BlogWonks

As a long time reader of The New Criterion, I’ve come across Kenneth Minogue’s name several times. Not only is he the author of excellent essays, unlike the average conservative commentator, he is also a member of the professorate. Currently, he is an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, and began his career at the college in 1954 as an Assistant Lecturer in Political Science. Mr. Minogue was born in New Zealand and primarily attended school in Australia; although, he also took an Economics degree from London University. In 2003, he was awarded the Australian Centenary Medal for services to political science. He is the author of numerous papers, essays, and books such as The Liberal Mind, The Concept of a University, Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology, and Politics: A Very Short Introduction.

BC: Thanks for taking the time to answer a few questions, Mr. Minogue. Let me begin by asking you that, as someone with an extensive background in the university, indeed as someone who wrote The Concept of the University in 2004, what should be the defining characteristics of such institutions?

KM: The basic point about universities is that they are reflective rather than practical institutions. Nothing in them is ever urgent. The current decadence of most places calling themselves universities is that they are full of unsophisticated people with opinions about how society and its members ought to conduct themselves – along with a passion to entrench those opinions in binding rules. Many professors today are simple moral dogmatists who think that we at last know for certain what is right and wrong. The only thing we may actually be confident about is that, in a generation or two, these opinions will be replaced by others.

BC: Does it make one an incurable romantic to argue that higher education’s purpose is to search for truth? How anathema is such a notion today? How prevalent are those “scholars” whose primary interest is not truth but the practice of indoctrinating their students?

KM: As the classic formulation had it, universities are distinguished by the “disinterested pursuit of truth” – a somewhat risky pursuit at times. Amid the current vulgarity, many students would not even understand the word “disinterested.” Scholarship and reflection can certainly be found patchily all over the place, but all too many professors are merely peddling some form of political salvationism. Universities used to be stocked by the unworldly and the rich. Both sets of people were valuable because they were not trying to “get on” by trying to please future employers. This gave the academic world in earlier times a sense of adventure, of openness.

BC: What do you make of political correctness? There are those who would argue it’s a thing of the past. Frankly, I don’t see how that’s possible. It seems to me that cultural Marxism is more regnant than ever, would you agree?

KM: In my time, a great deal of what used to be intuitive and instinctive (such as good manners) has been replaced by the rule-bound and rationalised. Political correctness is a politicised version of good manners offering power to the kind of meddlesome people who want to tell others how to behave. As to Marxism, it was merely one more illusion that purported to be the key to life. It is significant in that it reveals one of the dominant passions still at work in our civilisation – the passion to create happiness by technology in the hands of a supposedly enlightened elite.

BC: If you were to rewrite The Liberal Mind, what specifically has changed since its original publication? Many of us, in America, insist that conservatives are the real liberals, and refuse to make use of term “liberal” when describing the left. Do you think that it’s misleading, in an age of hate crime legislation and creeping socialism, to pretend that a statist disposition equates with liberal tendencies?

KM: The Liberal Mind was a critical account of precisely what Americans call “liberalism”, which is a sentimental kind of egalitarianism. My targets today would focus even more directly on the fake compassion diffused by politicians trying to sound like men of the people. It is vital never to forget (if I may adapt Scott Fitzgerald) that “the powerful are different from us.” Turning politics into a kind of soggy public benevolence at the expense of taxpayers does no service to anyone.

BC: Forgive my non-detachment, but what a magnificent article you penned this month for The New Criterion. It’s called “Democracy and Political Naiveté” for those who may not have read it. One of your central arguments is that “some classes of people are more dangerously naïve than others.” I had to laugh when I saw it as it would definitely offend every cultural commissar in existence, but could you tell readers why this is the case?

KM: “Democracy and Political Naivete” was concerned with contemporary pieties. Piety is a form of respect for one’s religion, as when the Romans admired “pious Aeneas.” In politics, piety is merely corrupt, largely because it is focused on abstract classes of people such as Gays, Blacks, Women and others who sometimes package themselves as victims. Don’t get me wrong – some of my best friends are Gays, Blacks, Women etc. but I don’t have to genuflect every time they are presented as suffering, and often suffering because of White Male brutes like me. One should always be alert to the targets of ridicule and derision in public life (authority, pharmaceutical companies, corporations, evangelists) on the one hand, and those who automatically evoke pity on the other.

