Quote of the day from Tom Maguire:
. . . "civil liberties" is not simply a phrase to be tossed around in partisan pillow fights. . . . If we can make the world safe for terrorists who want to use the telephone networks to plot our destruction, surely we can allow US citizens to criticize the legislative process..
Follow the link for a rundown on the kerfuffle which prompted Maguire's comment. Will university professors whose salaries are paid by the government have to start watching what they say whenever the administration changes?
Update: Standards for acceptable criticism of government seem to be very different for media figures on the Left. Seymour Hersh on his willingness to lie during speaking engagements , but not in print:
‘I can't fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say...I find that totally not inconsistent with anything I do professionally. I'm just communicating another reality that I know, that for a lot of reasons having to do with, basically, someone else's ass, I'm not writing about it...I get paid to do speeches...And I'm not there to be on straight I'm there to tell, you know, give somebody, exchange views with people."
Another indication of objectivity and perspective in journalism:
"I‘m not interested in history because I'm trying to change things."
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Re-constructing our System of Higher Education - updated
This is the Age of the Internet. There is no reason for people to shoulder huge debts in order to be trained in group-think in our universities when there is a world of useful, intellectually rigorous and interesting information available. The world view in many of our elite universities is so monolithic that a lot of nonsense goes without serious challenge.
It's not that there is a complete lack of relatively moderate professors in higher education. There are even a few conservatives. It's that "progressives" of the type who were burning down university buildings in the late 1960s are still dominant in university leadership. University policies and curricula reflect this. The truly radical progressives are much more conspicuous and vocal than moderates and much more likely to inject their politics into their teaching. They also reinforce each other.
I like this satire which takes academic group-think to a logical conclusion. It's from the Clinton-era "vacation from history" when academics were really emotional about disdain for western civilization. Their focus may evolve some over time, but there seems to be a lot of herd-like movement among liberal arts professors as they react to topics of the day.
Some educational values we have lost
The hard sciences are a partial exception to self-reinforcing group-think in academia, but "Post-Normal Science" is making inroads even there. Glance through the comment threads on the two links above for a few examples. Hard sciences are one field where universities still offer important advantages in education. But vigilance even in the hard sciences is necessary to keep ideology from putting a damper on unpopular areas of scientific enquiry, and to keep it from dumbing down higher education.
If you are contemplating a university education for yourself or your child, here are seven questions to ask the candidate universities first. You could probably think of a few more. Prager remembers a time, when he was in high school and earlier, when most people were not college-educated but were more curious about the world, continuing their self-education into adulthood.
For example, as the percentage of college-educated adults increased, the number of serious political journals decreased (even before the internet age). Not long ago Prager was interviewing the editor of the liberal (not radical) political journal "The New Republic". which Prager read even when in high school. He suggested to the editor that the lack of growth in subscriptions to this journal (despite the demise of similar journals, greater population and a rising number of college graduates who should be more attuned to serious political thought) was an indictment against our system of higher education. The editor had never considered this idea before. (Prager also recognized the power of television in decreasing interest in serious intellectual pursuits, and also in the simplification and dumbing-down of content in our weekly news magazines).
Group-think in higher education filters down to earlier grade levels, which now feature a lot of bored students. While substitute teaching, I have been impressed by the boring nature of textbooks, compared to when I was in school. The most challenging vocabulary seems to be in math textbooks, rather than in English books.
Another worrisome aspect of today's academia is the lack of emphasis on logic. They say that many college graduates cannot now follow the arguments in a newspaper editorial. Our attention spans are getting shorter. People who retain the attention span to read actual books are still the people who tend to become leaders in our society. This is an area which deserves attention.
Some steps we could take to lower costs and improved quality of education
We can do better. Many reading books for the lowest grade levels are delightful now. This reflect the current concern with teaching kids to read early. We can make similar improvements for older children. As kids get older, the typical ideologically-oriented textbooks suffer in comparison with what they can access on the Web. Learning through the web can either be much worse, though more interesting, than their schoolwork or both better and more interesting than their schoolwork.
We need to address issues involving technology-enhanced vs. traditional education carefully. Exposure to TV, computers, etc. at the youngest ages may hamper childrens' future ability to concentrate, to be at ease in nature and to learn from real-life experiences. Psychiatrists are now reporting a dramatic new malady: teens and young adults who are chronically bored with real life - who are ill at ease without constant input from their machines.
But there's no good reason I can think of to cut off school models which get much better results than the most sclerotic, dangerous public schools.
We need to promote lower-cost alternative resources for people who want an old-fashioned, classically liberal education. This is the kind of education which is now called "conservative". More importantly in terms of our country's financial mess, at a time when just about everyone is expected to get some higher education, various forms of self-education which recognize the differing learning styles and aptitudes of individuals become more important.
At the most extreme end of the spectrum of inefficient college instruction, we could modify the practice of keeping people with serious learning difficulties - people who have little hope of success in regular college classes - in college far longer than the typical college student. Currently, many such students stay in special college classes year after year primarily as a way of supporting themselves through scholarships. More rational programs could encourage earlier entry into the workforce for many of these people.
How about credentials similar to a CPA instead of a university degree? It would make a lot of sense in many fields. How about resources to help people use more effectively the resources of public libraries? I even like the idea of emphasizing learning for the joy of learning. I am not confident that giving Washington bureaucrats more power to direct and to choose between educational programs is going to help much to increase the quality or decrease the costs of our educational system. Some of the programs offered on the internet look better to me than the government-supported alternatives, at least for older children, teens and adults. Maybe an Army of Davids approach can help at this time in history.
It's not that there is a complete lack of relatively moderate professors in higher education. There are even a few conservatives. It's that "progressives" of the type who were burning down university buildings in the late 1960s are still dominant in university leadership. University policies and curricula reflect this. The truly radical progressives are much more conspicuous and vocal than moderates and much more likely to inject their politics into their teaching. They also reinforce each other.
I like this satire which takes academic group-think to a logical conclusion. It's from the Clinton-era "vacation from history" when academics were really emotional about disdain for western civilization. Their focus may evolve some over time, but there seems to be a lot of herd-like movement among liberal arts professors as they react to topics of the day.
Some educational values we have lost
The hard sciences are a partial exception to self-reinforcing group-think in academia, but "Post-Normal Science" is making inroads even there. Glance through the comment threads on the two links above for a few examples. Hard sciences are one field where universities still offer important advantages in education. But vigilance even in the hard sciences is necessary to keep ideology from putting a damper on unpopular areas of scientific enquiry, and to keep it from dumbing down higher education.
If you are contemplating a university education for yourself or your child, here are seven questions to ask the candidate universities first. You could probably think of a few more. Prager remembers a time, when he was in high school and earlier, when most people were not college-educated but were more curious about the world, continuing their self-education into adulthood.
For example, as the percentage of college-educated adults increased, the number of serious political journals decreased (even before the internet age). Not long ago Prager was interviewing the editor of the liberal (not radical) political journal "The New Republic". which Prager read even when in high school. He suggested to the editor that the lack of growth in subscriptions to this journal (despite the demise of similar journals, greater population and a rising number of college graduates who should be more attuned to serious political thought) was an indictment against our system of higher education. The editor had never considered this idea before. (Prager also recognized the power of television in decreasing interest in serious intellectual pursuits, and also in the simplification and dumbing-down of content in our weekly news magazines).
Group-think in higher education filters down to earlier grade levels, which now feature a lot of bored students. While substitute teaching, I have been impressed by the boring nature of textbooks, compared to when I was in school. The most challenging vocabulary seems to be in math textbooks, rather than in English books.
Another worrisome aspect of today's academia is the lack of emphasis on logic. They say that many college graduates cannot now follow the arguments in a newspaper editorial. Our attention spans are getting shorter. People who retain the attention span to read actual books are still the people who tend to become leaders in our society. This is an area which deserves attention.
Some steps we could take to lower costs and improved quality of education
We can do better. Many reading books for the lowest grade levels are delightful now. This reflect the current concern with teaching kids to read early. We can make similar improvements for older children. As kids get older, the typical ideologically-oriented textbooks suffer in comparison with what they can access on the Web. Learning through the web can either be much worse, though more interesting, than their schoolwork or both better and more interesting than their schoolwork.
We need to address issues involving technology-enhanced vs. traditional education carefully. Exposure to TV, computers, etc. at the youngest ages may hamper childrens' future ability to concentrate, to be at ease in nature and to learn from real-life experiences. Psychiatrists are now reporting a dramatic new malady: teens and young adults who are chronically bored with real life - who are ill at ease without constant input from their machines.
But there's no good reason I can think of to cut off school models which get much better results than the most sclerotic, dangerous public schools.
We need to promote lower-cost alternative resources for people who want an old-fashioned, classically liberal education. This is the kind of education which is now called "conservative". More importantly in terms of our country's financial mess, at a time when just about everyone is expected to get some higher education, various forms of self-education which recognize the differing learning styles and aptitudes of individuals become more important.
At the most extreme end of the spectrum of inefficient college instruction, we could modify the practice of keeping people with serious learning difficulties - people who have little hope of success in regular college classes - in college far longer than the typical college student. Currently, many such students stay in special college classes year after year primarily as a way of supporting themselves through scholarships. More rational programs could encourage earlier entry into the workforce for many of these people.
