I started writing this right after the debt ceiling debacle, so the beginning of this post is somewhat outdated. Still I decided to keep everything as it was written. Enjoy (or not).
So, the historic stand-off around the debt ceiling is
over and the sides started tending to the wounded and burying their dead, all while asking a traditional question:"whose fault is that?" Predictably, neither side of the political spectrum is satisfied with the results, while reaction of the liberal wing of the democratic party shows that they have much more corpses to bury than the conservatives. Their attitude toward the deal ranges from complete disgust to attempts to dismiss it as "smoke and mirrors". One ought to enjoy the
irony as one realizes that a big chunk of a recent article in New Yorker
written by a very liberal John Cassidy can be easily attributed to Michele
Bauchman. Anyway, no matter what democrats or more radical elements of the Tea Party say, the conservatives did score a victory if not in terms of actual budget cuts but in terms of redefining the national discourse.
At the same time, this debate has once again highlighted significant weaknesses in conservative movement, which are being happily exploited by liberals all over. In addition to being portrayed as angry, racist, undereducated, if not outright stupid, rednecks, the Tea Party adherents are routinely described as ruthless carrying about nothing terrorists. No matter how baseless all these accusations are, a sober observer must recognize that conservatives did supply enough ammunition to liberals to use against them. I myself, being a student of classical liberalism of Haeyk's
type have a long list of grievances against contemporary conservative political
movement. Apparently, I am not alone in my dissatisfaction as according to a
recent article in Politico, "conservative intelligencia" is not happy with any of potential republican candidates.
So, let me lay down a few issues, which I believe are hurting anti-liberal anti-socialist political movement in this country.
Let me begin with the issue of religion. Americans are religious people, but it does not necessarily mean that the majority of them are ready to embrace the idea that a particular brand of Christianity is essential to American success as a nation. To me the idea of defining USA as a "Christian nation" seems to be not just ounterproductive politically, but more importantly, false intellectually. Religions in general emphasize collectivist approach to life, and are, therefore much closer to
socialist ideas than to individualistic capitalist worldview, which used to be
the cornerstone of American psyche, and which Tea Party conservatives apparently want to restore. Still, there is no doubt that religion played an important role in development of American society, and this creates an impression of a direct link between Christian believes of American settlers and success of American capitalism. This link, however, is illusory. The unique nature of American religious experience stems from its protestant roots. Protestantism with its ideas of personal God and detachment from central papal authority is the least collectivist of all religions, and is, therefore, most conducive to capitalism. Protestantism, therefore, can be considered an important factor in American success only in the sense, that it did not stay in the way of capitalism as, for instance, Catholicism would have. Thus, I see no reasons, ideological or political, why the movement to restore creative force of capitalist enterprise in US should drive away people whose relationship with
God is much more complicated than that prescribed by the standards of
conservative evangelism. Also using adherence for a particular set of religious
views significantly decreases the pool of potential anti-socialist candidates
this country is so much needed.
Another big disappointment is a significant anti-academic and more general anti-intellectual bias of the conservative movement. I understand and share conservative's displeasure with usurpation by liberals of intellectual discourse on nation's campuses and in Academia in general. Way too often what is being passed for intellectualism has very little in common with genuine intellectually honest discussion. It is indeed intolerable that liberal art education has become in many instances an instrument of ideologically driven indoctrination and brain washing. Just a few weeks ago, I listened on NPR an interview with an author of the book on race. The woman was extremely upset with biologists whose work on human genome project indicated that there exist genetically identifiable differences between races. Because this finding contradicted her ideological convictions that the idea of race was invented by whites in order to suppress the rest of the world, she declared genetics to be in service of pharmaceutical corporations. This was really painful to hear since it resembled too much of Soviet's rhetoric of late fortieth of the last century. For those who do not know - at that time Soviet genetics was destroyed for being "a Servant of capitalists" with many geneticists imprisoned or killed. Unfortunately, this is not just a single example of one misguided person. It reflects the trend in social "sciences” to subjugate academic discourse to ideologically predetermined positions.
This, however, does not mean that conservative politicians must reject the very idea of academic discourse and alienate people in Academia who can be their natural allies. Plenty of faculty, especially in natural sciences and economics, support ideas of free market capitalism but are being driven away from conservative politics because of it real or perceived anti-intellectualism mixed with religiosity. This is not to say that conservative politicians and commentators are somehow intellectually inferior to their liberal counterparts. They are definitely not. But after listening to different conservative talks show hosts including celebrated and brilliant Rush
Limbaugh, I got an uneasy impression that they do not trust intellectual abilities of their listeners and dumb down their programs to cater to the level of intellectually lazy.
This lack of intellectual rigor is responsible for conservatives routinely losing the propaganda game to the liberals even on purely economic front, where conservatives are supposed to be at home. For instance, liberals are talking about Keynesian economics as though it is as established as the law of gravity. Anyone rejecting this notion is being branded as a lunatic. They make it look like the entire economics profession agrees about Keynes and his orthodoxy. This is not so, but I am yet to see a serious substantial discussion by conservative politicians and commentators of why Keynesian prescriptions rarely work in real life. I am sure that there are plenty of conservative bloggers and websites doing this, but the main stream conservative media and conservative political events definetely avoid getting involved in serious discussions of this topic. The same is true with regard to discussions of the role of government, social safety net, regulations: virtually
all aspects of public discourse. It seems that conservatives still live in the glory days of the end of the cold war, when socialism as idea seemed to be buried under the remnants of Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. They failed to realize that socialist ideals are very attractive for the public, and that these days socialism is associated not with horrors of Gulag but with free medicine and education of Denmark and Netherlands. Refusal to recognize achievements of European countries in creating social safety net for their public opens conservatives to charges of being deological dogmatists not able to reconcile their views with real world. More importantly, it prevents them from defending conservative economic views by providing detailed analysis of the European situation. It is not sufficient now to just label something as socialist or “big government” to have it dismissed as unacceptable. It is also not sufficient to simply point out to the Europe debt problems and dismiss the entire European experience as failed experiment. They actually have to do the hard work of explaining why they think that Hayek’s approach to economics is better than the one advocated by Keynesians. This is not an easy task as they have to overcome people’s tendency to get addicted to governmental handouts and act against what they may perceive as their self-interest. Liberal in this situation has a much easier task as it is not that difficult to convince people that it is a good thing to take money from those who have them and give it to them. And it is much more difficult to explain why such a policy would be disastrous first of all for those whom it is intended to help. However, if the leaders of conservative movements would not start doing it immediately, they will participate in undoing of this country. It might happen that Ayn Rand was correct once again, when she said that conservatives and not liberals would eventually destroy America.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Carnival on the Wall Street
I decided to present my response to Nathan's thoughts on the meaning of OWS protests as a separate post. Due to time restrains I would not be able to offer as well written exposition as those of Nathan's and Vladimir Davidenko's, thus I will limit myself to expressing a few poorly connected thoughts.
Let me begin my iterating once again that Vladimir's description of OWP (see link in Nathan's post to his piece written in Russian) as a carnival is amusingly exact. Indeed, masked people with painted faces and bodies demonstrating behavior, which would not normally be considered socially acceptable, ritualization of the process (drums, human "microphone", all have standard characteristics of purely ritualistic actions), and finally the activity, in which process is everything and goal is nothing.
