Recently, there has been renewed debate about ideological imbalance in academia, the political scientist Robert Maranto complaining about the dearth of conservatives in his field. This is related to a concern of mine: the lack of academic work on progressivism (as social justice ideology now seems to be known). Despite profound changes on the left, liberalism yielding to progressivism, there are few studies of this phenomenon.
I'm not sure if 'progressive ideology'(?) is the right turn of phrase. I still associate progressivism and left-wing ideology with socialism, which is an extreme viewpoint in a very different way to the new identitarian/postmodern left-wing tradition. They are both far left ideologies for very different reasons.
Perhaps an analogous discussion could be had about the far-right, how the media distinguishes the more incoheremt reactionary/alt right movement with the more traditional conservation movement...
Yes, I've used 'social justice ideology' in the past, for the reasons you mention, but most people seem to use 'progressivism' now? It's so hard to pick a good term!
This is one of the most insightful and helpful articles I've read on the drift of the left and why there seems to be so little understanding or intelligent discussion of it. I'm especially grateful for this one - thanks !
I read Marano, and what I got out of it was this: "The APSA badly needs to have the Claremont Institute inside the tend. The Claremont Institute supports the idea of making false claims about history and politics in order to back attempts to overthrow the government of the United States by fraud and force."
I must admit I do not find this compelling. People who make false claims by accident out of enthusiasm as they try to figure uut what is going on—we should welcome them, and argue with them, for they are convinceable by evidence, at least in theory. People who make false claims by design in order to overthrow democracy—it seems to me that elementary quality control suggests that they would be best filtered out.
Is there an example of a conservative position that does not involve making claims about history a and politics that are false by design that you can point to—one that should be inside, but is currently outside the pale?
Thanks for your comment. I don't agree with everything Marano asserts and wouldn't welcome the far right into academia. I think the context is different in the UK/Europe, where moderates tend to be (just) in control of the right.
There are moderate conservatives in academia, yet I'd like more of them, as I think it would mean more balanced debate. But whilst education is such a strong predictor of political values, this will be challenging. I don't have good solutions but feel that certain academic communities do could do more to encourage moderate conservatives to enter the sector! Best,
In my view, the shortage of moderate conservatives springs from the fact that they are Tory men who are for Whig measures, and right-wing funders and activists right now have zero tolerance for Whig measures. So Tory men who support Whig measures either decide that it is their identity that is important—and become anti-democratic pro-plutocrat loons—or that the measures are important, and so join us liberals.
I do think that there is a very strong current of academic and non-academic work attempting to understand and critique leftists, but it comes from liberals...
They will eat themselves a la Dantonists, Herbertists, Montagnards. The academy will be an intellectual wasteland, which it very nearly is already. There is not so much an "ideological imbalance" as you write, but rather an intellectual one, a philosophical one. Conservatism is a philosophy unto itself. What we call progressivism is... what? Not Marxism purely, not Marcusian, not totally Comptian (though close) and not completely dedicated to Alinskiy's bullshit. What are they? Well, they are French revolutionaries, pursuing unattainable perfection and willing to burn down the church merely warm their hands.
I'm not sure if 'progressive ideology'(?) is the right turn of phrase. I still associate progressivism and left-wing ideology with socialism, which is an extreme viewpoint in a very different way to the new identitarian/postmodern left-wing tradition. They are both far left ideologies for very different reasons.
Perhaps an analogous discussion could be had about the far-right, how the media distinguishes the more incoheremt reactionary/alt right movement with the more traditional conservation movement...
Yes, I've used 'social justice ideology' in the past, for the reasons you mention, but most people seem to use 'progressivism' now? It's so hard to pick a good term!
Very insightful - thanks!
Thanks Mark :-)
This is one of the most insightful and helpful articles I've read on the drift of the left and why there seems to be so little understanding or intelligent discussion of it. I'm especially grateful for this one - thanks !
Thanks Mike! Hope you're well :-)
I read Marano, and what I got out of it was this: "The APSA badly needs to have the Claremont Institute inside the tend. The Claremont Institute supports the idea of making false claims about history and politics in order to back attempts to overthrow the government of the United States by fraud and force."
I must admit I do not find this compelling. People who make false claims by accident out of enthusiasm as they try to figure uut what is going on—we should welcome them, and argue with them, for they are convinceable by evidence, at least in theory. People who make false claims by design in order to overthrow democracy—it seems to me that elementary quality control suggests that they would be best filtered out.
Is there an example of a conservative position that does not involve making claims about history a and politics that are false by design that you can point to—one that should be inside, but is currently outside the pale?
Yours,
Brad DeLong
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your comment. I don't agree with everything Marano asserts and wouldn't welcome the far right into academia. I think the context is different in the UK/Europe, where moderates tend to be (just) in control of the right.
There are moderate conservatives in academia, yet I'd like more of them, as I think it would mean more balanced debate. But whilst education is such a strong predictor of political values, this will be challenging. I don't have good solutions but feel that certain academic communities do could do more to encourage moderate conservatives to enter the sector! Best,
Tom
In my view, the shortage of moderate conservatives springs from the fact that they are Tory men who are for Whig measures, and right-wing funders and activists right now have zero tolerance for Whig measures. So Tory men who support Whig measures either decide that it is their identity that is important—and become anti-democratic pro-plutocrat loons—or that the measures are important, and so join us liberals.
I do think that there is a very strong current of academic and non-academic work attempting to understand and critique leftists, but it comes from liberals...
Broadly agree with that. Viewed from Europe, the disintegration of the American right has been bewildering and terrifying.
Please tell me more!
They will eat themselves a la Dantonists, Herbertists, Montagnards. The academy will be an intellectual wasteland, which it very nearly is already. There is not so much an "ideological imbalance" as you write, but rather an intellectual one, a philosophical one. Conservatism is a philosophy unto itself. What we call progressivism is... what? Not Marxism purely, not Marcusian, not totally Comptian (though close) and not completely dedicated to Alinskiy's bullshit. What are they? Well, they are French revolutionaries, pursuing unattainable perfection and willing to burn down the church merely warm their hands.
Thanks! Interesting point!