So apparently Gandhi was a racist, egomaniacal weirdo

A new biography portrays Gandi as, to quote a WSJ review, "a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent, a fanatical faddist, implacably racist, and a ceaseless self-promoter, professing his love for mankind as a concept while actually despising people as individuals."

Click the link, the details are crazy.

I guess no one gets a free pass forever. This kind of reminds me of Hitch's impeccably-titled Mother Theresa polemic, The Missionary Position (which, truth be told, wasn't as damning as I expected). The Gandhi bio was titled Great Soul, so maybe it's not so unflattering on the whole.

Like everyone else, I wonder if there's any net benefit from humanizing our heroes(there's obviously some benefit). It's gonna take place regardless, so it's kind of a moot point.  Still, it's an interesting question: does Gotham need a Harvey Dent figure?

A recent news item reminded me there's some value in having a human stand-in for our moral aspirations. Popular preacher Rob Bell recently published a book that's stirring some controversy among the Evangelical community. He uses the question "Would God really send Gandhi to hell?" to highlight his issues with conventional Evangelical afterlife theology. Would that question be an effective focusing device if "a hypothetical, virtuous non-Christian" was used? What about "arrogant but remarkably bold human rights crusader?" I kind of doubt it.

Why (Self-Identified) Conservatives Are Rare in Academe

At a recent social psychology conference, UVA Professor John Haidt made a familiar point about ideological diversity by asking conservatives and moderates in attendance to raise their hand. This exercise touches on an interesting, perennial question: why are so there so few conservatives in the academy?

Among “movement conservatives,” it is practically an article of faith that liberal bias discourages right-leaning students from pursuing careers in academia, particularly careers in the social sciences and humanities. But is this just right-wing paranoia, or worse, a politically-convenient way for conservatives to diminish the standing of potential ideological foes?

A working paper by sociologists Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse suggests that the widespread liberalism is largely the result of self-selection. The authors identify several characteristics that predispose one towards liberalism and find that they are disproportionately present amongst academics. Specifically, when compared with other Americans, professors:

- tend to have higher income and education levels
- are less likely to be theologically-conservative Protestants
- are more likely to be Jewish or non-religious
- are more tolerant of controversial ideas
- have a greater disparity between their income and educational levels

Gross and Fosse argue that the ubiquity of these liberal-friendly characteristics in the professorate has gradually resulted in academia being “typed” as a liberal profession, in much the same way nursing has been typed a “feminine” profession. They cite research by Amy Binder and others showing that conservative students (of all ability levels) are less likely to feel ideological kinship with their professors and thus are less likely to aspire to join academia.

To me, their argument sounds reasonable: if a top student thinks the private sector promotes innovation and raises living standards, he's probably more likely to accept its generally more lucrative and flexible offerings than one who frowns upon “big business." This probably holds true for undergrads and grad students alike. And the private sector isn't the only other option for cerebral conservatives.

For secular folks, the academe is one of relatively few fields where an individual can devote his or her professional energies to contemplating and propagating his or her conception of the “Truth.” Religious conservatives can also consider the clergy (there are roughly 500,000 members of the Protestant clergy in the US and about 25,000 philosophy professors, per the AP and the BLS, respectively) or any number of faith-based organizations. Conservative think tanks probably took an ideological bite out of academia early on, but by now I suspect their impact is canceled out by left-leaning think tanks. The Defense sector probably absorbs more conservative thinkers in the aggregate.

These factors seem to go a long way towards explaining the relative rarity of conservative academics, but political bias still plays a role in some cases. In some disciplines, influence will be harder to come by for those who don't take certain political views for granted. Likewise, at some institutions, conservatism is stigmatized and so challenging sensitive liberal shibboleths might open you up for professional or even personal criticism (I have Pat Moynihan in mind on this issue).