While the view of the OWS protests as a carnival-like action is quite deep and insightful, the protest has also a different side to it. I would describe this other side as a raucous high school party that completely got out of hand in the absence of any meaningful adult supervision. Some adults neglected to pay attention to this party for way too long, while other adults played the role of the cheerleaders and encouraged this raucousness. As a result, the kids imagined that they actually have something smart to say, something that only they can see or have audacity to express. They started "making history". In reality, from what I have seen and heard, none of them have ever done anything productive in their lives, and I doubt that they are capable of it. This carnival will be over once adults wake up from lethargy and tell the kids that sleepover is over and everybody has to go home.
Anyone with unbiased attitude and some brains would see how ridiculous everything that is happening at this party is starting with their incoherent list of complaints and ending with their General Assembly meetings, which are the focal point of the whole action. Presumably, according to the interviews I heard, the process, by which this organ works, is the main goal of everything. They advocate for participatory rather than representative democracy, in which everything is decided by consensus.It invokes direct associations with socialist anarchism, as it was pointed out by one professor of economics at a reasonably respected University who worked for 40 (!) years developing economic model based on this idea. Should I spend more time on this, or it is clear that socialist anarchism can survive only in the make-believe world of stoned high school kids or their older reincarnations?
All this would be amusing if it were not so damaging to the country. The country has got some serious problems which require serious adult discussion. Attention paid to OWS folk actually distracts from this discussion substituting it with some childish games. Those politicians, who give credence to their "grievances" and call them legitimate and deserving serious consideration, are consciously engaged in dangerous populism to frame the discussion of the country's problems in terms most acceptable to them politically. This simply delays finding real solutions making situation much worse. All this agitation against banks, corporations and their CEOs does not offer any constructive solutions unless, of course, you think that destroying corporations as a form of business organization, imposing regulations on compensation structure of private businesses, and massive wealth redistribution via forceful expropriation, is the solution. As far as I know these are the only ideas consistent with the views exposed by majority of protesters.
And on the top of all this, the folk at this protest are simply disgusting, at least the most of them, and I despise them. They descended on my City, which I love, uninvited, as foreign occupiers, and desecrated it with their filth, and litter. They do not understand New York, they do not understand this country, they do not represent anyone whom I know, including you, Nathan. You, unlike them, studied and worked all your life and paid your bills, and did not ask anyone to forgive your debts.
Let me begin my iterating once again that Vladimir's description of OWP (see link in Nathan's post to his piece written in Russian) as a carnival is amusingly exact. Indeed, masked people with painted faces and bodies demonstrating behavior, which would not normally be considered socially acceptable, ritualization of the process (drums, human "microphone", all have standard characteristics of purely ritualistic actions), and finally the activity, in which process is everything and goal is nothing.
While the view of the OWS protests as a carnival-like action is quite deep and insightful, the protest has also a different side to it. I would describe this other side as a raucous high school party that completely got out of hand in the absence of any meaningful adult supervision. Some adults neglected to pay attention to this party for way too long, while other adults played the role of the cheerleaders and encouraged this raucousness. As a result, the kids imagined that they actually have something smart to say, something that only they can see or have audacity to express. They started "making history". In reality, from what I have seen and heard, none of them have ever done anything productive in their lives, and I doubt that they are capable of it. This carnival will be over once adults wake up from lethargy and tell the kids that sleepover is over and everybody has to go home.
Anyone with unbiased attitude and some brains would see how ridiculous everything that is happening at this party is starting with their incoherent list of complaints and ending with their General Assembly meetings, which are the focal point of the whole action. Presumably, according to the interviews I heard, the process, by which this organ works, is the main goal of everything. They advocate for participatory rather than representative democracy, in which everything is decided by consensus.It invokes direct associations with socialist anarchism, as it was pointed out by one professor of economics at a reasonably respected University who worked for 40 (!) years developing economic model based on this idea. Should I spend more time on this, or it is clear that socialist anarchism can survive only in the make-believe world of stoned high school kids or their older reincarnations?
All this would be amusing if it were not so damaging to the country. The country has got some serious problems which require serious adult discussion. Attention paid to OWS folk actually distracts from this discussion substituting it with some childish games. Those politicians, who give credence to their "grievances" and call them legitimate and deserving serious consideration, are consciously engaged in dangerous populism to frame the discussion of the country's problems in terms most acceptable to them politically. This simply delays finding real solutions making situation much worse. All this agitation against banks, corporations and their CEOs does not offer any constructive solutions unless, of course, you think that destroying corporations as a form of business organization, imposing regulations on compensation structure of private businesses, and massive wealth redistribution via forceful expropriation, is the solution. As far as I know these are the only ideas consistent with the views exposed by majority of protesters.
And on the top of all this, the folk at this protest are simply disgusting, at least the most of them, and I despise them. They descended on my City, which I love, uninvited, as foreign occupiers, and desecrated it with their filth, and litter. They do not understand New York, they do not understand this country, they do not represent anyone whom I know, including you, Nathan. You, unlike them, studied and worked all your life and paid your bills, and did not ask anyone to forgive your debts.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
What to make of Occupy Wall Street?
Everyone is talking about the Occupy Wall Street protests and what they mean for American politics and culture, so it seemed to make sense that Lev and I should do the same. Last week, at the invitation of my colleague Maxim Matusevich, I published a short piece on the Russian site "Balt-Info" with my impressions of the protests as of the end of September. Here's the link. And for anyone who doesn't read Russian, my original English text, which, I should note, is rather different from the Russian version, follows below. But Lev suggested that some balance would be appropriate here and offered the following text by the blogger Vladimir Davidenko to provide a conservative counterpoint.
Oct. 3, 2011
Not long ago, I found myself rather unexpectedly amidst the “occupiers” of Wall Street. My reasons for being there had nothing to do with politics, although their protests against the greed and impunity of the titans of American business arouse in me no small degree of sympathy. But no, it was music that drew me to Zuccotti Park on a warm late September afternoon.
That morning rumors starting to crop up on the internet that the group Radiohead, well known for their anti-corporate views as well as their innovative compositions, would be making a surprise appearance at the demonstration. My daughter is a big fan of Radiohead, and I like their music too. Our attempts to procure tickets for a rare concert appearance a few days earlier ended in disappointment. So when we went to the protester’s web site and found a notice confirming that Radiohead would appear we had the same reaction – Let’s go! We rushed down to the train station just in time to catch the commuter train into the city and were on our way.
Less than an hour later, we were wandering around the encampment. The park turned out to be fairly small—about half the size of a football field. A huge orange metal sculpture stood at one end, trees poked out of holes in the brick pavement in the middle and at the other end a set of steps led to the street just around the corner from “ground zero” where the twin towers one stood. One could imagine how in ordinary times employees of Wall Street banks and investment funds might come out here on their lunch breaks or relax in the park at the end of a long day. But now the park was filled with a motley assemblage of young people—probably about a thousand—accompanied by the thunder of drums echoing off the walls of the surrounding skyscrapers. It was clear right away that a concert was out of the question—there was no stage, no sound system, not even electricity—it seems we were victims of a hoax. On the other hand we had the opportunity to observe this rather colorful scene.
