Stop Me Before I Vote Again

For O-voters, at least, the national Rorschach was given in November 2008.

But I resonate with bullet point three. Clever girl, to notice MJS's (and other's) infatuation with Mother Lacewell.

I believe the author of point 3 is a male person. But I plead guilty as charged. I find Lacewell utterly fascinating.

This is an odd post since it really only captures the author's apparent dislike for MHL, yet provides no specifics as to why that is a reasonable emotion - other than just disagreeing with her politics. Does she get something wrong? Is her analysis incorrect in some way?

I personally am no huge fan of MHL, but I have read her writings before and while I may disagree on many points, they don't strike me as anything that would cause this kind of contempt. Clearly his is an accomplished woman, a professor at one of the best schools in the country, and so to me, when one implies that she has nothing to say or is not a true scholar, the onus is on the accuser to provide some evidence.

Apparently the people at Princeton think she has some scholarly ability, is Michael J. Smith really qualified to say they're wrong. What exactly has Mr. Smith done that makes him the arbiter of which subjects are fit for scholarly work and which are not? Is race not a valid area of study?

This post smacks of petty jealousy for someone far more accomplished than the author. If there is reason to doubt MHL, then please point them out.

The meritocracy rides in on the tide of sycophancy; witness Stanford's Condoleeza, or for that matter, Harvard's Obama. Princeton punditing promises to make much of so little.

Bert, if you click on the "source of merriment" link at the beginning of the article and then select the "Melissa confusa" item, you will read something worthwhile, I think.

The rest of your post is not likely to be contested by the guys that write here. Stick around and you'll see why over the next few days and weeks.

De gustibus non disputandum. I find Melissa's stuff shallow, vapid, prosy, and laughably self-infatuated. But if it doesn't strike you that way, Bert, then there's no arguing the point.

The argument from authority, though -- Princeton likes her, so who are you, Smith, to question their judgement? -- is a very weak one. There are lots of self-important boneheads at the Ivies.

And yeah, I think "politics" is a lightweight subject, and "race" isn't a subject at all.

Bert, I was wrong, wasn't I?
Still, he thinks she is 'utterly fascinating'!?

What a fun world!

"And just why are so many of you reading enough of her to know just how bad she is? Surely there are better ways to spend your time"

i find the look and manner
of ms bracegood-snizzle
quite charming
in a sick sort of way

but i've not read a drop of her
beyond what's been brought back
to the smbiva site
like a dug up bone
by the cruel and exacting
father smiff

bert:

she may hit a few high notes
elsewhere in her ouevre
but not among the samplings
allowed me here
by father s
on the basis of these bones
i'd say princeton did better hiring

grand ole Oppy

http://images.asc.ohio-state.edu/is/image/eHistory/reviews/oppenheimer_img2.jpg

"only captures the author's apparent dislike "

bert what till ya get a load of my posts
they are exclusively about
"the author's "dislikes
and though father smiff has a soul utterly devoid of "jealousy" petty or otherwise

I ME ME I
am nothing if not a bundle
of "petty jealousy"
shameless spite
and
indolent ignorance

Ah, Bert, my man - I think you are lost.

That odious, blithering fawning MHL nonsense just highlighted herein testifies to how vacuous the Ivy League meritocratic scam is, was, and shall be. Yet you want specifics - why? No one who is not qualified dare speak, is that it? Which is how we end up with this Ivy League horror of neoliberal doltishness - everyone in the power structure vetted and credentialed, ready to make millions and billions creating credit default swaps, bombing millions of foreign innocents, running every New Deal bureaucracy into the ground for their corporate idols and allies.
And MHL is the poster girl for this, just a trendier, "diversified" version of the GWBush Texas Yalie, albeit one with a new Nation column, spots on Laura Flanders' show - what is there to show for all this, Bert? What is the record for all of that Ivy education, from the GI Bill days until now?

First of all, I am not here to argue for MLH's specific views or politics.

However, I do think this type of ad hominem attack reeks of partisan bias and lacks any reason discussion of what she gets so wrong - which would be far more informative (and IMO, interesting).

I personally think that Smith's contention that race and politics aren't subject suited for scholarly work speaks more about him than it does MHL. Virtually every major university in this country clearly disagrees, since doctorates are awarded every year on these very subjects. Now, if Smith doesn't find politics and race compelling, fair enough, that may be his preference, but I think to imply that they aren't valid subjects illustrates that he clearly isn't the brightest bulb.

I wouldn't claim that Ivy League schools and their faculty are infallible, but clearly they employ many of the very top intellectuals in the country on all sides of the political spectrum. It's totally reasonable to challenge these people on their positions, but to imply they aren't appropriate columnists takes it a bit far, IMHO.

And the only reason why I care is because this type of post represents what I believe is a major problem in this country today - the dumbing down of the discourse on virtually all important topics.

There are real issues out there, issues that should be discussed and debated, and IMHO posts like this add nothing to it. Instead, they are a chance for a not very accomplished author to attempt to poke fun at those far more accomplished who are actually making an honest attempt to advocate for what they believe in. That's not to say I agree with MHL, just that I think she is participating in a constructive way, and I'd much rather see her positions debated intelligently rather than a random list of quote pulled and displayed out of context and then held up as evidence that she is less of a scholar than Princeton apparently thinks.

And mjoseph, I'd think you'd find that the staff and students of Ivy League schools have made huge contributions in almost every field of academia over the last 50+ years, so I think it is a bit odd to imply there is some sort of Ivy League scam. You must be someone who couldn't get into Ivy League schools. A huge number of the leaders of this country, again - both conservative and liberal, are the products of Ivy League schools. They happen to be the place where the top achievers end up. Sorry if you aren't one of those, but maybe you should do a little more reading before you attempt to disparage the entire system.

But I digress. All I originally wanted to say was that I think it would be far more useful to post something attacking one of MHL's positions on politics, race, or whatever. Take an argument she has made, in full context, and point out where she's wrong. While that may require some actual research and thinking, it would be far more useful than this dribble.

Fair enough, my man Bert. No "ad homimen" in your views, just moderate, considerate truth.

"A huge number of the leaders of this country, again - both conservative and liberal, are the products of Ivy League schools. They happen to be the place where the top achievers end up."

You put in me in my place, indeed. I did go to one of those "elite" Ivy-Leaguish credential mills, I "got in," contrary to your pifflish notion, and my real credit is that I got out, fully.
And as for your kind suggestion that I do a "little more reading," I just don't think that's humanly possible. We've all read enough - if you want my reading list, the library will be happy to comply with the Patriot Act. And thanks for that endorsement of my view - our "leaders" are, after all, laughingstocks, so where they cavort amongst their "top achiever" pals is, ipso facto, defunct. - Enjoy the meritocracy - it's doing real well, my friend.

I have to agree with Bert. I'm no fan of The Nation, but from what I've read, MHL seems like a perfect fit. I'd be all for an attack on some of her views, but this post was just a little simple minded.

I'm biased however, I've never much cared for Michael J. Smith and his writing. His attempt to sound highbrow and clever never comes off as I'd have to assume he intends. Instead, he just doesn't seem very intelligent.

Ah, so be it, there are some other good posts on this site, and the comments are always amusing.

I'll second what Bert said - I'd like to see something that MHL said or wrote about dissected in an intellectually honest manner so that we can all make a better judgment on her ideas.

After quickly googling her and reading some of the stuff that came up I think she sounds pretty much like I'd expect a progressive/liberal to sound. She seems like an honest intellectual. That doesn't mean I agree, I think I'm philosophically opposed to the premise of many of her ideas (which seem, in many ways to be based in the idea that we owe those less fortunate than us help as opposed to just providing opportunity and letting the cards fall where they may). But I do think she makes some valid points based on her perspective, which I believe is wrong, but still honest.

Hmm, op, you seem strangely convinced that the university system in this country is actually providing a some kind of disservice, is that right? It's all a plot to do what exactly? They get a group of the top performing students from high school and then brainwash them and install them in leadership positions of all the major corporations and government for what purpose?

I'm not contending there aren't people who make is through the system for the wrong reasons. George W. Bush being a prime example. There's no doubt that the rich and powerful are able to buy their kids spots in these institutions. But if you really have attended one of these schools then you'd know that those students are easily identifiable and are not the majority. Most people in these schools are simply over achievers who end up going on to top jobs in all areas of our society. It's not really a conservative or democratic thing. If you're an example of someone who went to an Ivy and yet hasn't achieved much, that's too bad, I'm sure you aren't alone. But by and large these schools, as well as all top universities in this country, are universally considered the pre-eminent research institutes in the world, and are making discoveries daily that go a long way to helping the lives of people around the globe. You could point to different examples depending on your politics, but it's pretty clear that the people that emerge from these schools are hugely influential.

Now, there's plenty of issue to be had with the way things are going, but the source is not our educational system.

Oops, I meant to direct that to mjoseph, not op

Damn, bert...are the Ivies THAT important that you spend so much time defending their place?

Has the country really been that well served by its so worthy elites? You really think so? Most of the foreign policy that gave us Korea, and Vietnam, and Central American Death Squads, and now our Middle Eastern fun and games was designed by meritocrats from various elite institutions. If said institutions do nothing but reinforce bad fundamental ideas, why do you assume that the recipients of their "education" are so worthy of 'leading" "us"?

And yes...I am a FAILURE because I did not attend any elite schools (UVA Grad School is sorta wannabe elite....but not quite). Still, at least I don't fully buy into the schtick that women like this do so verbosely.

