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.
Interesting. I wonder if part of the problem is the ability of the left to frame its goals as inevitabilities. The right is more cautious, hesitant and more open to external engagement and debate, and hence has a higher risk of its positions being stymied at the outset.
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...
Very insightful - thanks!
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?
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.