For someone of my generation with faded childhood memories of the 1960s and 70s, the appearance of the protestors immediately evoked familiar associations—long haired youths, unwashed, bruised and beaten, shirtless, with beads and tattoos; girls in long skirts with pierced noses and multicolored hair; earnest, sincere faces—the usual style of American nonconformist youth. One second glance, though, other types emerged from the crowd—veterans in camouflage, well dressed men in ties, elderly ladies. Who were these people and what were they doing here?
Judging by the content of their signs, which were displayed in abundance around the perimeter of the park, the protesters themselves didn’t seem to know what exactly they were protesting. The slogans ranged from the strident (Eat the Rich!) to the naïve (I love everyone. Let’s figure this all out together!) to the downright bizarre (I am a goat. Ignore me. Go Shopping). When the first reports of the protests appeared it was easy to dismiss them as a bunch of latter day hippies and muddle headed leftists trying to get attention. But over the past week or so, to the surprise of the participants themselves, the movement has caught fire. Every day more articles and reports appear in the news and more people make their way, as I did, down to Zuccotti Park to see what all the excitement is about.
In part the success of the protesters may be due to pure persistence—if you stay in one place long enough and make enough noise (they make plenty!) someone is sure to notice. On the other hand, the protesters had one of the best publicity agents anyone could possibly ask for—the New York City Police Department. For the most part, the police have exercised restraint in their dealings with the occupiers. In part they have no choice. The Park which the demonstrators have occupied is technically private property. The owner was given permission to build a skyscraper next door on the condition that he create the park and keep it open to the public 24 hour a day. Without permission of the owner, the police do not have the authority to clear the premises. So the police stand around the edge making sure traffic isn’t blocked, but leave the park to the young people.
There have been a few occasions, however, when the protesters have left the refuge of the park and the police have abandoned their restraint, inflicting excessive force, and applying questionable tactics including mass arrests. Invariably videos showing police misconduct surface right away and go viral on the internet arousing a wave of sympathy and support. After two or three such events, the protests had become national news and inspired analogous protests in cities throughout the country.
But all police brutality in the world could not have helped the Wall Street protesters gain support if their message had not resonated with a set of widely held, if not always clearly articulated, beliefs about contemporary American life.
Three points in particular come to mind. The first is that something has gone terribly awry with our financial sector. Instead of providing necessary services and investment opportunities for ordinary Americans, Wall Street has become a crazy game of smoke and mirrors conjuring unimaginable wealth out of thin air through arcane and opaque instruments with names like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.
Of course, such games could not continue forever. Eventually the whole thing came tumbling down in the crash of 2008, and giving rise to a second widely held belief--Wall Street walked away from the mess it made leaving ordinary Americans to suffer the consequences. All throughout America people are losing their jobs, losing their homes, struggling to stay afloat under mountains of debt. Meanwhile the great banks and investment firms have received generous government bail-outs and are back to making record profits at the expense of the very people who are suffering the most. Huge banks are deemed “too big to fail” and given help at the tax payer’s expense while ordinary people are abandoned to their fate.
As if this wasn’t enough, Wall Street is clamoring for Congress to remove the few regulations that still remain in place. Hence a third key idea— American political life is controlled by large corporations and ordinary people no longer have a say. Corporations spend millions of dollars on powerful lobbyists and campaign contributions without which no politician can even hope to be elected. Naturally, after the elections, the corporations collect the political returns on their investment and although the politicians come and go, nothing really changes.
In part this perception reflects the disillusionment that many people feel with Barack Obama who came into office promising change only to pack his cabinet with Wall Street insiders and give the banks everything they could ask for and more. The banks, far from being grateful, responded by financing the Tea Party, setting the stage for the decisive victory of the extremist wing of the Republican party in the last congressional elections. As a result, the activists feel that if any change is to occur it must come from outside the framework of the traditional political system. This may be one reason for the lack of specific demands or goals on the part of the protesters. Unlike the Tea Party, to whom they are often compared, the protesters show little interest in supporting political candidates, organizing referendums and otherwise participating in the give and take of American politics. This may come later. But for now they have already made a more profound contribution. By drawing attention to the abuses of Wall Street and its impact on ordinary people, the protesters have given voice to a deep frustration felt throughout the country and opened a new framework for discussion and action. No one knows how long the protesters will remain encamped in Zuccotti Park, but their message has already left its mark.
Oct. 3, 2011
Not long ago, I found myself rather unexpectedly amidst the “occupiers” of Wall Street. My reasons for being there had nothing to do with politics, although their protests against the greed and impunity of the titans of American business arouse in me no small degree of sympathy. But no, it was music that drew me to Zuccotti Park on a warm late September afternoon.
That morning rumors starting to crop up on the internet that the group Radiohead, well known for their anti-corporate views as well as their innovative compositions, would be making a surprise appearance at the demonstration. My daughter is a big fan of Radiohead, and I like their music too. Our attempts to procure tickets for a rare concert appearance a few days earlier ended in disappointment. So when we went to the protester’s web site and found a notice confirming that Radiohead would appear we had the same reaction – Let’s go! We rushed down to the train station just in time to catch the commuter train into the city and were on our way.
Less than an hour later, we were wandering around the encampment. The park turned out to be fairly small—about half the size of a football field. A huge orange metal sculpture stood at one end, trees poked out of holes in the brick pavement in the middle and at the other end a set of steps led to the street just around the corner from “ground zero” where the twin towers one stood. One could imagine how in ordinary times employees of Wall Street banks and investment funds might come out here on their lunch breaks or relax in the park at the end of a long day. But now the park was filled with a motley assemblage of young people—probably about a thousand—accompanied by the thunder of drums echoing off the walls of the surrounding skyscrapers. It was clear right away that a concert was out of the question—there was no stage, no sound system, not even electricity—it seems we were victims of a hoax. On the other hand we had the opportunity to observe this rather colorful scene.
For someone of my generation with faded childhood memories of the 1960s and 70s, the appearance of the protestors immediately evoked familiar associations—long haired youths, unwashed, bruised and beaten, shirtless, with beads and tattoos; girls in long skirts with pierced noses and multicolored hair; earnest, sincere faces—the usual style of American nonconformist youth. One second glance, though, other types emerged from the crowd—veterans in camouflage, well dressed men in ties, elderly ladies. Who were these people and what were they doing here?
Judging by the content of their signs, which were displayed in abundance around the perimeter of the park, the protesters themselves didn’t seem to know what exactly they were protesting. The slogans ranged from the strident (Eat the Rich!) to the naïve (I love everyone. Let’s figure this all out together!) to the downright bizarre (I am a goat. Ignore me. Go Shopping). When the first reports of the protests appeared it was easy to dismiss them as a bunch of latter day hippies and muddle headed leftists trying to get attention. But over the past week or so, to the surprise of the participants themselves, the movement has caught fire. Every day more articles and reports appear in the news and more people make their way, as I did, down to Zuccotti Park to see what all the excitement is about.