Plus...why do you assume that every post has to be an encyclopedic explication of every point? Can't we just do some...snickering?

Bert and Sam must be the same person if Bert directs an item to op and Sam says "oops, I meant to direct that to mjosef, not op."

Very deceptive, whoever you are, especially the "I have to agree with Bert" part. I must add that to my repertoire.

Of course there IS a glee club quality to much of the discussion at SMBIVA.

But is the music as good here? If we are having a glee club, I demand good show tunes. Or at least rousing working class anthems!

I wouldn't claim that Ivy League schools and their faculty are infallible, but clearly they employ many of the very top intellectuals in the country on all sides of the political spectrum.

Thank you very much for this moment of levity.

I have to say that, assuming this wasn't a conscious joke, you exhibit far greater ignorance than MJS.

The Ivies do not employ "the very top intellectuals in the country on all sides of the political spectrum", but rather they give sinecures to shallow and conventional thinkers, far more often than they'd like to admit, whose opinions represent an extremely attenuated part of the political spectrum. When they happen to get people of real ability whose political thought lies outside the assimilated mainstream, like David Graeber, then they cannot get rid of them fast enough. Just witness Graeber's expulsion from Yale in 2005.

It's totally reasonable to challenge these people on their positions, but to imply they aren't appropriate columnists takes it a bit far, IMHO.

I don't think that anyone is challenging the notion that Melissa Harris-Lacewell is an appropriate columnist for a servile little party organ like The Nation.

And the only reason why I care is because this type of post represents what I believe is a major problem in this country today - the dumbing down of the discourse on virtually all important topics.

I do so agree with you that the discourse has been dumbed-down on virtually all important topics, but I don't think this blog can take the blame for it. Instead, the dumbing-down happened in the pages of establishment newspapers and magazines like the New York Times and The Nation, where we were taught to take in the news that 12 civilians died, but not to ask why a missile guidance system that is supposed to be accurate up to one yard is blowing people 900 yards from the target away. Why, indeed, should we accept the logic of "collateral damage" as if "whoops!" were a sufficient defense for war crimes? When will one of these echt establishment organs ask what the difference is between targeting civilians deliberately and targeting "civilian areas" with guided missiles you know damn well don't hit their intended target 75% of the time?

That's the sort of dumbing-down that I'm concerned about. Our daily papers are as much government organs as Izvestia, but worse since people still believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that we have a free and independent press.

That's not to say I agree with MHL, just that I think she is participating in a constructive way....

The cult of the constructive! Tell me, what exactly is she...erm..."constructing"?

To me, she's part of the crowd who construct justifications for Nixonian policies and make it sound like speaking truth to power. Whether the tail wags the dog, the dog wags the tail, or they both wag together, the net effect of writers like MHL is to put a happy face on the bloody and brutal realities of our current imperium.

And mjoseph, I'd think you'd find that the staff and students of Ivy League schools have made huge contributions in almost every field of academia over the last 50+ years, so I think it is a bit odd to imply there is some sort of Ivy League scam.

And I think you'd find that this isn't true, if you really cared to look. It's certainly not true in my field of biology (my areas of interest include genomics, proteomics, and biophysics). When I looked at grad schools, I ruled out the Ivies entirely and concentrated on UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, MIT, CalTech, Rice University, and a few other state and private universities. The Ivies simply do not do cutting-edge biological research these days.

They aren't much better in the fine arts. One of my other interests is in contemporary music, and the only composer I know of any skill and prominence teaching at one of the Ivies is Tristan Murail at Columbia University, and he was poached by them in 1997, well after he had already established his international reputation.

Likewise, I cannot recall the last time I read a book by an author from one of the Ivies, even though I read contemporary fiction as much as anything. I'm working my way through three novels right now, all of them published within the last decade. One is In the Light of You by Nathan Singer, who teaches at Northern Kentucky University and the University of Cincinnati. I'm also reading Erasure by Percival Everett. He's at USC. Lastly, I'm reading Welcome to Oakland by Eric Miles Williamson of the University of Texas-Pan American.

So what is it that the Ivies supposedly excel in? Where are their monumental contributions to the human experience?

"Honest" seems to matter quite a bit to you, Sam-Bert, but perhaps you are a callow youth. Where in this meritocratic neoliberal swamp is there such a precious commodity as "honesty"? MHL is "honest," in the same way that up is down. The stunningly awful words quoted above from the prof of who-knows-what, Rorshack and clever Obama and "cringing" leftists as her reaction to a venomous puerile "speech" from a corporate-academic stooge - that was "honest?"
Your first paragraph of your Bert-Sam was precisely right, so what's the question? The vast majority of the Ivies are servile innocenti, and I was there to know. Now it's $50,000 a pop, and higher, and the only service they can truly claim is to staff the civilian branch of the Pentagon, Goldman Sachs, the CIA, Education Inc, and divorce courts all across the US of A.
Shut them down, make higher education free and open, and revoke the credentials, mine included.
Don't look for me on the 19th green.

When you write a column for a decidedly political magazine, you purport to possess and exercise a level of analysis that brings coherence to the topic or events you examine. Filling a page with words and facts isn't enough; if they don't help readers understand how they are betrayed, then you might as well write for People or Teen.

Speaking as someone who lists Plan 9 From Outer Space among his favorite movies of all time, I have to say I'm totally down with Point No. 4. I'm a total sucker for shit that's so bad it's good.

bk writes:
Very deceptive, whoever you are, especially the "I have to agree with Bert" part. I must add that to my repertoire.

Of course there IS a glee club quality to much of the discussion at SMBIVA.

Glee club? Huh. I always thought of it as a sort of garage band.

(No offense intended, of course; mid'60s garage rock is among my favorites.)

Compare and contrast:

1) The record of President Obama on matters of war and peace, including: multiple drone attacks on Pakistan; threatening Iran with war, in violation of the UN Charter, Section II, which says "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state"; flauting of US obligation and Iranian rights under the NPT; escalation of the Afghan war; failure to withdraw from Iraq; failure to end torture and illegal abduction and confinement of so-called "enemy combatants;" continued funding and arming of Israel.

2) This writing from Ms. Lacewell:

"I encourage my friends and readers to calm down a little about having to prove Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The point is that he has it now....Rather than give into the racial anxiety to prove the President's worthiness let's celebrate that President Obama responded to the prize with humility and grace."

"Cognitive infiltration" works better without the fatuous sock-puppetry, Bertsam Sambert.

Geez, these pwogs. All it takes to bring out the perception management vigilantes is one of the merit-mongering nutjobs gassing out on epistemology. Or framing. Or, god help us, the Overton Window.

We guillotined Madame Roland, Condorcet, Bailly, and (almost) Thomas Paine.

And you Americans allow the masthead of The Nation to keep their heads?

Citoyens. I detect a lack of revolutionary enthusiasm on your part.

The national razor will not discriminate against the revolutionary in verbiage and royalist in deed.

Passivity is merely the royalism of the recliner chair and the butt cheeks.

A huge number of the leaders of this country, again - both conservative and liberal, are the products of Ivy League schools.

Monsieur.

This is an eloquent, almost epigrammatic condemnation of the Ivy League.

I salute your wit and brevity.

Not since Monsieur La Rochefoucauld has one man said so much with so few words.

Thus Bertsam:

I personally think that Smith's contention that race and politics aren't subject suited for scholarly work speaks more about him than it does MHL. Virtually every major university in this country clearly disagrees, since doctorates are awarded every year on these very subjects. Now, if Smith doesn't find politics and race compelling, fair enough, that may be his preference, but I think to imply that they aren't valid subjects illustrates that he clearly isn't the brightest bulb.

If you're going to insist that every poor soul must go through your mill for at least four years, and often much much more, you quickly find you can only teach physics and the Fourier transform and the scholia on Hesiod to so many of these hapless victims. Just try putting everybody under one of those harrows, and you'd have a revolution on your hands -- or at least an improbable business model.

One thing you can say about the Academy: it doesn't want to be an "F" factory. The role of the occasional "F", like the occasional executed admiral, is solely pour encourager les autres. But they don't want to shoot very many admirals, and they don't want to flunk many cash-cows.

Hence the squishy-soft majors -- poli-sci, gender studies, critical theory, queer theory. (The last-mentioned is my favorite -- as if people couldn't be sufficiently queer without a theory to guide them.)

"I encourage my friends and readers to calm down a little about having to prove Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The point is that he has it now....Rather than give into the racial anxiety to prove the President's worthiness let's celebrate that President Obama responded to the prize with humility and grace."

Oh god!

So that's what writing on the intersection of politics and race means to The Nation. It means using race as a cudgel to delegitimize criticism of the award, and presumably, by extension, all criticism of Obama.

Cool. I never knew that my objection to Obama being awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace had anything to do with "racial anxiety", but instead thought that it had to do with Obama conducting two wars, expanding one of them into Pakistan with the predictable destabilization of this nuclear state, and rattling sabers at Iran (and more recently Yemen). Thank god I have The Nation to set me straight when I erroneously assume that there are legitimate reasons to be dismayed when a warmonger is awarded a peace prize.

I missed this before:

Sister Citizen: A Text For Colored Girls Who've Considered Politics When Being Strong Wasn't Enough

For those who don't know, which may well include MJS, the title is a rip-off of Ntozake Shange's classic play-poem for colored girls who have considered suicide/when the rainbow is enuf. Misusing this landmark play about love, loss, abandonment, abortion, and rape among Black women for the subtitle to a meritoid screed makes me want to find MHL and beat her with a copy of her own book.

