Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Oedipus in Paris

The first round of the French presidential election is over. On May 7th France will have to choose between a woman who will end civilization as we know it and a man who married his mother. Not the most appetizing choice.

The world and the markets and the French people breathed a sigh of relief when they saw that their next president would most likely be a young technocrat with no real party affiliation who married his teacher, a woman who is twenty-four years his senior. Being as he is the same age as her children from her first marriage, one can only wonder whether the future president of France sits at the adult or the children’s table at dinner.

In political terms, the French president gains his power when his party controls the French parliament. Since Emmanuel Macron does not have a real political party—he is a former Socialist—the chance of having his political loyalists win the parliamentary elections in June is slim, indeed. He might just become a figurehead.

Some have wondered how the British, for example, would deal with a French president who married his mother. Can the staid and stolid British comprehend the true love that blossomed between Emmanuel and Brigitte from their first encounter in the drama class she was teaching? Was it what the French call a coup-de-foudre (or coup-de-foutre) when she a fortyish married woman with three children first cast her eyes on the beauteous Emmanuel, aged 15. Or was it when he, faced with the choice between his fellow student, Brigitte’s 15 year old daughter and Maman, made a beeline for the older woman.

Of course, the British press is on the case. It is more than happy to shower young Macron—he’s 39—with gales of ridicule. The French people might be overjoyed that they are not going to be ruled by Marine Le Pen, but they should brace themselves for the simple fact that their reputation and status on the world stage is going to take a major hit. By electing a Mama’s boy they are about to lose a considerable amount of face. If they imagine that Emmanuel Macron is going to restore injured French pride they are not living in the real world.

In America we call women like Brigitte Macron cougars. In France, they come down from an ancient and venerable practice called courtly love. Dating back a thousand years courtly love was a form of adultery, committed by a married woman and a teenaged boy. Women whose husbands went off for months and even years on end to fight the crusades were alone in their castles with the “help.” Boys who were too young to fight but old enough to love were easy prey for these women. We know the boys as troubadours, or guitar heroes.

In principle, these love affairs were not consummated, but clearly the older women were teaching these boys lessons in love. Since the newspaper stories about the love of Emmanuel for Brigitte always emphasize that he pursued her—a married woman—until she divorced her husband and married him, we should also note that in courtly love poetry the boy always pursues the woman, and refers to her as his Lord.

It takes precious little knowledge of human romance to see that Brigitte seduced Emmanuel when he was under age. Rumor has it that they did not consummate their love until he was 18, but let us be clear, he was played by an older and much more savvy woman. In France this kind of relationship falls under the category of “corrupting the morals of a minor” but Macron’s parents did not press charges. I find it difficult to imagine an American mother, watching her fifteen year old son be ensorcelled by a forty year old woman, would not have had said temptress thrown into prison.

One understands that the Macron parents were seriously unhappy to see their son become the boy toy of a much older woman. Perhaps not as unhappy as the French will be when they discover that, on the world stage, surrounded by other heads of states their president will be dubbed President Boy Toy.

The French know all about the Macron marriage. But, they are so sophisticated that they accept it. After all, what is France if not the epicenter of romantic love? And, what good was all that immersion in French Freudian thought if you cannot elect as your next president, Oedipus reincarnate?

Note the comparison. In Freudian theory you want, above all else, to marry your mother. In Darwinian theory— more scientifically correct— you will  be attracted to someone who is more fertile, who can produce offspring. God help us, but British thought retains its pragmatic streak.

After all, if everyone acted on their Freudian desire a community would quickly die off. Yes, I do recall, and have mentioned before, that Oedipus had four children with his mother. The fecundity of Jocasta was simply a MacGuffin—not to be taken literally.

As you might imagine the Daily Mail can barely restrain its glee over this story. One of their Agony Aunts—that is, advice columnists—addresses the salient questions in today’s paper.

Jan Moir cranks up her imagination and writes the latter that Macron would write, if he had asked her what to do about his problem.

So, faux Emmanuel writes:

How can I get the world to take me seriously if they think I am a mummy’s boy with a wife who is 25 years older than him?

On the world stage, will I look like a swot who married Madam De La Drama because maybe he wanted forever the classroom chastisement of the spanky-spanky? But no. That is the fantasy of the English schoolboy, not for moi.

