Why is there a Liberal Bias in higher Ed.

[JayB]

Jason:

 

"And in the 20th century luminaries like Samuel Beckett, Bertold Brecht, and Fredrico Garcia Lorca fought war mongers, dictators, and anyone else who was opposed to human rights..."

 

Does this include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Guevarra, et al? There were - cough, cough - some moderate human rights abuses in these countries, none of which seems to have done much to persuade their fan base in the US and elsewhere to re-examine their support for them or the ideals that they were putting into practice.

 

Would you call the leaders of the left wing revolutions in Europe, China, and Indochina "progressives," and do you really think that they changed their societies for the better? Their stated objectives were the same as their counterparts here in the United States and in the rest of the western world. The only difference was that here the restraints imposed by the constitution kept them in check.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Sure..."neocon" and "radical conservative" are used in a negative sense...but don't those tend to indicate the extreme right? One can be liberal, yet not extreme left. Is it just a right wing tendancy to throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

In any policy debate, Dems and the willing media put all republican congressman and the executive in the same bucket ("extreme right"). Protestors and lobbyists for the given issue under debate are thrown in for good measure. There is no differentiation.

[olyclimber]

You seem all too willing to continue to throw that poor baby out with the bath water. In any policy debate all Dems and of course the media which they undoubtably control, all republicans are branded as neocons? "There is no differentiation."? If you paint the situation as black and white, it certainly makes it easier to argue a point, doesn't it? I was merely pointing out a tendancy to use the word "liberal" as a negative term...which by true definition is a very general term...not indicting everyone right of center.

[chucK]

I would really like to meet (well maybe not ) these liberals that JayB continually brings up that are big fans of Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc...

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You seem all too willing to continue to throw that poor baby out with the bath water. In any policy debate all Dems and of course the media which they undoubtably control, all republicans are branded as neocons? "There is no differentiation."? If you paint the situation as black and white, it certainly makes it easier to argue a point, doesn't it? I was merely pointing out a tendancy to use the word "liberal" as a negative term...which by true definition is a very general term...not indicting everyone right of center.

 

You were acting like "your side" is sooo innocent, and the "other" side is soooo guilty. "They" use a word to demonize us. We don't do that. 0_:-) I'm simply refuting this.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I would really like to meet (well maybe not ) these liberals that JayB continually brings up that are big fans of Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc...

 

 

I've seen quite a few walking around with their "Che" t-shirts on. Stop and chat with one.

[olyclimber]

You were acting like "your side" is sooo innocent, and the "other" side is soooo guilty. "They" use a word to demonize us. We don't do that. 0_:-) I'm simply refuting this.

 

Don't get all liberal on me and start inferring how I was "acting"! Any rational person can recognize that demonization happens on both sides. I was specifically referring to the semantics of the term "liberal".

[olyclimber]

I've seen quite a few walking around with their "Che" t-shirts on. Stop and chat with one.

 

I've seen these people. It is primarily seems to be a "fashion statement". If you ask them what Che means to them, they'll probably just say "revolution"...and do they want a real revolution?....usually not. They are not true commies, they just want to look cool. The real commies that you should be worried about wear chinese army hats.

[Jim]

The liberal, or progressive movement, has made some broad contributions to major social changes - abolition, women's right to vote, civil rights in the south, an end to the Vietnam War. Conservatism, true to the root of the word, generally fought against such changes. It's interesting that many of these earlier progressive movements were done with a strong alliance with religious groups that shared the social activisim ideals.

 

Now the the far right seems to have hijacked some of the religious group energy and turned it into the homophopic/abortion debate. There is a large group of Christians that look at the bible without ignoring the other issues, such as compassion and responsibility for the poor, general social well-being, and the enviroinment.

 

Especially the past 10 years the Conservative agenda has markedly changed from its base theories. It used to be a fiscally responsible movement, slow to intervene in foreign affairs, and loathe to interfere in the personal lives of its citizens. Now there is only one channel. Increasing redistribution of wealth to the upper income brackets and Fortune 500.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I've seen these people. It is primarily seems to be a "fashion statement". If you ask them what Che means to them, they'll probably just say "revolution"...

 

Quite a few know *exactly* what the shirt means. Sometimes - thanks to pop music icons (Rage against the Machine), other times thanks to university "clubs" and "progressive" political thinking. There is a UC campus with a "Che Cafe" where the "Che" fans know exactly who he was and what he stands for. They got in deep s**t after 9/11 due to some dubious internet activities.

 

It's so ironic that wearing a symbol of communism is OK. It's no different from sporting a swastika in my book.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Now the the far right

 

Hey OlyClimber: woops, there it is!