It wouldn't be so bad if I could be assured that MHL would have even one-tenth the insight and sympathy Ntozake Shange has for Black women, especially Black working class women, but the crap like that quote from her Nation article above shows me that she's just a preening pretender on the issue of race.

I forgot to mention, in my anger, that I found it amusing and disturbing that in ripping off Ntozake Shange's title, MHL also corrected her spelling. Can't have legions of eager meritoids being like Bert/Sam being put off by a misspelling in a subtitle, can we?

Well, Bert, it is getting late and you may 'have turned off the wireless' by now, but, if you're still out there, I want to report that the guys are finishing up with a beautiful rendition of the Whiffenpoof Song (Al's solo of "We are poor little sheep who have gone astray" was particularly touching) and have begun reaching for their wraps.

I had thought that you would need at least several days to get the true measure of the bunch but, obviously, I had underestimated the fruitfulness of your demand for rational discourse. Anyhow, I can attest that most of the usual suspects made an appearance today on this thread and that they appeared in their authentic garb.

I can't say it in Latin like MJS could, but one is tempted to ask,
"Who will reform the reformers?"

Oh, and a hat tip to MD who took your challenge directly and scored.

Nulli -- I resemble that remark. I certainly did recognize MHL's ripoff of the play, which was still running on Broadway when I moved to New York in the late 70s. I well recall the subway ads for it -- the beautiful solemn girl with the kerchief on her head, and the lettering. A big improvement over Dr Zizmor.

There's more to be amused about than the Aspergerish corrected spelling. Shange's subtitle is enigmatic and evocative -- suicide, rainbow. MHL's is all dull abstract nouns -- politics, strength.

MJS,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to contradict you, or at least elaborate on your theme.

Of what you call the "squishy-soft majors", many of them arose in the 1960s and 1970s by student demand, reinforced by a few campus sit-ins and takeovers. The reason behind it was that the existing system of white het men's history, literature, and culture generally was edging out any serious, scholarly consideration of the concerns of nonwhites, women, and homosexuals. Whether these were subsequently used as make-work careers for baby boomers and Gen Xers, the original intent was to make scholars sit up and at least pretend to have an interest in the perspectives of nonwhites, women, and homosexuals instead of constructing mere paeans to white expansionism like those of Samuel Eliot Morison.

Personally, I think the problem was that they tried to do this within the university, where they succeeded in theory, but not in substance. Maybe in those far off days, they assumed that they'd soon be taking over the universities by force as well, or whatever, but the whole system got co-opted when they didn't. They'd have been better off establishing free schools in their communities to give perspectives that the white mainstream wouldn't, and where the white mainstream wouldn't be holding all the cards over promotion, pay, and hiring.

Also, and I can say this from bitter personal experience, if you think that the Academy doesn't force grade inflation on the "hard" sciences and the canonical areas of the humanities, then you are sorely mistaken. All too many times, I've seen professors being forced to edge up a grade so that little Johnny or Janie Snowflake can get into medical school and their whole future won't be ruined. The wisdom of allowing students into med school who can't do simple conversions and are thus likely to spike your IV with 100 mL of warfarin is not discussed, but I can only presume that our deans and provosts assume that they will be treated in Canada.

The ignorance of students going into med school is also in the interests of the system. They will either flunk out of med school or come close, whereupon they will only be hired by inner-city free clinics desperate for staff, thus cutting down on the number of urban poor, and as nurses at run-down nursing homes, thus saving on the Social Security expenditures. So keep an eye on that stock portfolio.

I stand corrected. I have to confess that I didn't give you your due, and assumed that your contempt for race as a subject in academics would spill over into contempt for the perspective offered up by Ms. Shange and authors like her.

If, as it seems now, your objection is to the co-option of this subject in universities, rather than its existence, then we probably disagree on much less than I first thought.

Nulli -- Your more nuanced and detailed story of the squishy-soft majors is certainly better than mine. To demand that historians, say, should start paying attention to formerly ignored historical subjects was a great thing. To demand that universities should have "departments" and "majors" for these things, however, reveals some of the limitations of a radicalism whose world is the campus -- particularly since the topics in question were defined in a way derived from the conventional worldview. There's History, which deals with the Duke of Wellington, and then there's African Studies, which is not my department, as Wernher von Braun says in the Tom Lehrer song.

And it gave the credentialling sector bureaucrats a glorious opportunity to professionalize and regulate the study of these topics. Are we well served by having the highly-credentialled and boneheaded Meshuggah Lacey-Bracegirdle set up as an anointed authority on "race" -- whatever that is -- rather than just discussing it amongst ourselves?

My problem with "race" as an academic subject is partly that it's a bogus concept -- there is no such thing as "race", as Ashley Montagu explained a long time ago.

The history of the concept, and the grisly stuff it justified, is something that historians study -- or ought to study. Critique of the concept, as pseudo-science, is something that biologists do or ought to do. But a Professor of Race Studies? It's like having a Professor of Phlogiston Studies.

"Co-optation" is certainly the right concept to invoke here.

As for grade inflation in the hard sciences and the "canon", I know you're right about that too. Of course I love it. In my own teaching days I mostly gave A's, and rejoiced to do it. The sorting and rating aspect of teaching -- the police work -- was what finally drove me out of the business.

I'd only flunk somebody if I thought they were taking advantage of my good nature. It was a very personal response to what I considered a personal slight.

It's not that the real subjects like physics and biochemistry and Greek grade harder -- it's that they have some real content.

Ah, nice to see some spirited responses! Sorry for the delay in getting back to refute all these half-cocked theories and self indulgent ramblings, but duty called.

I notice a couple of themes in these comments. First, a general dislike for both MHL, and perhaps more importantly, the generally liberal and progressive ideas that she represents.

The second seems to be a side discussion on Ivy League schools in particular and perhaps the entire high education system in the US in general.

I don't think the school topic warrants much discussion. I'll first say that I'd wager that the majority of people commenting here, if not all, have not attended any top university, beyond just those in the Ivy League, but likely no top 25 school in whatever subjects you all claimed to have studied. That, I'd guess, is a source of a lot of the animosity towards these schools and those who teach at them or receive degrees from them. Jealousy rears its ugly head. Not surprising, I'm sure it can be frustrating to think of yourself was quite intelligent and witty and yet have no real academic or professional achievement to back that up.

Despite your criticism however, the idea that these schools are top notch institutions and produce very high quality talent is a fact. There is any number of ways to establish this, both with regards to the people who teach at these schools or matriculate through them. These people do in fact go on to make major contributions to society.

One could argue that merits of those contributions, though I'd say it's all relative. Now I will grant you that the Ivy League may be too small of a group - but if you extend that to the schools in the top 20 - I'd guess that you all would have equal contempt for what you see as fake meritocracies or some such - and yet the point remains that these are quality institutions.

I don't think it is just a coincidence that these universities consistently produce the top thinkers in the world. I don't know which examples to use since there are so many. Take a look at the Supreme Court - I think almost all justices went to an Ivy League law school. Is that a valid example of some of the top legal minds in the country? Take a look at Nobel Prize Winners in Medicine - most of the American winners came through a top 10 university in their field (maybe not an Ivy, but definitely an elite institution like MIT or UC Berkeley or something similar). The majority of US presidents attended Ivy League schools. The majority of executives at Fortune 100 companies attended Ivy business schools. The list goes on and on. Now, one can argue on the quality of the leadership all these people provide, but what is not debatable is the fact that these top institutions churn out the leaders of the world, like it or not. And this is not a partisan issue, one may disagree with the politics of Obama or Clinton, or with Scalia or Buckley or whoever, but all of these men are clearly great minds and all are products of the Ivy League.

But again, I digress. I'm not here to defend the Ivy League or the University system in general. The criticism of those schools is just so representative of the anti-intellectualism of the right that it deserves some rebuke.

This topic of MHL is really the point. It's clear that most of you here are very conservative. So be it, you all have a right to your opinion (however wrong it may be). I only happened upon this blog after MHL tweeted a link to it - poking fun at the fact that not everyone is happy with her new column for the Nation.

Sure, this post can just be some snickering. I think that approach is just a tad shallow and often done by those who don't want to argue on the points themselves and so instead attack the individual or go off on how they don't find their writing style compelling for whatever reason. It's ok if that amuses you all, I just think it points to the fact that there is little by way of content that you can really debate sufficiently. Disparaging someone's writing style by taking a handful of quotes out of context, and then going on to boast that you haven't actually read any of her scholarly work may pass for valid or amusing criticsm in this little corner of the Internet, but it hardly offers anything of value to the discussion in general.

What I really think is that this blog is full of a number of self-aggrandizing and not very accomplished conservatives who think they are being clever in their attempt to disparage real intellectuals who have actually achieved something. I don't think that means you need to agree with MHL, it's just that when people with brains criticize her ideas, they do so based on the content, not on writing style, and not with little snarky posts and comments that say nothing concrete.

What I will say, and what I think MHL was poking fun at by twittering this blog, is that when the conservatives get riled up, it's clearly an indication that she is doing something right.

I think all of you are just antagonized by the fact that she has a national stage in which to promote her ideas, while you all shout your hearts out on this little-known site. While MHL speaks at major universities around the country, teaches at one of the top institutions in the world, writes for one of the most popular political sites on the internet, and regularly appears on national news shows, you all do what exactly? Very little I'm sure. Until you accomplish something yourself, I think your personal criticisms of MHL fall somewhere on the spectrum between pathetic and comical.

Wow, just wow.

This is a hoax, right? Somebody sneaking around dialed up central casting, to validate every serious proposition and throwaway one-liner ever pitched here?