‘Bibi’, as I call her, was 40 and married with three children when we met. It was complicated, but I knew I had to be with her. Mama and Papa sent me away to Paris to stop the romance, but I wooed her from afar.

Being as the French are psychologically sophisticated in matters of the heart they imagine that the only way a real man would marry his mother would be if she was to be his “beard,” that is if he was gay and was hiding it to the world. In order to advance his political ambitions.

Faux Emmanuel addresses this hoary issue:

Now, as your own BBC reported, a website has suggested I am secretly gay and live a double life. What? I got so upset, Brigitte had to calm me down with a Babybel and a carton of juice.

This wild allegation is impossible!

My wife shares my life from morning to night and, like Popeye, I am what I am. As I said at the time, if you hear these rumours about me, it’s my hologram that has escaped, it can’t be me.

Jan Moir understands the Oedipal aspect clearly:

As Oedipus knew, a great number of men secretly want to marry their own mothers — but this is not possible, not even in France.

However, getting hitched to your favourite teacher is a pretty close second.

In truth, if we want to be theoretically correct, in the world of French psychoanalysis the close second is: adultery.

Moir offers her best advice:

My advice is to forget about the gay accusations. In European politics, any man who is handsome, smells nice and wears good suits — I notice some of yours are bespoke because the buttons on the sleeves actually work! — gets this treatment.

However, with regards to looking like a mummy’s boy, we are in much more difficult territory.

Everyone knows that when you were economics minister, you took Brigitte along to important meetings as if she were a fluffy lapdog.

Apparently her presence cheers you up, and helps you to make better decisions because you value her opinion and trust her.

She has also played an active role throughout your campaign, where advisers have noted ‘her presence is essential’ for her little ‘Mani’, as she calls you.

Uh oh.

Obviously, if she is always with him, even at ministerial meetings, he could not have a double life. But, is she with him all the time because she knows that he is tempted to have said double life? Enquiring minds want to know.

Moir advises Emmanuel not to drag his wife with him everywhere. It looks like he cannot stand on his own:

Brigitte may be an amazing woman, but don’t drag her everywhere with you. It looks as if she is waiting for an opportunity to wipe your mouth clean after lunch, or give you a smack for not standing up when Mrs Merkel walks into the room.

Moir closes with a note of caution: she strongly recommends that Emmanuel not run off with a younger woman. I doubt that we have to worry about that.

Monday, April 24, 2017

More Free Therapy, Please!

If you believe that today’s college students are hopeless, a glimmer of light has just appeared in the person of Sophie Mann, a junior at California’s Scripps College. If you despaired to read the editorial published by The Wellesley Illiterati you will be pleased to see that Mann can write in clear, coherent English prose. Will wonders never cease?

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mann reports on a strike called by her college’s resident advisers. As soon as the RAs announced their action, student tour guides made a gesture of solidarity. They threated to “trash-talk their own college” to young people who were touring the college in order to decide whether or not to attend. It's disloyalty run amok.

Mann cites the tour guide manifesto:

Citing “intersectionality,” Scripps’s “admissions ambassadors”—the student tour guides—joined the strike. “In our act of solidarity, the majority of us will not guide the normal tours beginning Monday, April 17th,” they declared in a statement. “As an alternative, we will use our tours as a platform to share with prospective students and families the toxic and frustrating climate that Scripps has created and perpetuates against marginalized students.”

One suspects that the toxic climate involves classes and tests. Apparently these students do not succeed in that climate... so, instead of working harder, they complain. And they blame it on a lack of free therapy. Surely that will improve their grades.

Mann describes their plight:

Scripps RAs, most of whom are African-American and Latina, get room and board worth almost $16,000 a year. They feel their work is worth more. In an April 13 letter to new college president Lara Tiedens, the RAs declare that they’re on strike to “put pressure on Scripps to fulfill its obligation to students” and to “demonstrate the extent of the labor we perform on campus.” That “labor” largely consists of opening dorm doors for residents who forget keys, asking students to turn down music on weekend evenings, and so forth.