How about credentials similar to a CPA instead of a university degree? It would make a lot of sense in many fields. How about resources to help people use more effectively the resources of public libraries? I even like the idea of emphasizing learning for the joy of learning. I am not confident that giving Washington bureaucrats more power to direct and to choose between educational programs is going to help much to increase the quality or decrease the costs of our educational system. Some of the programs offered on the internet look better to me than the government-supported alternatives, at least for older children, teens and adults. Maybe an Army of Davids approach can help at this time in history.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Professor's Thoughts on "The Obama Code" (updated)
DEPRESSING DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Conservatives may not be able to do much right now about the economy or the political situation. But we can think about how to help young people understand what is happening. One of our problems is that universities are coming up short in teaching people how to think for themselves, in a common-sense, objective manner which values the wisdom of past generations.
The shortcomings of higher education have serious consequences. For example, whether you think that the blame for our current economy lies more with business, politicians or other organized special interests, remember that our current economic crisis was engineered and enabled (OOPS!) primarily by people trained at elite universities. I think it is worthwhile to examine what is taught there more closely before shoveling even more money into these institutions.
Every once in a while, I like to check out what our academic elites are saying. People outside academia, including me, tend to be quite unaware of what is going on within the Ivory Towers of our universities. I was particularly struck by the narrow and short-sighted thinking in the piece on "The Obama Code" described below. The more I learn about what some academics write, the more I believe that now is the time to turn to alternatives to our current system of higher education.
The piece examined below is refreshingly free from the vulgar language which makes it difficult for many people to even read much of what passes as progressive thought today. I appreciate this and recognize the Professor for his more respectful standards in this piece. But however scientific he may be in studying how people use and perceive words, his statements about the nature of conservatism, history, etc. appear to reflect his ideology rather than a level of objectivity worthy of a professor of cognitive science. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I find many of the statements below to be far more emotional than cognitive. It pains me that standards are so low in universities.
"THE OBAMA CODE"* - one professor's distillation of "a moral vision and a view of unity" from Barak Obama's speeches
Like they say, conservatives tend to think liberals are misguided, and liberals tend to think that conservatives are evil. You may wish to read this entire piece on "The Obama Code", by a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at UC Berkeley, to form your own impressions before you read my comments. (If the link doesn't work, there's another version here.) You might even want to print it out for comparison. I'm not going to Fisk the entire piece. But I am commenting in detail on a few statements which I believe are good examples of how liberals (i.e., "progressives") in today's elite universities get sloppy in their arguments because they are seldom seriously challenged by their peers.
I realize that I am writing a long piece which is tough slogging in the day of instant messaging. But the Professor throws out statements worthy of serious challenge with such ease. If it's too long for you to tackle right now, you could maybe scroll through the headings and pick out a part that interests you.
The professor's piece is full of lovely utopian ways to linguistically endow "progressivism" with power and moral value and equate it with"American Values". But more interesting are the ways he linguistically strips "conservatism" of any power, moral value or connection with "American Values",
The professor calls his observations about President Obama's rhetoric, "Seven deep, insightful, and subtle intellectual moves" which he thinks President Obama uses to bring people into agreement with him. It appears that he urged several other progressives to post his piece just before President Obama addressed Congress, so that fellow progressives could look for signs of the professor's theory in President Obama's speech and be inspired to help bring about his vision. The people commenting about the Professor's piece on the progressive sites which came up first on a computer search seemed very impressed by the professor's insights.*
The professor writes:
But what if the basic premise of the Professor's logic is simply wrong? What if all that is good in America is not based solely on feelings of empathy? What if it's not that simple?
What if empathy, self-interest and a variety of other motives can be found at the core of either progressive or conservative policies? What if the belief that compassion and empathy are morally superior motivations can make us easy prey for charlatans, quacks, hustlers (Bernie Madoff was into charities) - and even totalitarians? What if greed for political power is potentially as bad as, or worse than, economic greed? What if covetousness can be as destructive as greed? (The Bible doesn't exactly condone greed, but one of the Ten Commandments is against covetousness - not just jealousy or envy, but the desire to take away what others have).
What if it is not true that conservatism has at its core, "pure self-interest"? What if conservatives have some other concerns? What if conservatives recognize, for example, that liberty and equality are in tension? Enforcing equality (other than equality before the law) through government power reduces liberty. Wasn't "What's the Matter with Kansas" written because progressives were baffled by the perplexing failure of poor people in Kansas to act in their own economic self-interest by voting for progressive policies? Why do some progressives want poor people to act out of self-interest and rich people to act out of empathy (to be implemented according to the vision of the progressives - not the empathy of the rich people)?
Motives may be of great importance in our relationship with God. Motives are important in our personal relationships, but so are the results of our actions. What if, in the realm of public policy, the results of policies are more important than the motives behind them? Why have so many of the major liberal projects of the last 40 years or so (all of them based on empathy) been so destructive in practice?
The motto of the French revolution was, "Liberty, Equalty, Fraternity". Beautiful ideals. But you can't enforce a pure vision of both equality and liberty through government at the same time. Attempts to implement this motto quickly helped lead to The Terror and to Napoleon. Our coins, in contrast, say '"LIBERTY", "E PLURIBUS UNUM" (from many, one) and "IN GOD WE TRUST". Ironically, in America there is less class-consciousness than there is in much of Europe, where greater emphasis is placed on equality.
THE PROFESSOR'S VIEW OF CONSERVATIVES - A "crucial intellectual move"*?
I find the Professor's view of "the conservative focus" (next paragraph) to be warped, frighteningly superficial and possibly based on provincialism - lack of deep, real-world exposure to actual conservatives. But is is also possible that he is deliberately describing conservatives in an extremely negative way as a linguistic stratagem or "crucial intellectual move". You might also want to look throughout his piece for the ways in which the professor subtly or brazenly misrepresents history to make conservatives sound extreme and one-dimensional.
I wonder if the Professor has ever hear Winston Churchill's statement about capitalism being the worst economic system in the world, "except for all the others"?
In the remainder of the piece, the Professor goes on to re-define any empathetic impulse or value of a conservative person as an "American Value" - one he equates with progressive thought. The only values of a conservative which are actually "conservative" seem to be those the Professor sees as self-interested. ASTOUNDING. DEVIOUS. DIVISIVE. I guess this is the kind of thing you get when universities teach that there is no such thing as objective truth. Many self-identified progressives, particularly in academia, are remarkably adept at manipulating the meaning of language, especially in order to demonize their intellectual or political opponents. This offends the conservative's sense that standards of truth in public life are necessary to the health of our cultural and political system. (This does not mean that Republicans do not also sometimes manipulate language. They are just not as good at it).
Oddly, when their altruistic policies don't work, progressives sometimes over-react, with things like "zero tolerance" policies.
A FEW OF THE MORE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THE PROFESSOR'S PICTURE OF CONSERVATIVES (and Libertarians)
The "pure self-interest" motives the Professor ascribes to conservatives in the paragraph above are closer to the views of an Ayn Rand libertarian than they are to traditional American conservative thought. James Taranto makes a few tongue-in-cheek distinctions between conservative and libertarian outlooks here.
It is true that American conservatives do talk a lot about individual responsibility. Dennis Prager points out that this reflects a "masculine" desire to maintain standards. But that does not mean that American conservatives reject social responsibility - based in the "feminine" desire to nurture . American conservatives would generally prefer to express their empathy or nurturing impulses individually or in voluntary associations rather than through government. One reason is that, as Milton Friedman points out, altruism expressed through government is based at its core on coercion and the theft of money (and therefore time, labor and goods) from others through taxation. This offends the conservative sense of standards for society and the American conservative respect for economic liberty.
If conservatives are motivated by "pure self-interest" and focus only on "individual responsiblity", why do conservatives donate to charity far more time, money and even blood than progressives do (when matched for income, age, sex, etc.)? Side note: the same studies show that progressive women are far more likely to give blood than progressive men - reflecting their nurturing tendencies. Gay progressives donate more money than the average progressive.
If conservatives have no sense of "social responsibility", why are they so often called upon to pick up the pieces (often in a very personal way) of lives broken by the unintended consequences of well-meaning liberal (or progressive) policies?
President Obama wants to tax charitable donations by rich people. So is either Obama or the rich donor to charity acting out of "pure self-interest" concerning this policy? Good private charities are far more efficient at helping people (or the environment, etc.) than are government-run charities. So why is President Obama acting to cut off help to people who need it unless the central government has control over the way they are helped?
President Obama wants taxpayers to pay for the health insurance of poor people (and eventually everyone else), but he wants veterans to pay for treatment of their own service-related injuries. It seems to me like he is acting out of a desire to price private insurance out of the market or that he plans to use the veteran's issue to demonstrate that government-funded healthcare is desirable (never mind the poor record of veteran's medical care or state-side military medical care). Or can you think of another rationale for this highly unpopular policy which would help us to understand that Obama's motives are based in empathy?
For another thing, the professor's characterization seriously misrepresents even libertarian theory. Libertarians certainly do not believe in allowing one man (such as a president) to be "the decider". On most issues, libertarians and conservatives are more in favor of separation of powers, limitation of judicial fiat, state's rights, etc. than are progressives.
Libertarians do emphasize that government actions to force income equality and other forms of altruism on everyone lead to serious negative outcomes sooner or later. Communism killed more of its own citizens in the 20th century than all the horrible wars of that era. It is hard to imagine that this professor has ever had to defend his positions in a neutral setting, in person, with a real, live, informed conservative or libertarian who is not his student. Otherwise, you would expect that he would be more accurate and careful in his descriptions.
