More diversity of thought on college campuses is needed to guard against political extremism
Throughout the Trump presidency, conservative ideas have come to be associated with the hysteria of egotistic and ignorant Republican politicians and white nationalist movements, for whom typically conservative ideals such as individual freedom and limited government are synonymous with the law of the jungle. But cutting food stamps, redistributing money from the poor to the rich and refusing to wear a mask have little to do with conservatism.
On college campuses, where liberal ideas dominate conservative ones, the radicalization of the right has stoked fears and resulted in the suppression of conservative voices, often towing a fine line between pertinent political dissent and hateful speech.
Part of the problem is that there is little pushback against liberal ideas, leaving students no choice but to accept them or feel marginal because they have very few other points of reference to compare them to. But excluding differing points of view and those who hold them drives fear and anger (and extremism) not just among students but also (and particularly) among ordinary Americans living far from the bubbles of college campuses.
Perhaps the reason for the hegemony of leftist ideas on college campuses is that the principles of conservatism have been defeated by ignorance-fed fear, hate, resentment and selfishness on the right.
As a political philosophy, conservatism is rooted in tradition. It emphasizes respect and appreciation for tradition and has afforded many wisdoms and privileges that still hold true today. Concretely, this translates into an emphasis on family, heritage, humility, hard work and pride, hence the right’s fondness for policies that encourage self-reliance, hard work and respect for authority.
The link between those principles and current policies of the Republican Party are not obvious. Political beliefs always result from cultural values and specific histories; in fact, U.S. conservatives do not have the same beliefs as many of their European counterparts, though they may be underpinned by the same ideologies. For example, the overwhelming majority of British conservatives support their country’s health care system and other social programs, just like how U.S. Republicans are not interested in defunding public schools, much less the police. Really, there is nothing quintessentially conservative about unfettered capitalism, which doesn’t exist anywhere.
At a time when words such as “capitalism” and “socialism” are being thrown around recklessly, learning about the roots of conservatism as well as the forms it has taken around the world would provide an invaluable perspective in a public discourse polluted by irrational fears, blind partisanship and private interests that keep any kind of consensus from emerging and the general public interest from being served.
Fostering a fruitful dialogue is difficult because liberals and conservatives have wildly different experiences and interact rarely. Conservatives are usually older while liberals make up most of millennials and Generation Z; liberals tend to live in urban areas, work in the tertiary sector and high-skill digital industries and earn relatively high incomes while conservatives tend to live in rural areas and work in low-paying, low-skill manufacturing and agricultural industries. These differences are a breeding ground for stereotypes and — potentially — radicalization and violence.
College campuses are at the center of that violence. They have become theatres of ideological clashes and epitomize the tension between freedom of speech and political correctness in the eyes of many Americans. Thus, reestablishing a healthy political discourse at the national level begins on college campuses.
Academia’s liberal bias (specifically, in the context of humanities and social sciences) is nothing new. If anything, it is quite natural. Universities provide optimal environments for progressive ideas to flourish through their emphasis on openness, diversity, exploration of the unknown and challenging the status quo as opposed to a reliance on tradition, inherited knowledge and a contentment with the status quo — the latter all being characteristic of conservatism. This does not mean that conservative political, social and economic theories cannot flourish, just that it is unlikely when an overwhelming majority of faculty are liberal, as is generally the case at U.S. universities.
What is new, however, is for this bias to lead to intolerance and exclusion. Universities are places of emancipation, where students should be shielded from the influence of those seeking to impose their views. Universities are for learning about politics, not doing politics.
It is paradoxical for political divides often rooted in identity to be exacerbated instead of bridged on such diverse college campuses.
At a time when political beliefs and personal identity have become so deeply intertwined, more unity could be achieved by stepping out of the safehouses of identity and engaging in political conversations informed by philosophy and history instead of the simplistic agendas of politicians who do not need to unite to win elections.
It is impossible and unnecessary to end all disagreement. However, by making an effort to understand others and see beyond the cultural specificities, influences, myths and lies surrounding our politics, we can overcome the current political tribalism that furthers division.
Doing so can help diffuse hypersensitivity and encourage nuance, humility and sharp thinking as opposed to political complacency and conformity and intolerance, which are two sides of the same coin.
Some universities are taking concrete steps to foster more intellectual diversity. Under the initiative of its president Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan University has launched new courses on “the philosophical and economic foundations of private property, free enterprise and market economies” and “the relationship of tolerance to individual rights, freedom and voluntary association,” among others, to teach students about conservative, religious and libertiarian modes of thinking.
More initiatives like these are needed at USC (and other universities), especially in these troubled times — not just for students’ intellectual development but also for the political future of the nation. In order to combat the restrictive, polarizing partisanship that characterizes the political landscape today, it becomes essential to debunk conceptions of conservatism that have been butchered by politicians like Trump and impart an understanding of its key philosophies.