Berkeley Discovers the Right
Mark Lilla at Chronicle of Higher Education with a long essay on U-Cal Berkeley's new "Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements." Some prime points:
It is a convenient left-wing dodge to reduce 20th-century American conservatism to cold-war politics, since it implies that conservative ideas are embedded in a world that no longer exists and never should have. In fact, in the 1930s American conservatives were far more obsessed with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his domestic legacy than with Joseph Stalin, and looked askance at all foreign entanglements, including the Second World War. The anti-Communist cause was first conceived by cold-war liberals, not by conservatives.
And what of the Berkeley center's mission to encourage and nurture "comparative scholarship on right-wing movements both in the U.S. and abroad during the 20th and 21st centuries"? That could be a good thing. For instance, it would be useful to know something about the affinities between European right-wingers like Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the National Front in France, and David Duke, the American white supremacist and anti-Semite now living, as it happens, in Austria. But mainstream American conservatism, which pretty much is all there is to the American right, shares nothing meaningful with those protofascist figures. Our conservatives accept the legitimacy of constitutional self-government, even when they hate the legislation and court decisions resulting from it; they play by the rules. The same cannot be said of the European right, which has always been suspicious of parliamentary politics….
But beggars can't be choosers. The unfortunate fact is that American academics have until recently shown little curiosity about conservative ideas, even though those ideas have utterly transformed American (and British) politics over the past 30 years. A look at the online catalogs of our major universities confirms this: plenty of courses on identity politics and postcolonialism, nary a one on conservative political thought. Professors are expected to understand the subtle differences among gay, lesbian, and transgender studies, but I would wager that few can distinguish between the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute, three think tanks that have a greater impact on Washington politics than the entire Ivy League.
Amen, Professor Lilla, and may colleges across the land begin assigning my own massive history of American libertarianism, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.
Apply for a grant with Berkeley's new program of right-wing studies.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The anti-Communist cause was first conceived by cold-war liberals, not by conservatives.
And abandoned by them in a timespan so short it still cannot be measured.
Like wow, man, can I, like, get a grant for my research project on the history of fascism from Hitler to George W. Bush?
CAL Berkley has been right wing for a while. Cal is a spot for asians to get their MBA and frat boys to get their drink on, very little student activism - the non-student community in Berkley is a different story mind you...
Mad Max - Goldberg already wrote that book - its liberals man
And abandoned by them in a timespan so short it still cannot be measured.
Sure, if you consider the period between no later than 1947 and no earlier than 1968 to be "a timespan so short it still cannot be measured." Or do you think the Truman Doctrine, the defense of South Korea, the resistance to Communist insurgency in South Vietnam, the quarantine of Cuba during the Missile Crisis, and the Bay of Pigs invasion were all just show, meant to disguise how the Democrats were all in bed with the Commies?
By the way, I don't consider modern American libertarianism properly a subset of the "right wing"---but am aware that most academics and citizens who are even vaguely aware of the term tend to do so. A big part of my book is trying to rescue libertarianism historically from that pigeonhole.
Or do you think the Truman Doctrine, the defense of South Korea, the resistance to Communist insurgency in South Vietnam, the quarantine of Cuba during the Missile Crisis, and the Bay of Pigs invasion were all just show, meant to disguise how the Democrats were all in bed with the Commies?
Yes, they were only faking it.
FDR packed the government full of known Communists. The only time they were exposed by the Left was for someone's own political gain (LBJ pulled a big one on that), and so on.
I can't wait until some Jane Goodall type from Berkely goes to Dick Cheney's house to study a conservative in his natural environment.
"I finally won his trust by grooming his silver fur for ticks. . ."
U-Cal Berkeley's new "Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements."
Soooo, they'll be studying the Democratic Party for their first project?
By the way, I don't consider modern American libertarianism properly a subset of the "right wing"---but am aware that most academics and citizens who are even vaguely aware of the term tend to do so.
Ain't that the truth! I finally stopped getting strongly annoyed and just sigh and move on when the topic comes up. I also learned not to mention your book around Randoids (I do mention it frequently to others). I think they have a price on your head or something.
I can't wait until some Jane Goodall type from Berkely goes to Dick Cheney's house to study a conservative in his natural environment.
Jonah Goldberg calls those "COnservatives in the Mist" stories.
The anti-Communist cause was first conceived
Really? I would have guessed Czarist Russia.
So, is there a Berkeley Center for the Study of Left-Wing Movements? Or does Berkeley not consider lefties so foreign and debased that they rate the occasional anthropological expedition to ponder their mysterious ways?
Can we have a center for the study of either-wing douchebag partisan assholes?
From the AP:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama's health care reform effort is concerning because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.
Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.
Story hier.
I'm going to start a network called Conservative Planet, where we'll produce and broadcast various shows about the culture, society, and lifestyles of American conservatives. Our embedded hosts will directly interact with conservatives and, to the greatest extent possible, try to blend in with their fascinating, yet alien culture. Because Conservative women often walk around naked, viewer discretion is advised.