Now, the good part:

Then there are the mental-health problems purportedly generated by the “emotional labor” RAs do. The letter acknowledges that Scripps already subsidizes students’ visits to private, off-campus therapy. But the school only pays $75 a session, and even if students can get insurance to cover the rest they must “front” the cost. “This financial burden,” the letter complains, “should not be put on any student who seeks to improve their mental health.” Should a college provide therapy to RAs whom it pays to be the mature authorities in its dorms?

The irony of these “mature authorities” whining about their need for free therapy did not escape Mann. As it happens, the students already receive free off-campus therapy. The school pays part of the fee. Insurance picks up the rest. The problem that has driven these students to the barricades is: reimbursement. You see, they are required to pay for their therapy up front, only to be reimbursed by the insurance companies later.

You can cringe at the indignity of it all. Entitled students are up in arms because they have to advance a payment. They have to wait for reimbursement. Evidently, they have not mastered deferred gratification.

And why, pray tell, do they think that their problems derive from not having had enough therapy? Where did they ever get that idea? And where did they get the idea that they should be given things for free, to the point of not having to advance any of their own funds? How are they going to compete in a world where the ability to whine is not considered a job qualification.

As for the outcome, the college president quickly caved in to these demands:

Ms. Tiedens quickly caved in. She promised to pay for students’ private therapy and to hire a “wellness” administrator. 

It sends the wrong message. It allows students to believe that protesting can be a lucrative occupation. College administrators are doing these students no favors.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik has all the answers. He might not have the questions, but he does have the answers. If you don’t believe me, just ask him. He pretends, for a paragraph or so, to ask whether Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing, that is, a clinical condition that mires people so deeply in their own hatred that they are blind to reality. But then he continues to show us what TDS really looks like… when he shows off his own.

Since Gopnik seems to be a master of New Yorker group think—recall that the magazine’s editor David Remnik saw in Barack Obama a long-awaited Messiah—he decides that the only Trump Derangement Syndrome worthy of the name is the one suffered by Trump himself. Since he does not base his opinion on any professional qualification, he entertains us with a rant against Trump, an attack that is short on facts and long on bias. And then he says that Trump is deranged. His superior knowledge of psychology leads him to suggest that if people are deranged about Trump they have good reason to be so: it’s the rational reaction to someone who is deranged.

Somewhere along the line Gopnik forgot about the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. For him, it’s: Do unto others as others do unto you. Which is, truth be told, the law of  the talion, a primitive system of justice that settles scores by taking an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Allow Gopnik to speak for himself:

We’re told by many wise and well-meaning people that it is a huge and even fatal mistake for liberals (and for constitutional conservatives) to respond negatively to every Trump initiative, every Trump policy, and every Trump idea. There are bound to be—in an Administration staffed not by orcs and ogres but for the most part by the usual run of military people and professional politicians—acceptable actions, even admirable initiatives, and we would do ourselves and our country a huge disservice by simply responding to them all with the same reflexive hatred. This may be especially true if that reflexive hatred, however unconsciously, mirrors and mimics the reflexive hatreds of the Trump White House itself. We owe it to our country and to our sanity to go on a case-by-case basis, empirically evaluating each action as it takes place, and refusing to succumb to the urge to turn politics into a series of set responses—exactly the habit, after all, that we so often deplore in Trump and the people around him.

So, Gopnik has created a caricature of Trump-- a New York Democrat turned populist nationalist-- and is using it to rationalize his own inability to think straight, to think rationally, to offer anything cogent about the Trump administration.  After all, Trump has shifted positions on various issues— pragmatically-- and has filled his administration with people who are not going to be pushed around. Those who think that Trump is an autocrat will need to explain whether Tillerson, Mattis and McMaster will be Trump’s puppets. If not, they throw out the notion that Trump is ruling like an autocrat. After all, he has not even been able to keep the Republican House caucus together.

If you were expecting Gopnik to be thoughtful and rational and dispassionate you were expecting too much. He thinks that there are two equally plausible sides to the question of Obama’s responsibility for the catastrophe in Syria, but only believes that there is one side to  the unmitigated insanity of Trump’s bombing a Syrian air base.

As for Obama in Syria, no less an Obama supporter and a Trump detractor as Roger Cohen of the New York Times grasped the reality far better than Gopnik:

Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency, a debacle of staggering proportions. For more than four years now, the war has festered. A country has been destroyed, four million Syrians are refugees, Islamic State has moved into the vacuum and President Bashar al-Assad still drops barrel bombs whose shrapnel and chlorine rip women and children to shreds.