A note about the private lives of elite progressives: While elite progressives talk mostly about social responsibility, they often expect a great deal of individual responsibility among their own peer group and from their own children. They often live their personal lives a lot like conservatives do. Sometimes they expect more from their peers and their children than conservatives do.
But when they develop policies concerning groups of people whom they think need help, they sometimes forget the salutary effects of balancing an emphasis on individual responsibility with empathy and respect for individual differences. And they often demonize moderates and conservatives who attempt to inject an emphasis in individual responsibility into such policies as judgmental and uncaring.
"BICONCEPTUALISM" AND THE NEW BIPARTISANSHIP - Is an enemy required?
Check out the professor's point #3, "Biconceptualism and the new Bipartisanship"*. See if you can discern his definition of "biconceptualism" from the points he makes. What a fancy word. Probably meant to make something mundane sound profound. Just a guess. He makes it clear here that Obama should only work with conservatives when they are not purely conservative and, therefore, share some of his "progressive" or "American" values.
As the Professor says, "The idea is not to accept conservative moral views, but to find those issues where individual Republicans already share what he sees as fundamentally American values." In other words, President Obama should strive to get Republicans who are not totally conservative to confirm his policies.
One by one, "Pure" (i.e. purely selfish and devoid of empathy) conservatives like, say, Rush Limbaugh, are being mischaracterized (with a considerable amount of help from other politicians and media figures), derided and marginalized. A big crowd of elites joins in the rhetorical stoning. Conservative politicians are challenged to denounce or disavow the sinner, reacting to the media characterization of what the sinner said, rather than the sinner's statement in context.
President Obama is becoming known in some circles as the "Demonizer-in-Chief." Is this what the Professor means when he talks about President Obama's "crucial intellectual moves" toward promoting his "biconceptual bipartisanship" or "view of unity"? Must the Professor (or President Obama) always have an enemy to promote unity under his "biconceptual" theory of bipartisanship?
This emphasis on "the enemy" follows a recent pattern involving Democrats in Washington and the liberal media. President Bush was elected partly because he had a record of working well with Democrats in Texas. Soon after he came into office, President Bush chose Edward Kennedy, the "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, to write the "No Child Left Behind" education bill. Bush was clearly not asking Kennedy just to rubber-stamp his own ideas. That's how most people think of bipartisanship. Early in his presidency, Bush was mischaracterized in a highly dishonest, personal and vicious manner, over and over again, by many of those with whom he was trying to be "bipartisan" (notably by Kennedy). Bush soon became known for ignoring "bipartisanship". Progressives harped on this theme constantly.
In his first days in office, President Obama dismissed proposals by Republicans without consideration by telling them that his ideas would prevail because "I won." The economic proposals of House Republicans were never considered when the House "stimulus package" was put together. Conservatives were excoriated if they did not rubber-stamp President Obama's positions, even in the House where Democrats did not need their votes. Democrats even falsely portrayed House Republicans as having refused to contribute ideas. The Republicans are criticized for refusing to be "bipartisan". They are therefore un-American. The double standard is obvious.
If Democrats eventually fall out of power, Obama's alleged idea of "biconceptualism" in bipartisanship will almost certainly be altered by Democrats to something closer to the common, straightforward meaning for bipartisanship which they used during the Bush presidency. Then, Democrats demanded compromise with or even adoption of their proposals. They seem to value "bipartisanship" highly, but it means "compromise" when they are out of power and "acquiescence" when they are in power. Is this part of "biconceptualism"?
THE CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE MACHINE - How did Obama ever get elected?
The professor also seems obsessed with the overwhelmingly powerful(?) "conservative message machine". Maybe he's been in Berkeley too long. How can he not recognize that progressives (liberals) predominate in the mainstream media? The percentage of Republicans in journalism is small, though not as vanishingly small as the number of Republicans in today's American liberal arts faculties. Liberals overwhelmingly dominate leadership in education, leadership in professional associations, government agencies, etc. Is the professor aware that progressive political bloggers are getting much more traffic than libertarian or conservative bloggers?
Can he really believe that conservative talk radio and conservative think tanks overwhelm the "progressive message" in America? If so, what makes them so effective in the face of mainstream media, the educational establishment, spokespersons for professional associations, etc.?
Conservatives went into think tanks in significant numbers at a time when they were pretty much shut out of government. Paul Harvey aside, conservative talk radio started mainly as commentary by rock-n-roll DJs - - not as an organized political project. People who listen to talk radio do so because they feel marginalized by the mainstream media. Does it occur to the Professor that a similarly on-target progressive message machine might evolve only in the crucible of adversity, with messages sharpened by overwhelming opposition?
Most news anchors, reporters, etc. are certainly not conservative. Even Paul Harvey has died since the Professor wrote his piece. The professor has suggested that President Obama can work with Republicans who have progressive values as part of his "biconceptual bipartisanship", and now he tells us that Democrats in the media are mostly conservative. Does this make sense to you?
Mainstream news is clearly dominated by liberals who repeatedly covered for Obama during the campaign, and played up attacks on and mistakes by his political opponents, including Hillary Clinton (once Obama became a serious contender). Conservatives who go on those TV "panel" discussions on the major networks, where people shout over each other, are usually outnumbered by liberals. And has the professor ever heard of Oprah or "The View"?
The professor may be thinking about straight commentary, which is often conservative. That's partly to provide a little balance to the news people, and partly because many liberals (or progressives) talk in feelings, rather than ideas. They tend to become boring, sanctimonious or overbearing when explaining their political philosophies (as opposed to presenting stories with which people can empathize). Liberal values are often presented by slanting supposedly "objective" news. Conservative values are typically presented as opinion. And conservative commentary is still nowhere near 80% of the straight commentary on TV.
The professor says, "Republicans in Congress can count on overwhelming message support in their home districts and home states. That is one reason why they were able to stonewall on the President's stimulus package. They had no serious media competition at home pounding out the Obama vision day after day."
Please. Name one reason why people in a Republican district would want their representative to vote for a bill he or she was not given a chance to read, which permanently and massively increases the power of the central government, and which primarily rewards liberal Democratic constituencies (i.e., Democratic special interests)? Would not most Americans reject such a shameful, unfair approach to "bipartisan" legislation even in the absence of the imaginary conservative "overwhelming message support" back home? And Republicans in Congress are not always real happy with the "overwhelming message support" for conservative values, as they are often criticized, on conservative talk radio especially, along with Democrats. AND THE DEMOCRATS DON'T NEED ANY REPUBLICAN VOTES TO PASS THEIR PLANS. Why the tinfoil hat excuses?
Progressives have tried liberal talk radio to pound out something close to the "Obama vision" day by day. Nobody wants to listen to it. Partly because it resembles what people hear from the mainstream media. People who have failed to establish economically self-supporting liberal talk radio now want to force the more successful conservative programs to pay for their airtime. Does this sound to you like self-interest or like empathy?
Although the Professor does not consider the MSM to be liberal, many conservatives have experienced overwhelming assaults by the liberal mainstream media. Armies of lawyers and reporters were sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin and her family, while Barak Obama's record went largely unexamined by the MSM even though they had a much longer period of time in which to examine it. (Ask yourself how much you heard during the campaign from the mainstream media about the failure of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama's only executive experience prior to the campaign and his one major effort in education).
More recently, even a temporary apostate from liberalism said about the surprising attacks on him from the Left, ". . . if it stays ad hominem, we will all be betrayed and the train wreck will become inevitable."
HOW THE 'SEVEN CRUCIAL INTELLECTUAL MOVES'* WILL CHANGE OUR IDEAS about the meaning of words
The professor's description of George Bush's use of the word "freedom" is a classic example of bearing false witness. And they say that conservatives are prone to black-and-white thinking. It is amazing to me that a highly-regarded professor of cognitive science could write this way largely unchallenged. Scary. A perfect example of Dennis Prager's declaration that today's graduate schools (in liberal arts or social sciences) often rob people of the ability to access their common sense and their ability to think non-ideologically, objectively and critically.
The following is just dopey. Under President Obama, the professor thinks that:
As if progressives had ever been excluded from using patriotic language, except by themselves. Why do progressives tell each other that conservatives have been excluding them from "patriotic language"?
IMPLEMENTING THE SEVEN CRUCIAL INTELLECTUAL MOVES* - manipulating how we think about words
The Professor is apparently more interested in what Obama says than in what he does. He says that under Obama, the meaning of freedom will be changed because he will close Guantanamo. Obama's administration now characterizes Guantanamo as a well-run facility which will be hard to close. Obama plans to return to the Clinton-era policy of rendition, which often led to much worse treatment of enemy combatants. He thinks that he can do rendition in a "kinder, gentler" manner. I suppose that Obama could, instead, advocate killing enemy combatants in the field rather than taking them prisoner . But I don't think that the Professor would approve of this.
The professor says that the meaning of freedom will change under Obama because torture will be outlawed. Obama is following about the same policies as Bush with regard to torture, though he has obscured this fact with some high-minded language.
