January 31, 2002

Liberally Illiberal Andrew Sullivan, commenting

Liberally Illiberal

Andrew Sullivan, commenting on "the spin" on the American Freshman Survey of college students, says, correctly, that it shows "how useless many contemporary political labels are."

The headline in many stories including this one was “College Freshmen More Liberal, Less Apathetic, poll finds.” But the key signifiers for this were three shifts: “For instance, a record percentage -- 57.9 percent -- think gay couples should have the legal right to marry. The highest portion in two decades -- 32.2 percent -- say the death penalty should be abolished. And more than one-third -- the highest rate since 1980 -- say marijuana should be legalized.” Now those are all positions I hold. So am I a liberal? I think you can make solid conservative arguments for all three. Growing numbers of conservatives support the first, the Pope backs the second and National Review supports the third. Isn’t the real swing toward a more libertarian politics?

I agree that the label "liberal" is pretty useless, but the headline of this article isn't only "spin:" it was one of the specific questions of the survey, reflecting the growing number of students who describe themselves as "liberal or far left." At 29.9%, it's the highest since 1975. Sullivan has indeed presented persuasive conservative arguments for a libertarian position on all of those "benchmark" issues, but I doubt if those self-described "liberal or far left" kids are animated by a Sullivanesque spirit of reformist conservatism. Sullivan is, for obvious reasons, particularly interested in the gay marriage stat. In that regard, perhaps these numbers do represent a welcome libertarian swing, but they could just as easily reflect the stubborn persistence of identity politics on campus. Either way, there is a "swing" embodied in Sullivan's non-ideological redefinition of conservatism. I welcome it, but I don't think it's broadly representative, particularly on college campuses.

When the study describes these views as "liberal," it reflects the common understanding of the meaning of this term, regardless of whether a case could be made that they should be reclaimed for conservatism. "Liberal," in contemporary political language, means "holding the doctrinaire positions associated with the 'progressive' Left." This meaning is, of course, perverse, since these positions (on identity politics, protectionism, speech codes, etc.) are often decidedly illiberal. Careful writers must now always include parenthetical disclaimers when using the word "liberal" in its true sense to distinguish it from its debased common meaning as a label for the aggregate of attitudes commonly struck by self-defined "progressives." This degeneration of language is unfortunate, but a measure of the blame for it lies with the right and their determination to use the word as a slur during the culture wars of the last twenty years or so. (It's a tactic that's still very much alive-- just listen to talk radio for about five minutes.) Ironically, Sullivan is as guilty as anyone of using "liberal" as a convenient shorthand for "progressive" culture's attitudes and aesthetic, the liberal wrapped up with the illiberal. I'd say I agree with around 90% of his "liberal"-bashing; but decrying this "pesky label" strikes me as a strange complaint for the watchdog of "liberal bias" to make.

(Other interesting results of the survey: frequent religious service attendance at an all-time low, as "no religious preference" is at an all-time high; participation in organized demonstrations at an all-time high; record levels of "academic disengagement." )

Posted by Dr. Frank at January 31, 2002 01:49 PM | TrackBack