Misnomers in Political Science
Earlier this semester, I entered a course in the Texas A&M Political Science department centering on state and local government, called POLS 207. Now, with this course being placed in the liberal arts college, I expected a fair liberal bias. At first, I was encouraged by my professor, Dr. Roblyer, when he stated that he was politically independent and voted for both sides. Having looked him up on Rate my Professor, I heard a great many good things about him both on the website and around campus. However, when we came to the third chapter in our studies, focusing on political cultures, I was quite disappointed at the blatant mislabeling of conservative principles that I can only imagine have been spread for some time.
Firstly, we used the famous political scientist Daniel Elazar's theory of three primary political cultures. To briefly explain what the theory stated, it essentially pigeonholed vast swathes of political ideologies into three groups of overall culture: traditionalistic, moralistic, and individualistic. Every state's policies is apparently dictated by the predominant culture, although a significant number were a combination of two. Dr. Roblyer made connections between each culture and the political ideologies of our time, with traditionalism and individualism seeming to lean to the right, and moralism leaning to the left.
This hidden divide between the cultures was exploited by our professor. He stated that "individualism", arguably one of the most influential philosophies of the American republic throughout history, was inherently synonymous with corrupt government, since every politician surely would only look out for his best interest and his career. While he did note that this type of government looked to promote free markets, he failed to mention that even a corrupt government would hardly have any effect in society, since it would have next to no power. In contrast, it seems like corrupt politicians would, in reality, be prevalent in societies with powerful government, since this would expand their influence and gravitas.
"Traditionalism" was essentially made synonymous with oligarchy, as, according to Elazar's definition, a traditionalist government would only seek to protect the established hierarchy and to ensure that certain families would get more influence than others. The map we were given sees this culture dominant throughout the south and southwest, and the bulk of them notable red states. This is quite odd, since we don't see states like Massachusetts, where a new Kennedy seems to pop up every few years, described as such.
Lastly, we were shown the political culture of "moralism," which just so happened to be comprised primarily of traditionally blue states or at best, swing states. To put it quite simply, this culture is the definition of what a bleeding heart liberal would describe himself. Quoting the book, society in this culture has the privilege of being led by a government "promoting the public goods of honesty and selflessness." This, on its own, would be admittedly admirable. Who in this nation wouldn't want a honest and selfless government? The problem comes when these qualities are tied to a more progressive mantra. "Government advances the public interest and is a positive force in the lives of citizens; intervenes whenever necessary," the lecture's PowerPoint says. Whilst describing the glories of such a culture, I can clearly remember the professor using idealistic and positive terms to describe politics in these states like "answering the call of duty." I would be hard pressed to find a liberal who would disagree with such an encouraging and favorable assessment of their philosophy.
While this entire lecture was dedicated to the division of the entire American political spectrum into three main camps, one point was made earlier that further put conservatism in a bad light. At the beginning of the lecture, a number of points were made to remind us of the racist culture Texas had before, during, and after the Civil War. These included "shared experiences with other Southern states of slavery" and "denial of full citizenship to African Americans." Any person with a modest knowledge of American history will agree that the South was the textbook definition of racism in our nation. What is abhorrent, however, is when these actions are grouped under the title "Unmistakable Conservatism."
I can go into large amounts of detail of how modern American conservatism is diametrically opposed to racism of any kind. The Heritage Foundation lists the belief that "all men are created equal" as a key tenet of conservative philosophy. Prominent thinker William F. Buckley, initially opposed to the Civil Rights movement, eventually became one of the most vocal supporters of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, both passed only with substantial Republican support. Ronald Reagan himself was vehemently disgusted by racism throughout his entire life, and once invited two black players on his college football team to stay with his family when they were denied by a hotel in the 1930's. This is without noting the contributions of the Republican party to the progress of African Americans, though the left tries to play the "party switch myth."
The evidence points to a glaring bias against right-wing ideals throughout the lecture. What is interesting is that later on that very same day, we were shown a video from a new comedy show telling us that we shouldn't label what the other side believes based on our own opinion, but rather from their point of view. This idealism seemed to be lacking in the class, as the left side of the spectrum got a pretty even description of how they would describe themselves, but the right was tied to bigotry, racism, and corruption. If we truly followed the ideas that the short promoted, we would undoubtedly see more light shed on more positive aspects of the conservative worldview, such as a greater emphasis on individual freedom, self-reliance, and limited government.
I don't wish to paint Dr. Roblyer in a bad light here, because he seems like a very honorable and hardworking man. I can't say for sure if he even intends to portray the political spectrum like this, but I can attest to how the students received it. It just seems disingenuous to say that we should respect each side based on how they see themselves, and then immediately cast terrible assertions onto the conservative brand. I don't even intend to demean progressives here, but rather ensure that both sides get a reputable presentation in front of an audience who might be rather unfamiliar with American politics. If we cede that only the left has an ethical worldview, or that conservatism is rooted in racism, then we lose all semblance of an open discussion in an increasingly polarizing academic climate.