The professor says that the meaning of freedom will be changed under Obama because markets will be regulated. Bush's record on market regulation is certainly poor. His administration and Congress even approved the increase in the lending to assets ratio for five huge financial institutions from 10:1 to 30:1, based on slick, sophisticated financial models presented by impressively educated people from these elite institutions. When the crisis occurred, these institutions were hit hard. Three of these institutions no longer exist. More conservative, more secure, smaller US banks were still OK after the real estate market crash. Some of them were strong-armed into taking bailout money to avoid "singling out" the big, irresponsible, high-flyer institutions. We have to exercise empathy, after all.
More progressive governments in Europe made far worse "sophisticated" decisions regarding regulation of financial markets. A substantial portion of the AIG bailout money is going to them (while we're obsessed with the dumb bonuses to executives here).
A few examples: Iceland's economy was apparently being run like a giant hedge fund. Austria got into massive trouble because of investments in Eastern Europe. We're apparently just finding out about risk that came via London.
On the other hand, Bush had tried over and over again to regulate the market in serious ways and was shot down repeatedly by Democrats who got lots of campaign cash and other favors from Fannie, Freddie and banks which really emphasized sub-prime loans. There is nothing "conservative" about the way financial markets were regulated during this time period. An expectation of proper regulation was encouraged, but not met. There's a lot of blame to be shared, going back for at least four decades. And ad hoc actions of the Fed and Treasury were probably more important in precipitating the recent crisis than was deregulation of the money markets. "Specific targets and standard rules enable players in the financial markets to know what the rules are and therefore to measure risk more accurately. The ad hoc response at various crisis points, . . has left players in the financial markets full of uncertainty and fear."
Many economists have concluded that failure to establish standard rules for financial markets prolonged the Great Depression for years. It has been four months since the election and much longer since the beginning of the financial crisis. The tanking markets threaten the financial freedom of most of us. Obama the candidate was praised by many libertarians and conservatives before the election for several wise choices for his economic team. But his actions so far have not been consistent with what some members of his economic team have recommended in the past. Why has Obama been talking about health care, green jobs, etc. instead of first establishing specific targets and standard rules for financial markets? Isn't that an important part of what the Professor thinks is Obama's goal of freedom through regulating markets? Does Obama want the freedom to change the rules on the fly like FDR did, even at the price of investor uncertainty?
But we're talking about cognitive science and lingustics here. Why would any of these mistakes and failings have a significant impact on the "DEFINITION OF FREEDOM" under Bush? The Professor can't possibly think that most Americans accept his characterization of "freedom" under Bush. He believes in the overwhelming power of the "conservative message machine". My only theory is that he wants to change our definition of "freedom"under Bush now that Obama is in office. Let me know if you have other theories.
The professor apparently thinks it is acceptable to pick and choose small slivers of history and to ignore the rest in order to re-define values like freedom, equality, prosperity, unity, security, interests, challenges, courage, purpose, loyalty, patriotism, virtue, character, and grace as antithetical to conservatism. This may be a "crucial intellectual move"* toward marginalizing conservatism and dividing Republicans, but it is dishonest.
The professor later says, "The conservative apparatus for language creation is still functioning." Both liberals and conservatives manipulate language for political purposes. But liberals are the masters of this craft. His identification of a nefarious "apparatus for language creation" could be a classic example of psychological projection, since he describes himself creating new meanings for language, and he wishes to create such an apparatus for progressives. Liberals frequently accuse conservatives of the things they, themselves are doing.
The Professor says, "The radical conservatives are aware that this economic crisis threatens not only their political support, but the very underpinnings of conservative ideology itself." As if conservative ideologies were in practice in the financial world at the time of the crises (other than in financial institutions which weathered the crisis).
Who are these mysterious "radical conservatives"? Where, exactly, have the "underpinnings of conservative ideology" (or even libertarian philosophy) been operating in the economy recently? The thing that threatens the underpinnings of conservative or libertarian ideology is the concentration of money and power in Washington, and the false characterization of the economic collapse as a "failure of laissez-faire capitalism". For example, newspeople often now call Alan Greenspan a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy, thereby connecting his mistakes to her philosophy in the minds of reasonable listeners. But this practice by newspeople is deceitful. Somewhat like Hillary Clinton, Greenspan clearly turned away from many of Ayn Rand's core principles before or as he became prominent in government.
Some philosophies which the Professor characterizes as the opposite of "empathy-based moral values"
As a side note, here's an explanation of "Statism" by Ayn Rand:
As for conservative views, Dennis Prager's ideal society would feature "compassionate people and a just government". Because bestowing compassion on certain people through government inevitably hurts other people sooner or later. And because it leads to corruption. The personal touch in compassionate action makes people better and makes compassion more effective.
Conservatives know that sometimes they cannot meet this ideal. Sometimes we are not up to the challenges of personal compassion. Sometimes the need seems so great that damaging the interests of other people seems an acceptable price to pay, and we are willing to see compassion administered through government action. Sometimes personal compassion seems too difficult or painful and we are happy to turn this responsibility over to government. Sometimes we are afraid of the legal risks involved in certain types of compassion in today's America.
Almost all conservatives accept the need for some compassionate activities to be administered by the federal government due to present circumstances in our country. As a last resort. At the same time, most conservatives recognize either intuitively or as part of their political philosophy that "what you subsidize, you will get more of".
A recent example of hardship produced by empathy-based moral values
We have a recent example of the potentially high unintended costs of empathy or compassion through government action. Forcing banks to give subprime loans to people who couldn't qualify for regular loans helped push up housing prices to unsustainable levels. People who otherwise could have qualified for normal loans were priced out of the real estate market in many areas of the US unless they accepted exotic, risky loans. Expectations changed. There were other government actions which helped this crisis to develop, too.
Most elites believed that housing prices would continue to soar as more people were urged to buy houses. This led them to assume that the loans were good investments even if people defaulted. Many sub-prime loans defaulted before even one payment was made, but no matter. Government, activists and false expectations helped expand loans to ever-less-qualified people.
And if poor people can get loans they can't pay back on the basis of empathy, why shouldn't elite leaders profit from devising systems which facilitate that empathy? Fancy financial instruments (which originally evolved partly as a result of assumed government guarantees for loans bought by Fannie and Freddie) diminished the responsibility of the original lender for the outcome of the loan - certainly not a conservative value. The artificially expanded market led to over-building. This led to price crashes. A number of other dramatic problems followed. Along with a series of other mistakes, government empathy toward people who could not qualify for regular home loans in the U.S. eventually helped ravage the pensions of people all over the world when the market fell apart.
Most people still have their heads in the sand concerning the altruistic Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. And public pensions are in even worse shape. Will we address these potential crises in time to prevent disaster for young people?
OTHER PRACTITIONERS OF "CRUCIAL INTELLECTUAL MOVES"* to discredit conservatives or libertarians
The professor is not the only prominent progressive who misrepresents conservative and libertarian thought. They often like to "debate" people who are absent or even dead. Naomi Klein has written a book about Milton Friedman which is taken seriously in progressive circles, despite its gross distortions of his views and gross inaccuracies about his life. Perhaps President Obama and his staff are familiar with her theory of "Shock Doctrine". A lot of people are certainly in shock about what has been happening in Washington lately.
President Obama's Chief of Staff said, "You never want a serious crisis go to waste." As Ann Althouse (who voted for Obama) said, "What if George Bush or Dick Cheney had said something like that openly? It's the kind of line that people used to imagine Bush people saying in secret." Thomas Sowell explains what Emanuel and others planned to buy with the recent spending bills they got approved. This explains the over-the-top attacks he and others made on anyone who stood in their way.
The Professor may think that it is a good thing that people are in shock, looking for the next word or policy proposal from the White House. He has a lot of confidence in President Obama's use of words. I think the professor is way off base about history and even more off base concerning conservative or libertarian philosophy. But he probably knows something about linguistics. I may go along with the professor's suggestion to look for the "intellectual moves" he ascribes to President Obama in future speeches.*
THE PROFESSOR'S CALL TO ACTION - plus a modest, slightly snarky suggestion from me
The professor is concerned that the masses will not understand the connection between President Obama's moral vision and his policies without help from President Obama's elite supporters. He says, "Democratic think tanks are strong on policy and programs, but weak on values and vision. Without the moral arguments based on the Obama values and vision,* the policymakers most likely would be unable to regularly address both independent voters and the Limbaugh-Fox News audiences in conservative Republican strongholds.
Wait a minute. I thought that real conservatives were not interested in the values promoted by Obama. The Professor has just been portraying "radical" conservatives as being motivated only by self-interest and individual - as opposed to social - responsibility. He has urged President Obama to work only with Republicans who already have "progressive values" - the Republicans who are criticized by the Limbaugh-Fox News audiences as sell-outs who are willing to give up their conservative principles for political power and for money. And Obama has often said that Sean Hannity listeners would likely not be interested in having a beer with the President.
His White House, some former Clinton administration folks in the press and their allies have been trying their hardest to portray Rush Limbaugh as "the face of the Republican Party". As part of their "Biconceptual Bipartisanship", of course. Though Limbaugh has many enthusiastic fans, he has high negative poll numbers. If Team Obama can shut out anyone who has different ideas , everyone in power will get along with each other. They can direct government money to everyone except the districts of True Conservatives who refuse earmarks or who don't want future federal mandates attached to the money they spend now. To show that "we're all in this together" and those stupid conservative districts had better elect someone else if they don't want to be starved out.