In part the success of the protesters may be due to pure persistence—if you stay in one place long enough and make enough noise (they make plenty!) someone is sure to notice. On the other hand, the protesters had one of the best publicity agents anyone could possibly ask for—the New York City Police Department. For the most part, the police have exercised restraint in their dealings with the occupiers. In part they have no choice. The Park which the demonstrators have occupied is technically private property. The owner was given permission to build a skyscraper next door on the condition that he create the park and keep it open to the public 24 hour a day. Without permission of the owner, the police do not have the authority to clear the premises. So the police stand around the edge making sure traffic isn’t blocked, but leave the park to the young people.
There have been a few occasions, however, when the protesters have left the refuge of the park and the police have abandoned their restraint, inflicting excessive force, and applying questionable tactics including mass arrests. Invariably videos showing police misconduct surface right away and go viral on the internet arousing a wave of sympathy and support. After two or three such events, the protests had become national news and inspired analogous protests in cities throughout the country.
But all police brutality in the world could not have helped the Wall Street protesters gain support if their message had not resonated with a set of widely held, if not always clearly articulated, beliefs about contemporary American life.
Three points in particular come to mind. The first is that something has gone terribly awry with our financial sector. Instead of providing necessary services and investment opportunities for ordinary Americans, Wall Street has become a crazy game of smoke and mirrors conjuring unimaginable wealth out of thin air through arcane and opaque instruments with names like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.
Of course, such games could not continue forever. Eventually the whole thing came tumbling down in the crash of 2008, and giving rise to a second widely held belief--Wall Street walked away from the mess it made leaving ordinary Americans to suffer the consequences. All throughout America people are losing their jobs, losing their homes, struggling to stay afloat under mountains of debt. Meanwhile the great banks and investment firms have received generous government bail-outs and are back to making record profits at the expense of the very people who are suffering the most. Huge banks are deemed “too big to fail” and given help at the tax payer’s expense while ordinary people are abandoned to their fate.
As if this wasn’t enough, Wall Street is clamoring for Congress to remove the few regulations that still remain in place. Hence a third key idea— American political life is controlled by large corporations and ordinary people no longer have a say. Corporations spend millions of dollars on powerful lobbyists and campaign contributions without which no politician can even hope to be elected. Naturally, after the elections, the corporations collect the political returns on their investment and although the politicians come and go, nothing really changes.
In part this perception reflects the disillusionment that many people feel with Barack Obama who came into office promising change only to pack his cabinet with Wall Street insiders and give the banks everything they could ask for and more. The banks, far from being grateful, responded by financing the Tea Party, setting the stage for the decisive victory of the extremist wing of the Republican party in the last congressional elections. As a result, the activists feel that if any change is to occur it must come from outside the framework of the traditional political system. This may be one reason for the lack of specific demands or goals on the part of the protesters. Unlike the Tea Party, to whom they are often compared, the protesters show little interest in supporting political candidates, organizing referendums and otherwise participating in the give and take of American politics. This may come later. But for now they have already made a more profound contribution. By drawing attention to the abuses of Wall Street and its impact on ordinary people, the protesters have given voice to a deep frustration felt throughout the country and opened a new framework for discussion and action. No one knows how long the protesters will remain encamped in Zuccotti Park, but their message has already left its mark.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Leftists in academia redux
A while back we had an interesting discussion about the apparent preponderance of leftist views within American academia. We suggested a variety of possible explanations but they all seemed to fall short for lack of concrete evidence. I'm not particularly interested in returning to this debate, but when I saw this article in the Times--The Left-Leaning Tower--I thought it might be interesting to post as a sort of follow up.
In the article, the author reviews the work of several scholars who have actually studied this phenomenon in some detail. Unfortunately, the results are still rather inconclusive. One the one hand are the findings of a sociologist who identifies himself as a democrat and claims to have found that discrimination is not a factor in the low number of conservatives in academia. On the other hand are a few conservative/libertarian scholars who argue that discrimination may be taking place in more subtle ways at later stages in academic careers--in short if you're a conservative don't get your hope up for tenure.
So basically this supposedly neutral review of empirical studies boils down to yet another he said/she said media sleight of hand using "balance" as a pretext to shore up an untenable position. It turns out that the "liberal" study is based on an extensive investigation of actual behavior in the real world, whereas the conservative counterpart employs much more flimsy evidence--a much smaller survey of attitudes based on hypothetical scenarios. But in reviewing the conservative critique, the author succeeds in voicing several quite insidious stereotypes that feed right into the anti-intellectualism so prevalent in American culture. Two particularly stood out--first that being a professor is a cushy job with four months of summer vacation, and secondly that there is some kind of multicultural and feminist veto over hiring and tenure decisions. Ultimately what gets lost in all of this is the real reason why people go into academia--love of research, teaching and of the life of the mind. More often then not when it comes down to what academics actually study, the crude distinction between liberals and conservatives that dominates our media landscape becomes almost irrelevant.
In the article, the author reviews the work of several scholars who have actually studied this phenomenon in some detail. Unfortunately, the results are still rather inconclusive. One the one hand are the findings of a sociologist who identifies himself as a democrat and claims to have found that discrimination is not a factor in the low number of conservatives in academia. On the other hand are a few conservative/libertarian scholars who argue that discrimination may be taking place in more subtle ways at later stages in academic careers--in short if you're a conservative don't get your hope up for tenure.
So basically this supposedly neutral review of empirical studies boils down to yet another he said/she said media sleight of hand using "balance" as a pretext to shore up an untenable position. It turns out that the "liberal" study is based on an extensive investigation of actual behavior in the real world, whereas the conservative counterpart employs much more flimsy evidence--a much smaller survey of attitudes based on hypothetical scenarios. But in reviewing the conservative critique, the author succeeds in voicing several quite insidious stereotypes that feed right into the anti-intellectualism so prevalent in American culture. Two particularly stood out--first that being a professor is a cushy job with four months of summer vacation, and secondly that there is some kind of multicultural and feminist veto over hiring and tenure decisions. Ultimately what gets lost in all of this is the real reason why people go into academia--love of research, teaching and of the life of the mind. More often then not when it comes down to what academics actually study, the crude distinction between liberals and conservatives that dominates our media landscape becomes almost irrelevant.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Liberals and Ideology of failure. Take II
Previous thread with the same title got too cluttered, thus we decided to streamline the discussion and move to a new thread. So, here it is. Enjoy.
Recently, I ran across a blog by some fringe uber-liberal blogger mourning the death of Bin-Laden as a misguided hero willing to sacrifice his life for the sake of "oppressed". Her words turned my mind to the question that puzzled me for a long time. Why is contemporary liberalism simultaneously anti-American (more generally anti-Western in the sense of Western cultural values) and anti-Israel in nature? What is that psychological trait which turns people born in USA and Europe to hate values on which their native civilization was founded? What is it that makes liberal Jews, to whom Israel did nothing bad personally, to hate it that much?
Obviously, liberals are against capitalism, and this explains their hatred for such things as individualism, private property, economic freedom, limited government. Capitalism was invented in the West, and US is perceived as the country embodying it the most, thus the anti-West and anti-US sentiments of the liberals are quite natural. What is more puzzling is why they always go hand in hand with loathing for Israel, which is a country with long-lasting socialist traditions.