For a long time, those who fled waited in the neighborhood. They wanted to go home. They filled camps in Turkey and Jordan and Lebanon. When it became clear even to them that “home” no longer existed, nothing could stop them in their desperate flight toward the perceived security of Europe. The refugee crisis is the chronicle of a disaster foretold.

Cohen continued:

American interventionism can have terrible consequences, as the Iraq war has demonstrated. But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates. Not doing something is no less of a decision than doing it. The pendulum swings endlessly between interventionism and retrenchment because the United States is hard-wired to the notion that it can make the world a better place. Looking inward for long is a non-option for a nation that is also a universal idea. Every major conflict poses the question of how far America should get involved.

You get the point, offered by someone who has the moral sense to place blame where blame is due.

As for Trump’s bombing of Syria, no less than Obama administration stalwart Anne-Marie Slaughter, cheered the Trump action. Gopnik, who thinks he is not deranged, disagrees.

Gopnik explains himself:

It was, as best as anyone can understand, simply a reaction to an image, turned into a self-obsessed lashing out that involved the lives and deaths of many people. It was a detached gesture, unconnected to anything resembling a sequence of other actions, much less an ideology. Nothing followed from it, and no “doctrine” or even a single speech justified it. There is no credible evidence that Trump’s humanity was outraged by the act of poisoning children, only that Trump’s vanity was wounded by the seeming insult to America and, by extension, to him.

One likes the rhetorical flourish— “as best as anyone can understand”—but it is merely a lure to trick the gullible. Gopnik does not understand it because he does not want to understand it. He does not care to understand how political leaders engage in gamesmanship. Vladimir Putin understood perfectly that Trump was signaling that America was back in the game and was going to take charge—a necessary gesture after Russia and its allies did not include the Obama administration in the last round of peace talks. And readers of this blog understand that, given Putin's loss of face, Trump does best now not to rub it in.

For Gopnik what matters is not policy but ideology. He does not care about tactics and strategy, but about ideology. He is seriously torqued that Trump does not seem to have an ideology or even a doctrine. Trump does not seem to have a dogma which one might or might not believe. He does not see the world through the blinders of ideology, as a fiction that an author can rewrite.

Obama’s ideology was weakness and cowardice. But wait, those are not ideological commitments; they are character flaws. When Obama consistently sided with Iran against Israel and against Sunni Arab states, minds who are deranged about Trump had nothing to say. Was Obama manifesting an ideological commitment to the Iranian Revolution? Surely his actions suggested as much. Do we know what the Obama doctrine was, beyond leading from behind? What was the Obama doctrine in Benghazi: ducking under the covers?

We do know that Obama projected weakness around the world for eight years. And we know that no American president is going to make the nation a player on the world stage overnight. One suspects that Gopnik is looking for someone to worship and something to believe in.

Anyway, Gopnik continues to insist that what really matters is ideology:

People who have acts and actions that add up to some coherent plan—or even to an evil scheme—tend to have an ideology. It possesses them, or they are possessed by it. With Trump, it is perfectly clear that he only has a series of episodic wounds and reactions—it’s all fears and fits.

Leaders tend to have plans but not ideologies. They have strategies and tactics, but not ideologies. What was Dwight Eisenhower’s ideology? Presidents who have ideologies, I have long since claimed, tend to have no sense of reality and no real competence. They retreat to the fictional world defined by their ideology because they are lost in the real world. The fact seems to describe Obama well. It does not fit Trump very well.

Gopnik concludes about Trump:

… the one appetite that he does have is for announcing his authority through violence, a thing capable of an unimaginable resonance and devastation. 

As opposed, one imagines to the pusillanimous Obama who ducked the fight in Syria, who removed Qaddhafi in Libya and then went home, who pulled out of Iraq because he could not or would not negotiate an agreement to stay and who announced his departure from Afghanistan months in advance… the better to help the Taliban to plan.