BC: How much has widespread female participation in electoral politics to blame for the triumph of emotion over reason in regards to government’s stance on the big issues of the day?

KM: Yes, the abstract class of “women” has quite a lot to answer for. Plenty of women are of course bright, amusing and hard headed, but there is a lot of wimpish sentimentality being peddled by professional women. Harvard has become a laughing stock because of the Larry Summers affair, with some women going faint at the suggestion that women – as a class – might not be naturally good at maths. The problem results from the Annie Oakley view of women as able to do exactly what men do (which obviously they can’t) and which sells everything valuable about female distinctiveness down the river in exchange for an absurdity. One consequence has been to sentimentalise life and diminish important virtues (by no means exclusively male) such as courage and self-control.

BC: You mention that the male chauvinist position is that men are more creatures of reason than are women, but it seems to me that it is also the feminist position. Is not the truly sexist position one which asserts that Woman, by nature of her genitalia, has something more important to say about politics than Man?

KM: As I said in the piece mentioned above, some women have a distinct and valuable talent for politics. I think the French, for example, lost a trick in going for the Salic Law (excluding female rules) in the Middle Ages. But my guess is that more women than men want to spend taxpayers’ money in supposedly improving the lives of those who cannot do much for themselves.

BC: Is “intellectual” wholly a term of derision nowadays? Is there any merit to the concept of certain individuals maintaining the role of intellectual in society? This question has perplexed me ever since I read Paul Johnson’s work on the subject.

KM: Public intellectuals are journalists, and professors are a lot closer to journalism today than they used to be. Being a journalist used to be a deadly insult in academic terms; no longer. It used to be the case that the French had intellectuals, and the English were merely educated. These days we have intellectuals coming out of our ears. And they are useful, no doubt, in turning public issues into matters of rational debate. Even in answering your questions, I am behaving rather like an intellectual. Few of us today can resist the pleasure of having opinions on subjects we know little about. That is why we need Socratic irony so badly.

BC: What are you working on at the moment?

KM: I am currently working on a book that tries to track the way in which our moral sentiments have evolved in the last century or so. Moral integrity in our dealings with our immediate associates – family, friends, colleagues – has become of less significance than taking up an “ethical” attitude to strangers who are supposedly in need, such as the poor and those living (according to one of those idiotic statistics diffused by charitable lobbies) on “less than a dollar a day.” The dominant strain in morality is philanthropic: it admires devoting one’s life to caring for others. It is “ethical” in a political sense, and no doubt in some ways admirable, but it suits best those who don’t really have a life of their own to lead.

BC: Lastly, and I generally ask this question, do you think that conservatives have a chance to win the culture war? If not, can we at least roll back some of the gains made by the left?

KM: I regard Conservatives as people in touch with reality, and radicals as people aspiring to improve the world. In a sense, I suppose, we need both, though the dominance of improving political radicalism in Western countries these many decades seems to me to have made most things worse. Human beings, as Eliot said, can’t bear much reality, so conservatives had better resign themselves to being a kind of saving remnant. Reality seldom wins votes. So we can’t win, but winning isn’t everything. Integrity is much more important.

BC: Thank you for your time, sir.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago whose work addresses cultural and political issues. His book, Escape from Gangsta Island: A School’s Progressive Decline, was recently released while a new book, Slaves to the Feminaria, will appear this summer. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

All of the flip flopping around in the Senate over which bill to support regarding illegal immigration, has me annoyed again. How hard is it to understand that the majority of the American people want a crackdown on illegal immigration, for illegals to leave?! And for our borders to be secured?!