In an attempt to find the answer to this question, let me begin by noting that liberalism is based on the idea, originating from Marxists class struggle theory, according to which people belong to one of two categories: they are either oppressors or the oppressed. The latter deserve sympathy and should be defended, while the former must be anathematized and, when possible, destroyed. Practical application of this idea depends, of course, on how one determines who the oppressor is, and who is being oppressed. This is where liberals very successfully play their favorite linguistic game redefining words and giving them new meanings. For me oppression is associated with Stalin's GULAG or with Hitler's gas chambers, but this is not what liberals mean by “oppression” these days. Nothing helps to understand the actual meaning of the words than looking at their usage.
The main favorite oppressor these days is, of course, Israel. Never mind that nobody heard about concentration camps build by Israel for Palestinians or about mass extermination of the latter by the former. (And, yes, I do know about certain incidents perpetuated by Jewish groups in 1948, which, while definitely, regrettable, were committed in the midst of the war and never became official policies of the State of Israel). In modern Israel, Arab citizens have the same civil rights as Jews including their own representation in the Knesset. Living conditions of even those Palestinians, who do sit in Israeli prisons for such insignificant things as blowing up Israeli civilians, are often better than that of their “free” compatriots. There has been a press report recently about two Palestinians refusing to leave the prison so that they could complete their education. So much for being oppressed! But it all does not matter because liberals learned very well Lenin’s dictum: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Their demonization of Israel has been so persistent that now everybody is convinced that Jews are the most evil people in the Middle East, and “the pain in the asses” as one famous movie director put it recently.
When liberals do not blast Israelis, they like to talk about global guilt of the West before underdeveloped countries in Africa or Latin America or the same Middle East. Before WW 2, the Western countries "oppressed" the rest of the world directly by colonizing them. What does it matter that those “oppressors” built infrastructure, provided education and medical services to those whom they oppressed? So what that after "liberation" most of this infrastructure, medical and educational institutions fell in disarray, and the newly free nations, especially in Africa succeeded mostly in killing each other? While after the war Europe engaged in restoring their cities and developing their economies, Africa self-destructed. Instead of accepting responsibility for their people, African leaders helped by Western liberals, succeeded mostly in the blame game and stealing whatever resources the West had sent to their countries. The West is being blamed for everything including AIDS epidemics. The idea that one has to use condoms during sex turned out to be much less appealing than suggestions that the Western countries created HIV virus in order to get rid of Africans and to appropriate their resources. And it does not matter how many financial and human resources western countries wasted in Africa, it is never enough. If Africans are miserable, it is because of West's colonial, neocolonial or postcolonial policies.
The faces of oppressors and oppressed back home in the "Land of opportunities" are also well known. The most obvious oppressors are of course the "fat cats” from the Wall street, greedy bankers, and the biggest and the scariest one – the Corporation. Vilification of corporations in liberal media became so beyond any reason that it appears that Corporations are some evil monsters from outer space rather than just one of many ways to organize ownership and governance of a business. Liberals seem to forget that corporations provide hundred thousands of people with jobs and manufacture those things, which liberals do not feel any shame to use in their daily lives.
In addition to large oppressors, there are smaller oppressors, which judging by Obama’s tax proposal, are everyone making more than $250 K per year. They may be not as evil and powerful as Big Oil or Big Farma or Koch brothers are, but they still oppress “less fortunate”, just by the virtue of possessing their “fortune”. One should admire Left’s linguistic abilities in inventing names designed to conceal the actual nature of phenomena they discuss. Term “less fortunate” is supposed to convey the idea that being poor has nothing to do with people making their personal choices, but it just a matter of good or bad fortune. Here are a few examples of those who are encouraged to think about themselves as oppressed. Students at my university feel so oppressed that a week before the finals, instead of studying, went to demonstrate and demand that more money were taken from those who has them and given to them. Another example: welfare mothers, a whole bunch of the “Precious”, who do not have the will and skills or even a desire to hold a job, but dream big about how they magically appear on a brightly lit stage, in a glamorous dress, and are admired by everyone. Also oppressed are the drug dealers and the drug users. The former sell drugs because they are not provided with other economic opportunities and the latter use them for exactly the same reasons. In general, oppressed are those who have “needs” they cannot fulfill and demand that other people were forced to provide for them.
Now, let us see if there is anything in common between these disparate examples of “oppression”. There might be more than one unifying motif here, but the one, which seems almost obvious to me, is that in all these cases oppressors are those cultures, countries, individuals who succeed, and the oppressed are those who fail. Indeed, Israel built a functioning state with a powerful army, modern economics, developed infrastructure, medicine, world-class education, and the level of life unseen in this part of the woods. Palestinians, at the same time, completely failed in developing their territories in spite of streams of money sent their way. This observation also helps me to understand why liberal Jews hate Israel so much that actually covertly want its passing to oblivion. They are psychologically frustrated. They would like to be able to be both good Jews and good liberals, which is not possible while Israel exists as a successful state. If Israel were no more and all the Jews (those who would survive) were scattered again all over the world and persecuted, they could be immediately moved to the category of oppressed. At this point, the liberal American Jews would find themselves in a very comfortable position - once again, they could be good liberals and good Jews saving their fellow compatriots and bringing them back under socialistic banners.
The same idea explains the general animosity of liberals toward principal Western values and their embrace of multiculturalism, which is just a code word for diluting western ideals of individualism, rationality, objectivity with cultural values from other much less successful traditions. The only consequence of this dilution can be diminishing role of those values that brought people from all other the world to the West to enjoy its achievements. The result is not difficult to predict: no more achievements.
One can argue that in the world of limited economic resources, the successful people and countries enjoying the fruits of their success consume too many resources leaving too little for those who are less successful, and therefore they become oppressors immediately once they claim their rights on the fruits of their labor. This argument, however, suffers from two fallacies. First, is the presumption that amount of wealth available for distribution is a conserving quantity so that if one has more than the other necessarily has less. Or if put in terms of the game theory, that economic activity is always a zero sum game. This is, of course, not so. Successful people create something, which would not have existed without them, and this defines their success. In very general terms, they create wealth, and by creating wealth, they increase resources available for everyone, including those who are “less fortunate”. Hayek in his “Road to slavery” gives a perfect example of this phenomenon. The labor of a minimally skilled worker by itself is not worth much. When, however, he becomes a part of a bigger enterprise, a factory, created by a successful individual with vision and talent, the worth of his labor increases by orders of magnitude. The second fallacy consists in the assumption that expropriating wealth created by successful people to achieve its more equitable distribution would have no influence on its overall amount. Ayn Rand showed that this is not so very clearly in her Atlas Shrugged, where she demonstrated with almost mathematical precision what happens to a society, which begins such redistribution.
OK, it is time to wrap it up, as I myself am not able to finish reading this post. To conclude: the liberals hate capitalism because they are ashamed of being successful. They believe that success of some is unfair for the others. It might be so, but to punish people and countries just because they succeeded while others failed is not just more unfair – it makes things worse for everyone, including those whom liberals are purported to defend.
Monday, June 13, 2011
About western values, liberalism and the value of the individual life
In one of his previous posts Nathan suggested that, contrary to what I say, his brand of liberalism has deep roots in the history of Western civilization, and that ideas of modern liberals are representative of the most significant intellectual achievements of the Western thinkers. It is somewhat ironic that to prove his point Nathan resorts to Christianity and the figure of Jesus Christ, even though his ideological comrades routinely disparage Christians for their religiosity. However, I do admit that the term "Western Values" which I used is too broad for discussing this complex conglomerate of often mutually exclusive ideas, so I have to clarify myself.