Of course, it's also worth remembering that "liberal" and "conservative" can be unstable terms in academia. Greg Mankiw, Andrew Bacevich, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Francis Fukuyama could all be called conservatives and yet could all have different views on any given issue. Foreign policy and economic conservatives probably meet the least resistance in most disciplines. Likewise, the term liberal is similarly pretty expansive; it's just as likely to be used for a free trade-backing Clinton fan as it is for an avowed Marxist. Given their backgrounds, I'd wager most academics who identify as liberal in the US aren't that in favor of challenging the status quo.

 

Here's the working paper. Here's a NY Times article that does an okay job discussing it.
Some of this was adopted from a previously deleted blog post.

File Under: Reasons for Revolution

Apparently, in 2008, Goldman Sachs found a neat little trick for keeping those balance sheets tidy: just get rid of December altogether. Even more impressive, they managed to do so without giving up their holidays!

News to me.

"Chicago School" of 80's Cinema

In any genre, it's hard to make a movie that will age well, but it's particularly difficult to make a mainstream comedy that lasts. Some jokes lose relevance and Hollywood is by no means averse to recycling successful gags, characters, set-ups and plot devices. A few great movies can survive this borrowing (e.g. "This Is Spinal Tap"), while some good ones lose a bit of their luster (I think I would have enjoyed "Risky Business" more if I hadn't seen its premise copied and updated by "The Girl Next Door").

Now, I've heard the criticisms about 80s pop culture, but, in my view, the decade produced a remarkable number of mainstream comedies that stand the test of time. Flicks that come to mind include "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Farris Bueller's Day Off," "Trading Places," "The Blues Brothers" and of course, "Groundhog Day." One of the reasons I think these movies last is that they tend to couple sarcasm with an essentially optimistic view of the human spirit.

These movies were not generally heavy on political content, it would be a mistake to consider them to be totally sympatico with the "Morning in America" thing going on. The dean in "Animal House" (okay, technically 1979) is basically a Nixon figure. The protagonists in these movies are often savvy, worldly types given to making sarcastic jokes. You could maybe argue that these movies dealt with big issues superficially, but I have yet to see a PSA that hits me like the end of "Planes, Trains..." They aren't perfect or even that elegant, but I think these movies tend to hit on something resonant.

"Groundhog Day," in my view, is one of the best of this genre. Here's an interesting article that talks about how adherents of various religious traditions (Eastern and Western)  find echoes of their philosophies in the film.

Then again, maybe, as a Reagan baby, I'm just being sentimental...

* I used the term "Chicago School" because many of the people involved have Chicago ties (Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, the brothers Belushi, John Landis, John Hughes).  Even some of the relevant Canadians (John Candy, Dan Ackroyd) have ties to the Toronto satellite of Chicago's "Second City" troupe. This also has a useful connotation: the Midwestern and Canadian cultures are stereotyped as earnest. And for those keeping track, they also have strongly Progressive elements.

"And while I'm at it..."

Retiring diplomats' parting shots...

Bush and Putnam on Immigration

This short Independence Day op-ed by Jeb Bush and Bowling Alone sociologist Robert Putnam is worth a glance, if you're not busy.

Also, I'd be interested to hear how the piece came to fruition. My money says Jeb made the first call.

Around the Web

Quick non-sequitor: what a great Masters Tournament.

• Vanity Fair profile of General Petraeus praises his drive and competence but also portrays him as unyieldingly ambitious
• The latest salvo in Matt Taibbi's tussle with David Brooks.  Granted, Taibbi's writing tends to be a little hyperbolic.  But sometimes things are more fun that way. In this particular post, I don't think he's taking any unfair shots
• The Daily Show on the recent Catholic disgrace: “If any other organization had done anything close to what the Church is being accused of, they’d be done! the Church is barely showing any contrition - for God’s sakes, look how sorry Domino’s was just for their shitty pizza! They had a bad sauce recipe, (and) they’ve been out there nonstop - ‘Oh, we’re so sorry. Here, have some Crazy Bread!’”