Those in Washington seem to continue to ignore the American public, scratching out their own versions of an immigration bill that does not leave out a guest-worker program (pure amnesty is all it is), and little enforcement on controlling the borders. Senators are NOT in power to “make deals” with their colleagues, but to listen to the American public, who take the time out to write them with our concerns. This is a very important issue to many people.

Democrats and Republicans have compromised on such a bill put together by Republican Senator Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. As of now, that bill has basically fallen through. H.R. 4477, the House bill that favored strong enforcement of the borders and no amnesty, was pushed to the side, but can still be revived. This bill should have received a vote by the Senate long ago. It was reflective of what the American people wanted in an immigration bill, but now, we have to deal with Senators who are wasting time and are ignoring the public!

Leaders in the Senate are listening to protests in the streets instead of warnings from Americans that our nation is burdened from crime associated with illegal immigration, and from those illegal immigrants who are here in America, but hold Mexico 1st in their heart. They have NO respect for our laws.

I’ve written letters to our leaders, especially to Senator Frist. This is the typical response I get, which comes off as vague:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding comprehensive immigration reform. It is an honor to serve you as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate and a privilege to respond to your concerns.

Today there are 10 to 12 million undocumented aliens living in the United States, and many Americans believe that our immigration policies are in need of serious review. As a nation of immigrants who honor the rule of law, I believe we must make it a priority to secure our borders as a part of any effort to reform our immigration policies.

( Note from Felicia: No, not as a part, it should be the TOP priority in fighting illegal immigration! It is the first course of action we should take to begin to control illegal immigration. )

In order to address this issue I have introduced S. 2454, the Securing America’s Border Act, a billion-dollar down payment that focuses on border security and interior law enforcement and will enable the Senate to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. My proposal will add resources to border protection, give our immigration-enforcement officials new legal tools, invest in physical barriers and electronic surveillance equipment at the borders and make it easier for employers to ensure that they hire only citizens and legal residents. We need to make these investments because maintaining a secure border ranks among the most fundamental missions of any sovereign nation

While our country needs security at our borders in order to slow the flow of illegal immigration and enhance our national security, we still need to do more. A majority of the people who enter America illegally, after all, come here to work. Among other things, the full Senate will need to address ways we can balance security interests with our economy’s labor needs.

( A note from Felicia: So, in terms of “balancing security interests with economic needs,” I assume that Frist was thinking of the guest-worker tactic. Still thinking about that cheap labor, I guess! By the way, Frist’s bill, S. 2454 failed as well. )

In the long term, our government needs to work on policies that encourage democracy and prosperity abroad which will also address our immigration crisis by reducing the number of people who feel that coming to the United States is their only option.

Let me be clear, I do not support amnesty, but I do understand the labor challenges facing our nation, and, as Majority Leader, I will continue to work with my colleagues to address this critical problem in the 109th Congress. On the basis of sound immigration policy, we can protect our borders, and continue to welcome legal immigrants, and in doing both we will improve the lives of all Americans.

Sincerely,

William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate

P.S. Please visit http://frist.senate.gov to register for my e-mail newsletter.

Sen. Frist again mentions the economic/labor challenges in the U.S. He continues toward the idea of supporting those who are already here. Sen. Frist was once stronger on illegal immigration, but he simply gave in to pressure in the Senate to get something done, coming to an agreement with Democrats on allowing millions of illegal immigrants to stay and to eventually become legal. But it’s not what Americans want or need.

Sen. Frist also mentions in his letter that he is in support of a sound immigration policy that favors LEGAL immigrants. A good, sound, and legal immigration policy in my opinion, is one that would first have to begin with the securing of our borders, then the evacuation of many of the illegals that are here.

President Bush wants a guest worker program for illegals to fill jobs that Americans won’t do. Excuse me, there are many people in the U.S. who are legal and are against anyone who are not legal in our country… taking our jobs. And yes, Americans are doing the menial jobs, that is just an excuse for illegals to be here.

As young Americans start out in the job market, they usually do the lower paying jobs. Then, they normally work their way up. That is how it usually works out. Teens and young adults would be happy to do the jobs for a few extra dollars, I’ve been there, done that. So, illegals are taking the jobs away from Americans.