Gopnik is terrified of a few Tomahawk missiles sent as a message to Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. He has nothing to say—for example—about Trump’s effort to  build an alliance with Chinese president Xi Jinping and to deal with the North Korea problem--created by Bill Clinton’s deal with that nation, and left unresolved by both Bush and Obama. But, building an alliance with the President of China would not fit in Gopnik’s slightly hysterical rant about violence and devastation, so he chooses not to mention it.

Normally we expect much better from Adam Gopnik. He should have kept his Trump Derangement Syndrome to himself.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

When Did "Lady" Become a Four-letter Word?

Perhaps you remember where you were when you first discovered that “wife” had become a four-letter word.

True, it was not quite as obscene as the horrific title “housewife” but once upon a time certain women decided that “wife” was derogatory, insulting, demeaning and offensive. Said women did want to get married, but, if you asked them whether they wanted to be wives, they would respond indignantly: What do you think I am?

While it received less opprobrium, the word “lady” was soon placed on the list of banned four-letter words. It was banned from polite conversation because it supposedly diminished and weakened women.  How could a strong, empowered female person ever allow herself to be called a lady? The merest utterance of the term would cause Betty Friedan to rise from her eternal rest and smite you.

Of course, America still has a First Lady. For my part I cannot understand why the night riders of the thought police have allowed this archaic misogynistic term to remain in use. If they have, it’s because many of our most recent first ladies have tended to play down the ladylike in favor of the personhood.

In fashion terms this means that they wore pants. They especially wore pants to the annual White House Easter Egg hunt. This year, however, in a radical break with tradition, First Lady Melania Trump wore a dress that seemed, to the New York Times fashion writer, to be ladylike. The horror! The horror!

Well, to be fair Vanessa Friedman did not exactly use those decidedly unladylike terms. She simply remarked that Mrs. Trump’s dress had broken with tradition.

You might guess that I did not find this little nugget of information by trolling through the New York Times fashion section. I owe it to the highly estimable Annie Holmquist of the Intellectual Takeout blog. (Via Maggie’s Farm)

Friedman describes Mrs. Trump’s dress, as follows:

Since the Easter Egg Roll was revived under Betty Ford, most of the first ladies who have hosted the event wore suits, or at least jackets, suggesting it was a professional commitment. Hillary Clinton displayed her penchant for rainbow-colored pantsuits when she was host, resplendent one year in buttercup yellow, another in grass green. When the Obamas were in the White House, they significantly relaxed the rules, the president often going without a tie or jacket, and Michelle Obama most often in pants with a J. Crew T-shirt or cardigan and Converse (one Tracy Reese floral dress excepted). The message was one of a new, more relaxed, modern and active era.

Personally I like the image of Hillary Clinton “resplendent in buttercup yellow.” I take that as a sign of advanced imagination. Have you ever in your life thought of Hillary Clinton as “resplendent?” And, have you associated her with “buttercup yellow?” If you have, you need a lot of help.

As Holmquist pointed out, Friedman is remarking that Mrs. Trump manifests a more feminine approach to fashion and to self-presentation. You would have thought-- and if you are a good feminist you still think-- that Friedan had driven a stake through the heart of femininity. And yet, there it was in the White House, at the Easter egg hunt. Another unwelcome revenant.

Friedman is too ladylike herself to engage in derisive rhetoric, but you get the picture.

Holmquist continued to explain that in our gender neutered day dressing like a lady, and even looking feminine, is seriously disrespected in certain quarters.

And yet she asked—and this is the most salient point— whether women, especially professional women, deprive themselves of respect for not dressing like women. If women dress like women it signifies that they are happy to be women? Does a woman who likes being a woman go around mimicking male behavior? Since the feminist Weltanschauung holds men to be malignant abominable creatures, why wouldn’t enlightened modern women be rushing out to buy clothes that did not make them appear to be imitation men?

You may recall the brouhaha that erupted in England when a woman decided to go to war against a dress code that strongly recommended that she wear high heels. By the correct feminist reasoning, since men do not need to wear high heels, women should not have to do so either.

One suspects that it’s not the heels, as much as the notion that women should be more ladylike and more feminine. I am awaiting the demonstrations and protests against the shoe manufacturers who produce these instruments of torture. And yet, considering how much women love shoes— case in point, Carrie Bradshaw—one suspects that this one conflagration will be a long time coming.