In order to avoid to narrow a focus, we'll include some shows on libertarians. . .late at night.
The entire essay has good stuff in it. There are a lot of highlights that Brian left out. Good read. Thanks Brian.
But seriously, folks ...
Last year, the Teaching Company brought out an excellent course on the history of conservative thought. Well worth a listen, if you can get it on sale. (Their regular prices are pretty steep.)
Can we have a center for the study of either-wing douchebag partisan assholes?
I have submitted an NEA grant application for exactly that.
"...I would wager that few can distinguish between the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute..."
Not to sound like an ignoramus but, what are the differences between these entities? Both in their stated mission and, in their actual output.
Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly
so as to avoid taking responsibility for the results.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.
Sure, sure,... gay rights 35 years ago, socialized medicine 2009. Same thing. Gotcha.
Nancy Pelosi=anti-Cassandra. Always predicting horrible things that everyone hears about, but never happen.
If you don't want to be an ignoramus, go look it up for yourself. Although I sense that your "ignorance" is feigned to make a snarky point.
Not to sound like an ignoramus but, what are the differences between these entities? Both in their stated mission and, in their actual output.
AEI=Neo-con
Heritage=Paleo-con
Cato=Libertarian/fiscal conservative
Since today's neocons are to the left of chicoms, the meaning of the term 'conservative' is redefined each time it's used. A study of something so mailable can't yield much in the way of meaningful results.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama's health care reform effort is concerning because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.
Nancy Pelosi: fledgling insult comic.
Actually, that would be a welcome change.
Shut the fuck up, Nancy Pelosi.
Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.
So, Pelosi think Obama should take responsibility for the SEIU thugs who beat that guy up at the town hall a day or two after he said to "punch back twice as hard"?
Your neoconservative warmongering tendencies certainly don't help disabuse people of the notion. you even called reason "Surrender Monkeys" - holy shit, it's not 2004, dude. Grow up.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.
So Pelosi is saying that if Anita Bryant had kept her mouth shut about anything but orange juice, Dan White wouldn't have killed Moscone and Milk? Just askin'.
CAL Berkley has been right wing for a while. Cal is a spot for asians to get their MBA and frat boys to get their drink on, very little student activism
As a Cal grad, albeit a long long time ago, this is not quite right. Students at Cal, like any rigorous university, are more apolitical than left or right wing. There is too much work to do to pass classes to worry about activism. OTOH, a bullshit school like Stanford that doesn't give failing grades......
Heritage=Paleo-con
Not unless by paleo-con, you mean "conservative the way conservatives used to be before the neo-cons came to dominate American 'conservatism.'" The term "paleo-con" more usually means people like Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, and the Rockford Institute. Russell Kirk would probably have been called a paleo-con if he'd lived long enough for the paleo-con movement to coalesce. Intercollegiate Studies Institute has paleo-con leanings (which is to say their journal, Modern Age, regularly excoriates the neo-cons).)
...the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute, three think tanks that have a greater impact on Washington politics than the entire Ivy League.
Would that it were so!
If there's one thing I hate worse than homosexuals, it's the scum who think orange juice is just for breakfast.
Seamus beat me too it. There are not many "paleocons" out there. Lonewacko maybe.
I posted this on another thread, but it seems to belong here instead...
"...the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute, three think tanks that have a greater impact on Washington politics than the entire Ivy League.
Would that it were so!"
It is actually true. That is the good news. The bad news is that it is true because the Ivy Leagues put out about as much credible and significant political thought as Lonewacko.
Yo, Markus Kemmelmeier, shut the fuck up.
Ah, alas, AEI, Heritage and Cato have nothing on the public school system.
I'm unclear on how cherry-picking some incident at Berkeley - the archetypal liberal university for decades - somehow says anything relevant about America, its educational system, or the country's view of conservatism. And as the NYT points out, it's far more likely that this is a reaction to endowments of conservative-leaning institutes at other universities than some sort of de novo anti-conservative hysteria.
This is a tempest in a teapot. Can we stop complaining about how Enormous Interest Group X is so horribly victimized and get back to thinking about something relevant?
I didn't read anything like that in the blog post.
As an extremely introverted, intuitive problems solver (perfect I & N scores on Meyers/Briggs) and a seasoned engineer that knows the difference between an algorithm and a heuristics, I find this abstract to be total bullshit.
I didn't read anything like that in the blog post.
Great timing. Have some:
those ideas have utterly transformed American (and British) politics over the past 30 years
WTF?
That's about how long I've been conscious, and...it didn't happen.
Without much effort, you can pass a lifetime saturated in American and British media -- popular, academic, and political -- without once hearing a right wing or "right-wing" thought expressed by anyone who believes it.