If I am annoyed over this whole mess, you can imagine many other people are as well. I am receiving feedback from frustrated people who want Congress to get something done regarding illegal immigration, and many are considering the option of not voting come election time. I highly advise against doing this because imagine the possibility of really good, decent candidates, capable of representing the public very well. Imagine the possibility of them running, and we decide to stay home? If you don’t vote, you don’t have a voice. And that doesn’t feel right to me. Even if one votes Independent or for a write-in candidate, at least vote. I would advise to pay attention to the candidates that are running in your area whom you believe have potential, pass on your concerns to them and then, vote for them if they back you up. It’s about looking at the person. If a specific political party isn’t delivering, then the answer is not to retaliate by not voting, our future is too important for that. Please stay interested in local candidates running this year, and continue to be very vocal about the issues you care about.

I do believe there are concerned leaders who want to represent the people well in Congress who may be running, and it’s up to us to put them there. It’s time to get rid of the do-nothings in Washington who currently do not listen to their constituency. This is a vital time in our nation’s history, we must continue to pressure our leaders to hear us regarding border security.

Someone has caught my attention in this ongoing immigration debacle…Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Cong. Tancredo is a man who doesn’t mince words when it comes to illegal immigration. He is a man who is in line with how I believe we should approach the illegal immigration issue. Tancredo is the only person who has said that anyone who is here illegally should leave. For that, he is often alienated from the Republican party.

I also believe that Tancredo’s position on illegal immigration played a factor as to why he was not invited to this year’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The top politicians were at the Conference to position themselves for a 2008 presidential run, many made good points in their speeches, but to me, it will be those on the “outside of the Republican loop” who will make all the difference with the American people come 2008.

Sometimes in order to stand for the right thing, one must stand alone. But in this case, I’m standing with Congressman Tancredo, he has the right idea, and is standing for America.

I am considering him as a possible contender for the Republican nomination in 2008. He is the sort of person I would want leading this nation, because he genuinely is concerned about our vitality as a nation and he has the passion to do what is right. I see Cong. Tancredo as a strong individual, not a politician pandering for votes. He is a man who knows what values he stands on and will not compromise them. If no one else stands out to me, he already has my vote!

The delay tactic

Since the Senate decided to put the immigration issue on hold until after Easter, I am continuing with my campaign… writing Senators, the President, and my Rep. in the House ( my hat is off to the House for approving an awesome bill–H.R. 4477 ) about illegal immigration. I will keep pounding it into their heads that I think they are ignoring the American people and may suffer come election time because of it. Solving the illegal immigration issue is such an important issue. It’s not something that our leaders should put off.

I would like to see Senators bring up all the facts on the Senate floor as to why illegal immigration is bad for our country… lay them all out and then, make a common sense decision based on what is said. I want them to consider the thousands of voices of Americans who have written to them who say that something needs to be done about border security. We need a strong immigration bill. We need to enforce our laws!

This really isn’t hard. The Senate should do an up or down vote on H.R. 4477, and let it be done with. November is coming quickly, those in the Senate shouldn’t forget that they could easily be replaced. And I will be watching!

Senators up for Re-election in 2006:http://www.fecinfo.com/2006senate.htm

By Bernard Chapin

In the twenty-first century workplace, the neutered male, all-too-often, is the employee most successful at climbing organizational hierarchies. Being a good listener, empowering others, and providing solicitous attention—as opposed to speaking the truth, taking a stand, and defending the meek—are the traits most likely to result in becoming a CEO or CFO. To get ahead, one must avoid confrontation rather than precipitate it. Characteristics like stoicism, independence, and reticence are now construed as signs of not being a team player despite their once being prevalent in the manliest of men. Perhaps a desire to commemorate what once was is what motivated Harvey Mansfield to write his book, Manliness, as the term itself has become a pejorative.