In any event, Holmquist wrote:

The fact is, women are free to wear anything they want these days. But I can’t help but wonder: Do many women deny themselves the respect they are craving by the way they dress? Is it possible that women who embrace their femininity and are unashamed to dress in a respectable, gender-specific way, such as Melania Trump exhibited the other day, are actually ahead of the pack when it comes to earning that respect?

Of course women are free to wear what they please. So are all the non-women out there. And yet, women, like men, are judged by the way they present themselves. Their attire shows how they want the world to see them. The psycho notion that no one should care how the world sees him or her should be thrown on the bonfire of the high-heeled vanities.

Do women command more respect when they dress more like ladies? Do they lose respect when they pretend to be one of the guys? Does a more virile appearance suggest that they do not know who they are or do not like being what they are?

I suspect that they do. But, then again, what do I know?

I suggest that we do better to discuss women’s issues in terms of fashion than in terms of reproductive anatomy. Why does it happen that any time the nation has a conversation about women’s issues the focus is directed below the waist?

Why does anyone imagine that women will receive more respect for wearing pussy hats? Yes, I know that pussy hats are fashion forward these days. They make a statement— I do not dare to imagine which—but do they command more respect for professional women? Which puts women in a better light:  an ankle-length dress or a pussy hat?

No, that is not a trick question.


 


Saturday, April 22, 2017

Generation Brainwashed

Heather Mac Donald is back, on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Recently attacked at Claremont-McKenna College in California for trying to deliver a speech, she famously defended herself in the City Journal. I dutifully reported on it here.

Today MacDonald argues that Generation Snowflake is not really suffering from helicopter parenting, as some have suggested, but is suffering from ideology. In my less elegant terms I would say that they have been brainwashed to within an inch of their minds.

In truth, the one does not really preclude the other. Children rendered vulnerable for not having had Tiger Moms are ruthless indoctrinated by an educational establishment that wants them to sacrifice their lives for the cause of social justice.

While we are at it, we should also ask how many of these students, suffering from anomie, were brought up in broken homes, in homes where their mothers were not around, in homes where their fathers were treated poorly.

Since I and everyone else has been saying it, too many of today’s college students are acting like junior Red Guards and Brown Shirts—that is practitioners of the art of the pogrom. They are unwilling to listen to any idea that does not echo whatever they hear in their occupied minds. Mac Donald refuses to give all the blame to their parents, who are not, after all, agents of indoctrination:

This soft totalitarianism is routinely misdiagnosed as primarily a psychological disorder. Young “snowflakes,” the thinking goes, have been overprotected by helicopter parents, and now are unprepared for the trivial conflicts of ordinary life.

She continues that we cannot explain it all as a function of emotional well-being. There is more to it that psychological injury, thus to an anomie that seeks to heal itself by joining in with a cause that is greater than itself:

“The Coddling of the American Mind,” a 2015 article in the Atlantic, was the most influential treatment of the psychological explanation. The movement to penalize certain ideas is “largely about emotional well-being,” argued Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and Jonathan Haidt of New York University. The authors took activists’ claims of psychological injury at face value and proposed that freshmen orientations teach students cognitive behavioral therapy so as to preserve their mental health in the face of differing opinions.

Mac Donald argues that if it were all caused by overly involved parents then straight white men would also be looking for safe spaces. But then, she adds that this cohort has been so thoroughly demonized that it does not have the right to do so. If it is suffering, it cannot overcome the pain by signing on to the Revolution:

But if risk-averse child-rearing is the source of the problem, why aren’t heterosexual white male students demanding “safe spaces”? They had the same kind of parents as the outraged young women who claim to be under lethal assault from the patriarchy. And they are the targets of a pervasive discourse that portrays them as the root of all evil. Unlike any other group on a college campus, they are stigmatized with impunity, blamed for everything from “rape culture” to racial oppression.

Might we not suggest that this group has been cowed into submission? After all, these students have been labeled as the root of all evil, thus, as needing to be punished for the horrors they have visited on the human race. Among those horrors, and yes, I know I am repeating myself, are liberal democracy, free enterprise, the Industrial Revolution, the Common Law, modern science… and, let’s not forget, defeating fascism, Nazism and Communism.