Well, toodles, I'm off to sink my teeth into something heady, like Fareed Zakaria, or Michael Ignatieff.

I'm indebted to Ertsbam for calling renewed attention to Melissa's Twitter stream. Example:

Whew. Katie Cannon's Womanist Theological Ethics course is exhausting. I can barely keep up with the number of ideas she presents in 2 hours

Bert seems to be under the impression that he is addressing teabaggers here, teabaggers simmmering with under-edumacated ressentiment. (I won't give him the credit of presuming it's a put-on). Well, every day is a new experience, as they say: I'm a few inches closer to empathising with our evil twin alter egos...

Glue Licker, Esq.
Deracinated Merit Baby since 2006

This is well worth staying up past beddy-bed time, eh, MJS? SMBIVA, on a new flight path...

Bert, Sam, post your snail mail address. I'm sending you a gold star!

MHL is definitely more self-actualized than anyone posting on this site (with the possible exception of Bert). That's why MJS loves her! But just read the ur-post called "Melissa....confusa" and you'll see she is also full of it from the POV of SMBIVAns and maybe you too.

Once I was self-actualized... but then my dogma got run over by a karma.

Ah, nice to see some spirited responses! Sorry for the delay in getting back to refute all these half-cocked theories and self indulgent ramblings, but duty called.

Oh, not at all! I'm glad to see you're back. I assumed you wouldn't be after you fucked up your sockpuppetry so badly.

I notice a couple of themes in these comments. First, a general dislike for both MHL, and perhaps more importantly, the generally liberal and progressive ideas that she represents.

At least you've got that right. Enjoy the feeling, because it won't last.

The second seems to be a side discussion on Ivy League schools in particular and perhaps the entire high education system in the US in general.

I don't think the school topic warrants much discussion.

Whereupon you proceed to devote half your post to the subject.

But I suppose you can argue that you weren't "discussing" anything, since you completely ignored everyone's statements about the Ivies in favor of some petty psychologizing and backpedaling.

I'm sure it can be frustrating to think of yourself was quite intelligent and witty and yet have no real academic or professional achievement to back that up.

It would be harder to imagine a more perfect example of the merit class pwog inaction (I think that's how it's spelled).

The contempt for democracy fairly oozes from your words. After all, the demos by definition is going to encompass more people than those who attended the "top 25 universities" and know which knife and fork to use.

Furthermore, there's the implicit assumption that only the credentialling sector is the proper sphere to sit in judgment on one's worth as an intellectual, and therefore being dismissive of the credentialling sector, we must all be secretly longing for its stamp of approval.

Give me a break.

I probably do attend one of the "top 25 universities" by whatever reckoning such a list is made. It's certainly an R1 university (a rather outmoded term for a top-tier research university in the sciences). I am going for my doctorate because this, in theory, allows me the possibility of pursuing pure research, away from having my work hijacked in the service of corporate greed.

And yet every time I walk into a class as a TA or an occasional adjunct, I hate it. Why? Because I am taking part in a scam. What is the nature of that scam? That scam is the notion that if one just goes for the proper set of shiny new credentials, one will be able to enter the world of white collar work with job security, benefits, and a good pension. This is a scam perpetrated on the sons or daughters of baby boomers, who grew up in an era when Mom and Dad could own and maintain a house and a family on a single income from blue collar work. The systematic destruction of the union, the perpetuation of a massively overvalued dollar compared to the peso, NAFTA, and globalization put paid to the idea of blue collar job security, so the credentialling sector stepped forward to convince Joe and Jane Sixpack that their offspring could know all the benefits of the middle class lifestyle if only they were to take out major loans and throw tens of thousands of dollars at the universities.

John and Jane Sixpack decided that any level of personal debt was okay when undertaken for their children, so now their children are graduating into a world where the prospects for white collar workers are hardly better than those for their blue collar brethren whose parents were too poor to have them stamped with the merit class seal of approval.

Thus, the credentialling sector's role is to perpetuate the Horatio Alger myth that one can get anywhere one wants on merit, if only they will work hard enough and devote their energies to the right sort of outlets. Universities are the release valve for entirely justifiable middle class anger (to the extent that a true middle class even exists anymore).

I don't think it is just a coincidence that these universities consistently produce the top thinkers in the world. I don't know which examples to use since there are so many. Take a look at the Supreme Court - I think almost all justices went to an Ivy League law school. Is that a valid example of some of the top legal minds in the country?

No. Here's a hint for you: none of us are likely to regard climbing the greasy pole as evidence of true intellectual merit. For my money, the better legal minds are the ones who call the Supreme Court on their odious and systematic attempts to roll back individual civil rights at the expense of governments and corporations.

Take a look at Nobel Prize Winners in Medicine - most of the American winners came through a top 10 university in their field (maybe not an Ivy, but definitely an elite institution like MIT or UC Berkeley or something similar).

Since there are eight Ivies, and you imply that there are more than two non-Ivies in the top 10 for biology instruction, that does indicate that the Ivies are not the best in the world for biology. Thank you for this generous concession to my point above.

I don't think any of us would argue with the notion that there are some universities that are better than others at teaching certain subjects. This is entirely beside the point, however, and your obsessive focus on making this trivial observation shows how shallow meritoid thought processes really are.

Or to be perfectly blunt: if you stand before us as an example of the best an Ivy League education can produce, then I am completely unimpressed.

The majority of US presidents attended Ivy League schools. The majority of executives at Fortune 100 companies attended Ivy business schools.

Thank you for yet another generous concession.

There are some who have argued, and indeed cogently, that the world would be better off if we strangled the last US president with the entrails of the last Fortune 500 CEO, to paraphrase a quote attributed to Diderot.

Therefore, it is not immediately apparent why the fact that the two groups whose stupidity and venality brought the global economy to its knees reflects so well on an Ivy League education.

Now, one can argue on the quality of the leadership all these people provide, but what is not debatable is the fact that these top institutions churn out the leaders of the world, like it or not.

But the leadership that they provide is exactly what is most questionable here. Why does an Ivy League education produce people who go off and run the world according to a toxic mix of neoliberal economics and oligarchic rule? You don't seem to be interested in that side of the equation, and yet it's the crucial issue. Instead, you merely welcome your Ivy-educated overlords.

This topic of MHL is really the point. It's clear that most of you here are very conservative.

Sure it is. What could be more obvious than the fact that the only two political positions in the entire political spectrum are conservative and liberal? Hell, maybe we can throw in "centrist" to really make it comprehensive.

I bet you probably think you're a leftist too. God save us.

I only happened upon this blog after MHL tweeted a link to it - poking fun at the fact that not everyone is happy with her new column for the Nation.

Does that mean we can expect more missives from the idiot brigade?

What I really think is that this blog is full of a number of self-aggrandizing and not very accomplished conservatives who think they are being clever in their attempt to disparage real intellectuals who have actually achieved something.

So what has Melissa Harris-Lacewell achieved as a "real intellectual"? Getting a column at The Nation?

What I will say, and what I think MHL was poking fun at by twittering this blog, is that when the conservatives get riled up, it's clearly an indication that she is doing something right.

If that's her reaction, then she must be as tone-deaf to openly leftist political dialogue as you are. Hardly a stirring defense of an Ivy League education.

Well, toodles, I'm off to sink my teeth into something heady, like Fareed Zakaria, or Michael Ignatieff.

This made me laugh out loud.

Last December, I got a collection of books that included Zakaria's The Post-American World in a Secret Santa gift exchange. For some obscure reason, I always have something else to read before I get around to it.

To demand that historians, say, should start paying attention to formerly ignored historical subjects was a great thing. To demand that universities should have "departments" and "majors" for these things, however, reveals some of the limitations of a radicalism whose world is the campus -- particularly since the topics in question were defined in a way derived from the conventional worldview.

I'm very much in agreement with you here. It was a tactical and political mistake to place so much emphasis on the university. I wasn't even born when all this was going down, and can only speculate, retrospectively, on what their plans for the campus might have been. Whatever they were, it's obvious that they didn't come to fruition, and left a barely changed white establishment holding the reins on this new system of ethnic, gender, queer, and postcolonial studies.

Nevertheless, I believe the problems are not intrinsic to these disciplines, but are rather the inevitable result of trying to get along in any situation where the existing system of power is so violently opposed to radical critique. I'm only allowed to skate by because I teach and study something "useful", but the day I go Howard Beale in class and yell that we don't have a future in the white collar world, and we should all get out in the streets and demand our future, armed if necessary, that is going to be the day I get escorted off campus by the police and quite possibly thrown in jail for "incitement to riot".

I also believe that there is still room for much discussion on the subject of race, gender, and other topics in U.S. society, and these disciplines provide some cover to people with a genuinely radical critique of the system. That critique now needs to move into the wider population, and that may have been where it belonged all the time, but I cannot say that we're worse off for having a place where these critiques were kept alive while nobody else cared to pay attention. While race may not be a biological reality, and in my capacity as a biologist I've argued forcefully with those people who claim it is, it's a certainly a social and cultural reality and its effects are not just in the realm of history.

I would also argue with the notion that these ethnic studies do not have real content to work with. Such a view strikes me as very reductive, akin to telling an expert in literature that he or she doesn't have anything to study because books are merely bound pages with certain letters printed in a certain order. The best of ethnic studies is a serious re-evaluation of the legacy of racism, and the way it shapes the human experience at all levels. When it works, it's great, and I think bell hooks, Ward Churchill, and many others make it work. Right now I'm reading a book called Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building that strikes me as a very good example of this.