Meanwhile, you can't turn your head without suffering a gavage of the idiot-technocrat fascism dipped in CliffsNotes Marxism (and/or Churchill quotes) that passes for "intelligent political discourse," from the neocons on left.
The article wouldn't have been written, otherwise.
At the same time, out here in the real world, I've never seen a state shrink. A few failed in ways that some "right-wing" dudes liked, but that's it. The rest have "utterly transformed" into unkillable leftoid monsters.
Seriously, WTF?
Unless Kemmelmeier is just trying to summarize the Authoritarion mindset as "don't confuse me with the facts, I know what's right". But that's an issue of willful blindness not intuition or heuristic processing.
I think it highly likely that Berkeley will merely end up analyzing the right that exists in their heads, and not the actual right.
Not unless by paleo-con, you mean "conservative the way conservatives used to be before the neo-cons came to dominate American 'conservatism.'" The term "paleo-con" more usually means people like Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, and the Rockford Institute. Russell Kirk would probably have been called a paleo-con if he'd lived long enough for the paleo-con movement to coalesce. Intercollegiate Studies Institute has paleo-con leanings (which is to say their journal, Modern Age, regularly excoriates the neo-cons).)
Yes, that's what I mean. Kirk is venerated there, or at least used to be.
This isn't to say that they haven't hitched their wagon to neo-con shitstorms (**coughIRAQcough**), but it's largely paleo and stays out of the cultural side to a large degree. They let the goose-steppers over at Family Research Council take that pill.
I'm going to start a network called Conservative Planet, where we'll produce and broadcast various shows about the culture, society, and lifestyles of American conservatives. Our embedded hosts will directly interact with conservatives and, to the greatest extent possible, try to blend in with their fascinating, yet alien culture. Because Conservative women often walk around naked, viewer discretion is advised.
How about two reality shows in one? One is a house full of far left anarcho-communist hippies. The kind that grow organic food, smoke weed and wear dreadlocks. The other is a fundamentalist mormon compound. In each case, the hosts have to attempt to blend in with the culture, while the show cuts back and forth between the two groups, comparing and contrasting their lifestyles.
One is a house full of far left anarcho-communist hippies. The kind that grow shop at Whole Foods for organic food, smoke weed and wear dreadlocks.
The other kind is going to be much harder to find.
Alright Brian, I just sprung for your book. You're welcome.
The anti-Communist cause was first conceived
Really? I would have guessed Czarist Russia.
French Third Republic. That Adolphe Thiers, he was a badass.
"The other kind is going to be much harder to find."
I know enough of them that we could probably put together a decent show.
"Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results."
What about anyone biting off appendages of political dissenters?
Nancy,
Advocating theft is hateful, especially since it has to be done with violence.
In order to avoid to narrow a focus, we'll include some shows on libertarians. . .late at night.
Libertarians are of such a rare breed, Cal Berkely won't even officially acknowledge their existence. One professor attempted to set up a SETI project (if you will) for the search for libertarian philosphy: SELPH-- pronounced as you would expect. The project was highly marginalized and criticized for taking valuable lab time away from studying real movements, like Militias and other hate groups currently being studied by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Well, given the name of the center, we can bet it will provide a fair-minded examination of the wing-nut, er, right-wing movement.
At least that'll be the way the classical liberal tradition will be treated.
Oh, crap, I thought I, as a libertarian, was out on a limb of the Left, but now they tell me I'm just another rightwing nut duster???
better still, Hazel, if the anarcho-hippies and the fundamentalist Mormons swapped some members and then engaged in inter-breeding.
As a fresh college grad, I accepted a Software Engineering job with Hughes Aircraft in 1982. Hughes hired a gaggle of SW types right around that time; one was a computer science grad from Berkeley. She was dumber than an Obama supporter shilling for ACORN.
I have held a low opinion of UC Berkeley ever since. It is probably not fair of me, but there it is.
What is a Liberation?
UC Berserkely
Comparative Right Wing Studies 101
Course Syllabus
Introduction: Right Wingers -- Racists, Fascists, or Both?
Module 1: Constitutional Literalism and other Outdated Ideological Foundations
Module 2: The Inherent Sexism in Conservative Dogma
Module 3: Zombie Reagan -- Still a Threat to the Progressive Agenda?
Module 4: Conservatives in the Media -- Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck as a Social Pathology
Module 5: Independent Study (Paper) -- Pick one irrational conservative policy and explain why it remains popular in America. Extra credit for referring to fundamental religious beliefs (except fundamental religious beliefs of oppressed peoples).
What is a Liberation?
grrrr,.... Libertarian, not "Liberation"!
Why did liberals abandon anti-Communism?
Do you have any proof?
Stanford is one of the top schools in the state, pretty difficult to get into.
I really hate being considered right wing, we're as left wing as we are right, yet somehow not centrist. Just another flaw of the scale.
I have to say this is good