As I have opined, the denizens of radical extremes will never forgive us:

Campus intolerance is at root not a psychological phenomenon but an ideological one. At its center is a worldview that sees Western culture as endemically racist and sexist. The overriding goal of the educational establishment is to teach young people within the ever-growing list of official victim classifications to view themselves as existentially oppressed. One outcome of that teaching is the forceful silencing of contrarian speech.

Amazingly, Mac Donald continues, members of self-proclaimed oppressed groups believe that the Western canon threatens their very existence. It sounds slightly hysterical and over-the-top. That’s because it is:

Students have been led to believe they are at personal risk from circumambient bigotry. After the February riots at Berkeley against Mr. Yiannopoulos, a columnist in the student newspaper justified his participation in the anarchy: “I can only fight tooth and nail for the right to exist.” Another opined that physical attacks against supporters of Mr. Yiannopoulos and President Trump were “not acts of violence. They were acts of self-defense.”

And also:

In November 2015, a Columbia sophomore announced on Facebook that his “health and life” were threatened by a Core Curriculum course taught by a white professor.

Again:

… racist, patriarchal texts taught by white professors who most likely are unaware of the various forms of impact that CC texts have on people of color.”

Because if your group did not contribute as much as the dreaded white males, the only reason must be that prejudice and oppression prevented them from doing so.  These snowflakes ought to try to contribute to the Western canon, rather than use it as a whipping boy to cover up the deficiencies of members of other ethnic groups.

The problem, if I may again repeat myself, is that these schools have been accepting too many students who cannot do the work, who have been selected to fulfill diversity quotas. The same schools have been hiring professors for the same reasons, but not only to fulfill diversity quotas but to ensure ideological conformity. How many of these professors would even know how to teach the canon? It's surely better to blame Western civ than to show that one cannot teach it.

Mac Donald is correct to say that a good dose of meritocratic admissions and hiring standards would go a long way toward solving these problems, but that does not seem likely to happen at any time in the near future:

But the graduates of the academic victimology complex are remaking the world in their image. The assumption of inevitable discrimination against women and minorities plagues every nonacademic institution today, resulting in hiring and promotion based on sex and race at the expense of merit.

Climate Apocalypse Delayed

True believers will not care. True believers never care when the facts disprove their hypotheses. They imagine that reality is testing their faith, that is, the depth of their conviction.

So, as we continued to be showered with apocalyptic predictions of the calamities that will befall our pathetic little planet, we join American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Perry in reminiscing about the prophecies of climate calamity made on the first Earth Day, in 1970.

I have selected a few that I find especially edifying. It will teach these prophets and soothsayers not to make predictions that can be falsified by empirical evidence. But, then again, the people who are shrieking loudest over Donald Trump’s tenuous hold on facts have never had any use for facts anyway. 

Ready? Here goes, coming to you from 1970. Keep in mind, if these climate science alarmists were right you would not be reading this anyway. Note that Perry was quoting serious, credentialed scientists, not a bunch of crackpots:

Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

If you are a true believer you will look at this list and say: Apocalypse delayed. If you think that way you have a very high gullibility quotient.

Otherwise you will reset your sight on reality and, oh yes, on facts.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Why She Left the Left

It reads like an indictment. Dr.Danusha V. Goska, a schoolteacher in Paterson, NJ has explained, in excruciating detail, why she has left the left. That is, why she abandoned her adherence to leftist thinking to become something of  a rightist.

Goska was a denizen of the radical, not the moderate left, but her experience draws our attention. She makes the case against the left as only someone who lived its transformation from a liberal or progressive movement into a radical movement, purveying hate and violence can.

She speaks with the authority that comes from experience, and she writes clearly and well.

Goska’s first point involves the way the left imposes a narrative on human experience, casting everyone in a role in a world historical fiction.

She writes:

We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.

From the outrage flows a constant feeling of hate. I suspect that this makes weak people feel strong, but, whatever the reason, it is emotionally exhausting. It does not allow you to care about other people and thus turns your life into a constant struggle, a constant need to distinguish friends from foes.