Among of a great variety of diverse ideas proposed and discussed in the thousand year history of Western civilization, two played a particularly important role. First was the idea that the Universe is the objective reality governed by the universal laws discoverable by a man. The second is understanding that people are self-sufficient individuals possessing rational minds and free will, and that the value of an individual is derived from his individual qualities rather than is handed down to him by his relation to a nations or a state or a king.
The first of these ideas generated unprecedented development of scientific knowledge, while the second one helped people to realize that they have rights to participate in society as independent free agents. This included economic participation and the right to own fruits of their labor and/or ingenuity. The most direct material expression of this realization was the idea of private property as an equivalent of economic freedom. This freedom and scientific progress provided positive feedback to each other resulting in unprecedented development of European nations.
These two ideas, which I consider the foundation of Western civilization, have elevated a human to a position, where instead of being an object of God, or fate, or king, the individual is an actively engaged subject, a creator.
These concepts, of course, were always in a struggle with another set of ideas emphasizing importance of collective in human behavior. According to them a group of people, a society , a nation, a segregation is more important then any individual in the group. Sacrifice for the well-being of the group is encouraged and sometimes even required. Individual rights of the group members are subjugated to the goals of the collective, the common good, which usually are formulated by an authority figure - a king, a messiah, pope, union leaders, etc. Earlier Christians lived in communities, and naturally, Christian morality was formulated in the collectivist terms (strong must take care of the weak, sacrifice for the group is the reason for canonization, etc). They were poor, hence, the negative attitude toward material wealth, property, and concentration on introvertive life of the soul. In addition of promulgating collectivist ideas, Christianity for a long period of time also insisted on the absence of any rational order in Nature, weakness and inadequacy of human mind. This attitude played a particularly negative role for the European civilization seriously hindering its development for 10 centuries. Only Luther's reformation and development of protestantism, which somewhat freed an individual in a person, weakened the brakes of collectivism, leading up to capitalism, industrial revolution and significant improvement in living conditions of a large number of people.
I think, however, that the religious component of protestantism is incidental in this story. It is not the idea of individual G-d, but the allowance for a much larger degree of individualism in general , made this progress possible. A significant role, of course, was played by protestant ethic, with its emphasize on importance of honesty, hard work, sanctity of a contract, etc, but I do not want to get engaged in the discussion if these ethical values are inherent to the religious world view, or they can be formulated from secular positions. What is important for me now is that Luther allowed Christians to recognise the value of their individuality.
It seems to me that out of all major religions, only protestantism is inherently compatible with capitalism. Ideological foundations of other branches of Christianity (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) as well as of Islam are very much at odds with capitalist approach to life. One can easily find conformation of this proposition by looking at the history of colonization of America, or the states of the modern Europe. Territory, known presently as USA, was colonized mostly by Anglicans and protestants while Mexico and all of the Southern America was colonized by catholic Spain and Portugal. The difference in the results does not need any special discussion. Now, look at the list of European countries with biggest economic problems: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, all with predominantly Catholic or Orthodox populations.
Among of a great variety of diverse ideas proposed and discussed in the thousand year history of Western civilization, two played a particularly important role. First was the idea that the Universe is the objective reality governed by the universal laws discoverable by a man. The second is understanding that people are self-sufficient individuals possessing rational minds and free will, and that the value of an individual is derived from his individual qualities rather than is handed down to him by his relation to a nations or a state or a king.
The first of these ideas generated unprecedented development of scientific knowledge, while the second one helped people to realize that they have rights to participate in society as independent free agents. This included economic participation and the right to own fruits of their labor and/or ingenuity. The most direct material expression of this realization was the idea of private property as an equivalent of economic freedom. This freedom and scientific progress provided positive feedback to each other resulting in unprecedented development of European nations.
These two ideas, which I consider the foundation of Western civilization, have elevated a human to a position, where instead of being an object of God, or fate, or king, the individual is an actively engaged subject, a creator.
These concepts, of course, were always in a struggle with another set of ideas emphasizing importance of collective in human behavior. According to them a group of people, a society , a nation, a segregation is more important then any individual in the group. Sacrifice for the well-being of the group is encouraged and sometimes even required. Individual rights of the group members are subjugated to the goals of the collective, the common good, which usually are formulated by an authority figure - a king, a messiah, pope, union leaders, etc. Earlier Christians lived in communities, and naturally, Christian morality was formulated in the collectivist terms (strong must take care of the weak, sacrifice for the group is the reason for canonization, etc). They were poor, hence, the negative attitude toward material wealth, property, and concentration on introvertive life of the soul. In addition of promulgating collectivist ideas, Christianity for a long period of time also insisted on the absence of any rational order in Nature, weakness and inadequacy of human mind. This attitude played a particularly negative role for the European civilization seriously hindering its development for 10 centuries. Only Luther's reformation and development of protestantism, which somewhat freed an individual in a person, weakened the brakes of collectivism, leading up to capitalism, industrial revolution and significant improvement in living conditions of a large number of people.
I think, however, that the religious component of protestantism is incidental in this story. It is not the idea of individual G-d, but the allowance for a much larger degree of individualism in general , made this progress possible. A significant role, of course, was played by protestant ethic, with its emphasize on importance of honesty, hard work, sanctity of a contract, etc, but I do not want to get engaged in the discussion if these ethical values are inherent to the religious world view, or they can be formulated from secular positions. What is important for me now is that Luther allowed Christians to recognise the value of their individuality.
It seems to me that out of all major religions, only protestantism is inherently compatible with capitalism. Ideological foundations of other branches of Christianity (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) as well as of Islam are very much at odds with capitalist approach to life. One can easily find conformation of this proposition by looking at the history of colonization of America, or the states of the modern Europe. Territory, known presently as USA, was colonized mostly by Anglicans and protestants while Mexico and all of the Southern America was colonized by catholic Spain and Portugal. The difference in the results does not need any special discussion. Now, look at the list of European countries with biggest economic problems: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, all with predominantly Catholic or Orthodox populations.
Thus, of course, modern liberalism does have roots in some of the traditions developed in the West, but my point is that these are not the traditions, which made Western civilization what it is now, at least in terms of its material development.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Liberals and ideology of failure
Recently, I ran across a blog by some fringe uber-liberal blogger mourning the death of Bin-Laden as a misguided hero willing to sacrifice his life for the sake of "oppressed". Her words turned my mind to the question that puzzled me for a long time. Why is contemporary liberalism simultaneously anti-American (more generally anti-Western in the sense of Western cultural values) and anti-Israel in nature? What is that psychological trait which turns people born in USA and Europe to hate values on which their native civilization was founded? What is it that makes liberal Jews, to whom Israel did nothing bad personally, to hate it that much?
Obviously, liberals are against capitalism, and this explains their hatred for such things as individualism, private property, economic freedom, limited government. Capitalism was invented in the West, and US is perceived as the country embodying it the most, thus the anti-West and anti-US sentiments of the liberals are quite natural. What is more puzzling is why they always go hand in hand with loathing for Israel, which is a country with long-lasting socialist traditions.