Firstly, we used the famous political scientist Daniel Elazar's theory of three primary political cultures. To briefly explain what the theory stated, it essentially pigeonholed vast swathes of political ideologies into three groups of overall culture: traditionalistic, moralistic, and individualistic. Every state's policies is apparently dictated by the predominant culture, although a significant number were a combination of two. Dr. Roblyer made connections between each culture and the political ideologies of our time, with traditionalism and individualism seeming to lean to the right, and moralism leaning to the left.
This hidden divide between the cultures was exploited by our professor. He stated that "individualism", arguably one of the most influential philosophies of the American republic throughout history, was inherently synonymous with corrupt government, since every politician surely would only look out for his best interest and his career. While he did note that this type of government looked to promote free markets, he failed to mention that even a corrupt government would hardly have any effect in society, since it would have next to no power. In contrast, it seems like corrupt politicians would, in reality, be prevalent in societies with powerful government, since this would expand their influence and gravitas.
"Traditionalism" was essentially made synonymous with oligarchy, as, according to Elazar's definition, a traditionalist government would only seek to protect the established hierarchy and to ensure that certain families would get more influence than others. The map we were given sees this culture dominant throughout the south and southwest, and the bulk of them notable red states. This is quite odd, since we don't see states like Massachusetts, where a new Kennedy seems to pop up every few years, described as such.
Lastly, we were shown the political culture of "moralism," which just so happened to be comprised primarily of traditionally blue states or at best, swing states. To put it quite simply, this culture is the definition of what a bleeding heart liberal would describe himself. Quoting the book, society in this culture has the privilege of being led by a government "promoting the public goods of honesty and selflessness." This, on its own, would be admittedly admirable. Who in this nation wouldn't want a honest and selfless government? The problem comes when these qualities are tied to a more progressive mantra. "Government advances the public interest and is a positive force in the lives of citizens; intervenes whenever necessary," the lecture's PowerPoint says. Whilst describing the glories of such a culture, I can clearly remember the professor using idealistic and positive terms to describe politics in these states like "answering the call of duty." I would be hard pressed to find a liberal who would disagree with such an encouraging and favorable assessment of their philosophy.
While this entire lecture was dedicated to the division of the entire American political spectrum into three main camps, one point was made earlier that further put conservatism in a bad light. At the beginning of the lecture, a number of points were made to remind us of the racist culture Texas had before, during, and after the Civil War. These included "shared experiences with other Southern states of slavery" and "denial of full citizenship to African Americans." Any person with a modest knowledge of American history will agree that the South was the textbook definition of racism in our nation. What is abhorrent, however, is when these actions are grouped under the title "Unmistakable Conservatism."
I can go into large amounts of detail of how modern American conservatism is diametrically opposed to racism of any kind. The Heritage Foundation lists the belief that "all men are created equal" as a key tenet of conservative philosophy. Prominent thinker William F. Buckley, initially opposed to the Civil Rights movement, eventually became one of the most vocal supporters of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, both passed only with substantial Republican support. Ronald Reagan himself was vehemently disgusted by racism throughout his entire life, and once invited two black players on his college football team to stay with his family when they were denied by a hotel in the 1930's. This is without noting the contributions of the Republican party to the progress of African Americans, though the left tries to play the "party switch myth."
The evidence points to a glaring bias against right-wing ideals throughout the lecture. What is interesting is that later on that very same day, we were shown a video from a new comedy show telling us that we shouldn't label what the other side believes based on our own opinion, but rather from their point of view. This idealism seemed to be lacking in the class, as the left side of the spectrum got a pretty even description of how they would describe themselves, but the right was tied to bigotry, racism, and corruption. If we truly followed the ideas that the short promoted, we would undoubtedly see more light shed on more positive aspects of the conservative worldview, such as a greater emphasis on individual freedom, self-reliance, and limited government.
I don't wish to paint Dr. Roblyer in a bad light here, because he seems like a very honorable and hardworking man. I can't say for sure if he even intends to portray the political spectrum like this, but I can attest to how the students received it. It just seems disingenuous to say that we should respect each side based on how they see themselves, and then immediately cast terrible assertions onto the conservative brand. I don't even intend to demean progressives here, but rather ensure that both sides get a reputable presentation in front of an audience who might be rather unfamiliar with American politics. If we cede that only the left has an ethical worldview, or that conservatism is rooted in racism, then we lose all semblance of an open discussion in an increasingly polarizing academic climate.
Comments
Post a Comment