Odd
He’s right you know, Krugman is.
But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?…In the 1970’s, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the “party of ideas.” Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the “party of theocracy.”…Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that – like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states – would give students who think that their conservative views aren’t respected the right to sue their professors…His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact. In its April Fools’ Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution…saying that “as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.”…Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that “the jury is still out.”…Think of the message this sends: today’s Republican Party – increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research – doesn’t respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn’t be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.
This is something that puzzles me, actually. I’m puzzled that there isn’t more resistance to it from Republicans. I realize there is some, but I’m puzzled that there isn’t more – that there isn’t so much that it’s effective. After all, at least two large branches of conservatism – the libertarian branch and the country club branch – tend to have a lot of time for meritocracy, education, science, rationality, and the like. They’re kind of basic to capitalism, for one thing, and capitalism is sort of a conservative thing, at least in the US. Not classically conservative, but how many classical conservatives are there in the US? Six? Seven? Everybody else is all for creative destruction. So the death-grip that the Bible-bashers have on the party of the free market and competitiveness is…a source of a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. Maybe it’s just that Bible-bashing seems to win elections, so most Republicans don’t want to mess with it. Well, except when even they get fed up, as Shays apparently did. Party of theocracy indeed.
It is important to realize that the intellectual wing of the Republican party machine is a wholly owned subsidiary, completely and totally a political tool that is first and foremost about power, and only secondarily (or tertially, or lastly) about principle. The Cato Institute will never produce a white paper showing the complete ludicrousness of faith-based initiatives, although it violates every libertarian conservative principle they officially endorse. The American Heritage Institute will never acknowledge the unconstitutionality of the current war against the separation of powers, the separation of church and state, even though any truly “conservative” organization would surely respect the core ideas and ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Republican intellectuals are whores of the worst sort, period. There isn’t a single drop of integrity (intellectual or otherwise) in the whole lot.
Hmm. ‘Reason’ is an exception though, isn’t it? It’s far too right-wing for my taste, which is why I seldom read it, but it does defend – well, reason.
Or maybe it’s not an exception, maybe Cato is part of the intellectual wing of the RP while ‘Reason’ is not. I’m not up on my institutional affiliations, here.
G,
I can see you are impassioned about this, but by the bowels of [insert your favorite religious figure] think that you might be wrong. (Actually I thought that most of the academic scandals involving integrity issues have involved people identified with the left.)
Upon reflection do you think that maybe you might put some qualifications into what you say? Are you trying to tell us that there is nothing a person with integrity can say in favor of personal autonomy, or individual rights, or traditional value systems, or capitalism, or national sovereignty?
If you want to get more specific, do you think there are any arguments a person with integrity could make that perhaps we are overregulated in some ways, or that tax cuts foster economic growth, or that quotas represent a misapplication of the civil rights laws, or that the Kyoto treaty would be ill advised, or that national health care leads to worse health care than we have now, or that our security cannot be trusted to the United Nations?
Personally I think reasonable arguments could be made. on these issues You may disagree. But you can’t assume they can’t just because two think tanks haven’t gotten involved with issues that appear to be important to you,.
‘Reason’ just hides its orthodoxy a bit better. Check out ‘Hit and Run’ – whenever Ehrlich is mentioned, the commenters fall over themselves in calling for the complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism, er, environmentalism.
The left seized the universities, to the point of creating pure on-campus political movements masquerading as scholarly disciplines (anything that ends in “studies”) after the student rebellions in the late sixties. Research that somehow offends left-wing orthodoxy has pretty much been driven from campus (You can ask Mr. Summers about this phenomenon…), with the exception of Econ departments, which are now designated refuges for conservatives. All in all, it’s a nice accomplishment for the Movement.
Still, Universities are now among the primary bastions of left-wing power, and as such prime targets for any Republican or Conservative grouping worth their salt. In short, there is no need to feign puzzlement at the Republican assault on higher education. There is no conflict of interest inside the conservative movement on this issue – the Campus is a common foe.
Krugman does have a point in that the “hard-science” Profs have probably turned against the right to some degree because of the religious right. On the other hand, when working in a far-left environment such as a University campus, the path of least resistance for non-ideological people is to join the herd. Why stick out and risk being hammered back in?
Finally, a few comments on G’s post:
“It is important to realize that the intellectual wing of the Republican party machine is a wholly owned subsidiary”
You mean unlike the completely independent intellectual wing of the Democratic party machine?