In an attempt to find the answer to this question, let me begin by noting that liberalism is based on the idea, originating from Marxists class struggle theory, according to which people belong to one of two categories: they are either oppressors or the oppressed. The latter deserve sympathy and should be defended, while the former must be anathematized and, when possible, destroyed. Practical application of this idea depends, of course, on how one determines who the oppressor is, and who is being oppressed. This is where liberals very successfully play their favorite linguistic game redefining words and giving them new meanings. For me oppression is associated with Stalin's GULAG or with Hitler's gas chambers, but this is not what liberals mean by “oppression” these days. Nothing helps to understand the actual meaning of the words than looking at their usage.
The main favorite oppressor these days is, of course, Israel. Never mind that nobody heard about concentration camps build by Israel for Palestinians or about mass extermination of the latter by the former. (And, yes, I do know about certain incidents perpetuated by Jewish groups in 1948, which, while definitely, regrettable, were committed in the midst of the war and never became official policies of the State of Israel). In modern Israel, Arab citizens have the same civil rights as Jews including their own representation in the Knesset. Living conditions of even those Palestinians, who do sit in Israeli prisons for such insignificant things as blowing up Israeli civilians, are often better than that of their “free” compatriots. There has been a press report recently about two Palestinians refusing to leave the prison so that they could complete their education. So much for being oppressed! But it all does not matter because liberals learned very well Lenin’s dictum: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Their demonization of Israel has been so persistent that now everybody is convinced that Jews are the most evil people in the Middle East, and “the pain in the asses” as one famous movie director put it recently.
When liberals do not blast Israelis, they like to talk about global guilt of the West before underdeveloped countries in Africa or Latin America or the same Middle East. Before WW 2, the Western countries "oppressed" the rest of the world directly by colonizing them. What does it matter that those “oppressors” built infrastructure, provided education and medical services to those whom they oppressed? So what that after "liberation" most of this infrastructure, medical and educational institutions fell in disarray, and the newly free nations, especially in Africa succeeded mostly in killing each other? While after the war Europe engaged in restoring their cities and developing their economics, Africa self-destructed. Instead of accepting responsibility for their people, African leaders helped by Western liberals, succeeded mostly in the blame game and stealing whatever resources the West had sent to their countries. The West is being blamed for everything including AID epidemics. The idea that one has to use condoms during sex turned out to be much less appealing than suggestions that the Western countries created HIV virus in order to get rid of Africans and to appropriate their resources. And it does not matter how many financial and human resources western countries wasted in Africa, it is never enough. If Africans are miserable, it is because of West's colonial, neocolonial or postcolonial policies.
The faces of oppressors and oppressed back home in the "Land of opportunities" are also well known. The most obvious oppressors are of course the "fat cats” from the Wall street, greedy bankers, and the biggest and the scariest one – the Corporation. Vilification of corporations in liberal media became so beyond any reason that it appears that Corporations are some evil monsters from outer space rather than just one of many ways to organize ownership and governance of a business. Liberals seem to forget that corporations provide hundred thousands of people with jobs and manufacture those things, which liberals do not feel any shame to use in their daily lives.
In addition to large oppressors, there are smaller oppressors, which judging by Obama’s tax proposal, are everyone making more than $250 K per year. They may be not as evil and powerful as Big Oil or Big Farma or Koch brothers are, but they still oppress “less fortunate”, just by the virtue of possessing their “fortune”. One should admire Left’s linguistic abilities in inventing names designed to conceal the actual nature of phenomena they discuss. Term “less fortunate” is supposed to convey the idea that being poor has nothing to do with people making their personal choices, but it just a matter of good or bad fortune. Here are a few examples of those who are encouraged to think about themselves as oppressed. Students at my university feel so oppressed that a week before the finals, instead of studying, went to demonstrate and demand that more money were taken from those who has them and given to them. Another example: welfare mothers, a whole bunch of the “Precious”, who do not have the will and skills or even a desire to hold a job, but dream big about how they magically appear on a brightly lit stage, in a glamorous dress, and are admired by everyone. Also oppressed are the drug dealers and the drug users. The former sell drugs because they are not provided with other economic opportunities and the latter use them for exactly the same reasons. In general, oppressed are those who have “needs” they cannot fulfill and demand that other people were forced to provide for them.
Now, let us see if there is anything in common between these disparate examples of “oppression”. There might be more than one unifying motif here, but the one, which seems almost obvious to me, is that in all these cases oppressors are those cultures, countries, individuals who succeed, and the oppressed are those who fail. Indeed, Israel built a functioning state with a powerful army, modern economics, developed infrastructure, medicine, world-class education, and the level of life unseen in this part of the woods. Palestinians, at the same time, completely failed in developing their territories in spite of streams of money sent their way. This observation also helps me to understand why liberal Jews hate Israel so much that actually covertly want its passing to oblivion. They are psychologically frustrated. They would like to be able to be both good Jews and good liberals, which is not possible while Israel exists as a successful state. If Israel were no more and all the Jews (those who would survive) were scattered again all over the world and persecuted, they could be immediately moved to the category of oppressed. At this point, the liberal American Jews would find themselves in a very comfortable position - once again, they could be good liberals and good Jews saving their fellow compatriots and bringing them back under socialistic banners.
The same idea explains the general animosity of liberals toward principal Western values and their embrace of multiculturalism, which is just a code word for diluting western ideals of individualism, rationality, objectivity with cultural values from other much less successful traditions. The only consequence of this dilution can be diminishing role of those values that brought people from all other the world to the West to enjoy its achievements. The result is not difficult to predict: no more achievements.
One can argue that in the world of limited economic resources, the successful people and countries enjoying the fruits of their success consume too many resources leaving too little for those who are less successful, and therefore they become oppressors immediately once they claim their rights on the fruits of their labor. This argument, however, suffers from two fallacies. First, is the presumption that amount of wealth available for distribution is a conserving quantity so that if one has more than the other necessarily has less. Or if put in terms of the game theory, that economic activity is always a zero sum game. This is, of course, not so. Successful people create something, which would not have existed without them, and this defines their success. In very general terms, they create wealth, and by creating wealth, they increase resources available for everyone, including those who are “less fortunate”. Hayek in his “Road to slavery” gives a perfect example of this phenomenon. The labor of a minimally skilled worker by itself is not worth much. When, however, he becomes a part of a bigger enterprise, a factory, created by a successful individual with vision and talent, the worth of his labor increases by orders of magnitude. The second fallacy consists in the assumption that expropriating wealth created by successful people to achieve its more equitable distribution would have no influence on its overall amount. Ayn Rand showed that this is not so very clearly in her Atlas Shrugged, where she demonstrated with almost mathematical precision what happens to a society, which begins such redistribution.
OK, it is time to wrap it up, as I myself am not able to finish reading this post. To conclude: the liberals hate capitalism because they are ashamed of being successful. They believe that success of some is unfair for the others. It might be so, but to punish people and countries just because they succeeded while others failed is not just more unfair – it makes things worse for everyone, including those whom liberals are purported to defend.