 

seems to have hijacked some of the religious group energy and turned it into the homophopic/abortion debate. There is a large group of Christians that look at the bible without ignoring the other issues, such as compassion and responsibility for the poor

 

Many people who oppose government social programs are extremely generous regarding charitable contributions and community involvement. The opposition is to HOW these causes are funded and selected by individuals. Moreover, there is a lot of disagreement about how efficiently government administers to these program, whether it is truly "compassionate" (governments are not intrinsically compassionate, and neither are bureaucracies), and where the accountability lies. It is thoroughly disingenuous, if not outright slanderous, to state that Christians who oppose big-government social programs are not "compassionate".

[olyclimber]

It's so ironic that wearing a symbol of communism is OK. It's no different from sporting a swastika in my book.

 

Be careful with your broad strokes again KK....the swastika (at least the particular one you're referring to here) represents a particular regime. Communism is a idea not a regime. Perhaps wearing a item that supports a particular viscious version of communism (and the acts of that regime) I would regard the same as a Nazi swastika. But the repression of thought is a bad idea.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Communism is a idea not a regime. Perhaps wearing a item that supports a particular viscious version of communism (and the acts of that regime)

 

Che represents the Cuban version of communism - viscious. And I can't think of any version of communism that is not.

[olyclimber]

seems to have hijacked some of the religious group energy and turned it into the homophopic/abortion debate. There is a large group of Christians that look at the bible without ignoring the other issues, such as compassion and responsibility for the poor

 

Many people who oppose government social programs are extremely generous regarding charitable contributions and community involvement. The opposition is to HOW these causes are funded and selected by individuals. Moreover, there is a lot of disagreement about how efficiently government administers to these program, whether it is truly "compassionate" (governments are not intrinsically compassionate, and neither are bureaucracies), and where the accountability lies. It is thoroughly disingenuous, if not outright slanderous, to state that Christians who oppose big-government social programs are not "compassionate".

 

I'm at a loss as to what you're qouting above, but I am great friends with plenty of Christians that are as compassionate as anyone.

 

Last I checked governments are run by people. People are all over the map as far as compassion. Perhaps those that might go into public service (i.e. a goverment position that deals with government sponsored "compassion") might tend to be more compassionate? Certainly they aren't doing it to get rich.

At least these people are mandated by laws to not sell a religion to their customers (as the seperation between church and state exists).

 

Can the same be enforced for government subsidized churchs providing "compassion"? It is the nature of Christians to evangalize...that is what they are supposed to do. So you end up mixing government funded religion outreach programs. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to be a bad idea. Is the seperation between church and state something we should retain?

[JayB]

Chuck:

 

Read the editorials in The Guardian, The Nation, and LeMonde from the years 1917 - 1989 for starters. Or Eric Hobsbawm:

 

"Not long ago, on a popular television show, Hobsbawm explained that the fact of Soviet mass-murdering made no difference to his Communist commitment. In astonishment, his interviewer asked, “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?” Without hesitation Hobsbawm replied, “Yes.”

 

Or Bernard Shaw:

Shaw visited Stalin in Moscow, in 1931, and found nothing disconcerting about Stalin's mass murders: "Our question is not to kill or not to kill, but to select the right people to kill ... [T]he essential difference between the Russian liquidator with his pistol (or whatever his humane killer may be) and the British hangman is that they do not operate on the same sort of person." The playwright famous for inventing Shavian irony would, without irony, recommend Joseph Stalin for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

And I could go on and belabor the obvious but since I am dealing with the ideological equivalent of the OJ Jury there's really no point, is there?

 

 

Are you really going to deny that the stated goals of Leftism - using the machinery of the state to redistribute wealth extensively enough to completely eliminate class differences, hostility to and/or private property and enterprise, central regulation of the economy - did not serve as the basis of the ideology upon which the regimes I have named were founded, and from which the leaders of the said regimes derived their popular appeal and authority?

 

It's quite disengenuous to pretend that the excesses carried out under the states headed by these men, in an effort to implement the vision that their regimes were founded upon, must not be considered in a moral evaluation of the ideals themselves. Or to pretend that no one knew what was going on. The extent of the carnage was widely known, as was the nature of the everyday political repression in these societies in which Leftist ideals served as the sole basis for the structure of the society.

 

Everyone knew these things were going on, and very few on the Left reconsidered their enthusiasm for these regimes or the ideals that they were putting into practice in light of this knowledge. The few that did went on to found the neoconservative movement.

[Jim]

seems to have hijacked some of the religious group energy and turned it into the homophopic/abortion debate. There is a large group of Christians that look at the bible without ignoring the other issues, such as compassion and responsibility for the poor

 

It is thoroughly disingenuous, if not outright slanderous, to state that Christians who oppose big-government social programs are not "compassionate".

 

For the evangalical right I would say it's entirely accurate. Where do you think the money for Jerry Farwell's moral majority and Roberta Combs cristian coalition is going? It's not going to help anyone but politicians they agree with.

