Conceptually speaking, conservatives are people for whom preservation of something is essential to how they see themselves in the world. ...Leftists like him are preoccupied with equality. They are always trying to take unequal things and make them equal. Or take equal things are pretend they are unequal. Their whole moral view is grounded on making moral judgments about what is or is not equal.One version of conservatism holds that some groups are more significant than others either as humans or as citizens. Call them Equality Deniers. Their conservatism consists in maintaining the superior group’s status. ...
In my experience, Harvard does not have many (if any) Equality Deniers on the faculty. That is a good thing, reflecting much historical learning. ...
Consider historical instantiations of conservatism. Equality Deniers have been the historical norm among conservatives. Conservatives have been skeptical pragmatists who see radical change as human hubris. ...
Over time, thinking people have realized how difficult it is to defend views putting one group above others in this way, which is why we no longer find many research programs committed to this position — and do not have many Equality Deniers on Harvard’s faculty. ...
A recent piece has pointed out that for conservatives some people “are held more valuable than others.” This position is held by Equality Deniers. ... The punchline is this: “The argument is over how a democracy should treat its inequalities: should we equalize them or value them?”
What he fails to grasp is that others do not think that way. In the real world, everything is unequal, and nothing can be done to make them equal. Equality is not a virtue.
In short, his argument is that there can be no intellectual justification for group differences, so the smart Harvard professors are against them.
All societies have group differences. He is essentially saying that professors like to deny reality.
In case you think the Harvard professors have a more sophisticated morality, they do not. I call it kindergarten morality. Kindergarten teachers tell their kids they should share their toys equally, because that is fair. That is the egalitarian ideal. Beyond kindergarten, it does not work.
1 comment:
Mr. Risse is full of shit.
His paper is just a long winded dig at the 'oval office'.
Using the word 'Deniers' (Argumentum ad Holocaust deniers) to frame his claims is revealing about the intellectual integrity of his position. Affixing one emotional hot button to an entirely unrelated argument is a pathetic attempt at emotional manipulation for uneducated college students who have been indoctrinated to jump up and down about words like 'denier'. He also doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what conservatives actually are, much less what they conserve, So I'm going to add he is incredibly lazy in his observations as well as intellectually dishonest. Mr. Risse like much of the academic left believes the way to utopia is purity, by way of the removal of ideas or facts that challenge his own, instead of learning how to debate them with the merits of his own position. He hides from engagement instead of seeking it out.
If Mr. Risse was remotely serious with his own argument's premises, he would be able to answer: If everyone is equal, why is a conservative you detest not entirely equal to a progressive you adore on your own precious campus? If everyone is equal, why does it matter what color they are? If all people are equal, why do some perform better than others on those pesky SATs and exams? Oh dear. It appears screeching about people being 'anti equality' falls flat when merely redirected at the speakers own bias and preferences. Everyone that has ever lived long enough to develop coherent thought has preferences of all kinds of things for all kinds of very good reasons: You prefer your own parents over your neighbors, you prefer your own methods of doing something versus someone else's, you prefer your own clothes that fit you versus someone else's clothes that don't.
Conservatives also do believe in change, just considered change weighing new ideas against what has come before to see if they perform, not reckless du jour change which is the conceit of stupid young people since the beginning of humanity "It is new, therefore intrinsically better, and I must like it". Conservatives also note that not all answers are equal: some work, and some clearly don't, a distinction many on the right have noticed doesn't seem to bother the left very much.
Post a Comment