Oh boy, did this ever sound familiar to me. Yale in 1991 was very much like Brown in 2001. The minute anybody dared to suggest an opposing viewpoint to the prevailing (left) political attitude, it was "fascist, racist, homophobe, etc., etc., etc." I remember so many ridiculous moments from that time, but the common thread was always the shutting off of any debate by immediately branding the person on the conservative side of the spectrum as some kind of moral monster for even thinking such thoughts. The arguments were rarely, if ever engaged.
When I think about my politics, I sometimes wonder if I wasn't simply driven towards the right but sheer revulsion at the exclusive Groupthink that dominated the university when I was there. It's depressing to see that so little has changed, at least in the Ivy League.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
That's funny, I sometimes wonder if my political views aren't the result of revulsion as well...
I am happy to say that there was a pretty even matchup of left vs. right Groupthink at Cornell, 91-95. I went to school much more conservative than I am now. But soon, I hated my Country, Soldiers, the Constitution, and Apple Pie. Isn't college great?
Actually, you went to college at a time when there was a bit of a nascent conservative student movement in the Ivy League. I remember when I was graduating ('91) and the controversy over the Dartmouth Review was making waves and stirring the pot a little. It was kind of exciting.
Boy f'ing howdy...
I just went over and bought this guys book.
I remember when this guy (me), one who was kicked out of his house and ran away to protest for pot legalization on the mall in DC in 1979, had his first change of heart. It wasn't being ostrichized in the academia world, but rather the Iran hostage crisis and the latter half of the Carter administration. It was simply a shitty time all around. No jobs and strife brought on by post Vietnam appeasement everywhere. Reagan gets elected and the hostages came home. The first place they stayed on American soil upon their arrival back from Iran was West Point. There is no doubt in my mind that Reagan would have bombed Iran back into the stoneage, and perhaps the ME would have been a different place today had they called his bluff. I do know that without this direct threat by someone nobody in the world doubted would carry it out, resulted in bringing those people home. It changed my mind forever and thus was born Tony Alva the hawk.
I stopped being liberally naive from that day on. I do find many traditionally "conservative" postions revolting, but rather open to hearing anyone out without hating them.
"I sometimes wonder if I wasn't simply driven towards the right but sheer revulsion at the exclusive Groupthink "
Reading this gave me pause too. Have always been a non-conformist all my life, I wonder whether at times this didn't motivate my thought when I was younger. I've always had distain for elitism no matter where it comes from. It's why it took so long for me to appreciate jazz music. The snobbery in those circles makes it hard to breathe sometimes. Coupled with the fact that I began my undergrad as a fine arts major, well, you simply cannot find a bigger collective of elites there.
Does being ostrichized mean sticking your head in the sand?
My long, slow descent into liberalism began when I started attending meetings of the advisory board that decided how students' activity fees were distributed. Watching young conservatives argue that Cornell Cinema should not receive funding because of some of the films we were showing ("Gay Film Friday" was one of many controversial programs), but that the Greek system deserved every penny it got, made me realize what side I was on.
The first censorship I ever saw came from the right. The name calling from the right was far worse than that from the left (is it worse to be called a homophobe or a fag?).
There was plenty of shutting off of political debate by conservatives who used phrases like "liberal naivete" in my college days. The liberals were FAR more willing to hear others out and try to empathize. I realized that there was only one side I could be on and still hold my head up.
I still believe this is true.
Chris -
You have a very interesting definition of "conservative." Homophobia and racism seem to figure prominently. What that has to do with believing in a small federal government and low levels of government regulation and intervention is beyond me.
D
Dave,
You're right, modern conservatism has absolutely no truck with homophobia or racism.
Much like your definition of liberal, my definition of conservative may be a bit stereotypical. Sorry, I grew up in a land where Rush Limbaugh was the most popular "conservative". I realize conservatism is bigger than this, but liberalism is bigger than just calling everyone a racist or homophobe as well.
Anyhow, I await your corrections.
ps - What were the discussions you were trying to have that led to you being labeled homophobic? Which arguments weren't being engaged? What were the thoughts you were thinking that would cause you to be labeled as as "moral monster"?
