By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, September 19, 2019
One of these days, I will make a list of all the people
who have been right when they have told me: “You should know better.” There
will be a couple of priests, several editors, and at least one police officer
on that list, but I am afraid our friend George Leef must be excluded, at least
for the moment.
Leef, who does excellent work excoriating the failures
and excesses of American university life at the Martin Center, wrote yesterday
on the Corner: “Lots of people who should know better claim that our higher
education system is ‘the envy of the world,’ but it isn’t the best by a long
shot.” What’s needed, he writes, is . . . libertarianism. If we would only
implement that, Leef writes, then “we would get the optimal system.” I do not
know if he had me in mind when he wrote that, but given that I have used
exactly those words to describe our universities on many occasions, I’ll
deputize myself to respond, if only because the words “optimal system” always
give me the willies.
I am a libertarian myself, and a few years ago I wrote a book
about how many things (including education and health care) might be radically
improved by taking a more market-oriented, spontaneous-order approach to them.
The title of that book, “The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be Awesome,” refers
to the decline of the dominance (often monopoly dominance) of government-based
and politically managed programs at the most sensitive pressure points of
American life: education, health care, retirement, etc. The book also contains
a critique of lazy libertarianism of the sort Leef offers above, treating some variation
of “the free market will take care of it” or “private philanthropy will take
care of it” like the ultimate abracadabra. The free market will take care of
health care for the poor? Okay — what does that actually look like? It
is not that I do not think that we could — and should — radically improve
health care for everyone (providing an especial benefit to the poor in the
process) but I want something a good deal less vague than “Let markets work.”
Some libertarians are conservatives and some are not.
Some libertarians are utopians or quasi-utopians, who offer the same answer to
every question — laissez faire! — as though such a thing possibly could
be dispositive. What Leef offers is really a kind of variation of the familiar
progressive approach. He begins with a “study says” indictment (“A new study by
AEI scholars Jason Delisle and Preston Cooper looks at 35 nations’ higher ed
systems and concludes that no nation is ‘the best,’” he writes) and then
follows up with an ideologically satisfying promise: “If we (or any other
country) would take government out of higher education and allow the
spontaneous order of a free society to work, we would get the optimal system.”
For the ideologue, “take government out” is a
self-recommending policy. The conservative might take a different view, as I
do. There is a lot that is silly, meretricious, distasteful, and genuinely
destructive going on in American universities, especially at the second-rate
institutions and in second-rate programs. (The thing about second-rate schools
is, they’re second-rate.) But there also is much that is splendid, productive,
admirable — and, indeed, the envy of the world.
And if you do not believe that American universities are
the envy of the world, ask the world. The number of students from abroad who
travel to the United States to study dwarfs that of any other country: The
United Kingdom, whose top universities have for centuries attracted the best
and brightest, doesn’t have half the foreign students the United States does.
France has about a third the number; Germany, a quarter.
And top academics from around the world flock to American
campuses, too — for good reason. If you are among the world’s best in any
significant intellectual field, chances are excellent that an American
university is the place you want to be. For a rough indicator, consider which
universities have the most Nobel laureates associated with them. What do you
imagine that list looks like? The top ten includes the two British universities
you’d guess (Oxford and Cambridge) and eight U.S. universities: Harvard,
Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, Stanford, Cal Tech, and Princeton. You won’t
find a continental European university on the list until No. 13 (Humboldt) and
only four more in the top 20 (University of Paris, Göttingen, Munich,
Copenhagen). You won’t find a single Asian, African, South American, or Middle
Eastern university on the list.
Envy of the world? No question.
Libertarianism in action? No, not really. But we ought
not to let our ideological commitments blind us to the fact that these splendid
universities do a great many wonderful things that enrich our lives — and our
national life — in important ways. There is much to criticize about my alma
mater, the University of Texas. But
whatever it lavishes on Jim Allison’s work is money well spent.
Germany would love to have an MIT, a Berkeley, a
Stanford, or a Cal Tech of its own; having all four would be beyond its dreams.
(Yes, Berkeley comes with some hippies — life is full of tradeoffs, and that’s
a good one.) American educational excellence has consequences far beyond the
college campus: Quick, what’s the hot new technology startup in Germany?
(Don’t worry, I’ll wait.) What’s the big innovative Internet company in France?
In Italy? More than half of the world’s most valuable firms are domiciled in
the United States, according to PwC. China has twelve, the United Kingdom five,
Germany four, France four, Switzerland three. Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands,
and Denmark each have one. And Europe’s big companies are big, old-fashioned
conglomerates such as Unilever and Nestlé, while the United States has enjoyed
the growth and innovation of Apple, Facebook, Alphabet, and Microsoft.
That’s nothing to harrumph at.
Conservatism is, at its foundation, a creed of love — a
love of real things and people as they actually exist, defects and all, rather
than a longing after more-perfect glories promised by this or that theory. To
love is not to love blindly, but the conservative can only take the
world very much as he finds it.
Fallen as he is and imperfect as his works must be, we
love man for who and what he is, and so we abhor the inevitably inhumane
schemes to produce New Soviet Man, or whatever this year’s model of progressive
perfection is, because such programs of transformation are based on reducing
and mutilating man, suffocating his endless inventiveness, forcing conformity
and homogeneity upon him, and stamping out the infinite variety of his
communities.
This is not to be confused with a creed of sentimentality.
Conservatives, as Russell Kirk put it, “feel affection for the proliferating
intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as
distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of
radical systems.” (Harvard, founded 1636, is about as long-established a social
institution as this country has.) At the same time, Kirk writes, conservatives
understand that “to seek for utopia is to end in disaster. . . . The ideologues
who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of
the 20th-century world into a terrestrial hell.”
Libertarians can be utopians and ideologues, too. Theirs
may be a less destructive and bloody kind of utopianism than that of the
nationalists and socialists and national socialists, but it can cause them to
undervalue wonderful and productive institutions right here in the real world,
right here under our noses, while they dream of theoretical optima.
The United States is the world’s financial capital
(sorry, London), the world’s technology capital, and the world’s cultural
capital, but conservatives detest Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood,
along with the Ivy League and other elite universities, Broadway, publishing,
the media industry, the fashion industry, the architecture and design industry,
New York City, Los Angeles . . . Apparently, America’s dominant military
position and its world-beating oil-and-gas industry are the only commanding
heights to which conservatives believe it to be worth aspiring. There is
something wrong with that. “Make America Great Again, But Burn It All Down If
Mark Zuckerberg and the Chairman of the Princeton English Department Don’t
Share My Politics!” is a funny kind of way to look at the world.
There is much that is in need of reform on campus — and
in the church, in the state, and everywhere else in American life. But there
also is much that is wonderful, inspiring, and enriching. For that, we should
be grateful. A conservatism without gratitude and grace is not one worth
having.
No comments:
Post a Comment