“The Cato Institute will never produce a white paper showing the complete ludicrousness of faith-based initiatives
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp62.pdf
“The American Heritage Institute will never acknowledge the unconstitutionality of the current war against the separation of powers, the separation of church and state, even though any truly “conservative” organization would surely respect the core ideas and ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
Yea, they should be protecting core constitutional freedoms like mandatory, unlimited abortion rights and government services for illegal immigrants. Or whatever Democrats say that our “living breathing constitution” really says.
Just couldn’t resist:
“Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the “party of theocracy”.”
“Today, even Democrats like Senator Zell Miller concede that it has become the “party of hippie traitors”.”
“mandatory, unlimited abortion rights”
Excuse me? What would those be?
“Excuse me? What would those be?”
Mandatory in the sense that all states have to grant abortion rights. Unlimited in the sense that most of the restrictions imposed by, say, most European countries are deemed ‘unconstitutional’.
Sheer Humpty-Dumptyism. That’s simply a redefinition of ‘mandatory,’ and quite a tendentious one.
“Sheer Humpty-Dumptyism. That’s simply a redefinition of ‘mandatory,’ and quite a tendentious one.”
Did you think I meant mandatory termination of all pregnancies? That interpretation fails any test of reasonableness. And yes, it is mandatory for all states to provide full abortion rights, regardless of what the population thinks. Because it’s in the constitution you see.
“
As for qualifications… one does not qualify a rant. One rants. “
True, true. People need to let off steam sometimes.
“I sit corrected: The Cato Institute did speak out against faith-based funding once, early in W’s reign.”
That’s just the first paper that popped up when I did a quick search. I’m sure there’s more if you look.
“Are we indeed overregulated in *some* ways? Certainly. But when the solutions offered equate to deregulating industry to free them from any obligation whatsoever to avoid poisoning the commons, these solutions are argued with integrity – or offered by persons of integrity.”
Curious – who is arguing for “deregulating industry to free them from any obligation whatsoever to avoid poisoning the commons”? Just curious.
“And so forth and so on.”
I can only conclude that you get your checks from George Soros.
Dobeln, I didn’t know what you meant, which is why I asked. But ‘mandatory rights’ is not a usual locution for what you appear to be talking about. You are using it as a pejorative, are you not? If not, what is your point? If so, are you opposed to the concept of rights? If so, why?
Perhaps you admire Chief Justice Taney’s famous sentence in the Dred Scott decision – “the black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect”? Perhaps you think it would be all the better if more universal? “No human has any rights which any other human is bound to respect”? A war of all against all would be to your liking?
Maybe not; maybe I’m misunderstanding you; but you’re not Making yourself entirely clear.
“Dobeln, I didn’t know what you meant, which is why I asked.”
Which is fair enough – hope it’s sorted out now.
“But ‘mandatory rights’ is not a usual locution for what you appear to be talking about.”
Perhaps not – but what I am getting at is the fact that the Supremes decided to bypass both state and federal ballot boxes on the issue of Abortion, for little good reason. Which definately made abortion rights mandatory, regardless of what the rubes out there (“the people”) think.
“You are using it as a pejorative, are you not? “
Well, yes – for the reasons stated above. (We had this discussion already once though.)
“If so, are you opposed to the concept of rights? If so, why?”
No – rights are a very useful concept. But that one accepts the concept of rights does not mean tht one must also agree that abortion rights are federally mandated by the US constitution. (You do realize that almost any policy can be framed as a “right”, btw?)
“Perhaps you admire Chief Justice Taney’s famous sentence in the Dred Scott decision – “the black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect”?”
a) This is another piece of Supreme Court jurisprudence that I have a beef with.
b) And did you really expect me to agree with Dred Scott? Or to completely deny the usefulness of rights as a concept? The test of reasonableness is handy when answering those kinds of questions.
“A war of all against all would be to your liking?”
Please.
“Maybe not; maybe I’m misunderstanding you”
Trust me, you are. My beef is with the left:
a) Introducing new, cool consitutional rights by the bucket load via the courts, in order to bypass that pesky “democracy” thing. (And justifying it by creating the doctrine of “The living breathing constitution”)
only to
b) …then go on and on about how bloody sacred the constitution is, and how Chimpy is trampling it when it suits them.
Oh, okay, I see what you’re talking about now. I remember the earlier discussion, but I still wasn’t sure what you meant. I think ‘mandatory rights’ is an unhelpful phrase, because it does – especially in the case of abortion – sound like a right that people are being forced to exercise, which of course is nonsense. That’s not what you meant, but the phrase sounds like that. It’s not idiomatic, perhaps is all I mean.
I didn’t really expect you to admire the Dred Scott decision, no, but I also really wasn’t sure what you did mean.