I don't expect that someone like the Professor would ever really pay attention to someone like me. But in a fantasy world, I might make a suggestion like this to him:
Well, Professor, I think it is possible for people like you to reach out to those Limbaugh-Fox News types. Like most of your colleagues, you probably have more free time on your hands than the typical working adult. Why not get together with some of your colleagues and volunteer some time to create a think tank to supply some of those moral arguments for the policy makers? Bring in a focus group made up of Limbaugh-Fox News fans from various walks of life. Really get to know some of them. Treat them like consultants instead of a focus group. Don't be afraid. They might laugh at your ideas a little, but they won't hurt you. It might seem strange to be talking with people like that as if they were your equals, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.
You and your colleagues could imagine yourselves empathizing with groups other than those whom you seek to help with a certain policy. How might each proposed policy change the behavior or attitudes of these "other" people? Will they become resentful or discouraged? Will those you seek to help start to feel dependent on your help? Will your proposed policy changes alter the way people interact with or treat each other? Like, for example, the parents of children who pass up marriage so the mother can maintain welfare benefits?
Also try projecting the outcomes of your proposals several decades into the future. After the imagined implementation of each policy proposal, ask yourselves repeatedly, "AND THEN WHAT?" Will your policy help lead to its own demise by increasing debt, for example? Can your empathy stretch far enough to imagine the unintended consequences of your superior motives? You could say that this exercise was an attempt to implement "Conservative" or "Sustainable" Empathy. You could think of it as "Biconceptual Bipartisanship"*. Try to imagine the most likely reactions of real people to each prospective policy over those decades (as suggested by the conservative think tank economist Thomas Sowell). Your Limbaugh-Fox News consultants could maybe help you with this. They have real-world experience.
Also try using history as a guide in this exercise. Imagine how, over the years, each policy will help people develop some of the values you call "progressive", such as freedom, equality, prosperity, unity, security, interests, challenges, courage, purpose, loyalty, patriotism, virtue, character, and grace -- or hinder them from developing these values. Think about these values in the context of the rise and fall of past civilizations.
You could think about the American values you find in President Obama's speeches - "empathy, social and well as personal responsibility, improving yourself and your country". Consider, whether or not, as the decades pass, the policies you are reviewing will help people develop these values. Your Limbaugh-Fox News consultants could help you with this, too.
Then maybe some of the policies you are trying to support can be altered to produce fewer cruel, disastrous, unintended consequences than the typical big liberal program based on empathy directed toward certain people "right now".
Meanwhile, some of the rest of us will be looking elsewhere for ideas. And maybe for some better alternatives in education.
* Below are the "seven crucial intellectual moves" which the Professor says are behind "The Obama Code", with my partial interpretations. Refer back to the professor's piece for more information. Many of these intellectual moves amount to changing the meaning or understanding of words. You could look for these themes or sophisticated "intellectual moves" in the next Obama speech you read or hear. Has the Professor correctly assessed President Obama's linguistic presentation of the moral values behind his policies? Or is the professor off in some theoretical utopia of his own making?
Conservatives may not be able to do much right now about the economy or the political situation. But we can think about how to help young people understand what is happening. One of our problems is that universities are coming up short in teaching people how to think for themselves, in a common-sense, objective manner which values the wisdom of past generations.
The shortcomings of higher education have serious consequences. For example, whether you think that the blame for our current economy lies more with business, politicians or other organized special interests, remember that our current economic crisis was engineered and enabled (OOPS!) primarily by people trained at elite universities. I think it is worthwhile to examine what is taught there more closely before shoveling even more money into these institutions.
Every once in a while, I like to check out what our academic elites are saying. People outside academia, including me, tend to be quite unaware of what is going on within the Ivory Towers of our universities. I was particularly struck by the narrow and short-sighted thinking in the piece on "The Obama Code" described below. The more I learn about what some academics write, the more I believe that now is the time to turn to alternatives to our current system of higher education.
The piece examined below is refreshingly free from the vulgar language which makes it difficult for many people to even read much of what passes as progressive thought today. I appreciate this and recognize the Professor for his more respectful standards in this piece. But however scientific he may be in studying how people use and perceive words, his statements about the nature of conservatism, history, etc. appear to reflect his ideology rather than a level of objectivity worthy of a professor of cognitive science. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I find many of the statements below to be far more emotional than cognitive. It pains me that standards are so low in universities.
"THE OBAMA CODE"* - one professor's distillation of "a moral vision and a view of unity" from Barak Obama's speeches
Like they say, conservatives tend to think liberals are misguided, and liberals tend to think that conservatives are evil. You may wish to read this entire piece on "The Obama Code", by a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at UC Berkeley, to form your own impressions before you read my comments. (If the link doesn't work, there's another version here.) You might even want to print it out for comparison. I'm not going to Fisk the entire piece. But I am commenting in detail on a few statements which I believe are good examples of how liberals (i.e., "progressives") in today's elite universities get sloppy in their arguments because they are seldom seriously challenged by their peers.
I realize that I am writing a long piece which is tough slogging in the day of instant messaging. But the Professor throws out statements worthy of serious challenge with such ease. If it's too long for you to tackle right now, you could maybe scroll through the headings and pick out a part that interests you.
The professor's piece is full of lovely utopian ways to linguistically endow "progressivism" with power and moral value and equate it with"American Values". But more interesting are the ways he linguistically strips "conservatism" of any power, moral value or connection with "American Values",
The professor calls his observations about President Obama's rhetoric, "Seven deep, insightful, and subtle intellectual moves" which he thinks President Obama uses to bring people into agreement with him. It appears that he urged several other progressives to post his piece just before President Obama addressed Congress, so that fellow progressives could look for signs of the professor's theory in President Obama's speech and be inspired to help bring about his vision. The people commenting about the Professor's piece on the progressive sites which came up first on a computer search seemed very impressed by the professor's insights.*
The professor writes:
The logic is simple: Empathy is why we have the values of freedom, fairness, and equality - for everyone, not just for certain individuals. If we put ourselves in the shoes of others, we will want them to be free and treated fairly. Empathy with all leads to equality: no one should be treated worse than anyone else. Empathy leads us to democracy: to avoid being subject indefinitely to the whims of an oppressive and unfair ruler, we need to be able to choose who governs us and we need a government of laws.
Obama has consistently maintained that what I, in my writings, have called "progressive" values are fundamental American values. From his perspective, he is not a progressive; he is just an American. That is a crucial intellectual move.*
But what if the basic premise of the Professor's logic is simply wrong? What if all that is good in America is not based solely on feelings of empathy? What if it's not that simple?
What if empathy, self-interest and a variety of other motives can be found at the core of either progressive or conservative policies? What if the belief that compassion and empathy are morally superior motivations can make us easy prey for charlatans, quacks, hustlers (Bernie Madoff was into charities) - and even totalitarians? What if greed for political power is potentially as bad as, or worse than, economic greed? What if covetousness can be as destructive as greed? (The Bible doesn't exactly condone greed, but one of the Ten Commandments is against covetousness - not just jealousy or envy, but the desire to take away what others have).
What if it is not true that conservatism has at its core, "pure self-interest"? What if conservatives have some other concerns? What if conservatives recognize, for example, that liberty and equality are in tension? Enforcing equality (other than equality before the law) through government power reduces liberty. Wasn't "What's the Matter with Kansas" written because progressives were baffled by the perplexing failure of poor people in Kansas to act in their own economic self-interest by voting for progressive policies? Why do some progressives want poor people to act out of self-interest and rich people to act out of empathy (to be implemented according to the vision of the progressives - not the empathy of the rich people)?
Motives may be of great importance in our relationship with God. Motives are important in our personal relationships, but so are the results of our actions. What if, in the realm of public policy, the results of policies are more important than the motives behind them? Why have so many of the major liberal projects of the last 40 years or so (all of them based on empathy) been so destructive in practice?
The motto of the French revolution was, "Liberty, Equalty, Fraternity". Beautiful ideals. But you can't enforce a pure vision of both equality and liberty through government at the same time. Attempts to implement this motto quickly helped lead to The Terror and to Napoleon. Our coins, in contrast, say '"LIBERTY", "E PLURIBUS UNUM" (from many, one) and "IN GOD WE TRUST". Ironically, in America there is less class-consciousness than there is in much of Europe, where greater emphasis is placed on equality.
THE PROFESSOR'S VIEW OF CONSERVATIVES - A "crucial intellectual move"*?
I find the Professor's view of "the conservative focus" (next paragraph) to be warped, frighteningly superficial and possibly based on provincialism - lack of deep, real-world exposure to actual conservatives. But is is also possible that he is deliberately describing conservatives in an extremely negative way as a linguistic stratagem or "crucial intellectual move". You might also want to look throughout his piece for the ways in which the professor subtly or brazenly misrepresents history to make conservatives sound extreme and one-dimensional.
. . . . Those empathy-based moral values are the opposite of the conservative focus on individual responsibility without social responsibility. They make it intolerable to tolerate a President who is The Decider - who gets to decide without caring about or listening to anybody. Empathy-based values are opposed to the pure self-interest of a laissez-faire "free market," which assumes that greed is good and that seeking self-interest will magically maximize everyone's interests.
I wonder if the Professor has ever hear Winston Churchill's statement about capitalism being the worst economic system in the world, "except for all the others"?