 

Voulenteer with just about any Christian social service organization and you'll quickly understand their leanings. And it's a matter of emphasis. Does friggin gay marriage rise to the top of the chart as christian charitable issues in this country. I think not. One of the least reported stories in the leadup to war was the almost universal denunciation of the war by Church group. Bush, in all is veneer of christian spirit - refused to meet with a coalition of major religious organizations. It's just another tool for the party.

 

By the way - what are you doing to help your community via the non-governmental intrusive way. Little I bet.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Can the same be enforced for government subsidized churchs providing "compassion"?

 

I am opposed to federally-funded social programs. It should be up to the individual to decide what charities to donate to, and how much. The charities could be affiliated with religious groups or NOT. It's up to the individual.

 

Statists want to FORCE citizens through their vision of social engineering what charities to fund, and in what amount. This can cut both ways depending on who is in power. A bad thing, IMO.

 

It's been real, but I'm out of here for today. Enjoy the peace.

[olyclimber]

Let the record state that I won todays debate by outlasting KK.

[Jim]

 

Are you really going to deny that the stated goals of Leftism - using the machinery of the state to redistribute wealth extensively enough to completely eliminate class differences, hostility to and/or private property and enterprise, central regulation of the economy

 

Everyone knew these things were going on, and very few on the Left reconsidered their enthusiasm for these regimes or the ideals that they were putting into practice in light of this knowledge. The few that did went on to found the neoconservative movement.

 

Blah, blah. Good theater but little else. It would be equally accurate to paint the present neoconservative agenda with that of the Nazis and Stalin. I am, however, impressed with your ability to find obscure quotes on the web.

[TBay]

Chuck stated:

My appraisal of the situation is that academics as a group are more liberal (here "liberal" meaning a sense of basic respect for the welfare of others, or the antithesis of, "Fuck 'em if they don't want to work)...

 

Dr Flash Amazing stated:

It's 'cause lefties are actually interested in helping people, whereas most righties/conservatives are more interested in fucking people over...

 

if what you say is true, please explain why the liberal strong-holds of washington and oregon rank 34 and 36 respectively...

2004 Charitable donations

(This index compares the average annual income of residents of all of the 50 states to their average annual donations to charity.)

 

and why is it that the top 25 most generous states happened to vote for Bush in '04?

 

it appears that the states that ranked 26, 29-37, 41, 42, 44-50 on the GI list voted kerry.

 

This confuses me because you state that the democrats are "the party for the poor and the needy", and "the republicans are for the rich and oppressive."

 

oh i get it, you (Chuck, DFA), liberal acedamia, and the blue states (or rather blue cities) are soooo unselfish that they dont bother to fill out average itemized charitable deductions (AICD) on their tax worksheet.

[selkirk]

Did anyone else see Yngve's doppleganger in the Motorcycle Diaries? Good movie and great cinematography.

[Peter_Puget]

a higher educator....

 

[Squid]

non sequitur alert

[JayB]

 

Are you really going to deny that the stated goals of Leftism - using the machinery of the state to redistribute wealth extensively enough to completely eliminate class differences, hostility to and/or private property and enterprise, central regulation of the economy

 

Everyone knew these things were going on, and very few on the Left reconsidered their enthusiasm for these regimes or the ideals that they were putting into practice in light of this knowledge. The few that did went on to found the neoconservative movement.

 

Blah, blah. Good theater but little else. It would be equally accurate to paint the present neoconservative agenda with that of the Nazis and Stalin. I am, however, impressed with your ability to find obscure quotes on the web.

 

Jim - state the name of the political philosophy that the Soviet Union was founded upon. Think hard. I know that you can do it.

 

Consolidating the power you seized in revolution that was undertaken to implement a society founded upon Leftist ideals makes one a non-leftist? Lenin, Stalin, et al weren't communists? So, by this logic Cromwell and Robespierre were really royalists - ? And Castro has, by a similar logic, transmogrified into a Neocon?

 

This explains the violent antipathy towards Castro - that champion of human rights and political freedoms, that has always characterized the American Left.

 

Keep it coming. This is quite amusing. Especially the part about the quotes being obscure - as though they were either somehow uncharacteristic or out of character.

[rbw1966]

I would really like to meet (well maybe not ) these liberals that JayB continually brings up that are big fans of Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc...

 

 

I've seen quite a few walking around with their "Che" t-shirts on. Stop and chat with one.

 

I wear one. On the back it says (in spanish) "Its better to die standing than to live on your knees."

 

Does that make me a commie? Does that make me a supporter of Che's bloody tactics? I don't think so.

 

C'mon, you can't really be that closed-minded where anyone who wears something affiliated with pop iconography is autonamically an ideological supporter?

 

If anything, I am libertarian.