Manliness presupposes the judging of others, the need to act honorably, and that honesty is not optional regardless of whom the truth might offend. Mansfield defines the manly attributes and includes assertiveness, spiritedness, confidence, and risk taking as being essential elements. Such tendencies are diametrically opposed to consensus building and socially coerced sensitivity.

The author is careful to point out that manly men are a subset of the whole. Those who approximate these features are the superlative and rare; although, the author regards certain women, like Margaret Thatcher, as possessing manliness. For Mansfield, the perfect exemplar of these traits was Theodore Roosevelt, but Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill would also meet all criteria. Avoiding these two figures may have been a conscious attempt on the part of the professor to avoid appearing partisan. In fact, his initial unenthusiastic endorsement of the concept made this reviewer wonder if the book would be detached to the point of irrelevancy.

At outset, the author claimed to be putting forth only a “modest defense” of manliness saying that it was “about fifty-fifty good and bad.” By the end, one will find that this is an underestimation. Attempts at impartiality may be misguided anyway as they will not please feminists or even those who purchase the book after reading about it in Oprah Magazine. To the radical feminist, all men are enemies and a worthy target upon which to project rage. They have no sympathy for non-submissive males of any variety. Mansfield already knows this due to the response he received to a speech from last year, in which he tried to help women better define their interests. The result was that he was hated, resented, and ridiculed.

Unlike Steven Rhoads’ meticulous, and excellent, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, this text is philosophical in its focus and emphasis. Mansfield does not draw on contemporary studies and experiments as much as he does the classic minds of antiquity. For those in need of a primer, few works offer up the review of western thought which this one does. My use of the phrase, “western thought,” is intentional as the words will horrify even the stoutest (and stoutest hearted) of university chair. Mansfield appears to have ignored academic dogma which forbids the use of Dead White Males as the basis of scholarship. In these pages, the ideas of Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, William James, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill are paraded before readers without a shame-filled nod to the fetishizers of diversity.

The best part of the work comes about halfway through his fifth chapter entitled, “Womanly Nihilism.” Here he departs from his diplomatic tone and becomes acerbic when surveying the work of famous feminists like Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, and Shulamith Firestone.  Of Millett, he argues that she

…says that men have bigger muscles but that superior strength has no
authority within civilization. Civilization! Two pages before she said that
all civilization has been oppressive patriarchy; now we see that patriarchy
was not so bad after all.

Mansfield pokes fun at Greer over her belief that a woman’s best weapon is her tongue:

Women who are free do not entreat, inveigle, or cozy up to you. They talk
straight and tough, sprinkling their discourse with four-letter words for
emphasis. In case of trouble with stronger males arising from this approach,
like true revolutionaries they can always call the police.

Levity aside, the strongest message of Manliness is delivered in these lines:

As opposed to being manly, a defense of manliness requires that a man look
A woman in the eye and tell her that she is inferior in certain important
respects. Men cannot do that today.

He could not be any more right. The very reason that men are vilified and maligned is due to their refusal to defend themselves. Personally, as strange as it may sound, I have encountered numerous men who regard the refutation of fictitious charges of oppression, rape, and theft as being beneath them and unmanly. I have no notion as to now such an absurd disposition came about. Honor and justice demand that if someone lies about you, you must make the truth known. Defying conformity and asserting oneself are the manliest of traits. Government, via affirmative action, divorce and child custody proceedings, along with the biases endemic to sexual harassment law, has officially preferenced one sex over the other. We live in a time of the New Chivalry[i] in which men are expected to smile before being thrown into the abyss. America would be better served if men cautiously, assertively, and verbally defended themselves. For those who lack the proper arguments, studying Professor Mansfield’s book is highly recommended.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago whose work addresses cultural and political issues. His book, Escape from Gangsta Island: A School’s Progressive Decline, was recently released while a new book, Slaves to the Feminaria, will appear this summer. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

By Felicia (Fee) Benamon

While the nation faces protests from illegal immigrants and their supporters on the right for illegals to remain in the U.S., Americans are saying that enough is enough. We’ve dealt with the illegal immigration problem for far too long now.