In the remainder of the piece, the Professor goes on to re-define any empathetic impulse or value of a conservative person as an "American Value" - one he equates with progressive thought. The only values of a conservative which are actually "conservative" seem to be those the Professor sees as self-interested. ASTOUNDING. DEVIOUS. DIVISIVE. I guess this is the kind of thing you get when universities teach that there is no such thing as objective truth. Many self-identified progressives, particularly in academia, are remarkably adept at manipulating the meaning of language, especially in order to demonize their intellectual or political opponents. This offends the conservative's sense that standards of truth in public life are necessary to the health of our cultural and political system. (This does not mean that Republicans do not also sometimes manipulate language. They are just not as good at it).
Oddly, when their altruistic policies don't work, progressives sometimes over-react, with things like "zero tolerance" policies.
A FEW OF THE MORE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THE PROFESSOR'S PICTURE OF CONSERVATIVES (and Libertarians)
The "pure self-interest" motives the Professor ascribes to conservatives in the paragraph above are closer to the views of an Ayn Rand libertarian than they are to traditional American conservative thought. James Taranto makes a few tongue-in-cheek distinctions between conservative and libertarian outlooks here.
It is true that American conservatives do talk a lot about individual responsibility. Dennis Prager points out that this reflects a "masculine" desire to maintain standards. But that does not mean that American conservatives reject social responsibility - based in the "feminine" desire to nurture . American conservatives would generally prefer to express their empathy or nurturing impulses individually or in voluntary associations rather than through government. One reason is that, as Milton Friedman points out, altruism expressed through government is based at its core on coercion and the theft of money (and therefore time, labor and goods) from others through taxation. This offends the conservative sense of standards for society and the American conservative respect for economic liberty.
If conservatives are motivated by "pure self-interest" and focus only on "individual responsiblity", why do conservatives donate to charity far more time, money and even blood than progressives do (when matched for income, age, sex, etc.)? Side note: the same studies show that progressive women are far more likely to give blood than progressive men - reflecting their nurturing tendencies. Gay progressives donate more money than the average progressive.
If conservatives have no sense of "social responsibility", why are they so often called upon to pick up the pieces (often in a very personal way) of lives broken by the unintended consequences of well-meaning liberal (or progressive) policies?
President Obama wants to tax charitable donations by rich people. So is either Obama or the rich donor to charity acting out of "pure self-interest" concerning this policy? Good private charities are far more efficient at helping people (or the environment, etc.) than are government-run charities. So why is President Obama acting to cut off help to people who need it unless the central government has control over the way they are helped?
President Obama wants taxpayers to pay for the health insurance of poor people (and eventually everyone else), but he wants veterans to pay for treatment of their own service-related injuries. It seems to me like he is acting out of a desire to price private insurance out of the market or that he plans to use the veteran's issue to demonstrate that government-funded healthcare is desirable (never mind the poor record of veteran's medical care or state-side military medical care). Or can you think of another rationale for this highly unpopular policy which would help us to understand that Obama's motives are based in empathy?
For another thing, the professor's characterization seriously misrepresents even libertarian theory. Libertarians certainly do not believe in allowing one man (such as a president) to be "the decider". On most issues, libertarians and conservatives are more in favor of separation of powers, limitation of judicial fiat, state's rights, etc. than are progressives.
Libertarians do emphasize that government actions to force income equality and other forms of altruism on everyone lead to serious negative outcomes sooner or later. Communism killed more of its own citizens in the 20th century than all the horrible wars of that era. It is hard to imagine that this professor has ever had to defend his positions in a neutral setting, in person, with a real, live, informed conservative or libertarian who is not his student. Otherwise, you would expect that he would be more accurate and careful in his descriptions.
A note about the private lives of elite progressives: While elite progressives talk mostly about social responsibility, they often expect a great deal of individual responsibility among their own peer group and from their own children. They often live their personal lives a lot like conservatives do. Sometimes they expect more from their peers and their children than conservatives do.
But when they develop policies concerning groups of people whom they think need help, they sometimes forget the salutary effects of balancing an emphasis on individual responsibility with empathy and respect for individual differences. And they often demonize moderates and conservatives who attempt to inject an emphasis in individual responsibility into such policies as judgmental and uncaring.
"BICONCEPTUALISM" AND THE NEW BIPARTISANSHIP - Is an enemy required?
Check out the professor's point #3, "Biconceptualism and the new Bipartisanship"*. See if you can discern his definition of "biconceptualism" from the points he makes. What a fancy word. Probably meant to make something mundane sound profound. Just a guess. He makes it clear here that Obama should only work with conservatives when they are not purely conservative and, therefore, share some of his "progressive" or "American" values.
As the Professor says, "The idea is not to accept conservative moral views, but to find those issues where individual Republicans already share what he sees as fundamentally American values." In other words, President Obama should strive to get Republicans who are not totally conservative to confirm his policies.
One by one, "Pure" (i.e. purely selfish and devoid of empathy) conservatives like, say, Rush Limbaugh, are being mischaracterized (with a considerable amount of help from other politicians and media figures), derided and marginalized. A big crowd of elites joins in the rhetorical stoning. Conservative politicians are challenged to denounce or disavow the sinner, reacting to the media characterization of what the sinner said, rather than the sinner's statement in context.
President Obama is becoming known in some circles as the "Demonizer-in-Chief." Is this what the Professor means when he talks about President Obama's "crucial intellectual moves" toward promoting his "biconceptual bipartisanship" or "view of unity"? Must the Professor (or President Obama) always have an enemy to promote unity under his "biconceptual" theory of bipartisanship?
This emphasis on "the enemy" follows a recent pattern involving Democrats in Washington and the liberal media. President Bush was elected partly because he had a record of working well with Democrats in Texas. Soon after he came into office, President Bush chose Edward Kennedy, the "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, to write the "No Child Left Behind" education bill. Bush was clearly not asking Kennedy just to rubber-stamp his own ideas. That's how most people think of bipartisanship. Early in his presidency, Bush was mischaracterized in a highly dishonest, personal and vicious manner, over and over again, by many of those with whom he was trying to be "bipartisan" (notably by Kennedy). Bush soon became known for ignoring "bipartisanship". Progressives harped on this theme constantly.
In his first days in office, President Obama dismissed proposals by Republicans without consideration by telling them that his ideas would prevail because "I won." The economic proposals of House Republicans were never considered when the House "stimulus package" was put together. Conservatives were excoriated if they did not rubber-stamp President Obama's positions, even in the House where Democrats did not need their votes. Democrats even falsely portrayed House Republicans as having refused to contribute ideas. The Republicans are criticized for refusing to be "bipartisan". They are therefore un-American. The double standard is obvious.
If Democrats eventually fall out of power, Obama's alleged idea of "biconceptualism" in bipartisanship will almost certainly be altered by Democrats to something closer to the common, straightforward meaning for bipartisanship which they used during the Bush presidency. Then, Democrats demanded compromise with or even adoption of their proposals. They seem to value "bipartisanship" highly, but it means "compromise" when they are out of power and "acquiescence" when they are in power. Is this part of "biconceptualism"?
THE CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE MACHINE - How did Obama ever get elected?
The professor also seems obsessed with the overwhelmingly powerful(?) "conservative message machine". Maybe he's been in Berkeley too long. How can he not recognize that progressives (liberals) predominate in the mainstream media? The percentage of Republicans in journalism is small, though not as vanishingly small as the number of Republicans in today's American liberal arts faculties. Liberals overwhelmingly dominate leadership in education, leadership in professional associations, government agencies, etc. Is the professor aware that progressive political bloggers are getting much more traffic than libertarian or conservative bloggers?
Can he really believe that conservative talk radio and conservative think tanks overwhelm the "progressive message" in America? If so, what makes them so effective in the face of mainstream media, the educational establishment, spokespersons for professional associations, etc.?
Conservatives went into think tanks in significant numbers at a time when they were pretty much shut out of government. Paul Harvey aside, conservative talk radio started mainly as commentary by rock-n-roll DJs - - not as an organized political project. People who listen to talk radio do so because they feel marginalized by the mainstream media. Does it occur to the Professor that a similarly on-target progressive message machine might evolve only in the crucible of adversity, with messages sharpened by overwhelming opposition?
"About 80% of the talking heads on TV are conservatives."What? The professor is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Read the whole section of his discussion on the nefarious conservative message machine. He's either starting to get into tinfoil hat territory here or the Professor's brand of "cognitive science and linguistics" expects people in positions of power to use words in ways which would mislead the vast majority of people.
Most news anchors, reporters, etc. are certainly not conservative. Even Paul Harvey has died since the Professor wrote his piece. The professor has suggested that President Obama can work with Republicans who have progressive values as part of his "biconceptual bipartisanship", and now he tells us that Democrats in the media are mostly conservative. Does this make sense to you?
Mainstream news is clearly dominated by liberals who repeatedly covered for Obama during the campaign, and played up attacks on and mistakes by his political opponents, including Hillary Clinton (once Obama became a serious contender). Conservatives who go on those TV "panel" discussions on the major networks, where people shout over each other, are usually outnumbered by liberals. And has the professor ever heard of Oprah or "The View"?
The professor may be thinking about straight commentary, which is often conservative. That's partly to provide a little balance to the news people, and partly because many liberals (or progressives) talk in feelings, rather than ideas. They tend to become boring, sanctimonious or overbearing when explaining their political philosophies (as opposed to presenting stories with which people can empathize). Liberal values are often presented by slanting supposedly "objective" news. Conservative values are typically presented as opinion. And conservative commentary is still nowhere near 80% of the straight commentary on TV.