The hate extends especially to Judeo-Christianity:

Hang out in leftist internet environments, and you will discover a toxic bath of irrational hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition. You will discover an alternate vocabulary in which Jesus is a “dead Jew on a stick” or a “zombie” and any belief is an arbitrary sham, the equivalent of a recently invented “flying spaghetti monster.” You will discover historical revisionism that posits Nazism as a Christian denomination. You will discover a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization and American concepts of individual rights and law. You will discover a nihilist void, the kind of vacuum of meaning that nature abhors and that, all too often, history fills with the worst totalitarian nightmares, the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem.

When she joined an online leftist discussion forum,  Goska was overwhelmed by the hate and destructiveness. If you think that people learned nothing from deconstruction—which means pogrom—and which was invented by a Nazi—you are wrong.

She discovered this:

Those posting messages in this left-wing forum publicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace. Thus, when Obama bombed, you didn’t hold any anti-war rally, because you didn’t hate Obama.

It’s all emotion and no rational thought. Even when easy moral issue arose leftists were so wedded to multiculturalism that they could not even denounce appalling brutality visited on women.

Goska had heard this from the time she was in college:

I was an active leftist for decades. I never witnessed significant leftist outrage over clitoredectomy, child marriage, honor killing, sharia-inspired rape laws, stoning, or acid attacks. Nothing. Zip. Crickets. I’m not saying that that outrage does not exist. I’m saying I never saw it.

The left’s selective outrage convinced me that much canonical, left-wing feminism is not so much support for women, as it is a protest against Western, heterosexual men. It’s an “I hate” phenomenon, rather than an “I love” phenomenon.

Her latter point is well taken. Left wing feminism is not about supporting women or even finding what is best for women or even respecting the choices women make. It’s male bashing, especially straight white male bashing, but it is also an ideology. As such it is more about loving ideals than it is about caring for people.

When she was in the Peace Corps Goska discovered that it had no real concern for what the volunteers would accomplish in underdeveloped nations. It cared about their beliefs, their ideals, their states of mind or even their souls. It did not care about what they would be doing to help the disadvantaged.

In her words:

Before our deployment overseas, Peace Corps vetted us for our idealism and “tolerance,” not for our competence or accomplishments. We all wanted to save the world. What depressingly little we did accomplish was often erased with the next drought, landslide, or insurrection.

It did not help to discover that the left had come to hate people like her. It hated working class white people.

She continues:

I’m a working-class Bohunk. A hundred years ago, leftists loved us. We worked lousy jobs, company thugs shot us when we went on strike, and leftists saw our discontent as fuel for their fire.

And, of course, it disrespected them:

In 2004, What’s the Matter with Kansas? spent eighteen weeks on the bestseller lists. The premise of the book: working people are too stupid to know what’s good for them, and so they vote conservative when they should be voting left.

The academic left, the media left, the guardian class that knows what best for all of us, despises average working people-- because they are not intellectuals:

We became the left’s boogeyman: Joe Six-pack, Joe Hardhat. Though we’d been in the U.S. for a few short decades when the demonization began, leftists, in the academy, in media, and in casual speech, blamed working-class ethnics for American crimes, including racism and the “imperialist” war in Vietnam.

In particular, the left controls the nation’s inner cities. It has used these places as laboratories in which to try out its zanier ideas. How is that working out? How is it working out for the children of America’s inner cities?

Goska speaks from her own experience:

I live in Paterson. I teach its young. My students are hogtied by ignorance. I find myself speaking to young people born in the U.S. in a truncated pidgin I would use with a train station chai wallah in Calcutta.

Children are learning despair. They are learning that they cannot make it. They are learning that the forces of oppression are so strong that they, poor children from the inner cities, do not have a chance. They are learning that they need to organize and protest, the better to struggle against their oppressors and to rage against the machine… and also to give their lives over to a mindless cause. Their lives are being sacrificed for the Revolution:

My students do know — because they have been taught this — that America is run by all-powerful racists who will never let them win. My students know — because they have been drilled in this — that the only way they can get ahead is to locate and cultivate those few white liberals who will pity them and scatter crumbs on their supplicant, bowed heads and into their outstretched palms. My students have learned to focus on the worst thing that ever happened to them, assume that it happened because America is unjust, and to recite that story, dirge-like, to whomever is in charge, from the welfare board to college professors, and to await receipt of largesse.

The only surprise is that more leftists have not left the left.