist. He believed you needed a sense of social responsibility for capitalism to succeed. We've lost that sense of responsibility for the most ironic of reasons: government involvement in "helping" everyone. On the left, there is a sense that we can and should let government deal with serious social ills. On the right, a resentment of government starts to sound foolish, as problems are now too large for many local charities to address.
Government has "freed us" of personal responsibility for our neighbors, killing what Smith and later free-market economists considered an essential safety net to compensate for the competitive nature of capitalism. A sad result, since government has demonstrated it cannot end poverty, improve education from afar, or effectively regulate risky behaviors.
In current parlance, I'm a pragmatic libertarian, not a laissez-faire purist committed to the temple of Ayn Rand — someone I consider as much an intellectual moron and lousy human as Karl Marx was. It is sad that the left can point to Rand's private life as "evidence" of her flaws, but they don't admit the human flaws and idiotic ideas of the progressives past.
I reject where some ill-conceived "progressive ideals" have taken us in the past. The belief that the smart people can engineer a better tomorrow if we simply let the think tanks and brilliant bureaucrats set policy is demonstrably flawed. Some examples of "progressive ideas" gone wrong include eugenics, prohibition, farm market orders, price controls, and even early support for Mussolini and Lenin. I don't know how anyone can read a complete biography of Woodrow Wilson and not rethink the progressive movement's origins.
Prohibition backfired, a progressive idea to improve the health of the nation. Recent mandates to post calorie counts on menus? They've also backfired according to several studies: people consume more and less healthy foods in cities with calorie posting laws. There are clearly limits to how useful government "help" can be when it comes to our personal lives. The "war on drugs" proves this, too. It has definitely backfired, while providing a lot of jobs in law enforcement and corrections.
You can't be a libertarian, though. Not in academia. Suggest reading Liberal Fascism and you'll be ridiculed by the "open minded" university elites. I know, because I've made the mistake of asserting there were and are intellectually grounded conservative and libertarian writers. William F. Buckley, Jr., William Safire, Victor Davis Hanson, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman should all be considered intellectually worthy by academics, regardless of viewpoint. For the "masses" I would add P.J. O'Rourke and John Stossel. Caricaturing conservatives and libertarians is intellectually lazy — and common in academic circles.
This weekend, I attended an academic conference at which the speakers mentioned Cornel West, Saul Alinsky, and John Dewey. They talked about "progressive ideals" and education, focused more on political activism than actually teaching students more effectively. But, dare to ask why they are so focused on politics instead of actual pedagogy and you will be told, as I was, that it is our duty to help students think clearly. What these academics really mean is that "good" thinkers, the best students, will graduate with homogeneous political views: those of the progressives.
Marx wrote that not all workers were worth the same, but his personal elitism is an inconvenient truth. Plus, he thought academics and scholars were among the more valuable people, so I suppose that makes his views acceptable in academic circles. Chomsky has established a multi-million dollar trust to avoid taxes and protect his fortune. Michael Moore runs a non-union film set, famously denying health coverage to employees at one point. The heros of progressivism are no better (or worse) than any other men and women, which is precisely why I reject the notion "better minds" can plan something better.
Instead, they will simply create something that puts them in charge and gives them the perks of power.
I've had a colleague state that if I were really smart, I'd realize why "we" should be in charge. I am smart — and I know that such elitism is precisely why "we" shouldn't be trusted with power. Academic elites on the left imagine themselves wiser and better than other Americans. We don't trust voters, except when they vote the way we desire, after all we are the smartest men and women.
When I sit among faculty, I'm accustomed to hearing insults against "rednecks" and "Nascar morons." I've heard insults against religious blue-collar workers. I've listened silently while elite faculty, those with tenure and standing, explain how dumb the parents of students are and how we have to "correct" how students were raised by their families. Too often, I sit in conference audiences listening to presenters complain about capitalism and wealth, without for a moment recognizing the big private universities where they are coddled were founded by and continue to be supported by wealthy donors.
To avoid conflict, I try to avoid being considered part of the unwashed masses, part of the rabble without intelligence. I know how vile some people can be when they learn I've owned businesses and don't consider making money a bad thing. Of course, most professors I know want to be paid more and believe they should also receive merit pay and other incentives. They are capitalists in denial, but they'll tell you that they are merely seeking fair compensation for their special skills. They are nothing like those corporate types!
I am not a progressive. I am not a modern liberal. In my profession — within my specific discipline — I am surrounded by a politically correct little club of elites. I can only express views that reflect their values, or I risk being ostracized.
Someone will surely ask what about this blog. I don't know. I'm sure someone in academia will find it and decide I don't belong at a university. With my views, only a limited number of university departments are likely to embrace me as an equal among faculty members.
A friend has suggested I belong in a business school. Maybe that is the final destination. I do not know. I am wondering how to be true to myself while somehow surviving inside the Ivory Towers.
I'm a free-market capitalist, vehemently opposed to both crony capitalism and overzealous central planning. We have allowed the elite to control both government and commerce, strangling the true free market. Big companies get the regulations they want, while pretending to oppose them. It costs pennies per customer for McDonald's to comply with laws regulating nutritional disclosures, but that same law costs dollars per customer for a small regional restaurant. Government is now picking winners and losers in the economy, and that worries me.
My "liberal" and "progressive" colleagues have an odd distrust of government, while believing the "right people" can somehow magically, centrally, plan a better society. The contradiction is lost on many progressives. Central planning never has and never will work as intended. In large organizations, including the massive government, the workers start to argue they have no responsibility, no connection to the decisions made at the center of power. "Just following procedure" isn't far from "Just following orders" in my mind.