Naturally, not everyone hits the peaks of their profession, but the same is true for many academic biologists who simply mark time in their jobs, turning out just enough articles nobody ever reads to justify tenure.

As I keep on thinking about it, our areas of difference seem comically small, and I'm basically left arguing that these "studies" fields may have some benefit in some cases in despite an institutional situation that renders serious investigation or discussion of the subjects nearly impossible. So no stirring defenses of the credentialling sector from me today.

nice work null !!!

and of course glue and super Al
squibbled deftly away
at this enormously ponderated beetle
that stumbled blindly
in
the little pink hive called
SMBIVA

"Real Intectuals" = Ward Churchill and Norman Finkelstein

When the King issues a lettre de cachet against you, you've proven you've earned a spot in the pantheon.

i have done my full measure
of reseach on m bracegood

an interview with the aging
duke of dumb down
the now touchingly decrepit
concerned pastor's boy
bill moyers

she won my heart as soon as her soft tabby cat's mouth and fat tongue lisped
her first words

this is not a soul
to roast
at least not the sort one need roast

yes she has a desire to "shine"
a craving for specialness

yes her skin has not caused her suffering
but rather pet status

btw
i think the condi rice cross reference might not be informative
if we were looking for greater evils
then her they commute to the dark towers every day in droves

but her cosseting
gentile white
guardians
have made a fairly pleasing
demure if dull feline pet out of her

demure??
she'll not scratch to left or right

and considering the paradigm
provided by all thumbs bertsam

she only takes up space and time
none of us would ever want to occupy

---------------------
bertsam actually got me to roll over a few
notions
that peak with this :
" be proud of your pinko's marginalization "

maybe so ..but this pride is false to itself
if it fails to notice the idleness
and the rot
this quite unsplendid
isolation affords us all
as partyless pinks

to be cast down
miltonic angel style
is glorious indeed
but to suffer the inescapable
wallow in the bottomless marl bellow ??
the rejection
defeat
and as time moves on
the chilly memory hole
and preterition

bad shit comrades

unless we can unite in a pandemonium

alas that next day
for that primal convocation
has not as yet dawned

for now
to escape the sting
of meritoidal patronization
we must bite the proffered hand
of any decent conscience pwog

fuck u lacewell

Actually, I'm surprised y'all got this far without noticing the obvious: our heroine's hyphenated double surname, a dead giveaway for pretentious bullshittery.

That is all. You can thank me later.

Yer pal,
Michael A. Buffington-Flugennock

Not too sure about the benefits of an upper-crust edumacation. I'm a big fan of Henry George, and if I recall correctly he dropped out of school when he was twelve or thirteen years old. Major player in his day - hated by academics, too, so he must have been doing something right.

Bertsam could have pulled off the cheap psychologizing without any worse consequence than the usual opprobrium. But the sock puppetry—the botched sock puppetry—reflects very badly on him and even worse on MHL. She won't thank him for this. Competing court intellectuals take note of incompetent interventions.

A wingnut intellectual can get away with being served by idiot flying monkeys. But a pwog has to observe the merit proprieties.

"served by idiot flying monkeys"

http://www.cineaste.com/333images/wc1.jpg

"ahhhh yes

the human condition in slap shoes

the work places are thick with em"

flugnuts
vide!!!
The bourgeois virtues
By Michael J. Smith on Tuesday March 24, 2009 10:21 PM

"..............I can't help noticing that all these Holy Joes and Josephines down at the Nation have ponderous double-barreled names that would burden a minor Hapsburg royal. How do they stand erect under the weight of these jawbreaking monikers, I wonder? And what about their children? When little Hera Harris-Lacewell marries little Zeus Graham-Felsen, what Pelion upon Ossa of a surname will their hopeful young Hephaestus have to shoulder in his luckless turn? ..."

Do you think that Sterbam might actually be Melissa herself? !בתוכנו יהוה

The goofy adulation of the Ivies, the capacity to use a phrase like "top 25" with a straight face -- if this isn't Melissa, it's definitely scuola di Melissa.

Time to take a look at the current state of lexicostatistics, download the Thesaurus Melissas that the Nation provided us, and compare with the Corpus Bamsteri.

Nulli, I take your point about how departments and chairs in gender studies and the like might have served as a point d'appui for radical critiques of the existing order. But somehow it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. The folks who occupy these positions never seem to get much beyond a kind of essentialist identity politics; I don't suppose the name of Marx is ever breathed among 'em. If there are exceptions to this dismal rule I'd like to hear about them.

even al would be hard pressed to equal that slab of prose eh ??

father

i seriously doubt she'd use "top "
so wantonly
in fact
le samber here really falls several serious leagues below my dearest lacey
that lisping demure kitten fightin' a yarn ball

We probably are piling on Ms. Harris-Lacewell just a little too vigorously... she's more of an exemplar, and/or a lightning rod, than anything else. La Nation and its cloying gang of partisans, and the whole mindset they represent, could/should be equal (or greater) targets of our scorn. That putz John Nichols is another deserving target: I've avoided his banalities for a decade, but I'm sure he hasn't changed any.

And MJS, what you said in your last post. The witch-hunt against Ward Churchill was despicable, as were his nutty right and craven liberal antagonists, but there's little doubt that some of his scholarship is hokey and that he traded (and trades?) in identity politics entrepreneurialism. I'm also sure, though, that if someone like Nullifidian looked long and hard enough, he could come up with a few sterling cases of "exceptions to this dismal rule" -- Robin Kelley perhaps?

Also, I don't see what's so dishonorable about "marking time" once tenure has been granted. Really now, who stands to benefit from yet another technocratic article with the life squeezed out of it, placed in an obscure journal that your peers only pretend to read? "Marking time" is certainly no more dishonorable than licking hiney on your way up, and far less so than perpetuating the hazing rituals once you've been initiated into the gang. I don't have contempt for welfare case-workers who file their nails on the job, either (although perhaps food stamps or TANF recipients should).

Right, I'll just use this thread as an excuse to hold forth on a few points. Apologies, I haven't read the Bert/Sam twaddle and the various replies, so maybe some of this has already been said.

I'm not sure I agree with MJS about the purpose of the squishy-soft courses of study. If you look at enrollment, you'll find that most of these "studies"-majors don't attract all that many undergraduate acolytes. Some of them are a bigger draw at the graduate level (though not so much anymore, as the word on the street is that "studies" Ph.D.'s have trouble getting jobs), but mostly they're not the vehicle that higher-ed uses to avoid failing the masses.

The strategy is more subtle, and involves primarily scaling back major requirements, and, at some schools anyway, simultaneously promoting "interdisciplinarity." These tactics have left the hard sciences largely unaffected, but in the social sciences and the humanities -- my God, it's so ridiculous, I don't know how anybody can talk about it with a straight face. The upshot is that you can be a "history major" or a "women's studies" major or a whatever-the-fuck-as-long-as-it's-not-something-like-physics major after taking no more than a few intro courses in the field. So most students end up with two majors, a large minority have three majors, and a few of the more enterprising or bewildered can end with four fucking majors. Some of the departments have made it so easy that people end up taking courses at random and accidentally majoring in history or whatever. It's that bad. What this means, of course, is that most students spend most of their undergrad careers studying at a highly superficial, introductory level.

So the system has other channels for processing incurious, overpaying students. The studies crowd doesn't have much to do with it. Look at their intellectual toolkit -- that eclectic grab-bag of dumbass trendiness known as "theory" -- and notice that they only make the most superficial gestures at fobbing any of it off on the undergrads who occasionally (and by accident!) stumble into their classes. Most undergrads hate that shit, actually. Most theory is also pretty indefensible, and the studies set have gotten pretty good at avoiding hostile audiences.

So why give MHL and her ilk lifetime sinecures? Remember that almost everything at the bigger US schools has been bought and paid for by some robber baron or other. They name the buildings, and given enough time and enough endowed chairs, they chart the course. This is most obvious with econ and poly sci-- entire fields devoted to the justification and furtherance of our current authoritarian superstructure.

But women's studies? It's not a point d'appui of radical critique at all -- it's about stifling dissent. Almost all the studies associate themselves with dissent movements, primarily civil rights. But they take the powerful criticisms that these movements have raised, and they redirect them down harmless, system-friendly pathways. That's what identity politics is for, for Christ's sake. The head boys buy their propaganda from the econ stooges, and they pay to have valid criticism of their tactics neutered by the african-american studies stooges. The American academy is great for this shit. Its credentialling role gives it plenty of cred across society, and especially among the urban, educated middle classes -- the people who make Tom Friedman a bestselling author.

Dead on, eugyppius.

Yes, the distance between Cornel West and Tommy Friedman is not as great as some windmill-tilters would have you believe: "Coming to a Delta terminal bookstore near you soon..."

One last parting question, maybe akin to counting angels on the head of a pin: Do the pwog-lib meritocrats even understand the extent to which their foolishness inflames right-wing populist rage? Do they not give a fuck? Are they simply well-trained creatures of habit? Are they merely tone deaf? Etc. One thing is for sure: they wouldn't know how to generate cultural hegemony if their TIAA-CREF plans depended on it...

We probably are piling on Ms. Harris-Lacewell just a little too vigorously...

Spoilsport!

I'm afraid I have to agree with Darius.

Indeed. Well said, Grimbone. While I often enjoy the more serious posts, especially those written by Al Schumann, a little levity lightens the load.