The professor says, "Republicans in Congress can count on overwhelming message support in their home districts and home states. That is one reason why they were able to stonewall on the President's stimulus package. They had no serious media competition at home pounding out the Obama vision day after day."
Please. Name one reason why people in a Republican district would want their representative to vote for a bill he or she was not given a chance to read, which permanently and massively increases the power of the central government, and which primarily rewards liberal Democratic constituencies (i.e., Democratic special interests)? Would not most Americans reject such a shameful, unfair approach to "bipartisan" legislation even in the absence of the imaginary conservative "overwhelming message support" back home? And Republicans in Congress are not always real happy with the "overwhelming message support" for conservative values, as they are often criticized, on conservative talk radio especially, along with Democrats. AND THE DEMOCRATS DON'T NEED ANY REPUBLICAN VOTES TO PASS THEIR PLANS. Why the tinfoil hat excuses?
Progressives have tried liberal talk radio to pound out something close to the "Obama vision" day by day. Nobody wants to listen to it. Partly because it resembles what people hear from the mainstream media. People who have failed to establish economically self-supporting liberal talk radio now want to force the more successful conservative programs to pay for their airtime. Does this sound to you like self-interest or like empathy?
Although the Professor does not consider the MSM to be liberal, many conservatives have experienced overwhelming assaults by the liberal mainstream media. Armies of lawyers and reporters were sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin and her family, while Barak Obama's record went largely unexamined by the MSM even though they had a much longer period of time in which to examine it. (Ask yourself how much you heard during the campaign from the mainstream media about the failure of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama's only executive experience prior to the campaign and his one major effort in education).
More recently, even a temporary apostate from liberalism said about the surprising attacks on him from the Left, ". . . if it stays ad hominem, we will all be betrayed and the train wreck will become inevitable."
HOW THE 'SEVEN CRUCIAL INTELLECTUAL MOVES'* WILL CHANGE OUR IDEAS about the meaning of words
The professor's description of George Bush's use of the word "freedom" is a classic example of bearing false witness. And they say that conservatives are prone to black-and-white thinking. It is amazing to me that a highly-regarded professor of cognitive science could write this way largely unchallenged. Scary. A perfect example of Dennis Prager's declaration that today's graduate schools (in liberal arts or social sciences) often rob people of the ability to access their common sense and their ability to think non-ideologically, objectively and critically.
The following is just dopey. Under President Obama, the professor thinks that:
"Freedom" will no longer mean what George W. Bush meant by it. Guantanamo will be closed, torture outlawed, the markets regulated. Obama's inaugural address was filled with framings of patriotic concepts to fit those ideals. Not just the concept of freedom, but also equality, prosperity, unity, security, interests, challenges, courage, purpose, loyalty, patriotism, virtue, character, and grace. Look at these words in his inaugural address and you will see how Obama has situated their meaning within his view of fundamental American values: empathy, social and well as personal responsibility, improving yourself and your country. We can expect further reclaiming of patriotic language throughout his administration.
As if progressives had ever been excluded from using patriotic language, except by themselves. Why do progressives tell each other that conservatives have been excluding them from "patriotic language"?
IMPLEMENTING THE SEVEN CRUCIAL INTELLECTUAL MOVES* - manipulating how we think about words
The Professor is apparently more interested in what Obama says than in what he does. He says that under Obama, the meaning of freedom will be changed because he will close Guantanamo. Obama's administration now characterizes Guantanamo as a well-run facility which will be hard to close. Obama plans to return to the Clinton-era policy of rendition, which often led to much worse treatment of enemy combatants. He thinks that he can do rendition in a "kinder, gentler" manner. I suppose that Obama could, instead, advocate killing enemy combatants in the field rather than taking them prisoner . But I don't think that the Professor would approve of this.
The professor says that the meaning of freedom will change under Obama because torture will be outlawed. Obama is following about the same policies as Bush with regard to torture, though he has obscured this fact with some high-minded language.
The professor says that the meaning of freedom will be changed under Obama because markets will be regulated. Bush's record on market regulation is certainly poor. His administration and Congress even approved the increase in the lending to assets ratio for five huge financial institutions from 10:1 to 30:1, based on slick, sophisticated financial models presented by impressively educated people from these elite institutions. When the crisis occurred, these institutions were hit hard. Three of these institutions no longer exist. More conservative, more secure, smaller US banks were still OK after the real estate market crash. Some of them were strong-armed into taking bailout money to avoid "singling out" the big, irresponsible, high-flyer institutions. We have to exercise empathy, after all.
More progressive governments in Europe made far worse "sophisticated" decisions regarding regulation of financial markets. A substantial portion of the AIG bailout money is going to them (while we're obsessed with the dumb bonuses to executives here).
A few examples: Iceland's economy was apparently being run like a giant hedge fund. Austria got into massive trouble because of investments in Eastern Europe. We're apparently just finding out about risk that came via London.
On the other hand, Bush had tried over and over again to regulate the market in serious ways and was shot down repeatedly by Democrats who got lots of campaign cash and other favors from Fannie, Freddie and banks which really emphasized sub-prime loans. There is nothing "conservative" about the way financial markets were regulated during this time period. An expectation of proper regulation was encouraged, but not met. There's a lot of blame to be shared, going back for at least four decades. And ad hoc actions of the Fed and Treasury were probably more important in precipitating the recent crisis than was deregulation of the money markets. "Specific targets and standard rules enable players in the financial markets to know what the rules are and therefore to measure risk more accurately. The ad hoc response at various crisis points, . . has left players in the financial markets full of uncertainty and fear."
Many economists have concluded that failure to establish standard rules for financial markets prolonged the Great Depression for years. It has been four months since the election and much longer since the beginning of the financial crisis. The tanking markets threaten the financial freedom of most of us. Obama the candidate was praised by many libertarians and conservatives before the election for several wise choices for his economic team. But his actions so far have not been consistent with what some members of his economic team have recommended in the past. Why has Obama been talking about health care, green jobs, etc. instead of first establishing specific targets and standard rules for financial markets? Isn't that an important part of what the Professor thinks is Obama's goal of freedom through regulating markets? Does Obama want the freedom to change the rules on the fly like FDR did, even at the price of investor uncertainty?
But we're talking about cognitive science and lingustics here. Why would any of these mistakes and failings have a significant impact on the "DEFINITION OF FREEDOM" under Bush? The Professor can't possibly think that most Americans accept his characterization of "freedom" under Bush. He believes in the overwhelming power of the "conservative message machine". My only theory is that he wants to change our definition of "freedom"under Bush now that Obama is in office. Let me know if you have other theories.
The professor apparently thinks it is acceptable to pick and choose small slivers of history and to ignore the rest in order to re-define values like freedom, equality, prosperity, unity, security, interests, challenges, courage, purpose, loyalty, patriotism, virtue, character, and grace as antithetical to conservatism. This may be a "crucial intellectual move"* toward marginalizing conservatism and dividing Republicans, but it is dishonest.
The professor later says, "The conservative apparatus for language creation is still functioning." Both liberals and conservatives manipulate language for political purposes. But liberals are the masters of this craft. His identification of a nefarious "apparatus for language creation" could be a classic example of psychological projection, since he describes himself creating new meanings for language, and he wishes to create such an apparatus for progressives. Liberals frequently accuse conservatives of the things they, themselves are doing.
The Professor says, "The radical conservatives are aware that this economic crisis threatens not only their political support, but the very underpinnings of conservative ideology itself." As if conservative ideologies were in practice in the financial world at the time of the crises (other than in financial institutions which weathered the crisis).
Who are these mysterious "radical conservatives"? Where, exactly, have the "underpinnings of conservative ideology" (or even libertarian philosophy) been operating in the economy recently? The thing that threatens the underpinnings of conservative or libertarian ideology is the concentration of money and power in Washington, and the false characterization of the economic collapse as a "failure of laissez-faire capitalism". For example, newspeople often now call Alan Greenspan a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy, thereby connecting his mistakes to her philosophy in the minds of reasonable listeners. But this practice by newspeople is deceitful. Somewhat like Hillary Clinton, Greenspan clearly turned away from many of Ayn Rand's core principles before or as he became prominent in government.
Some philosophies which the Professor characterizes as the opposite of "empathy-based moral values"
As a side note, here's an explanation of "Statism" by Ayn Rand:
The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.So it is true that Ayn Rand opposed the expression of altruism through politics. She had experienced the vicious implementation of this altruism (or empathy, if you like) during the establishment of the USSR. This certainly does not mean that conservatives or libertarians reject altruism or empathy expressed in other ways. Or that they are motivated by "pure self-interest". More on libertarian views about "greed" here.
As for conservative views, Dennis Prager's ideal society would feature "compassionate people and a just government". Because bestowing compassion on certain people through government inevitably hurts other people sooner or later. And because it leads to corruption. The personal touch in compassionate action makes people better and makes compassion more effective.
Conservatives know that sometimes they cannot meet this ideal. Sometimes we are not up to the challenges of personal compassion. Sometimes the need seems so great that damaging the interests of other people seems an acceptable price to pay, and we are willing to see compassion administered through government action. Sometimes personal compassion seems too difficult or painful and we are happy to turn this responsibility over to government. Sometimes we are afraid of the legal risks involved in certain types of compassion in today's America.