Planning gone bad in business is, eventually, punished by stockholders and the free market in our system. Bad planning by government? They simply redefine the desired results. Government gone bad isn't easy to correct, which is why I'd rather have government do as little as necessary. I'm willing to debate what is necessary, but I'm not willing to expand the role of government to meet desires — it should only deal with needs.
Adam Smith believed in the rule of law, the legal process, and a sense of common good. He was not, contrary to some mythology, a radical laissez-faire capitalist. He believed you needed a sense of social responsibility for capitalism to succeed. We've lost that sense of responsibility for the most ironic of reasons: government involvement in "helping" everyone. On the left, there is a sense that we can and should let government deal with serious social ills. On the right, a resentment of government starts to sound foolish, as problems are now too large for many local charities to address.
Government has "freed us" of personal responsibility for our neighbors, killing what Smith and later free-market economists considered an essential safety net to compensate for the competitive nature of capitalism. A sad result, since government has demonstrated it cannot end poverty, improve education from afar, or effectively regulate risky behaviors.
In current parlance, I'm a pragmatic libertarian, not a laissez-faire purist committed to the temple of Ayn Rand — someone I consider as much an intellectual moron and lousy human as Karl Marx was. It is sad that the left can point to Rand's private life as "evidence" of her flaws, but they don't admit the human flaws and idiotic ideas of the progressives past.
I reject where some ill-conceived "progressive ideals" have taken us in the past. The belief that the smart people can engineer a better tomorrow if we simply let the think tanks and brilliant bureaucrats set policy is demonstrably flawed. Some examples of "progressive ideas" gone wrong include eugenics, prohibition, farm market orders, price controls, and even early support for Mussolini and Lenin. I don't know how anyone can read a complete biography of Woodrow Wilson and not rethink the progressive movement's origins.
Prohibition backfired, a progressive idea to improve the health of the nation. Recent mandates to post calorie counts on menus? They've also backfired according to several studies: people consume more and less healthy foods in cities with calorie posting laws. There are clearly limits to how useful government "help" can be when it comes to our personal lives. The "war on drugs" proves this, too. It has definitely backfired, while providing a lot of jobs in law enforcement and corrections.
You can't be a libertarian, though. Not in academia. Suggest reading Liberal Fascism and you'll be ridiculed by the "open minded" university elites. I know, because I've made the mistake of asserting there were and are intellectually grounded conservative and libertarian writers. William F. Buckley, Jr., William Safire, Victor Davis Hanson, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman should all be considered intellectually worthy by academics, regardless of viewpoint. For the "masses" I would add P.J. O'Rourke and John Stossel. Caricaturing conservatives and libertarians is intellectually lazy — and common in academic circles.
This weekend, I attended an academic conference at which the speakers mentioned Cornel West, Saul Alinsky, and John Dewey. They talked about "progressive ideals" and education, focused more on political activism than actually teaching students more effectively. But, dare to ask why they are so focused on politics instead of actual pedagogy and you will be told, as I was, that it is our duty to help students think clearly. What these academics really mean is that "good" thinkers, the best students, will graduate with homogeneous political views: those of the progressives.
Marx wrote that not all workers were worth the same, but his personal elitism is an inconvenient truth. Plus, he thought academics and scholars were among the more valuable people, so I suppose that makes his views acceptable in academic circles. Chomsky has established a multi-million dollar trust to avoid taxes and protect his fortune. Michael Moore runs a non-union film set, famously denying health coverage to employees at one point. The heros of progressivism are no better (or worse) than any other men and women, which is precisely why I reject the notion "better minds" can plan something better.
Instead, they will simply create something that puts them in charge and gives them the perks of power.
I've had a colleague state that if I were really smart, I'd realize why "we" should be in charge. I am smart — and I know that such elitism is precisely why "we" shouldn't be trusted with power. Academic elites on the left imagine themselves wiser and better than other Americans. We don't trust voters, except when they vote the way we desire, after all we are the smartest men and women.
When I sit among faculty, I'm accustomed to hearing insults against "rednecks" and "Nascar morons." I've heard insults against religious blue-collar workers. I've listened silently while elite faculty, those with tenure and standing, explain how dumb the parents of students are and how we have to "correct" how students were raised by their families. Too often, I sit in conference audiences listening to presenters complain about capitalism and wealth, without for a moment recognizing the big private universities where they are coddled were founded by and continue to be supported by wealthy donors.
To avoid conflict, I try to avoid being considered part of the unwashed masses, part of the rabble without intelligence. I know how vile some people can be when they learn I've owned businesses and don't consider making money a bad thing. Of course, most professors I know want to be paid more and believe they should also receive merit pay and other incentives. They are capitalists in denial, but they'll tell you that they are merely seeking fair compensation for their special skills. They are nothing like those corporate types!
I am not a progressive. I am not a modern liberal. In my profession — within my specific discipline — I am surrounded by a politically correct little club of elites. I can only express views that reflect their values, or I risk being ostracized.
Someone will surely ask what about this blog. I don't know. I'm sure someone in academia will find it and decide I don't belong at a university. With my views, only a limited number of university departments are likely to embrace me as an equal among faculty members.
A friend has suggested I belong in a business school. Maybe that is the final destination. I do not know. I am wondering how to be true to myself while somehow surviving inside the Ivory Towers.
Comments
Post a Comment