“(You do realize that almost any policy can be framed as a “right”, btw?)”
Yes. In fact I did a series of N&Cs a longish time ago – maybe as long as two years ago – pointing out that rights don’t actually exist, that they’re a useful social contract kind of thing, as opposed to a fact about the world. I got some heat for that – but I would say it again. And I do find myself rolling my eyes when people announce non-existent ‘rights’ that they think they have. The ‘right’ to have children is an interesting one – meaning that the world owes them fertility treatments if they have trouble. Hmmm.
I would point out, however, that the left doesn’t hold a monopoly on that kind of having it both ways. To say the least.
And I definitely think democracy needs to be second-guessed sometimes. If it were put to a vote, the public schools would all be mandated to teach ID – or perhaps just plain Genesis itself. Separation of church and state is not popular. I don’t care. But then I’m not having it both ways: I’m no fan of direct democracy.
“Oh, okay, I see what you’re talking about now. I remember the earlier discussion, but I still wasn’t sure what you meant. I think ‘mandatory rights’ is an unhelpful phrase, because it does – especially in the case of abortion – sound like a right that people are being forced to exercise, which of course is nonsense.”
True – perhaps the use of “mandatory” was a bit edgy. Still, what I wanted to get across was the near-complete bypass of the political process, by declaring a constitutional right that I – you’ll just have to excuse me here – just can’t accept is in the constitution.
“I didn’t really expect you to admire the Dred Scott decision, no, but I also really wasn’t sure what you did mean.”
Fair enough, but the “So perhaps you like Dred Scott too, eh?” thing when discussing constitutional law has a lot of the same ring as “So you think Hitler was a nice chap, eh?” when discussing history.
“pointing out that rights don’t actually exist, that they’re a useful social contract kind of thing, as opposed to a fact about the world.”
True, true – even though one shouldn’t fall into the trap of being dismissive regaring “social constructs” (“not real” does sound a bit dismissive, imho) – They are the most valuable constructs we have.
And just because they exist in our brains doesn’t make them unreal – the brain is just as physical as, say, Sears Towers. (A somewhat larger construct)
“I would point out, however, that the left doesn’t hold a monopoly on that kind of having it both ways. To say the least.”
True, true – especially with regards to the current administration. Whatever guiding principle they are following, I have yet to find it. But I do think they are more likely to send strict constructionists to the bench, which is good in my view.
“And I definitely think democracy needs to be second-guessed sometimes. If it were put to a vote, the public schools would all be mandated to teach ID – or perhaps just plain Genesis itself.”
Perhaps in some states, but most likely not in most. There is probably a stronger case to be made for the constitutional grounds for SCaS though, even if the doctrine has most likely been expanded far beyond the original intent.
“But then I’m not having it both ways: I’m no fan of direct democracy”
I am, to a somewhat larger degree. (Note that this means that “my side” gets kicked around regularly, so self-serving bias is not what has determined my stance on the issue, I hope.)*
Regards, Döbeln
PS.
* I live in Sweden
DS.
“the “So perhaps you like Dred Scott too, eh?” thing when discussing constitutional law has a lot of the same ring as “So you think Hitler was a nice chap, eh?” when discussing history.”
Yeah, true. Beg pardon. I did think you were saying something far wackier than you were, but all the same, you’re right.
“one shouldn’t fall into the trap of being dismissive regaring “social constructs”
No no! Social contract, not construct! You know, Rousseau, that kind of thing. I’m not being in the least dismissive. I am all for social contracts – such as human rights. My point was just to remind people that we have to do the contracting; we can’t find rights in nature. Ask any rabbit just as the wolf’s jaw closes.
Oh, Sweden. I thought Germany, because of the umlaut. But of course there are umlauts in Sweden too, aren’t there. Another social construct…
It always seems odd to me when people say things like ‘the left seized the Universities’, as if ‘the left’ were some sort of unified acting front led by three wizened Elders of Zion.
Perhaps, just perhaps, people who work for Universities, you know, the sort of people who believe in the power of education, knowledge, and the teaching of it, and who have, at some point, in some way, decided academics were more important than bigger paychecks, might just have a tendency to be ‘liberal’? Is it possible that being highly educated makes you predisposed to the enlightenment? That scientists just might side, regardless of party, with the one that doesn’t refute certain theories at every turn?
I mean, why would any serious modern Republican have any interest in University life? For the small pay? The lack of respect? A profound desire to instill the precepts of critical thinking in students?
It seems to me that the only attraction here is the forming of new voters, and, of course, that there is no where else left to conquer.
MP
Yee-ha and halleluiah, Mark!