MHL is way toward the better end of the Ivy faculty whisperers. And that's the problem and the point, isn't it? She presents herself, and her students willingly swallow it, as the shining beacon of humanity and progress. Even as she churns out incoherent garbage that would earn a B+ at your local commuter college, if it weren't labeled as an Ivy prof's insights. All while making self-canceling excuses for a war criminal when the chips are down.

I think the secret to MHL, and to the Ivy disease in general, is that she is really a budding Congressperson. Take a look at her preening, bragging website, where you can see pictures of "Friends of Melissa" (not "Melissa's Friends").

http://www.melissaharrislacewell.com/

And did anybody notice that, despite her/his objections that we don't know the substance, our distinguished guest has not commented on MHL's turbo-pathetic blog post?

Personally speaking, I think race and politics are both worthy and important topics for academic work, and that it's the Ivies' failings (with a few major exceptions -- http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=73) in these areas that explain my feelings of massive disappointment and some anger over the likes of MHL.

MHL is way toward the better end of the Ivy faculty whisperers. And that's the problem and the point, isn't it? She presents herself, and her students willingly swallow it, as the shining beacon of humanity and progress. Even as she churns out incoherent garbage that would earn a B+ at your local commuter college, if it weren't labeled as an Ivy prof's insights. All while making self-canceling excuses for a war criminal when the chips are down.

I think the secret to MHL, and to the Ivy disease in general, is that she is really a budding Congressperson. Take a look at her preening, bragging website, where you can see pictures of "Friends of Melissa" (not "Melissa's Friends").

http://www.melissaharrislacewell.com/

And did anybody notice that, despite her/his objections that we don't know the substance, our distinguished guest has not commented on MHL's turbo-pathetic blog post?

Personally speaking, I think race and politics are both worthy and important topics for academic work, and that it's the Ivies' failings (with a few major exceptions -- http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=73) in these areas that explain my feelings of massive disappointment and some anger over the likes of MHL.

I'm not sure what else you're expecting from someone like MHL. The academy is a business, and the people who thrive within it are business people. I ignore her and others from her camp, and stay a lot happier. I've got too much laughing to do, and the growing number of leatherlunged mediocrities who've worked their way up into a heirarchy of black history and cultural studies is too depressing to lend thought to.

We heard from Bert, but not Ernie:

This post smacks of petty jealousy for someone far more accomplished than the author.

Ooooohhhh... mining that precious ore known as "Ivy League Envy Accusation". Let's see what's wrong there.

1) Assumption that Ivy League schools are superior. Shame to say I've seen that play out as a wrong answer in my lifetime, in every work setting I've worked, and every social setting I've haunted. I guess that means truth must take a back seat to the hallowed quality of "image." Well done, Bert!

2) Assumption that the only motivator for criticizing "Sister Citizen" is her vaunted Ivy League affiliation(s). Shame to say that this accusing assumption plays on an impossibility -- knowing Mr Smith's motives, which is something only Mr Smith can know. OOPS. Well done again, Bert!

3) Playing on Appeal to Authority, with Sister Citizen's affiliations (see (1) and (2) above) and her new gig (WOW! The Nation.!) being the "authorities" to which Bert appeals. Why is this so bad? As just one example (plenty more via Google or other search) -- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Brother Bertie-Bert-Bert seems to be suggesting that the jealousy here resides in his own noggin, and is based on his own intellectual shortcomings, which have met squarely with Mr Smith's comic snark against Sister Citizen, semi-Black Political Hipster.

Oh, the politically correct humanity of it all!

Melissa Harris-Lacewell writes:
"I encourage my friends and readers to calm down a little about having to prove Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The point is that he has it now....Rather than give into the racial anxiety to prove the President's worthiness let's celebrate that President Obama responded to the prize with humility and grace."

I know how odd this is going to sound, but this line of reasoning somehow reminds me of pro wrestling. No, really; bear with me, here...

Y'know how, in the big championship match, when the Champ is a Bad Guy, and the Good Guy has him on the run and is just about to win the championship, suddenly the Bad Guy's manager slides a folding chair into the ring and the Bad Guy grabs it, busts it over the Good Guy's head, cold-konks him, and pins him to retain the championship -- and then in the post-match interview, Vince McMahon gets all pissy at the Champ, bitching about how he cheated by busting the Good Guy over the head with a folding chair, and the Champ says something like "Screw you, McMahon, I've still got the belt, so kiss my ass"?

Well, Obama nabbing the Nobel Peace Prize and then giving a pro-war speech at his acceptance ceremony was kind of like that -- it took the concept of "winning ugly" to a whole new level.

.
And, that, "Bert", is a plain-and-simple style of political analysis you just can't develop by graduating from an Ivy League school -- it's the gift of political analysis you can only get by dropping out of art school in your senior year at an average, mid-sized state college.

I like "Cringing Leftists" (caps in the original).

Of course, it's hard to cringe while vomiting.

Someone here has suggested there someone has proven that there is no such a thing as race. What might have been demonstrated is that there is no genetic basis for race. But that does not write the term out of discourse or dispose of the topic.

A distinguished professor of biology once jumped on me for making a reference to 'good cholesterol'. He said, "There is no good cholesterol or bad cholesterol. There is only cholesterol and I once knew the chemical formula for it." He was, naturally, as wrong about this as was another biologist who once took me to task for using the term "buttercup" because the name is applied to different species in different regions.

American history is as full of race riots as the roadsides are of buttercups and American blood streams are of bad cholesterol.

Lunch BTW is a sock puppet identity, but he never agrees with anybody.

I have to agree with Lunch, except that he should have written 'suggested THAT someone' instead of 'suggested THERE someone'

Lunch writes:
A distinguished professor of biology once jumped on me for making a reference to 'good cholesterol'. He said, "There is no good cholesterol or bad cholesterol. There is only cholesterol and I once knew the chemical formula for it."...

P'ah. Yes, there is such a thing as "good cholesterol", and I'm enjoying some right now, out of a little box with the name "Entenmann's" printed on it.

Mmmmmmmmm, now, that's good cholsterol.

Entenmann's... now there's a sweet-tooth memory! Their bakery essentially doesn't exist in the Northern Rockies, sadly. In my youth and young adulthood I ate many a strudel that was found at Giant or Safeway, packaged in a white box with dark blue lettering.

Absent some metabolic deficits, the only bad cholesterol is the one you consume while being pretty damned sedentary. Exercise is the cure for cholesterol ingestion.

120 seconds of bad cholesterol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdtXcYQqIUI

the last 30 seconds of happy eating habits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wXdtoW-HQ&feature=related

This is quite a passionate discussion going on here. I'm new to this site, and let me offer full disclosure up front, I too stumbled upon this blog from the MHL tweet. And, after reading many of the comments here, it seems like in many ways I represent the very object of contempt that so many of you are railing against here. I've been fortunate enough (in my view) to have attended 3 different Ivy League schools - first for my BA, then JD, and recently PhD. My PhD happens to be in - brace yourselves - one of the loathed "studies" - in my case, Women's Studies. And, to put a cherry on top, I just this year got a tenured track job at an Ivy League law school. While I'll be teaching primarily law classes, I do get to work in some Women's Studies for a Feminist Legal Theory course.

So now that I've set the stage, it may be clear which side of this debate I fall on. First let me say I don't think the Ivy League contain the only valid or top notch institutions in the country. There are many many wonderful schools that are not officially Ivy League, yet offer comparable resources to their students and have world class faculty members.

Let me say I'm very confused by this site and its readership - though I admit that I'm new and have only read this thread so don't have a good feel for it yet. Can anyone clue me in on the leanings of this site. My first hunch was that this was a tea-party esque group, but honestly the commenters seem far too knowledgeable (even if they are drawing the wrong conclusions) to be associated with that bunch. This is clearly a right leaning site, am I right?

I'll also say that the original post that sparked all this discussion was clearly mean spirited and quite petty. I don't have much regard for the author, but I do find many of the people who have posted comments here somewhat intriguing.

Let me get to the point. The discussion around MHL in particular doesn't really interest me much. I have attended courses by MHL and have met her a number of times in person, and while I don't think she should necessarily be held up as any great example of progressive intellectualism, I also don't think she deserves the vitriol that is evident in this thread. In my view, she is an emerging scholar on the topic of race, though I'll admit that is a somewhat liberal use of the term scholar. We'll have to wait for her to publish a bit more in order to judge what she really has to say. I'm afraid she has become too much of a pop-star professor to do the really serious work that will contribute to the discourse on race. That being said, she has made some very poignant observations and written some insightful articles, yet I understand why her somewhat obnoxious personality turns some people off. While I agree with a lot of what she says, I have to agree on some of the criticisms of her personality. But I haven't heard any well reasoned arguments against any of the positions she has put forth, so until that is articulated, I don't see any real value arguing over her writing style or what she thinks of herself.

What I am however interested in is all the critiques of the higher education system in this country. While there are of course problems, which I believe are in large part based on lack of access, many of the large research institutions in this country do in fact do some great work, in all fields. On all sides of the political debate, positions are informed by the research done at the universities that all of you seem to have a problem with. The role of the research institution is an important one. Even if you dislike the way in which the country is going, it is the research and publications coming out of these institutions that provides alternative ways to govern and structure society. I'd wager that whatever position you choose to adopt, much of the published work on that topic will come from someone who came through the university system, and in many cases, one of the "top ranked" schools. So what exactly is the problem here? I'm sure we all agree that the university system does not have a monopoly on good ideas, but I think it is also a fact that much of the good ideas, no matter what your politics, start in and are developed by academia.

What is the big issue everyone seems to have with academia here? I don't get it.