Almost all conservatives accept the need for some compassionate activities to be administered by the federal government due to present circumstances in our country. As a last resort. At the same time, most conservatives recognize either intuitively or as part of their political philosophy that "what you subsidize, you will get more of".
A recent example of hardship produced by empathy-based moral values
We have a recent example of the potentially high unintended costs of empathy or compassion through government action. Forcing banks to give subprime loans to people who couldn't qualify for regular loans helped push up housing prices to unsustainable levels. People who otherwise could have qualified for normal loans were priced out of the real estate market in many areas of the US unless they accepted exotic, risky loans. Expectations changed. There were other government actions which helped this crisis to develop, too.
Most elites believed that housing prices would continue to soar as more people were urged to buy houses. This led them to assume that the loans were good investments even if people defaulted. Many sub-prime loans defaulted before even one payment was made, but no matter. Government, activists and false expectations helped expand loans to ever-less-qualified people.
And if poor people can get loans they can't pay back on the basis of empathy, why shouldn't elite leaders profit from devising systems which facilitate that empathy? Fancy financial instruments (which originally evolved partly as a result of assumed government guarantees for loans bought by Fannie and Freddie) diminished the responsibility of the original lender for the outcome of the loan - certainly not a conservative value. The artificially expanded market led to over-building. This led to price crashes. A number of other dramatic problems followed. Along with a series of other mistakes, government empathy toward people who could not qualify for regular home loans in the U.S. eventually helped ravage the pensions of people all over the world when the market fell apart.
Most people still have their heads in the sand concerning the altruistic Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. And public pensions are in even worse shape. Will we address these potential crises in time to prevent disaster for young people?
OTHER PRACTITIONERS OF "CRUCIAL INTELLECTUAL MOVES"* to discredit conservatives or libertarians
The professor is not the only prominent progressive who misrepresents conservative and libertarian thought. They often like to "debate" people who are absent or even dead. Naomi Klein has written a book about Milton Friedman which is taken seriously in progressive circles, despite its gross distortions of his views and gross inaccuracies about his life. Perhaps President Obama and his staff are familiar with her theory of "Shock Doctrine". A lot of people are certainly in shock about what has been happening in Washington lately.
President Obama's Chief of Staff said, "You never want a serious crisis go to waste." As Ann Althouse (who voted for Obama) said, "What if George Bush or Dick Cheney had said something like that openly? It's the kind of line that people used to imagine Bush people saying in secret." Thomas Sowell explains what Emanuel and others planned to buy with the recent spending bills they got approved. This explains the over-the-top attacks he and others made on anyone who stood in their way.
The Professor may think that it is a good thing that people are in shock, looking for the next word or policy proposal from the White House. He has a lot of confidence in President Obama's use of words. I think the professor is way off base about history and even more off base concerning conservative or libertarian philosophy. But he probably knows something about linguistics. I may go along with the professor's suggestion to look for the "intellectual moves" he ascribes to President Obama in future speeches.*
THE PROFESSOR'S CALL TO ACTION - plus a modest, slightly snarky suggestion from me
The professor is concerned that the masses will not understand the connection between President Obama's moral vision and his policies without help from President Obama's elite supporters. He says, "Democratic think tanks are strong on policy and programs, but weak on values and vision. Without the moral arguments based on the Obama values and vision,* the policymakers most likely would be unable to regularly address both independent voters and the Limbaugh-Fox News audiences in conservative Republican strongholds.
Wait a minute. I thought that real conservatives were not interested in the values promoted by Obama. The Professor has just been portraying "radical" conservatives as being motivated only by self-interest and individual - as opposed to social - responsibility. He has urged President Obama to work only with Republicans who already have "progressive values" - the Republicans who are criticized by the Limbaugh-Fox News audiences as sell-outs who are willing to give up their conservative principles for political power and for money. And Obama has often said that Sean Hannity listeners would likely not be interested in having a beer with the President.
His White House, some former Clinton administration folks in the press and their allies have been trying their hardest to portray Rush Limbaugh as "the face of the Republican Party". As part of their "Biconceptual Bipartisanship", of course. Though Limbaugh has many enthusiastic fans, he has high negative poll numbers. If Team Obama can shut out anyone who has different ideas , everyone in power will get along with each other. They can direct government money to everyone except the districts of True Conservatives who refuse earmarks or who don't want future federal mandates attached to the money they spend now. To show that "we're all in this together" and those stupid conservative districts had better elect someone else if they don't want to be starved out.
I don't expect that someone like the Professor would ever really pay attention to someone like me. But in a fantasy world, I might make a suggestion like this to him:
Well, Professor, I think it is possible for people like you to reach out to those Limbaugh-Fox News types. Like most of your colleagues, you probably have more free time on your hands than the typical working adult. Why not get together with some of your colleagues and volunteer some time to create a think tank to supply some of those moral arguments for the policy makers? Bring in a focus group made up of Limbaugh-Fox News fans from various walks of life. Really get to know some of them. Treat them like consultants instead of a focus group. Don't be afraid. They might laugh at your ideas a little, but they won't hurt you. It might seem strange to be talking with people like that as if they were your equals, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.
You and your colleagues could imagine yourselves empathizing with groups other than those whom you seek to help with a certain policy. How might each proposed policy change the behavior or attitudes of these "other" people? Will they become resentful or discouraged? Will those you seek to help start to feel dependent on your help? Will your proposed policy changes alter the way people interact with or treat each other? Like, for example, the parents of children who pass up marriage so the mother can maintain welfare benefits?
Also try projecting the outcomes of your proposals several decades into the future. After the imagined implementation of each policy proposal, ask yourselves repeatedly, "AND THEN WHAT?" Will your policy help lead to its own demise by increasing debt, for example? Can your empathy stretch far enough to imagine the unintended consequences of your superior motives? You could say that this exercise was an attempt to implement "Conservative" or "Sustainable" Empathy. You could think of it as "Biconceptual Bipartisanship"*. Try to imagine the most likely reactions of real people to each prospective policy over those decades (as suggested by the conservative think tank economist Thomas Sowell). Your Limbaugh-Fox News consultants could maybe help you with this. They have real-world experience.
Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.
Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional?, 1993
Also try using history as a guide in this exercise. Imagine how, over the years, each policy will help people develop some of the values you call "progressive", such as freedom, equality, prosperity, unity, security, interests, challenges, courage, purpose, loyalty, patriotism, virtue, character, and grace -- or hinder them from developing these values. Think about these values in the context of the rise and fall of past civilizations.
You could think about the American values you find in President Obama's speeches - "empathy, social and well as personal responsibility, improving yourself and your country". Consider, whether or not, as the decades pass, the policies you are reviewing will help people develop these values. Your Limbaugh-Fox News consultants could help you with this, too.
Then maybe some of the policies you are trying to support can be altered to produce fewer cruel, disastrous, unintended consequences than the typical big liberal program based on empathy directed toward certain people "right now".
Meanwhile, some of the rest of us will be looking elsewhere for ideas. And maybe for some better alternatives in education.
* Below are the "seven crucial intellectual moves" which the Professor says are behind "The Obama Code", with my partial interpretations. Refer back to the professor's piece for more information. Many of these intellectual moves amount to changing the meaning or understanding of words. You could look for these themes or sophisticated "intellectual moves" in the next Obama speech you read or hear. Has the Professor correctly assessed President Obama's linguistic presentation of the moral values behind his policies? Or is the professor off in some theoretical utopia of his own making?
1. Values Over Programs (i.e., good values are more important than programs that function well and actually help more than they hurt).
2. Progressive Values Are American Values (i.e., we must linguistically strip "conservative" values of their moral foundation).
3. Biconceptualism and the New Bipartisanship (i.e., we must linguistically destroy the influence of anyone who disagrees with us. Bring members of the opposition into the conversation only when they agree with our goals. Compromise with conservative values is not an option.)
4. Protection and Empowerment Only the federal government can adequately address problems related to issues like education, energy, health and banking. The more we can reduce the independence of the masses by turning responsibility for protecting and empowering them over to the federal government, the better. Pay no attention to the massive past mistakes of the federal government. We KNOW that we can do it right this time.
5. Morality and Economics Fit Together President Obama has the responsibility to use billions of dollars of other people's money in a manner which is based on his personal ideas about empathy, social and personal responsibility, and making the future better. The less personal and local control over money, the better.
6. Systemic Causation and Systemic Risk Today's problems are systemic in nature. Therefore, only highly educated experts, in concert with the governments of the world, can reduce risks on behalf of the masses.
Governments must exert much more control over the lives of their populations. Only the elite should be exempt from these controls. That's why it's necessary to fudge the data to make it look like global warming is still taking place, and to ignore the fact that the authoritative computer models which predicted catastrophic warming did not predict the current cooling. And that's why we must call people who don't agree with our interpretation of the data "deniers", in order to compare them with holocaust deniers.
Pointing out the screamingly obvious is sometimes all it takes to defeat an intellectual. Imagine living next door to one of these academic muppets; make some idle over-the-fence weather chat and suddenly nice friendly neighbour is denouncing you for running the forced labour program at Bergen-Belsen.7. Contested Concepts and Patriotic Language We will pretend that conservatives have not allowed us to use patriotic language until now. We will start calling them unpatriotic and we will change the meaning patriotic language to fit our values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
