How I Turned to the Dark Side

Family and friends who know me probably ask themselves how a "nice, educated Jewish boy" could have turned away from the "liberal light," towards the "conservative dark side."

Very rarely do people make sudden, revolutionary shifts towards a new world view.

Over time, new experiences and observations contradict and chip away at our philosophical edifices. We can either use intellectual gymnastics and sophistry to twist this new information to conform to our world view, or we can use these contradictions as catalyst towards advancing and evolving our understanding of the world.

The 1st aspect of liberalism that I found unsettling was the feats of mental gymnastics that many of my professors and classmates engaged in, in order to avoid facing challenges to their world view. The most blatant example of this occurred in my child and adolescence development class that I took in the course of obtaining my master's in education. When I presented clear and compelling evidence that single parenthood was correlated with negative social, academic and intellectual development, the 1st responses of my classmates were emotional and irrational: "who are you to say what's right and wrong...who are you to judge familial diversity..." I was not troubled by the fact that they disagreed with me - I was troubled by their unwillingness to even consider evidence that challenged their worldview. The fact that no other student challenged the classroom dogma either indicated the slavish conformity of my classmates or a fear of negative academic and social repercussions if they expressed contrary opinions. Either way, it indicated that the "progressive" individuals and organizations that I had once admired were not the bastions of open-mindedness and intellectual freedom that I had once believed. At that moment I took my 1st step towards the "dark side."

My disillusion increase when I learned that Dr. Lawrence Summers, the former President of Harvard was forced to resign because of the indignation caused when he asked his colleagues to explore and discuss the possibility that innate differences may partially explain why men are more prevalent in the sciences. Professor Nancy Atkins of MIT stated that "if she didn't leave she would have blacked out or thrown out," because "this kind of bias makes me physically ill." If Dr. Atkins and her "progressive" cohorts would have used this as an opportunity to challenge Dr. Summers ideas through research and debate, I would have respected them. But, their first instincts was not to seek the truth - it was to become offended and push to silence the source of their offense.

In all of my master's in education classes, the only acceptable explanation for differences in academic outcomes between students of different races and cultures was racism against minority students and bias in favor European-American students. But, the more time I spent teaching, the more fundamental flaws I encountered in this explanation. In my history and even in my Spanish classes, working class Asian-American immigrants, most who barely spoke English, received higher grades than white, black or even the Latino students. It was immediately evident that the source of their success was their hard work, academic orientation and familial support. And unfortunately, another major factor was the lack of academic focus that many of my African-American and Latino students demonstrated. When I cautiously presented these observations to my professor I was met with indignation, because I had violated the unwritten, but powerful dogmas and taboos of the school of education. While I admired their idealism of intent (to help minority students), I was deeply troubled by their idealism of interpretation - their unwillingness to honestly observe and interpret social and economic phenomena. If we do not honestly face reality, how can we improve them?

Tied in with their obsession on racism and discrimination as the sole source of different social and economic outcomes was a total lack of interest in exploring the causes and dynamics of success. They virtually ignored the experiences of countless individuals and ethnic groups who had dramatically improved their economic and social circumstances. Or more specifically, they did not inquire about the behaviors and values that accounted for this rise. If my professors had done so, perhaps we could have encouraged successful values and behaviors in our students. But, to admit that success is the product of certain behaviors and values would have forced them to admit that racism and discrimination are not the main dfactors of failure - which would have been incompatible with their progressive dogma.

This approach is also demonstrated in the manner in which Chomsky and other "progressives" address international issues. These writers attribute the economic and social ills of nations to oppression by wealthy western nations. Lacking is an exploration of the many nations (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Ireland etc.) that have dramatically raised their living standard through their hard work, innovation and market reform. And interestingly, while China and Vietnam were governed by disastrous socialist policies, they were the darling of many western intellectuals. But the moment they began improving the lives of millions of their citizens through a push towards capitalism, they began to inspire the indifference or hostility of those very same intellectuals. Thus, some "progressives" were driven more by an animus against capitalism and the United States than a real concern for the poor.

Interestingly, a large segment of conservative intellectuals were originally leftists who had become disillusioned by the growing gulf between their ideology and the world that they had experienced. Many had been turned off by the very same undemocratic aspects of progressive institutions that I experienced in the university. Many of my readers share nagging doubts about the leftist world view and have found wisdom in great conservative thinkers, but are unable to take the step and admit that they are "turning to the dark side" and embracing conservative thought. Especially for my beloved Jews, Latinos and African-Americans, this means going against the cultural and intellectual tides of many generations and shaking off the negative, irrational connotations associated with conservatism. If you are not yet ready to come out of the closet, that is OK; pull down the shades, lock the doors, pour yourself a glass of wine and enjoy your Milton Friedman or your Chicago Freedom Forum in the privacy of your home.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501190846.asp