And please, we really don't need someone going off on a self indulgent rant, trying to work in as many big words and intellectual clichés as possible. I'm sure we're all familiar with that kind of writing, and it doesn't make you sound smart. That's one of the problems I have with academia, the attempt to use a writing style that does nothing other than discourage those people outside the academy from participating. How about a simple explanation of why academia is so evil?

I'd also like to understand all the anger towards "studies" programs. Do you all really believe that women's studies is not a valid area of interest? It is pretty well understood by most that many of the ideas the end up becoming legislation have their roots in academia. Not all of course, but this is where ideas get developed and debated. Some are discarded, some are sculpted and become the driving force behind social movements and end up changing the way we live. How is that a bad thing? How is it bad to study the role of women in society to better understand why women are still paid less than men and barred from full participation in important areas of our society? It is through studying these kinds of topics that we move society forward. The same goes for race. These are huge areas on inquiry with vast options for where to focus. I don't see why anyone would be "against" people pursuing their interests.

I hate to fall back into a legal way of thinking, but I do have to wonder what authority gives many of you the confidence to make these claims. If you haven't completed at least a couple graduate level courses in "studies" courses, or read a representative sample of work on these topics, I don't think you are in a position to be so critical.

Someone, please, enlighten me.

I hate to fall back into a legal way of thinking, but I do have to wonder what authority gives many of you the confidence to make these claims. If you haven't completed at least a couple graduate level courses in "studies" courses, or read a representative sample of work on these topics, I don't think you are in a position to be so critical.

Arguments from authority once again! But you know what? I have a studies Ph.D. too. Does that put me in position to criticize? Maybe it just makes me a hypocrite.

Oh, and this jumps out at me:

It is pretty well understood by most that many of the ideas the end up becoming legislation have their roots in academia.

Where the manacles are forged! Is there any stronger criticism of the enterprise, as currently configured?

You must not have looked too hard, studies. We're miles to the left of the Democrats.

Not everybody here is in 100 agreement. I personally think race and politics are both substantial and worthy topic for academic inquiry. I also acknowledge that the Ivies have some exceptions to their general rule. Adolph Reed teaches at Penn, for instance. MHL isn't taller than Reed's knee, despite her preening and posing.

The problem with the Ivies, in my view, is that they are so bloody terrible at doing the world-class work they claim to be doing. Most of what they do is sycophancy on stilts.

As to the "ideas" that become law in this decrepit empire, you are simply wrong about their source. Way wrong.

"This is clearly a right leaning site, am I right?"

Reading Comprehension: F

Observe the title of this site:

"Stop Me Before I Vote Again
If you're a Lefty like us, the Democrats are not your friends"

Mr/Ms. 'studiesPhd'

Doug Henwood, of Left Business Observer renown, in a comment posted here recently, referred to this site as a "wankfest". As someone in this thread asserted, most of the usual suspects appeared in this thread. I think you can draw your conclusions about the site from this thread alone.

They consider themselves "left" but "heterodox" might be more accurate.

There is much amusement to be had from participation.

Yes, eugyppius, I think having a studies PhD makes you fully qualified to criticize. I will say that there reason you may see arguments from authority come up time and time again is because it is all too common for people with know formal knowledge of a topic to still feel entitled to offer their opinion (something I suspect is the case in at least some cases on this site, though perhaps not in yours).

I'm sure you are aware that there are a huge number of people advocating from academia against the way we see government working today. I'd even go as far as to say that the majority of the "studies" faculty fall into this group. In my experience the studies departments tend to be the most progressive and the most vocal against the way we see government operating. In which case, using your logic, that would be a strong endorsement of the enterprise. I'm sure you realize that changing the way things work is a slow process. Slower than most of us would like. The political theories being used now came up through academia 20+ years ago. After bearing witness to their failures I've encountered many people who are actively working on alternative forms of governing or adjustments to the way we govern now that will make things better. This is how the system works. I'd bet my wages that the changes that will hopefully come will have their roots in research and publications that are sponsored by the academic system you so deplore.

Excuse all those typos, please. For all its wonders, the iPhone auto-correct feature and keyboard are not my friend. But my points still stand!

"referred to this site as a "wankfest""

Yeah, because his comment got caught in a spam filter and he thought that he was being censored, not based on a sociological study of SMBIVA.

I'd say that there is a decent amount of disagreement amongst the participants here, about on par with any other niche political blog

I will say that there reason you may see arguments from authority come up time and time again is because it is all too common for people with know formal knowledge of a topic to still feel entitled to offer their opinion

I disagree. Arguments from authority (which make my prefrontal cortex break out in a rash) often crop up among academics because they have piss-poor arguments.

I'm sure you are aware that there are a huge number of people advocating from academia against the way we see government working today.

Precious few academics, in fact. The American academy as a whole has been largely co-opted by the head boys for their own purposes. Sure race and gender are valid fields of inquiry; politics and econ are too. But as practiced by most people most everywhere, they're about deflecting criticism and, in a few cases, propagandizing.

"The political theories being used now came up through academia 20+ years ago."

Could you perhaps elaborate on this point a little bit?

"It is pretty well understood by most that many of the ideas the (sic) end up becoming legislation have their roots in academia."

Laaaady! Oh, laaaady! Take a critical look at the legislation, lady.

Maybe their stems pass thru academia. Maybe the ideas get manured there. But roots? No.

And let me point out I'm not holding up the Chicago School as a good example, just to make the point that universities plant the seeds for policy. There were plenty of Keynesians doing work as well, but they unfortunately have not yet been fully embraced (but are gaining steam).

"That being said, she has made some very poignant observations and written some insightful articles..."

In all sincerity now, studiesPhd, is there a link you could share to substantiate that claim. That would really advance the discussion.

However, my experience suggests that, whatever link you might offer, the brotherhood here will tear (or attempt to tear, depending on one's p.o.v.) it apart. Re: Frog-scorpion fable.

Which "Keynesians" are you talking about?

studiesPhD, I don't doubt your sincerity or well-meaningness. Perhaps a few grizzled types around here -- and that would include me on an ornery day -- will use your sincerity or well-meaningness as an excuse to vaporize you. But really now, did you carefully read eugyppius' first post? What more exacting and thorough indictment of contemporary academia (and the function of the left-liberal humanities/social sciencies professoriat within it) do you need to see, or read?

That someone like studiesPhD can openly wonder what is so "off" about what s/he (she, I guess) is saying is proof positive that the left in the U.S. is truly R.I.P. The left came into the 2000's limping, but now it is truly and really dead. 15-20 years ago, in an Af-Am Studies graduate program, enlistees would have to contend with revolutionary nationalists, and maybe even a black Marxist or two. 15-20 years ago, in a Women's Studies program, post-this and post-that was all the rage, but at least one just might have to frame one's arguments and claims in reference to socialist feminism.

Now, with studiesPhD as our native informant, it appears that the values of bourgeois careerism are so taken for granted that any alternative orientation doesn't even appear on the radar screen. So too it goes for the imaginary role of the august university as the incubator of "great ideas." Austan Goolsbee
and Cass Sunstein define the extreme end of the spectrum of respectable Thought.

Punk rock died in the 1980's.
Political hip hop died in the early 1990's.
"Bohemia" turned into American Apparel.
The tiny clique of New Left neo-Marxists who never sold out are dying or retiring, with no one to replace them because there's no institutional or cultural support for it.
I'm 41 and feel 71.
Fuck it, just fuck it.

"They consider themselves 'left' but 'heterodox' might be more accurate."

That's a real classic of the DP/merit class mindfuck.

We are sick and done with the Democratic Party's disastrous game, and nothing could possibly be clearer than our leftism.

But we might as well be Don Quixote from Outer Space. Why? Because we don't do the DP dance any more. So, we're merely a jumble, by definition.

Rich stuff, coming from those who can't wait to get fooled again.

Following this thread and the early on mention of "meritocracy" reminded me of a book, "The Rise of Meritocracy" by Michael Young (1958). It was a novel and the gist of it was that meritocracy may seem a sensible way of ordering things but might also have undesirable consequences. Found this write up of Young following his death in 2002 and this section, quoting Young, captures the concerns expressed about the 'merits' of the Ivy League:
http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl16110.htm
" ...
Young had meant the term “meritocracy” to point towards an undesirable elitism. But many political leaders, such as current British PM Tony Blair, seem to have never read the book or failed to realise it was a satire, and continued to give speeches advocating the meritocracy as a good thing. Last year, Young wrote an article in the Guardian saying he wished Tony Blair would stop using the word.

Young explained: “It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.”
....
“With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams ...”
...
Young argued that the elite, in a meritocracy, tend to feel they are much more entitled to the privileges they enjoy. This breeds a dangerous arrogance. Young: “They believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that their advancement comes from their own merits, and they deserve whatever they can get. They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody’s son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side ...”

MD:
Ha, ha, ha. You really tore that sock puppet a new one! And, being a sock puppet, he needed one!

Lunch recently appeared here arguing basic Chomsky lit with Oxy, superficially of course. Who are these "we". Are there real SMBIVAns and faux SMBIVAns? I want a list, so I can check the real ones for orthodoxy.

From Wiki article on religious heterodoxy:
Heterodoxy includes "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position".[1] As an adjective, heterodox is used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" (status quo). The noun heterodoxy is synonymous with unorthodoxy, while the adjective heterodox is synonymous with dissident.

To use the term in a political context is not so great a stretch, is it?

