Brainwashing 101

[Arrian]

Shocker. A right-winger writes an article defending Summers. I'm stunned.

But student response to the ouster suggests another long-term outcome. Although the activists of yesteryear may have found a temporary stronghold in the universities, a new generation of students has had its fill of radicalism. Sobered by the heavy financial burdens most of their families have to bear for their schooling, they want an education solid enough to warrant the investment. Chastened by the fall-out of the sexual revolution and the breakdown of the family, they are wary of human experiments that destabilize society even further. Alert to the war that is being waged against America, they feel responsible for its defense even when they may not agree with the policies of the current administration. If the students I have come to know at Harvard are at all representative, a new moral seriousness prevails on campus, one that has yet to affect the faculty members because it does not yet know how to marshal its powers.

Wow, what a bundle of crap that is. If lots of Harvard students really believe that ****, that's sad. I'm gonna hope that the students this woman knows are not representative.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually it was chick from the FAS what wrote it.

Ms. Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and professor of comparative literature at Harvard.

[Arrian]

post edited.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dans'd

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
To the original posting,we have of course the latest news of Harvards ousting of their President essentially for views unbecoming/incompatible with others. One does wonder why these views are met with such vehement anger in the circle of acedemia wherein views are supposed to be open for discussion.

Of course professors will want to get rid of a university president whose views are incompatible with theirs. That's how universities work.

[Sandman]

Conservative economic policies have little to nothing to do with 'tradition'.

Traditional free market theory. Recall that free market economics (aka, classic liberalism) was quite liberal when it came out. 200 years later and it has become a tradional way to look at the economy in some societies.

Though, I do agree, that some self-described 'conservatives' who are ultra free market types aren't really conservatives, but far more libertarian.

Why bring 'tradition' in the equation at all? Why can't it just be economic thinking, unfiltered by traditionalism? Conservatives justify the implementation of free market policies with all sorts of reasoning, but seldom do they resort to talking about tradition when explaining why (for example) prison services should be outsourced to private companies.

Bringing in tradition only makes sense if you want to prop up this interpretation of conservatism you've developed. And it doesn't really help, since it's every bit as vague.

And you've scythed off another group. Your conservatives seem to be my centrists - which makes me wonder what you see as the differences between centrists and conservatives, if any.

If you have a society with two groups, one 'defending free market traditions', the other 'defending socialist traditions', then they are both conservative, just different, according to you. What a useless concept conservatism becomes.

As for Gorby, his opponents are more generally referred to as hard-liners, rather than conservatives. Presumably to limit confusion.

Every reactionary is a self-described conservative. If you are going to go by what people describe themselves as, then you'll find that almost every country on Earth is a democracy or republic. There have to be reactionaries somewhere, but no one is going to describe them as being such.

The number of people who are self-indentified conservatives and also fit within your definition must be vanishingly small.

[Flip McWho]

Then it's a pointless term.

Thats the point right there. Aggie hit it on the head. Talking about conservative as a political ideology that advocates slow gradual change renders it pointless.

Basically all conservatives are for going back to whats been or changing things ever so slowly so they're not uncomfortable with it. Liberals all advocate change, it depends on the liberal as to whether they advocate rapid or gradual change, where to change and towards what end.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Of course professors will want to get rid of a university president whose views are incompatible with theirs. That's how universities work.

Lovely, dissent must be quelled at all costs. How orwellian these universities have become of late. Certainly wasn't necessarily the case when I went. Or for that matter when my father taught or when he was administration either.

[OzzyKP]

I've been sigged.

[OzzyKP]

I just picked up "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis today, and this passage seemed particularly appropriate for this thread:

We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

[Fake Boris]

I'm convinced...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Lovely, dissent must be quelled at all costs. How orwellian these universities have become of late. Certainly wasn't necessarily the case when I went. Or for that matter when my father taught or when he was administration either.

I don't know how the administration is chosen at Harvard... but depending on the college charter, oftentimes the professors vote. I don't see why they would have to keep him just as to say that they are for freedom of expression. The guy has been vocal about his support for conservative ideas... and has probably put forth policies related to his views. It does have an effect on how the university operates - and if those whose support you need don't like it, then that's goodbye for you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

As a specific example, liberals prefer Keynesian economic policies while conservatives prefer neoclassical ones.

What do you call President Bush then?

Bastard Keynesian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You could have fooled me.

But seriously, no. It's not the same.

Marxians look at the past as a place that we are fleeing from. We're on the way from one social order to the next, and the sooner the better. While they are aware of the past, they are in no way enamoured with much of it.

A conservative might look to the past and see classical liberalism as something to guide us. At the same time, he or she will see our current society as something that has great value and should be preserved while nudging it towards greater allowance for individual liberty.

These are not the same views or uses of the past, at all.

You can't preserve society and change society at the same time though. It seems that you want to say preserve some but change the rest. Fundamentally your ideology is based on other principles besides aversion to change.