Alex Knepper is an undergraduate at American University, and he’s not gonna take it any more. In a forcefully written denunciation of what he diagnoses as a mindless anti-conservatism at the root of the Leftist mentality, “The roots of the left’s love affair with Islam,” Knepper observes:
A consistent rationalist has no home on the modern left, because the left has no particular problem with religion. Its problem is with Christian Republicans. The left doesn’t love Darwin, for example; it just hates Palin. It doesn’t love reason, it hates conservative Christianity. With the left, we are dealing with a political ideology that is completely defined by what it hates. And what it hates is anything at all that stands in support of traditional Western values—whether they are Judeo-Christian religious ones or Greco-Roman pagan ones. Anything that obstructs tradition is held as sacrosanct and untouchable.
He goes on to argue that, even though conservative in every relevant respect, Islam gets a free pass because its anti-Western. Islam “sticks it to the man,” and therefore becomes an ally of the transgressive Left.
As I suggested in my column on Pascal Bruckner’s book The Tyranny of Guilt, it’s certainly not the case that contemporary liberalism can be so easily pigeon holed. There are lots of Rawlsians running around who don’t fit Knepper’s description, and although I’m no fan of Martha Nussbaum, she not anti-Western.
Yet, as an undergraduate student, Kneppers is reporting on a tone or tenor, a default position. As I’ve observed on a number of occasions, the sensible liberalism of most faculty members and administrators tends to be cowed by the more extreme voices. Their silence has the effect of amplifying the few who speak very loudly and very clearly—and more extremely.
Why the silence? Kneppers suggests that in academia conservatism plays an important psychological role as the detested “other.” I’m persuaded that this is true. In my career in academia, I’ve been told again and again not to describe myself or my views as “conservative,” not because the label is inaccurate, but because it’s “divisive” and “extremist.”
No, I take that back. Some kind friends have urged me to drop the label “conservative,” because they like me, and unconsciously they believe that “conservative” and “evil” are synonyms.
In any event, in the academic context the silence comes from the fear of any association with conservatism. The same may be true in journalism.
Two thoughts.
First, sensible liberals are cowed by extremists on the Left because they cannot afford to be magnanimous. In my opinion, contemporary American conservatism is an ideological mess. But it remains politically powerful, and academic liberals intuitively recognize that if conservatism were allowed a normal voice in higher education, it would become very powerful very quickly.
Second, American conservatism is an ideological mess in part because it mimics the insanities and blindnesses of the Left, often demonizing liberals, for example, denouncing Barack Obama as a communist. Obama derangement syndrome is as debilitating as Bush derangement syndrome.
September 1st, 2010 | 4:43 pm
I don’t think ODS is anywhere near as common nor as mainstreamed among conservatives as BDS was among the Left. There aren’t any respectable conservative publications, e.g., National Review or Weekly Standard calling Obama a communist or a Muslim. People who do are more toward the fringes. Jonathan Chait could attempt to justify “Bush hatred” in the pages of the New Republic. That said, sure, ODS isn’t helpful, not even a little bit of it.
September 1st, 2010 | 5:06 pm
[...] A characteristically measured and insightful political critique from R.R. Reno. [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 8:15 pm
Not only is ODS generally less rampant among conservative publications, even when it’s present in conservative publications or in the conservative public, it’s far less virulent and even psychopathic as its analogue — BDS — was and is on the left. No one has yet accused Obama of being in on “the inside job” by which his administration at best aided and abetted and at worst itself carried out a terrorist attack in which some 3,000 people were killed. In the 90′s, some on the right accused Bill Clinton of murdering Vince Foster. But in the 00′s, the left accused George W. Bush of murdering 3,000 Vince Fosters or murdering Vince Foster 3,000 times. Nothing that even the most psychopathic sufferers of ODS have said about the current president comes anywhere remotely close to that.
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:41 am
I guess the now seemingly common view which has Obama being a Socialist, Fascist, Godless Muslim born in Kenya but somehow obscuring that truth in order to slyly insert himself into the American presidency for the twin purposes of killing your grandmother(s) at a death panel and destroying democracy and the United States as we know it … is okay?