Obviously, liberals are against capitalism, and this explains their hatred for such things as individualism, private property, economic freedom, limited government. Capitalism was invented in the West, and US is perceived as the country embodying it the most, thus the anti-West and anti-US sentiments of the liberals are quite natural. What is more puzzling is why they always go hand in hand with loathing for Israel, which is a country with long-lasting socialist traditions.
In an attempt to find the answer to this question, let me begin by noting that liberalism is based on the idea, originating from Marxists class struggle theory, according to which people belong to one of two categories: they are either oppressors or the oppressed. The latter deserve sympathy and should be defended, while the former must be anathematized and, when possible, destroyed. Practical application of this idea depends, of course, on how one determines who the oppressor is, and who is being oppressed. This is where liberals very successfully play their favorite linguistic game redefining words and giving them new meanings. For me oppression is associated with Stalin's GULAG or with Hitler's gas chambers, but this is not what liberals mean by “oppression” these days. Nothing helps to understand the actual meaning of the words than looking at their usage.
The main favorite oppressor these days is, of course, Israel. Never mind that nobody heard about concentration camps build by Israel for Palestinians or about mass extermination of the latter by the former. (And, yes, I do know about certain incidents perpetuated by Jewish groups in 1948, which, while definitely, regrettable, were committed in the midst of the war and never became official policies of the State of Israel). In modern Israel, Arab citizens have the same civil rights as Jews including their own representation in the Knesset. Living conditions of even those Palestinians, who do sit in Israeli prisons for such insignificant things as blowing up Israeli civilians, are often better than that of their “free” compatriots. There has been a press report recently about two Palestinians refusing to leave the prison so that they could complete their education. So much for being oppressed! But it all does not matter because liberals learned very well Lenin’s dictum: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Their demonization of Israel has been so persistent that now everybody is convinced that Jews are the most evil people in the Middle East, and “the pain in the asses” as one famous movie director put it recently.
When liberals do not blast Israelis, they like to talk about global guilt of the West before underdeveloped countries in Africa or Latin America or the same Middle East. Before WW 2, the Western countries "oppressed" the rest of the world directly by colonizing them. What does it matter that those “oppressors” built infrastructure, provided education and medical services to those whom they oppressed? So what that after "liberation" most of this infrastructure, medical and educational institutions fell in disarray, and the newly free nations, especially in Africa succeeded mostly in killing each other? While after the war Europe engaged in restoring their cities and developing their economics, Africa self-destructed. Instead of accepting responsibility for their people, African leaders helped by Western liberals, succeeded mostly in the blame game and stealing whatever resources the West had sent to their countries. The West is being blamed for everything including AID epidemics. The idea that one has to use condoms during sex turned out to be much less appealing than suggestions that the Western countries created HIV virus in order to get rid of Africans and to appropriate their resources. And it does not matter how many financial and human resources western countries wasted in Africa, it is never enough. If Africans are miserable, it is because of West's colonial, neocolonial or postcolonial policies.
The faces of oppressors and oppressed back home in the "Land of opportunities" are also well known. The most obvious oppressors are of course the "fat cats” from the Wall street, greedy bankers, and the biggest and the scariest one – the Corporation. Vilification of corporations in liberal media became so beyond any reason that it appears that Corporations are some evil monsters from outer space rather than just one of many ways to organize ownership and governance of a business. Liberals seem to forget that corporations provide hundred thousands of people with jobs and manufacture those things, which liberals do not feel any shame to use in their daily lives.
In addition to large oppressors, there are smaller oppressors, which judging by Obama’s tax proposal, are everyone making more than $250 K per year. They may be not as evil and powerful as Big Oil or Big Farma or Koch brothers are, but they still oppress “less fortunate”, just by the virtue of possessing their “fortune”. One should admire Left’s linguistic abilities in inventing names designed to conceal the actual nature of phenomena they discuss. Term “less fortunate” is supposed to convey the idea that being poor has nothing to do with people making their personal choices, but it just a matter of good or bad fortune. Here are a few examples of those who are encouraged to think about themselves as oppressed. Students at my university feel so oppressed that a week before the finals, instead of studying, went to demonstrate and demand that more money were taken from those who has them and given to them. Another example: welfare mothers, a whole bunch of the “Precious”, who do not have the will and skills or even a desire to hold a job, but dream big about how they magically appear on a brightly lit stage, in a glamorous dress, and are admired by everyone. Also oppressed are the drug dealers and the drug users. The former sell drugs because they are not provided with other economic opportunities and the latter use them for exactly the same reasons. In general, oppressed are those who have “needs” they cannot fulfill and demand that other people were forced to provide for them.
Now, let us see if there is anything in common between these disparate examples of “oppression”. There might be more than one unifying motif here, but the one, which seems almost obvious to me, is that in all these cases oppressors are those cultures, countries, individuals who succeed, and the oppressed are those who fail. Indeed, Israel built a functioning state with a powerful army, modern economics, developed infrastructure, medicine, world-class education, and the level of life unseen in this part of the woods. Palestinians, at the same time, completely failed in developing their territories in spite of streams of money sent their way. This observation also helps me to understand why liberal Jews hate Israel so much that actually covertly want its passing to oblivion. They are psychologically frustrated. They would like to be able to be both good Jews and good liberals, which is not possible while Israel exists as a successful state. If Israel were no more and all the Jews (those who would survive) were scattered again all over the world and persecuted, they could be immediately moved to the category of oppressed. At this point, the liberal American Jews would find themselves in a very comfortable position - once again, they could be good liberals and good Jews saving their fellow compatriots and bringing them back under socialistic banners.
The same idea explains the general animosity of liberals toward principal Western values and their embrace of multiculturalism, which is just a code word for diluting western ideals of individualism, rationality, objectivity with cultural values from other much less successful traditions. The only consequence of this dilution can be diminishing role of those values that brought people from all other the world to the West to enjoy its achievements. The result is not difficult to predict: no more achievements.
One can argue that in the world of limited economic resources, the successful people and countries enjoying the fruits of their success consume too many resources leaving too little for those who are less successful, and therefore they become oppressors immediately once they claim their rights on the fruits of their labor. This argument, however, suffers from two fallacies. First, is the presumption that amount of wealth available for distribution is a conserving quantity so that if one has more than the other necessarily has less. Or if put in terms of the game theory, that economic activity is always a zero sum game. This is, of course, not so. Successful people create something, which would not have existed without them, and this defines their success. In very general terms, they create wealth, and by creating wealth, they increase resources available for everyone, including those who are “less fortunate”. Hayek in his “Road to slavery” gives a perfect example of this phenomenon. The labor of a minimally skilled worker by itself is not worth much. When, however, he becomes a part of a bigger enterprise, a factory, created by a successful individual with vision and talent, the worth of his labor increases by orders of magnitude. The second fallacy consists in the assumption that expropriating wealth created by successful people to achieve its more equitable distribution would have no influence on its overall amount. Ayn Rand showed that this is not so very clearly in her Atlas Shrugged, where she demonstrated with almost mathematical precision what happens to a society, which begins such redistribution.
OK, it is time to wrap it up, as I myself am not able to finish reading this post. To conclude: the liberals hate capitalism because they are ashamed of being successful. They believe that success of some is unfair for the others. It might be so, but to punish people and countries just because they succeeded while others failed is not just more unfair – it makes things worse for everyone, including those whom liberals are purported to defend.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)