Chris -
I was called a fascist for suggesting that...the federal government be smaller and less involved in trying to nanny the citizens to death.
D
Chris -
As an example, you go an try arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned purely because it is (a) a poorly argued decision that invents rights that don't actually appear in the Constitution, (b) has hamstrung our judicial nomination process for thirty years and (c) takes away from the legislature a decision that should be rightly theirs.
These arguments have nothing to do with whether or not abortion is good, bad or neutral, but you would be amazed at the names you will be called for making this argument.
D
On a final note, Chris, if you want to talk about having truck with racism, let's talk about the Democratic Party having the poor judgment to invite Al Sharpton, one of this country's worst race-baiters/racists, to speak in prime time at their national convention.
Sharpton at the convention - now you're talking about the DNC, not liberals.
Funny, the government's roll in nannying or interfering with the citizens' rights has only grown in the last few years. We thought the Republicans were for smaller government! Guess there really is a bigger and bigger difference between the Republicans and Conservatives.
The Roe v Wade argument is unwinnable. You can't expect to apply pure rationality to this or that people would respond to pure rationality - neither side does (there are just as many people saying "baby killer" as "facist"). This isn't just the liberals' role or fault.
It's funny because that moment in US history (the Iran Hostage situation) cemented my view of the right. Reagan played that situation to his advantage, he used people's lives as a tool to get elected.
I doubt the hostages would feel the same way.
Reagan knew they'd cough them up as soon as they knew the threat of oil fields being bombed was real.
I'm going to have to go back and research this, but I seem to remember some funny business going on where Reagan manipulated the whole thing to his advantage, i.e. the release was settled, but delayed until he took office to make him look good.
Chris -
No argument here. Bush pisses me off because he has nothing at all to do with small government. Drives me crazy.
D
personally, i don't think anyone was ever bullied into conservatism by mean old liberals. that implies two things. one is that the conservative's views are not all that deeply held, but are simply a reaction against another's unpleasant behavior. the second is that liberals are the only ones capable of boorish behavior, which i think we can all agree is not the case.
in my opinion, people form their political and ideological beliefs based on gut feel. they then spend the rest of their lives rationalizing why they feel that way.
for example, i can say that i disagree with the current administration because, by going around the globe bullying people and trying to deliver democracy through bombs, they are creating a world that is far more unstable and unsafe than the one we lived in pre-9/11. but, maybe the reality is that i simply don't like stupid bullies. maybe i'm just really tired of our country's fascination with the whole john wayne, lone gunslinger, "shoot first ask questions later" mentality. see, i'm getting riled up just typing about it.
in the end, i suspect ideology is a combination of the visceral and the intellectual. it is unfortunate when people resort to obnoxious behavior in an attempt to make their points. in my experience, such behavior is far more likely to happen when someone feels like they're not being heard or understood. the fact that there seems to be so much obnoxiousness these days on both sides probably doesn't say a lot for our ability to communicate with each other.
Eric -
I wasn't trying to convey that I felt bullied into conservatism by liberals. I wasn't upset by the silly name-calling so much as I was disheartened by the unwillingess to even consider other ideas that I saw.
This post and the subsequent comments reminded me of something said by one of my ex-girlfriend (coincidentally, a Cornell alum, like Chris). When she first got to school, she thought hanging out with what she termed the "crunchy, hippies" was the coolest thing because they were so right on about everything. By her Junior year, she had come to the conclusion that they were actually the most intolerant, closed-minded people on the campus and she disavowed them.
i guess i was just wondering if your point was that liberals somehow corner the market on obnoxious, hypocritical behavior. because while i agree that it's counter-productive and serves only to undermine the position it's supposedly being deployed in the service of, i'm also pretty sure that it's an affliction that hits every slice of the political spectrum. our problems do not lie simply with pious progressives or overbearing conservatives. our problems lie at least in part in our refusal to communicate and work together. in other words, without getting all conspiracy-theory on your ass, isn't it at least possible that the sole benefits of all this bickering fall to the ones already holding the reigns?
Post a Comment