Politics and Love of Truth

David Greenberg criticizes The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (a book I haven't read) in Slate.

He admits that even many prominent conservatives have criticized and even disavowed the book, but he still want s to say the success of the book says something about conservatism today:

For a while now, conservative elites have made common cause, sometimes cynically, with populist anti-intellectuals. Once upon a time, the original neoconservatives�the academics and intellectuals around the journal the Public Interest�rested their critiques of liberalism on penetrating social science scholarship and attacked the left for preferring bleeding-heart sentiment to polemical rigor. But now the Public Interest is defunct, and in the Bush years, conservatism has embraced not only the familiar ridicule of the eggheads but a rejection of the very legitimacy of independent, nonpartisan expert authority. The wisdom of legal professionals, such as those in the American Bar Association, is now denied, and, since George Bush took office, no longer used by the White House in evaluating candidates for federal judgeships. Mainstream journalism, such as that in the major newspapers and network news shows, is deemed liberal, slanted, and unreliable. The faith-based belief in creationism, enjoying renewed support of late, is accorded equal (or greater) weight as the scientific theory of evolution.

It was only a matter of time before this kind of thinking spread to history. Politics has always colored the ways that people interpret the past, but The Politically Incorrect Guide politicizes history in a new way, reducing all scholarly inquiry to a mere stance in the culture wars. "Everything (well, almost everything) you know about American history is wrong," states the book's back cover, "because most textbooks and popular history books are written by left-wing academic historians who treat their biases as fact." Conservatives who believe in open intellectual pursuit understandably blanch at the popularity of a book like this. The problem, however, isn't a lone piece of agitprop but a cynical alliance that conservative intellectuals forged with those who hold their ideals of scholarship in contempt. It's not surprising that the anti-intellectual currents they've aligned themselves with are proving too powerful for them to control.

Hmmm. The Public Interest--the neo-cons. I think it's possible history will show the neo-cons did a lot to make public policy debate more intelligent and indeed fact-based or science-based. As ex-Kennedy and LBJ Democrats, they turned on the excesses of the welfare state, and the various stances of defeat during the Cold War, in the 70s and 80s. They had at least some influence on some of the people working for Reagan; or Reagan's election was part of their moment, supported by some of the same people and tendencies; or they got lucky. (Thomas Sowell wrote that he was criticized as an Uncle Tom for considering a job in the Reagan Administration; in fact he was never offered such a job, and he never had any proof that anyone in the Reagan Administration, least of all the President, had ever read any of his writings).

The Democratic Leadership Council--warning Democrats they couldn't just blindly defend LBJ + Carter; Clinton, conspicuously favouring capital punishment and welfare reform; Republicans in Congress doing a lot to balance budgets and ensure welfare reform--all owed something to the neo-cons.

Now they have turned their attention to foreign policy. Isn't it possible that while 9/11 allows them to ground everything they say in terms of defending the safety of Americans at home, the neo-cons are now able to carry out their long-time project of spreading democracy around the world? Isn't this worth trying, from the point of view of liberal Democrats? If there is fear of a backlash/quagmire, isn't it still noble to try some experiments? Isn't this basically fact-based insofar as the spread of democracy helps on a number of fronts--and even perhaps helps keeps Americans safe at home?

The American Bar Association: for all I know, Bush is nominating some political hacks. Karl Rove no doubt thinks some red meat has to be thrown to the peanut gallery, even on big issues. But I've recently done some reading on Michael McConnell, who got confirmed for the 10th Circuit and may be a strong candidate for the Supreme Court. Evangelical Christian--has long criticized the arguments for a constitutional right to abortion; agrees with the main cases that removed religion from publicly-supported institutions, e.g. prayer in schools; thinks it's probably ridiculous to remove every trace of religion from public gatherings; thinks evolution belongs in science class, Intelligent Design does not, but he wishes science teachers could admit there are gaps, and there are important things that they don't know; is a famous advocate of minority religions--the peyote case, the animal sacrifice case, the the Act of Congress to protect religious diversity (RFRA). McConnell was strongly endorsed for the 10th Circuit by a number of law professors, including liberals. Not exactly a mouth-breathing anti-intellectual.

The attack on the Main Stream Media: Rather's continued defence of those stupid documents, and of the people who said they were good for air, is ridiculous. Why wasn't he fired long ago? It's as if none of them were computer-literate, and they were so easily conned by a notorious Bush-hater, they have no credibility. Obviously they thought there was nothing wrong with doing some dirty work for the Kerry campaign. And other media organizations are hesitant to say any of this. Their response is: on the one hand, on the other hand.... Bloggers rule on this issue.

The author of this politically incorrect book teaches at Podunk somewhere. At any prestigious university, in any humanities class, what do students encounter? Do they by any chance encounter the view that there is no truth, all so-called truth is relative, and therefore no harm is done by spinning evidence to support a political agenda? Of course, for humanities professors the agenda is helping those who have previously been underpriveleged, with women somehow always coming to the top of the list. If humanities professors are both modern and noble, they will bravely say that science teaches the truth, such as evolution and global warming. If they are way sophisticated, and inclined to mention Derrida, they may bring up Thomas Kuhn, and the idea that even so-called scientific truth is cultural and historical. But their respect for science will come through, and will stand in contrast to what they think of their own field: everyone has an agenda, and there is not even in principle one truth toward which everyone is working.

Of course no one really believes that, or lives accordingly. They believe their views, pro-choice, etc., are true, and the alternatives are false. Yet they try to maintain the orthodoxy of method--"there is nothing like scientific truth here" while also maintaining the orthodoxy of conviction "anyone who doesn't share progressive views is evil--we might as well mention Hitler".

Of course this doesn't mean humanities professors are sunk, whereas some other people somewhere are the salt of the earth, or free from all this trouble. Intellectuals reveal these problems by trying to be up-to-date, modern or post-modern or whatever. Dull or uneducated people don't trust theory, and won't let it interfere too much with things like jobs and families. Neo-cons seem to want to get back to a slightly more innocent time when modernity could be regarded as purely and simply a good thing--as if it doesn't turn on itself, or announce that there is no real truth. There is something very American in this. No matter what intellectual revolutions take place in nasty old Europe, keep your chin up and go forward.

I think Leo Strauss's contribution to this whole debate is in the opening pages of Natural Right and History, where he kids around and says "we are all in the same boat." (Among other things, he suggests that the Catholic Church has never really had an answer to modernity; Swift seems to include Aquinas among "the moderns.") Bloom says something similar about the fate of the university--it has to decide whether the humanities offer something like science or philosophy in the old sense--a search for truth, with some indicators that progress is being made--or are simply like a bunch of closed cultures or religions, unable to communicate with each other.

On recent reading that has influenced me here is Harvey Mansfield, here.

Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:41 am MST by robertll | Email Article |

Return to Main Page

Politics and Love of Truth