By David French
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Last winter, when the Republican presidential primary was
in full swing, I had a late-night dinner with a campus minister who was working
with students at an Ivy League school. Describing the college climate, he said,
“Everything’s about race now. Two years ago it was sexuality, then came the Obergefell decision, and they decided
they won. Now it’s race. The four-hour conversations students used to have
about heteronormativity, now they have them about white supremacy.”
I thought of that conversation when I read Columbia
University professor Mark Lilla’s long and anguished post-election essay in the
New York Times, calling on his fellow
liberals to abandon the extremist identity politics of the academic progressive
movement. “American liberalism,” he said, “has slipped into a kind of moral panic
about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s
message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.”
Indeed it has. For his trouble, one of Lilla’s own
colleagues compared him to David Duke and accused him of “making white
supremacy respectable again.” Other leftists have compared Trump voters to
lynch mobs, and the other day a Slate
writer declared that 2016 was the year when white liberals could finally see
“our unjust, racist, sexist country for what it is.”
Remember the patriotic explosion at the Democratic
National Convention? Remember the defiant declarations that America was already
great? That was before. That was when the Left thought it had won. Now the new
Left is back to being the old Left, and to the old Left, America was never
great.
It’s hard to overemphasize the importance of academic
leftism to Democratic discourse. Academic leftism seeps into progressive
corporations, it dominates leftist writing, and it inevitably merges with pop
culture. What starts on campus moves to television, to music, to books, and to
law with astonishing speed.
And academic leftism has become extraordinarily poisonous
and extraordinarily ignorant. As Lilla put it in an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, it has
lost its sense of proportion. “Our campuses are not Aleppo,” he says, and there
is a reason why “people use the word ‘academic’ not to mean scholarly, but to
mean totally detached from reality.”
But don’t tell that to radical students and their radical
teachers. At every turn professors and administrators are whispering in the
ears of black and brown students, telling them, “Your country hates you. Your
country has always hated you.” At every turn it whispers in the ears of its
LGBT students, “Your nation hates you. Christians hate you.” It tells white
students, “You’re despicable, and you’ll remain despicable unless you ally with
us, unless you join our crusade.”
It’s impossible to converse with this form of leftism.
Denials of racism are proof of racism. Even your “unconscious” self is guilty
of bigotry. Disagreement is oppression.
There will always be radicals among us, but they don’t
have to be so powerful. They don’t have to carry so much cultural and
intellectual weight within the much larger and more moderate mainstream liberal
public, and to that public I have a simple New Year’s plea.
Learn more. Understand that while we all live in our
bubbles, your bubble’s walls are stronger and thicker than most. Do you realize
that your urban strongholds are often less politically diverse than an
Evangelical church? White Evangelicals gave 81 percent of their vote to Donald
Trump. Fully 86 percent of Manhattan residents voted for Hillary Clinton.
Conservatives who send their kids to public school, listen to pop music, or go
to the movies imbibe liberal values and ideas. When do you ever hear
conservatives speak?
New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt
has found that while moderates and conservatives could better understand how
the “typical liberal” thinks, liberals
struggled to accurately explain conservative values. And those who
identified themselves as “very liberal” struggled most of all. This is
dangerous. It yields misunderstandings at best and hatred at worse. It damages
the social fabric of a nation.
Only if you live in the bubble do you believe that
“racism” or “sexism” is a sufficient explanation for Donald Trump’s victory.
Only if you eat and sleep identity politics do you think that the best answer
to Trump is more racial mobilization and a greater sense of outrage. Can you
call Trump something worse than fascist? Can you call his supporters something
worse than racist?
During my own time living in liberal enclaves in
Cambridge, Ithaca, Manhattan, and Philadelphia, I marveled at my peers’
educated ignorance. They read voraciously yet seemed to know so little about
their own nation. Their history was as selective as they believed mine to be.
Their knowledge was narrow. And within that narrow frame of reference, their
choices and beliefs were entirely logical and eminently reasonable.
They needed to change their frame of reference. That’s
the hope. Not for harmony, not for unity, but instead for something far more
modest — a little bit of knowledge. After all, we know more about you than you
know about us, and if there is one thing I know about my liberal friends, they
don’t like to be the least educated people in the room.
No comments:
Post a Comment