September 2nd, 2010 | 3:15 am
Sir,
Please consider the following alternate description of reality: The socialist position is ascendant. Obama and much of the left (not including nihilists) are reactionary. The liberal position is put forth by libertatian thinkers. The neocons are progressive. The ‘conservative’ position has already been subsumed. The reactionary element are defined by their harsh rhetoric. Transgression is the new normal. Under this alternative descrition, the liberal position needs to make a very good case for change. I hope this makes some sense.
September 2nd, 2010 | 6:34 am
The maxim, “No enemies on the Left,” is an old one and goes back to the French Socialists of the 1930s, of whom it was said that they were like rather like radishes – Red on the outside, white on the inside and always on the side the bread is buttered.
September 2nd, 2010 | 7:00 am
No, I take that back. Some kind friends have urged me to drop the label “conservative,” because they like me, and unconsciously they believe that “conservative” and “evil” are synonyms
Of course, to those that don’t like “conservative” there’s those oldy-timey words that begin with “f” used in Spain and Italy.
September 2nd, 2010 | 9:17 am
Good article but it ends rather abruptly, as if someone had to submit it unfinished right before going to teach a class. :P
September 2nd, 2010 | 9:35 am
Speaking as someone firmly on the political left who is no fan of Islam, was an adult convert to Catholicism, has no problem identifying with the West, Jerusalem, Rome and Greece, and who’s much more philosophically sympathetic with Elizabeth Anscombe than Martha Nussbaum, I still find it hard to remember anything about George W. Bush that was even remotely appealing or admirable. Let’s just remind ourselves of a few indisputable truths: the man squandered the elite education that coming from one of the richest and politically best-connected families in the country furnished him, remaining pathologically incurious and incapable of the least self-criticism to the end; pretended to be a cowboy when he in fact comes from Connecticut old wealth; made a mockery of the Christian notion of Just War; and told us confidently as Lehman Brothers and the whole financial system was collapsing in the greatest act of global free-market self-destruction we’ve seen in our lifetimes that the economy was doing just fine, all the while wearing his famous “could I be more clueless” expression. Again, remind me of something, anything, I was supposed to like about him?
September 2nd, 2010 | 10:02 am
Per:
“Second, American conservatism is an ideological mess in part because it mimics the insanities and blindnesses of the Left, often demonizing liberals, for example, denouncing Barack Obama as a communist. Obama derangement syndrome is as debilitating as Bush derangement syndrome.”
Not so fast and not even close. Let’s look at Harvard-educated and certified shrink, Dr. Krauthammer from August 27, 2004 – again this was in 2004.
“Historians will have a field day trying to fathom the depths of detestation that the Democrats are carrying into this campaign. Vanity is only part of it. What else is at play? First, and most obviously, revenge. Democrats have convinced themselves that Bush stole the last election. They cannot bear suffering not just a bad presidency but an illegitimate one.
“Moreover, against all expectations, it turned out to be a consequential presidency. Bush was not the mild-mannered, Gerald Ford-like Republican he was expected to be — transitional and minor. He turned out to be quite the revolutionary, most especially in his radical reordering of American foreign policy. A usurper is merely offensive; a consequential usurper is intolerable.
“But that is still not enough to account for the level of venom today. It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him to both Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting president of starting a war (“cooked up in Texas”) to gain political advantage for his reelection.
“The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five bestsellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this president, this presidency and all who might, God knows why, support it.
“How to explain? With apologies to Dr. Freud, I propose the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release.
“The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came Sept. 11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks (many of the flags, according to Howard Dean, Confederate), the president was untouchable.
“The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud’s Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.
“With the president stripped of his halo, his ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally, once again, human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.
“The result has been volcanic. The subject of one prominent new novel is whether George W. Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged. Good God. What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They’ll need therapy.”