Well said gluelicker, I conceed that the 'true' left us dead. I once counted myself amongst that group, but do readily admit I have veered off towards the middle - still to the left of almost all democrats, but no revolutionary. Such is life when one is trying to get a job at an ivy league school. Now, armed with that job, I simply need to await tenure before returning to my roots.

WRT politics these days, I think a more practical approach is to continue to move the discourse towards the left, but not by leaps and bouds - simply because much of this country doesn't support it. After all, almost half this country is still convinced the free market is a good thing. Is this really time to be arguing that the likes of Paul Krugman aren't left enough? There's an argument to be made, no doubt, but we have to start somewhere. Baby steps my friend, baby steps. Anything more is just not realistic, much as many of us wish it were.

I'm more interested in nudging the country slowly left then throwing up my hands and disparaging anyone who is making an effort. Maybe you're not, so be it.

Bob asks of StudiesPhd 'Which "Keynesians" are you talking about?'

I doubt somehow, whether StudiesPhd had Military Keynesians in mind? But given the role of military spending as a vast and continuous stimulus package since WWII, I would also ask how anyone could conceivably claim that Keynesianism hasn't been been fully embraced.

"Now, armed with that job, I simply need to await tenure before returning to my roots."

How many times have we heard that? Functionally equivalent to “Après moi, le déluge.” A joke, right?

Ah, yes, not wishing to be too-too condescending or patronizing to those uncouth and unwashed proles who have not had the benefit of an enlightened Ivy faux-Fabianism to see the error of their free-markatroid ways. And these "nudges" and "baby steps" of which you speak consist of...what, exactly? This sounds like typical pwoggle-doggle malarkey; no, strike that - it sounds especially (right down to cadence and phrasing) like BertSam.

"Is this really time to be arguing that the likes of Paul Krugman aren't left enough?"

I'm actually a big fan of Krugman as of late, but it's important to note how Paul Krugman was able to become a respectable Ivy League pundit.

In the 90's he was fully dedicated to bashing anyone who could be called a proper Keynesian:

Vulgar Keynesians
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/vulgar.html

He was also a hardcore free trade/offshoring supporter. Most of his attacks in the 90's were actually against those of us on the left who turned out to be correct about most things.

It is important to note that he only got to where he is now by embracing Greg Mankiw's (Harvard prof, Chief Economic Advisor to George W. Bush) free-market fundamentalist "New Keynesian" economics. FYI Mankiw is the same Republican zealot who proposed re-categorizing minimum wage burger-flipping as "light manufacturing".

Krugman has redeemed himself quite a bit over the last couple years, but if he had espoused the same views since the beginning of his career he never would have gotten anywhere. Any sort of "true" Keynesian economics was purged from the Ivies a long long time ago, and if Krugman were a serious Keynesian he would be laboring in obscurity in Kansas or at Bard right now.

Carruthers: And these "nudges" and "baby steps" of which you speak consist of...what, exactly?

Triangulation.

Lajany,

True. Also mo-better Democrats. So there's that.

There were plenty of Keynesians doing work as well, but they unfortunately have not yet been fully embraced (but are gaining steam).

The Keynesians gaining steam? Honestly, they've assimilating Keynesian ideas since the Great Depression. The banalization of Keynesian economics: You could write a whole fucking book about it.

After all, almost half this country is still convinced the free market is a good thing. Is this really time to be arguing that the likes of Paul Krugman aren't left enough?

Well over half this country experiences near-constant indoctrination. Most Americans sleep for eight hours, work for eight hours, and spend five hours internalizing various inducements to buy garbage through their television sets. As a result, well over half of this country is so shitfull of misinformation that asking the average person whether the "free market is a good thing" is a laughable and obviously pointless exercise. The spectacle doesn't only indoctrinate its subjects; it confuses and bewilders them, frightens them with demons, delights them with shiny tinfoil. There are no arguments to win, and your incremental approach just gives the images space to adjust to critique, to incorporate complaints, to mutate.

I don't know whether protest is futile, or whether these processes can be slowed, stopped, or reversed. But I do know that if they can be, my local Gender Studies Program won't be doing us any favors. Quite the opposite.

In the meantime, I find dissent necessary for my own psychological health.

I'm guessing that studiesPhd is not the same person as StudiesPhd.

"I'm more interested in nudging the country slowly left then throwing up my hands and disparaging anyone who is making an effort. Maybe you're not, so be it."

So why are you here then? If your strategy is so sound, why do you feel any need to gain our approval?

To use an example of political strategy related to 'the studies', take gay rights:

To me, the "nudge" strategy is akin to an idea that gay people should have stayed in the closet in order to climb the ladder to a point where they could maybe nudge a powerful person/institution in the direction of greater gay rights.

The problem is that the nudge strategy legitimizes that which it is supposedly nudging against, and is therefore always doomed to fail. See yesbutnikism in the bestiary. If you've spent 10 years dutifully laughing at your boss's jokes about queers, and maybe even cracking a few yourself for fear of being found out, how exactly are you supposed to "nudge" the boss away from firing someone who has come out of the closet? Boss: "What are you, some sort of queer-lover?"

The innate lying involved in any triangulation strategy always catches you in the end.

I prefer "We're here, we're lefties, get used to it".

If that means marginalization, powerlessness and obscurity for the time being, then so be it. It's better than hypocrisy and complicity in economic oppression, war crimes and all the other trimmings of empire. At least we don't have to waste our time thinking up reasons why Obama really deserved a Nobel Peace prize for ordering war crimes in Pakistan (bombing of civilian women and children contrary to the Geneva Convention) or why we should all have supported Pro-War John Kerry.

Dawson's killing shot, Carlos Hathcock style:

The problem with the Ivies, in my view, is that they are so bloody terrible at doing the world-class work they claim to be doing. Most of what they do is sycophancy on stilts.

Meanwhile, "StudiesPhD" rambles on in defense of meritocratic "professionals", without even seeing the destructiveness inhering in that defense. Priceless stuff.

"I'm more interested in nudging the country slowly left then throwing up my hands and disparaging anyone who is making an effort. Maybe you're not, so be it."

Translation:

"When I have an open fracture of my femur, I'm going to take whatever Big Pharma tells me is its best painkiller, and hope that the pharmacological nudge sets the bone, closes the open wound, and prevents infection while healing."

Well said gluelicker, I conceed that the 'true' left us dead. I once counted myself amongst that group, but do readily admit I have veered off towards the middle - still to the left of almost all democrats, but no revolutionary. Such is life when one is trying to get a job at an ivy league school. Now, armed with that job, I simply need to await tenure before returning to my roots.

This is almost too perfect. If you didn't exist, we'd have to invent you.

You say that you once counted yourself among the true left (which I am not denying) and that you veered off towards the middle when you were trying to get a job at an Ivy League school, and that now that you're armed with that job, you have to await the possibility of tenure to return to your roots.

And yet you still cannot see how the credentialing sector is a pernicious form of social control, the Ivies being the most pernicious of the lot. There must be something they put in the water at the Ancient Eight.

This is also why universities are creating adjunct positions instead of TT positions for its faculty, while simultaneously firing tenured professors arbitrarily. The tenure protection you think is waiting for is almost certainly not going to be there, especially for someone in the humanities. Even if they are there, the protections you're supposed to receive from tenure will be in tatters.

The institutional takeover of the university is practically complete. That's how you get people who move from the private sector to running a university or from running a university to a government sinecure, like the execrable Lee Bollinger's appointment to the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank. Why? What the hell does he know about finance? Nothing. But he has the right skills nonetheless: toadying before the agents of neoliberal power in the world.

And that's a takeover that has been accomplished without any more than a murmur of protest from the allegedly "lefty" redoubt of the university.

That someone like studiesPhD can openly wonder what is so "off" about what s/he (she, I guess) is saying is proof positive that the left in the U.S. is truly R.I.P. The left came into the 2000's limping, but now it is truly and really dead. [...]

Now, with studiesPhD as our native informant, it appears that the values of bourgeois careerism are so taken for granted that any alternative orientation doesn't even appear on the radar screen.

Her belief that "[t]his is clearly a right leaning site" also betrays a stark ignorance of the conservatism that is ostensibly anathema to the lib-pwog mindset.

I used to be a moderate conservative in my youth. Some of it was doubtless parental influence, but some of it was a probably a genuine reflection of my opinions at the time. However the split came down, I was familiar at that time with many of the major thinkers of conservatism, as well as the contemporary trends. I watched the growth of movement conservatism with increasing dismay, and it was this that led me to seriously question how much of this conservatism stuff I actually believed. So I've seen conservatism in both its traditional, Burkean mold, as well as the nascent movement conservatism, which is like identity politics for the far-right. And nothing I have read here from the leftist regulars has ever triggered even a twinge of recognition from my conservative days.

I suppose it's not surprising that an anointed member of the merit class pwog community would be ignorant of conservatism. It's often the only thing that maintains the illusion of having a fundamental philosophical difference with conservatives.

Pwogs know this, and only this, about what they call "conservatives." Let me give you an example by way of a Stereotypical Pwog talking:

"Hosea Sayspeck was criticizing Obama the other day. Hosea is such a conservative... such an idiot."

Why would a pwog want to understand conservatives? In the pwog world, the conservative exists simply as one of the EVIL THEM who must be utterly despised by the NOBLE US.

This is because pwogs think the world needs to be comprised of 100% pwogs, and everyone else should be enslaved or killed.

Not kidding at all here. Pwogs scare me more than any Glenn Beck clone. The sheer idiocy proved by their hive-mind Borg-like behavior is about as noisome as a MOSSAD agent's breath.