The Closing of the Liberal Mind - a book review
In 2014 students and faculty at Rutgers University protested the planned commencement address from Condoleezza Rice. The protesters claimed that the first black woman to serve as secretary of state, national security adviser and Stanford University provost was an unsuitable speaker because of her association with the administration of George W. Bush. In the collective mind of the campus left, Ms. Rice was, at best, an enabler of a serial warmonger. In the end she bowed out, writing, commencement should be a time of joyous celebration and the schools invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.
Two years later not even Democratic female secretaries of state are considered speech-worthy. Students and professors at Scripps College, an all-female liberal-arts school in Claremont, Calif., protested the selection of Bill Clintons secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, to deliver this years address. The liberal feminist icon is, according to the protesters, a war criminal and a genocide enabler. Some 28 professors signed a letter saying they wouldnt attend the ceremony. To her credit, Ms. Albright didnt bow to the pressure. People have a right to state their views, she said. I also think they have a duty to listen to people that they might disagree with.
(snip)
How did liberals become so hopelessly illiberal? In The Closing of the Liberal Mind, Kim R. Holmes suggests that the loss of historical memory as to what liberalism was is actually a key to understanding what it is today. Mr. Holmes does an admirable job of reminding readers of that intellectual history, drawing a line from the political philosophy of John Stuart Mill to the original progressive spirit of Herbert Croly and Woodrow Wilson to the Third Way liberalism of John Rawls and Bill Clinton that synthesized Wilsonian progressivism with Mills classical liberalism. This tradition is communitarian, pluralistic, rational and universal. It idealizes freedom of thought and speech, distrusts institutional power, and believes in the goodness of humanity.
Todays postmodern progressives have only superficial similarities with these liberal forebears. They are more accurately the descendants of radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison; radical egalitarians, like the utopian socialist communities of the 19th century; and egalitarian anarchists like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker. Like those radicals, postmodern progressives sanction the use of coercive methods, either through legal means or public shaming rituals, to deny certain people their rights and civil liberties . . . in ways that undermine American democracy and the rule of law.
Perhaps the fundamental difference between yesterdays liberals and todays postmodern progressives is each sides conception of truth. Liberals believe truth is external and can be determined through reason. A good liberal uses his reason to achieve justice and equality for all. But postmodern progressives are moral relativists. For them, truth is internal, discerned by and specific to particular individuals. Today a good progressive defends the individuals internal truthparticularly if the person is an oppressed minorityagainst all foes, including reason. Small wonder that the postmodern left has turned on its own.
(snip)
Look no further than the effort to gain power over language and debate on college campuses, through concepts like microagressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces, which police the expression of ideas. This is done in the name of inclusiveness and diversity, but in reality its a demonstration of power over those who think differently.
(snip)
Mr. Holmes is a conservative, and while he clearly takes the withering of true liberalism seriously, more effective critiques of the lefts illiberalism will need to come from liberals themselves. Theres some good news on this front. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivered a blistering critique of safe spaces in his recent University of Michigan commencement speech. President Barack Obama, who has warned that political correctness is a recipe for dogmatism, blasted the Condoleezza Rice protests at Rutgers during his commencement address this month at the school. Ms. Albright in her speech at Scripps challenged the protesters to use our opinions to start discussions, not to end them. The door of the liberal mind may reopen again.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/progressivisms-macroaggressions-1463950160
struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Might as well say you must indulge the stupid, demonstrably failed, and/or wicked or you're not really liberal.
Oh yeah? Well...fucking sue me label infringement and kiss my ass while you call a lawyer.
question everything
(47,470 posts)I disagree with the behavior in many colleges. One is supposed to learn how to open one's mind while in college, but in the past years, students, and faculty, refused to listen to opposing views. Views that could lead to "teaching moments" where students would be given the chances, in the classroom, to explain why they disagree in a mature, civilized, way.
And, if you'd bothered to read the last paragraph, you'd learn that Obama agree with the opinion expressed in the opinion.
Bucky
(53,997 posts)I thought his speech was a perfect blend of banality and horseshit, the line I remember was his joy at the idea that neither Iran nor Iraq were winning their prolonged war against each other. The thousands of dead troops didn't enter the discussion. It gave me insight into the "board game" mentality of strategic thinkers.
As an older person today (I'm 52) I share the opinion that the students who don't want neoconservative intellectuals speaking at their schools are being petulant. I want to hear all sides of the issues. That is what liberalism is about--being open. I want them whippersnappers to shut up, open up, think more deliberatively, and get off my lawn.
Unfortunately, it's not quite all that simple. Schools don't just have Henry Kissinger or Condoleezza Rice come over for a speech and a follow up chat at the Honors College. Universities pay for these big thinkers to come and share their big insights. They don't pay reasonable speaker fees plus expenses and a per diem so that Madeleine can hit the IHOP on her way to the airport in the morning. They get hefty honoraria. Schools that struggle to pay grad assistant TAs less than minimum wage are shelling out big bucks for these retired SoS's to prattle out their thoughts.
Where's that money coming from? Corporate donations. It's not a conspiracy, but it is a system of beliefs that the power establishment's economic interests that are promoted by the distinguished alums of the US State Department need to see that the minds of the future are exposed to the ideas of that mainstream establishment. It's not collusion, but it is part of a system of understanding that when Foundation X, funded by the noblesse oblige of Corporation Y, grants millions of dollars to the University of Z, then the people honored and rewarded by UofZ's distinguished speaker series need to be people who share the world view and priorities of Corporation Y.
If the student body at UofZ feels alienated from that power structure, part of that disconnect is the result of that whole system not representing the values of the students. I still think they should listen to the distinguished speakers. But next, I think they should go out, raise hell, ask the powerful lots of uncomfortable questions, and demand that dissenting voices also get a slice of the honorarium pie.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I think like Scalia, he just hates his fellow humans.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Reaganomics which itself is less an ideology than an excuse to avoid taxes and transfer public spending to the pockets of the already qealthy.
romanic
(2,841 posts)This quote right here is especially a good one:
But postmodern progressives are moral relativists. For them, truth is internal, discerned by and specific to particular individuals. Today a good progressive defends the individuals internal truthparticularly if the person is an oppressed minorityagainst all foes, including reason. Small wonder that the postmodern left has turned on its own.
Today's "progressives" are the leftist-version of the right-wing moral police. They've become dogmatic and again, we've seen how parts of the left have turned on their own when they stray from the gospel of identity politics and academic newsspeak.