The Magazine

The Philosophers' Blog

From the January 3 / January 10, 2005 issue: Where condescension is king.

Jan 3, 2005, Vol. 10, No. 16 • By ROSS DOUTHAT
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

OF ALL THE LEFT-wing responses to Bush's reelection--the crying jags, the applications for Canadian citizenship, the bulk orders of Nicholson Baker's Checkpoint--perhaps the strangest of all can be found online at, where a roster of academic all-stars have embarked on a mission to save American liberalism, one blog post at a time. There was no shortage of volunteers for the job: Left2Right, as the site is dubbed, boasts an astonishing 26 co-bloggers, representing 19 American universities and including such luminaries as Princeton's Kwame Anthony Appiah and Stanford's Richard Rorty (who has not yet, alas, contributed a post).

What exactly the job is hasn't been entirely hashed out. They seem to want to win national elections, and to have figured out that this means appealing to at least a few conservative-leaning voters. The blog was launched in November with the subtitle "How can the Left get through to the Right?" which had a certain pithy appeal. But apparently someone pointed out that "get through to the Right" might be construed as insulting thick-skulled Bush voters, and it was recently announced that the earlier subheading had been "superseded" in favor of a "tentative re-statement" of purpose.

So instead of brisk condescension, we now have Mission Statement 2.0, in which the assembled professors announce their intention

to consider whether liberal ideas should be somehow reconsidered--in some respects revised, in others perhaps merely re-stated--with the aim of increasing the overall ratio of dialog to diatribe in the American political forum. Some of us will be trying out various ways of re-thinking and re-formulating those ideas; others may end up arguing that such attempts are unnecessary, even counter-productive.

This sounds almost sensible, even if the writer couldn't resist the temptation to spell "dialogue" without that oh-so-plebeian "ue." But it turns out that when academics gather to consider revising and restating liberalism, the "revisions" have the feel of deck chairs being reshuffled on the Titanic. These are thinkers, after all, who have given their lives to left-liberalism in its purest, most theoretical form, in which all the significant questions have been settled and the only remaining difficulty is determining how many sexual identities can dance on the head of a Rawlsian pin. Asking this collection of thinkers to "get through" to the right by "restating" their beliefs is like putting the Holy Office of the Inquisition in charge of missionary work.

The first wave of posts from Left2Right's contributors--no great surprise here--were thus concerned less with reformulating liberalism than with re-shouting its most strident talking points from the political rooftops. For Seana Shiffrin, of UCLA's philosophy department, the lesson of November was that Kerry should have made Abu Ghraib the "centerpoint" of his campaign; for Elizabeth Anderson, who teaches philosophy and women's studies at Michigan, the best way to "get through to the Right in the face of its mass mobilization of individual and group antipathies" was "by standing up for ourselves, proudly defending our positions, ideals, and identities, and exposing the Right's tactics for what they are: ugly, nasty, small-minded bigotry. . . . It is time for the Left to make the Right feel ashamed of its nastiness."

So it's going to be tough love for red America once the philosopher-kings finish revamping American liberalism. But at least the Left2Righters weren't falling into the trap of talking down to conservatives--except when Anderson called the Right's ideas "benighted," or when J. David Velleman of Michigan explained that the religious publishing industry feeds off people who feel a "widespread sense of personal disorientation and directionlessness."

Those lapses aside, there was no condescension at all. Except, perhaps, for this explanation, courtesy of K. Anthony Appiah, for why so many GOP-voting types seem to resent academic elites:

Some of those right-wing evangelicals apparently care whether or not we have a good opinion of them. (If they didn't, the resentment they display toward the "liberal media" would make no sense.) Whereas I know no one among the liberal media elite or among liberal academics who cares very much that many right-wing evangelicals have contempt for us. We care how they vote--for instrumental reasons; we may even care that they are mistaken, for their sakes; but we don't feel diminished by their contempt. . . . (The situation is analogous to the one that obtains with respect to social respect in class-and status-based hierarchies: a peasant can spit when milord walks by, but it won't damage his lordship's self-esteem. But when milord brings his handkerchief to his nose as the peasant approaches, the peasant is stung.)