Update:

Also,  the trailer for the new A-Team movie

ISI list of 50 best books...no big surprises

Ranking books, music and movies according to some notion of "quality" is gimmicky and best and foolish at least.  But, if these kind of rankings aren't taken too seriously, they can be fun and interesting.
The conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute has released their list of the 50 best books of the twentieth century.   Unlike a lot of other top books lists, this one omits literary fiction. While the list has a decidedly conservative/traditionalist tilt (which is no surprise, given the ISI's advocacy for "Great Books" curricula), I think most people would get a lot out of reading most of the books on the list.  There is more balance than you might expect (they include Autobiography of Malcolm X, for instance.)

Still there are some glaring omissions (what no Timothy Leary?*).  I think a few get an unfair ideological bump from likeminded editors, but there's plenty on there that I haven't actually read,  so this is just speculation.

Their worst books list is much more crassly political and not really worth reading.

*joking.

Around the Web

• An interview with Contested Will  author James Shapiro (the Shakespeare guy from the previous post)
• NY Times article on the passing of H. Edward Roberts, the inventor of the personal computer (and an alumnus of Oklahoma State University)
• Joshua Green (at The Atlantic) suspects Larry Summers is on his way out
• Senator Coburn (R-OK) surprises the folks back home with interesting thoughts on Speaker Pelosi and Fox News

Judging Characters

Some of these are kind of late.  I blame my work schedule.

•  This profile certainly makes Janet Napolitano seem like one of the cooler cabinet secretaries("Napolitano has been known to close down a bar or two in her time") 
• Brendan Nyhan easily deflates the Obama as "Polarizer in chief" narrative (credit Gary Jacobson with an assist on this one, or vis versa)
• Being a Blue Devil can be hazardous to one's political ambitions in the Bluegrass state
• It's about time somebody speaks up about the absurd growth of unpaid internships
• Jeff Toobin's article on John Paul Stevens (At the moment, most succession speculation revolves around Merrick Garland, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood.  Tom Goldstein, who knows a lot about this sort of thing, is betting on Kagan. I like Garland's chances and I like what I've heard about him so far. I haven't read as much about Diane Wood but I like her Texas ties and I hear she's brilliant. She would definitely be the most interesting pick of these three.

The problem is fundamentalism not scrupulosity

In an interesting essay for the Chronicle of Higher Ed, Steve Asma argues that, for an increasingly large group of secular upper and middle-class liberals,  environmentalism has assumed on the guilt-inducing role once held by religion.  At first glance, this argument seems like a something torn from the pages of an Ann Coulter book. And, if history is any indication, it's ripe for selective quoting by the climate change skeptics.  Still, these objections, in and of themselves, don't amount to much in terms of refuting his thesis.

This is not to say that Asma gets it right.   Specifically, his emphasis on "green guilt" seems misplaced.  He seems to think that most in his latte-sipping cohort (his stereotyping, not mine) lead lives of constant self-denial, constantly flagellating themselves (emotionally, of course) for not composting as much as they should.  He even ends his article by encouraging his fellow green-conscious liberals to "temper their fervor" and basically stop feeling so damn guilty all of the time.

Now, I have trouble imagining that there is a substantial element of the population that is taking our environmental situation too seriously.  Perhaps Asma is part of a very small group of exceedingly admirable people, but I think for more people, environmentalism mimics religion in a much more self-serving way. I suspect that it is more common for the upper-income, green-conscious crowd to use environmental concerns as a pretext for personal indulgence. It would certainly feel better to spend 40% more on locally-grown, premium foods if the alternative is morally objectionable.  Likewise, I doubt many Motel 8s are LEED-certified.  

In most cases, I think these purchases of environmental indulgences are inadvertent.  But a lot of people inadvertently use religion to sanction indulgence also.  Generally-speaking, the problem isn't people taking their values too seriously, it's people applying them too narrowly.