The Trustee-Alumni Dust-Up Round-Up
Saturday, October 20, 2007
By Nisanth Reddy
Last Thursday, October 11, John Hinderaker visited the college to speak to college Republicans regarding the topics of his writings: he authors a significant part of the conservative Power Line blog. A small group of 30 or so students met in Haldeman Hall to hear the class of ’71 alum discuss his thoughts on the conservative movement in recent years. Unlike the majority of political pundits in the media today who proudly accept the title of Firebrand, Hinderaker refused to devolve the conversation into polarized rhetoric. In fact, he opened by announcing that he used to be a radical socialist while he was a student and even partook in resisting capitalist institutions by storming Parkhurst and ousting the administration from their offices. From there he changed gears to history and the ideological underpinnings of conservatism, putting his socialist days in context.
The 50s through the 80s witnessed rampant endorsement of socialism; in the academe it was considered the viable alternative to capitalism and was only one step further than liberalism. Hinderaker noted that, during that time, Milton Friedman was perceived as a “fringe intellectual,” even though years later they “saw the Monetarists were right all along.” The realm of the government’s economic policy was in no better shape. Even Nixon created a federal bureau devoted to price control, despite the fact that “short of pulling people out of their beds and shooting them, the worst thing a government can do is control prices.” It wasn’t until the late 1980s and the fall of the Berlin wall that socialism “finally went out of fashion.” The events that transpired between ’89 and ’91 signaled to academia that communism was bound to fail—the conservatives were right.
Regarding those events, there was a domestic battle between the conservative and liberal factions over how best to deal with Soviet Russia, which was, in Hinderaker’s perspective, essentially a duel between the liberal CIA and the Reagan administration. Citing Peter Schweizer’s Reagan’s War, Hinderaker pointed out that the CIA was unable to perceive the inherent contradictions in a socialist state—it failed to foresee the collapse. Reagan, on the other hand, observed the incongruities between human nature and socialism, prognosticated a collapse, and “applied pressure to accelerate the collapse.” For this reason, Reagan joined Lincoln in being the most honored members of the Republican Party—Reagan is a hero now.
To further fortify the notion that conservativism was correct, Hinderaker brought up Francis Fukuyama’s thesis from his book The End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama posited that human history was driven by a debate over how we should live. After the early 1990’s that debate was over, democratic capitalism reigned supreme, and, according to Fukuyama, human history had come to an end. (As a side note, another critic said history didn’t end, the debate just moved east.) Nevertheless, according to Hinderaker, the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union meant that the debate Fukuyama referenced was resolved in favor of the conservatives. Liberals then had to admit they were wrong the whole time; they had to reassess what liberalism was now that socialism was clearly no longer viable. These blows to the liberal ideology, for some reason, failed to convert liberals; it only hollowed out the liberal ideology. In order to illustrate this point, Hinderaker related an anecdote involving a fellow Dartmouth alum who was also a radical socialist during their years here. When they met again after the cold war was over, his friend told him, “I know socialism isn’t viable, but I still feel a moral obligation to continue opposing capitalism.” Liberals couldn’t let go.
In pragmatic terms, the pendulum of economic policy has swung in the other direction. Since Friedman and the other Monetarists were proven right all along, even democratic presidents decide their policy using his theories. Hinderaker recounted the events of a Clinton administration meeting regarding the economy: “The meeting was discussing interest rates and the bond market, when Al Gore jumped up and said, ‘What are we? Eisenhower Republicans?’ Clinton told him to sit down and shut up.”
These details pose an interesting question: “If conservatives won the ideological debate, then why don’t they have enough support?” The most prominent example is the current movement towards universal health care. “33 percent of the economy is in the government. 17 percent is in the health care industry. If medicine was socialized that would put 50 percent of the economy in the government’s hands.” In detailing the ensuing troubles, Hinderaker alluded to Mark Steyn and his belief that socialized health care fundamentally alters the individual’s relationship with the government. He warned that “any individual born into socialized medicine is not a freeborn citizen.”
The answer Hinderaker suggested to his question was that the workings of culture have precluded the conservatives’ popular support. He pointed out that in the 60s the common man would have been diametrically opposed to the idea of socialism as it was antithetical to liberty and raw individualism. The reason for this was most likely the popular culture. In that time, western movies were king; they depicted an existence without a government and boundless individual freedom. Hinderaker posited, “Nowadays people are more cynical. They think other people are getting money from somewhere.”
The real reason why conservatives won the battle in ideology but are losing the war for support is ultimately elusive, yet the answer Hinderaker proposed is quite convincing. Though he didn’t state it, today there aren’t any Westerns, and the world of movies is rife with the phenomenon of interconnectivity as seen across the board in Crash, Brokeback Mountain, and Babel. Movies such as these unrealistically portray the world as so tragically fated that solace in our relationships is our only recourse; and to add insult to injury, these movies are extraordinarily well produced and might even temporarily move the staunchest conservative.
Because Hinderaker intended the meeting to be a discussion, the question was left open-ended. And when the students’ insight into the deliberation dwindled, Mr. Hinderaker spewed forth amusing tales of Old Dartmouth from poker legend Chip Reese to encounters at the Village Store, now known as Stinson’s. n
|