—
Unfortunately they didn’t choose therapy or even meds. Instead they ginned up a daily does of hatred of George Bush. Then, they put up for their candidate the most unqualified as well as radical guy to be President of the United States. If you look at Gallup you see something amazing – President Bush’s approval numbers have gone up about 15 points since he left office while President Obama’s have gone down about 20. Even Ohio -who fell for the tissue of whoppers called Hope&Change –would rather have Bush back in the White House today than Obama by about 8 pts. And that is only among registered voters, not likely voters.
If any part of conservatism is in a mess then I would look to the axis of wheevil – Brooks, Frum and Jeffrey Hart as their Bush Derangement blinded these conservatives to what Obama was.
September 2nd, 2010 | 10:05 am
Oh and we can’t forget Ms. Noonan. She too was blinded by the great light.
September 2nd, 2010 | 10:34 am
HT,
No-one’s saying you have to like Bush. I’m no fan of his myself. But there’s a difference between disliking the man and hating him. I dislike Obama, in the sense that can’t think of anything at all about the man that I like, save for the fact that his dog is named for Bo Diddley. But I don’t hate him, and even if I did, it wouldn’t give me cause to believe that he was “the real terrorist” behind the 9/11 attacks in which 3,000 people died. If the cost of membership in the left (or the right) is either believing things like that or holding your tongue when the tribe tells its lies — both to itself and to everyone else — then it’s time to leave the tribe. There are other and better ones to join, and moral decency requires one so to do.
September 2nd, 2010 | 11:17 am
HT: 1) ‘squandered education’–check; 2) ‘pathologically incurious’–check; 3) ‘cowboy’–check; 4) ‘clueless’–check. All standard leftist boilerplate. You can hold your own in the department of incuriosity. I’d recommend you start reading more widely. Believe it or not, Huffington Post, MSNBC, and the NYT are not the font of wisdom.
Reno: Obama may not be an outright communist–that remains to be seen–but he is certainly a committed marxist. His latest hobby is nationalizing the fishing industry in New England.
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:22 pm
Knepper is an undergraduate, and he writes like one. He is onto something, he has made an interesting observation, but he can’t help but express himself like the brat he is.
He simplifies and belittles religious conservatism, and his simplification clangs in the ears of those familiar with a much fuller expression of our creed than, “you’d better be prepared to repudiate the parts that say that I deserve to burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity if I want to have sex with my boyfriend.” Grow up, child.
Simplifying my views is a sign he is probably simplifying the left’s as well, which undermines his argument, which is fatal because the prevailing cultural hegemon will not be neutralized by underestimating them.
Conservatives (or anti-leftists) are better off without his brand of defense, insightful though his observations may be. “When, as a teenager, I became an atheist…” he begins, and anyone who knows just such teenagers are tempted to skim past what follows. If indeed conservatism is an “ideological mess” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), it is safe to say Knepper is not the type of rhetorician best deployed on the clean-up detail.
Keep learning and growing, Alex. You have a ways to go. I hope you’re reading some of the best which has been thought and said between keggers. Maybe such works will help make sense out of the patently “nonsensical obsession[s]” we bitter conservatives so inexplicably cling to. Some of those works were written by God-fearing, literal saints, I hear.
September 2nd, 2010 | 7:37 pm
Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
September 2nd, 2010 | 8:52 pm
Ben: I don’t hate Bush, but I strongly dislike him and much of what he represents and did. So far no-one has provided me with an ordinary (non-partisan and virtue-ethical) reason to LIKE the man.
ahem: It’s not worth arguing with someone who thinks the Centrist Organization Man Obama is a Marxist, but, again, you haven’t said a goddamn thing in rational defense of Bush. And I don’t take my marching orders from anyone: certainly not MSNBC or the National Review. What I said was what I think (I could have said a good bit more). I study philosophy; what the f*** do you study?
September 4th, 2010 | 8:46 am
HT,
The fact that you’re already hurling f-bombs at me — a man you’ve never even met — suggests that you probably do hate George W. Bush and lots of other people rather more than you think. Best of luck outgrowing that. As places to start, I’d suggest: (1) more time reading your Bible, (2) less time reading blogs, (3) a cold shower, (4) a stiff drink. Not in that order, necessarily. God bless.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact