The main problem w/ many intellectuals as I see it is that they see all trade and exchange as zero or constant sum when in fact most exchange relations (economic, intellectual, personal) are positive sum -- many intellectuals neglect the problem of scarcity, believing that society has infinite resources for solving all problems

Somehow i'm not surprised that two generally conservative intellectuals made an argument off of nothing other than stereotypes. Where is the data to support any of your conclusions? Neither of these posts live up to the standards set by previous posts.

Indeed, the tendency of the intellectuals to praise the left is clear and is also an old habit. Bertrand de Jouvenel argues in an essay published in Hayek's "Capitalism and the Historians" that the intellectuals are angry that in capitalism conditions, the people buy consumer goods that, in their oppinions, should not buy. Instead they argue that the people should buy intellectuals' products, which they do not however, since they do not provide products that are good enough to buy.

"This evidence has impressed the man and woman in the street,"

Both of you intimate that the public has become more supportive of free markets in recent years, and I think this is both wrong and answers the question that you are trying to answer.

I really don't think the American public has become more supportive of markets in the last several years. I don't have a ton of hard data, but I can point to the recent WSJ survey, which showed that a majority of Republicans are against free trade. It's true that the American public has become more Republican since about the 1960's, but I think this is a result of social rather than economic conservatism.

Why does the American public not support free markets? Because economic thinking is counter-intuitive. The first response of any person not educated in economics to any social problem is: Have the government spend money on it. Are people not getting health care? Tax and spend! This response is prevalent because it is simple. By contrast, the economic prescription---increase transparency so that the markets can operate more effectively---isn't as simple or as obvious. Thus, fewer American people support it.

The same can be said about intellectuals. We might hope that intellectuals, unlike the general public, would look to the reams of evidence supporting the economic world view. But the truth, I think, is that your average intellectual is no more rational than your average American. Most people don't question their political beliefs, and don't seek to ensure that they're consistent with empirical evidence. Intellectuals really are no different. Why is this? Probably because your average intellectual really isn't that much smarter than your average American. Also, intellectuals probably tend to overestimate the importance of their own discipline to society. I've seen this a lot, for example, with philosophers, who seem way, way too confident in their ability to determine the correct answers to public policy problems from abstract philosophical theories.

I agree that the phenomenon of academic leftism is not well explained.

My take is that academics are essentially mandarins - who combine technical skill with cultural expertise. I would say that faculty are more 'statist' than 'leftist'.

For example, German academics of the 19th century were (in opposition to modern faculty) nationalist-rightist and pro-hierarchy - but they were (like modern faculty) pro-state (and strongly anti-capitalist). Think Heidegger.

Mandarins are the descendents of the priesthood - who gain their status from their position within the church bureacracy, which gains its status from state support.

Analogously, academics gain their status from their position within the university bureaucracy; and universities have traditionally gained their status from the state - in the past the core role of universities was to provide government officials (clerks, lawyers, administrators - and teachers).

But I think all this has changed by now, and university faculty will change their political stance too. It is just that there is a great deal of inertia in universities (due to the slow pace of academic discourse, amplified by tenure).

I agree that the phenomenon of academic leftism is not well explained.

My take is that academics are essentially mandarins - who combine technical skill with cultural expertise. I would say that faculty are more 'statist' than 'leftist'.

For example, German academics of the 19th century were (in opposition to modern faculty) nationalist-rightist and pro-hierarchy - but they were (like modern faculty) pro-state (and strongly anti-capitalist). Think Heidegger.

Mandarins are the descendents of the priesthood - who gain their status from their position within the church bureacracy, which gains its status from state support.

Analogously, academics gain their status from their position within the university bureaucracy; and universities have traditionally gained their status from the state - in the past the core role of universities was to provide government officials (clerks, lawyers, administrators - and teachers).

But I think all this has changed by now, and university faculty will change their political stance too. It is just that there is a great deal of inertia in universities (due to the slow pace of academic discourse, amplified by tenure).

Rumsfield ... has an intellect that is far superior to many professors at top universities.

Huh? The man actually claimed that invading Iraq was a good idea. That makes him either very dishonest or very clueless - not exactly what you want in a top college professor.

BK, read the entire post before you attack it: "I wish I had the answer; I don’t, so I will speculate about possible reasons." Nobody was claiming to have a rock-solid empirical solution

KB,

"I wish I had the answer; I don’t, so I will speculate about possible reasons."

That's exactly my point. the speculation consisted of little more than political stereotypes. it added nothing to the debate. and because it is not based on any empirical studies i said it did not rise the the standards set by previous posts.

I hope this post is a parody. But in case it isn't ...

Can one miss the irony of suggesting that a petition is an abridgement of free speech? The petition in question may be ill-considered for various reasons, but - unlike, for example, shouting down a speaker - it certainly isn't a "sharp limit on free speech". One has a constitutional right to free speech (eg, petitions) but not to an unopposed appointment at Hoover - which of course is free to dispose of the petition as it sees fit.

"the majority of faculty is considerably to the left of the general population. They are at the forefront of the politically correct movement."

If "to the left of the general public" is indicated by their voting D, my understanding is that the first of these statements is known to be true; otherwise, I don't think one can know this. And the second seems meaningless on several counts. What constitutes the "PC movement", what fraction of faculty are part of it (also unknowable, I would bet), and what would it mean for the majority of faculty to be "at the forefront" of it?

"businessmen do better under capitalism, whereas intellectuals believe they would have a more influential position under socialism and communism"

This is closer to substanceless talking points delivered to a rally of mindless partisans than to thoughtful discourse on a prestigious blog. First, the distinction between "businessmen" (no PC here!) and "intellectuals" is rather insulting to both. Plenty of successful "businessmen" are also world class intellectuals (think Qualcomm). And plenty of "intellectuals" have more influence than most successful businessmen (think Profs Becker and Posner) And finally, what does being an intellectual have to do with socialism or communism? To make this association in 2007 should be embarassing.

"the unsuccessful performance of the US government first in Vietnam and now in Iraq ... succeeded in weakening the faith of intellectuals in governmental solutions to problems rather than private market solutions"

And exactly what would a "private market solution" to the "problems" of Vietnam and Iraq have looked like? This is taking an idea (free market economics), to which any sensible person - "intellectual" or otherwise - can easily subscribe, to an extreme that defies reason.

"[Intellectuals] are embarrassed to openly advocate socialism and very large governments ...[and] have shifted ... to criticisms of the way ... private enterprise systems treat women and minorities, the environment, and various other issues [and] promote political correctness in what one can say about causes of differences in performance among different groups, health care systems, and other issues."

"Intellectuals" defined in any meaningful way encompasses a large number of people of diverse characteristics (including, unequivocally, the two blog hosts). Sweeping generalizations like this from one who knows full well that they not only aren't but can't be true goes beyond being wrong, approaching - to be polite - dissembling.

"While intellectual opinions have stood rather still, the general population has moved their thinking against government solutions and toward solutions that use markets and other private transactions and relations"

Coming from a politician, I believe this would be called political demagoguery. Older readers may recall Gov Wallace and his "pointy-headed intellectuals"; younger ones may recall "you know better how to spend your money than the government" (irrelevant since the money in question actually belonged to holders of US debt).

This is just silliness. If the general population is so far ahead of intellectuals in economic concepts, perhaps some revision of the criteria for Nobel prizes should be considered. Ala Time, perhaps the next one should go to "You".

If this post was intended to make faculty intellectuals look bad, IMO it succeeded admirably vis-a-vis at least one.

- Charles

Let's test the merits of capitalism for a second. Someone says to you that Toyota is a well run company and their growing sales and market share reflect the fact that they are making a better product than Ford and GM, and the market is responding. New car sales regardless of brand, are often sighted as a indicator of how well we are are doing. The capitalist would concur, however I would not.
In the 21st century, the test of a growing nation that can sustain its economy will have to be measured on how many cars we DO NOT NEED and not the number of housing starts, but the number of rehabs vs. abandoned homes. That is what's best for the US, but the market perversions (companies who need us more than we need them and the lobbyists) won't allow it to happen. That's why our interstate and TSA budgets expand, but there aren't any plans for a hi-speed railsystem.

So who is really free.

It is a tragedy that Donald Rumsfeld cannot obtain a fellowship at the "independent" Hoover Institution without meeting such vocal opposition from Lilliputians.

Separately, in an intriguing post, RBL writes:

"In the 21st century, the test of a growing nation that can sustain its economy will have to be measured on how many cars we DO NOT NEED and not the number of housing starts, but the number of rehabs vs. abandoned homes. That is what's best for the US, but the market perversions (companies who need us more than we need them and the lobbyists) won't allow it to happen. That's why our interstate and TSA budgets expand, but there aren't any plans for a hi-speed railsystem."

RBL then asks: "So who is really free."

How does forcing people onto trains promote freedom? History teaches to the contrary. See Nationalist Socialism, Stalinism, etc.

"your average intellectual is no more rational than your average American"

"your average intellectual really isn't that much smarter than your average American"

So, in America "intellectuals" are collectively at best average in rationality and only nominally more intelligent than average. So, what characteristics disintinguish them from average Americans? (And "those with expertise in their disciplines" isn't an adequate response - most people with anything reasonably called a "discipline" have that, but we generally don't call accomplished accountants, engineers, etc, "intellectuals".)

- Charles

I graduated with a BA in Economics from Stanford, at the top 5% of my class. I am a strong supporter of capitalism and free markets, and it was my fascination with the purported power of capitalism to spread the greatest amount of wealth / utility that led me to major in Economics at Stanford.

I am an entrepreneur, a former consultant and venture capitalist, and a business woman to the core.

But I am also a leftist intellectual who despises the Bush Administration and is disgusted with Hoover for even entertaining the idea of bringing Rumsfield onboard.

What enrages me most about your post is your shockingly myopic perspective and blatantly hateful tone against intellectuals. It is a disgrace that such respected intellectuals would denigrate their colleagues' intelligence and passions in such manner.

Second, I find it hard to believe that you cannot see the true source of anger towards the Right from intellectuals at present; the Left's hatred for the Bush administration has nothing to do with capitalism.

Your argument that

"Neither the unsuccessful performance of the US government first in Vietnam and now in Iraq ... succeeded in weakening the faith of intellectuals in governmental solutions to problems rather than private market solutions"

is completely nonsensical on multiple levels, which i'm sure you must also realize after the comments from my friends above.

So, why do intellectuals like me despise right-wingers like you, even if we also believe in capitalism?

It's certainly not out of envy for money, as most intellectuals have ample access to wealth and all the other joys of a privileged high-society American life; a life of modesty is generally a choice taken to pursue an intellectual passion.

It's because you are embarrassingly narrow-minded and repulsively selfish, and your comrades in the Bush Administration inhumane.

It is we leftist intellectuals who muse -- How can you be so blindly idiotic, in all your intellectual splendor?

This blog post is an embarrassment. It is not political correctness to ban Rumsfeld from an appointment at Stanford. Rumsfeld is the architect of lethal aggression--in violation of international law--against a sovereign foreign state that has led to the unnecessary deaths of a documented minimum 74,804 Iraqis (and perhaps more than 655,000, if the Lancet epidemiological study is correct). In addition, 3817 Americans have also died unnecessarily. Rumsfeld is a mass murderer on a monumental scale. (Recall “shock and awe” bombing of a defenseless civilian population?) He should not be appointed to a post at one of our great universities; he should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity. The nonviolent speech of an Ahmadinejad, a Summers or even a Ward Churchill must be protected on the university campus. However, it is common sense not to permit a facilitator of state violence the privilege of protected speech.

RL: You make some good points. I too have long thought that something beyond capitalism is trying to be born and that the word "sustainability" would be a part of it. Increases in auto production and GDP seem not to translate into a higher standard of living and more leisure time. Perhaps the best way of "recycling" a car is to build them to last twice as long?

Jake: We can easily do the arithmetic that convinces us that it is not feasible for China and India to even approach our level of reliance on the automobile or our level of energy consumption. Once we realize it's not going to work for the rest of the emerging world, it's a short hop to understanding it's not going to work very long for ourselves either.

But fear not. I not expect any successful transition to come from force; instead I'd expect people would be drawn to "trains" or other means of travel for comfort and convenience, beginning in densely populated areas where driving has already become more burden than benefit. With costs increasing and a median household income of just $50,000 operating a couple of cars at $5,000 each must be an unwelcome burden for many.

I'm tempted to ask for estimates of the price of oil if the mess in Iraq spreads to Iran or destabilizes the entire region, but I don't want ot hear the estimates. Jack

“Rumsfield is not worthy of Stanford, despite his having served his country twice as Secretary of Defense, as a Congressman, and at several other important government positions.”

“corrupt and incompetent government officials”

Interesting arguments; I might have lost something in the middle. ;)

More seriously, could you consider similar evolution in the rest of the world? Have the European, Middle-Eastern societies & academic elite evolved in a similar fashion? My assumption would be that academics foresee innovation & society evolutions, and react in advance to a coming shift to the right.

Well said, Neuroscientist!

To compare opposing the appointment of a war criminal (Rumsfeld) to the silencing of Larry Sumners for uttering scientific hypotheses is ludicrous.

I suggest two additional factors contribute in small ways to leftism on campuses:

1) students have not worked in the real world and thus are more susceptible to ideological arguments that later get tempered by reality. A universal service requirement would help ameliorate that by exposing them to real life sooner.

2) tenure disincentivizes the faculty's responsiveness to the university's constituencies.

I think that a factor responsible in large part for academic leftism is negative selection: Smart, resourceful, risk-taking alumni who aim to be independent and dominant in their lives tend to go into business. The perhaps equally smart but risk-averse ones tend to stay in school forever. Academia used to give the tenured faculty a feeling of security, an orderly and rather benevolent hierarchy, not much scope for enrichment yet no risk of penury - the ideal environment for persons fixated on equalization of outcomes (hence support for confiscatory taxation, affirmative action, militant sexism) and risk-avoidant (hence supporting Social Security, single payer health care, and other aspects of the nanny state, while opposed to military adventures). Add to it the post-graduate, real-life experience in the business environment that teaches the virtues of market solutions better than most economics handbooks and the differences in initial predilections are amplified enormously. Smart alumni in both business and academia share a feature differentiating them from the average citizen - atheism, but it is mainly those in the academia who can feel free to admit to it, thanks to more homogenous and protected environment they are in. So, in the end we have what makes a leftist nowadays - egalitarian, pacifist, statist, openly atheist, all concentrated in the academia.

The transformation of universities into businesses may provide an opportunity to learn for leftists - helping them become less statist and egalitarian, while hopefully preserving atheism and pacifism. Time will tell.

Could the leftism among academia be caused by the view among academics that they act as a counter-balance to the more self-interested and "unrefined" institutions in society? This would explain why as the county became more conservative during the Reagan years the academia became more entrenched in its leftist ideas.

Dr. Becker,
I think there are at least a couple of things that are large factors.One is a form of selecting people into heavily politicized areas whose views mirror the entrenched.They aren't likely to give appointments to their perceived foes.Especially when the number of applicants for these jobs far out number the jobs.
Secondly,these aren't really challenging fields.I tend to think of classwork/jobs as being horizontally based or vertically based.in the latter a body of knowledge in lower level course is needed to understand a higher level course.In some of the humanities,I don't think that's the case.My experience is anecdotal on this.As an UG,I owed a friend a favor and agreed to take his sociology final.Since I never took soc and had only a weekend,I only received a B plus.This was a 400 level course.I doubt I could have taken an Organic chem course and done as well,notwithstanding a very high A in organic two years prior.

"The main problem w/ many intellectuals ..."

"the tendency of the intellectuals to praise the left ..."

"We might hope that intellectuals ..."

"academics are essentially mandarins"

"I ... despise the Bush Administration and am disgusted with Hoover"

"in the end we have what makes a leftist nowadays ..."

In trying to respond to some of (what I at first thought were) the more thoughtful comments, I kept running into a problem - I felt like I needed to muster a defense but I wasn't sure of what. Comparing these quotes, I think I see the problem. "Which one of these things is not like the others?" I think the answer speaks volumes.

- Charles

"tenure disincentivizes the faculty's responsiveness to the university's constituencies"

I believe that's the intent.

- Charles

It would sure help some of these conversations if we knew what constitutes the platform of "the right" today.

If the platform includes: limiting the cost of government to 20% of GDP (unless we shift some or all of the 18% now sent to insurance cos and health providers.)

Paying the majority of our bills as they arrive with some flexibility in the case of long term investments.

And, as once was the case, being very reluctant to engage in military adventurism, nation building, and empire building in foreign lands.

Then I've little disagreement. Are there classical, pre-neocon conservatives here?

Somehow, those who claim to be conservatives like to dash off a straw man of what a "liberal" favors, as does Rafal.

"the ideal environment for persons fixated on equalization of outcomes (hence support for confiscatory taxation, affirmative action, militant sexism) and risk-avoidant (hence supporting Social Security, single payer health care, and other aspects of the nanny state, while opposed to military adventures)."

.............. Hmmm quite a mixture! Lately Dem tax increases have been to cover the deficits and DEBTS of those who claim to be conservatives. Is "confiscatory DEBT service" a new conservative principle?

.. Affirmative action is largely skewed toward the early years of those who, not long ago, sailed against the stiff winds of discrimination for centuries; hardly anything approaching an "equality of outcome". BTW the "affirmative action" of being an alumni of an elite college is a FAR higher card than the few points accorded minorities.

........ Militant sexism?? Now WHAT is that?

......... SS as "risk avoidance?" Is the writer familiar with the differences in societies w/o SS??

.......... Single payer health care??? Well there's nothing akin to a "supply and demand" capitalism going on in our present healthcare mess, but it is true that I doubt such capitalist principles work very well when "shopping" for a "good deal" on a loved one's health care. IF the goal is higher levels of efficiency, top quality care, I'd think the American solution would be a "single payer voucher" with competition from providers on quality and coverage. Is there a competing "conservative model?"

......... Hmmm, opposed to military adventurism? I thought I'd long shared that desire with my fellow, principled conservative. Are there now many who have forgotten Ike's warnings of the military industrial complex? Watching the Blackwater hearings could certain be a reminder!

Just admit the while the intent our economic policies and laws are to promote business investment, they actually give major corporations more control over citizens' will and lifestyle. Simple put, the market will serve the market and companies will sustain whatever hold they have for as long as they can regardless of society's needs.

Historically speaking, the Detroit machine's actions against the railways in the mids 20th century (buying and closing local transit systems) coinciding with the rise of the airline industries and expansion of the interstates, shaped the last 50 years of American growth ie wasteful sprawl.

I don't think we ever voted for that. Our natural inclination to do what's best for our health was thwarted by companies would needed us to do something else for there survival.

"Somehow, those who claim to be conservatives like to dash off a straw man of what a "liberal" favors, as does Rafal."

re the answer to my question in the comment above, you're getting very warm.

- Charles

I am a classical liberal economist at George Mason University. I have published a great deal of research on the ideological profile of faculty.

If I had been on the Stanford faculty, I too would have signed the petition against the university having any affiliation with Rumsfeld.

A shame that Gary Becker plays in the "liberal vs. conservative" groupthink. He is a smaller man than Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman.

I never understood why a university is seen to endorse a speaker's point of view to have him or her speak. Isn't it a tremendous educational opportunity to see Ahmadinejad -- one of our key national foes -- open his mouth and spin a strange web of lies? Shouldn't universities invite speakers of all positions?

As for Rumsfeld, I think he should be kept from the Hoover Institution not because his philosophy is far-right, but rather because he has been proven to be massively incompetent. Why would Hoover consider him a "thought leader," especially when he never admitted to learning a single lesson from his mistakes.

"Becker plays in the "liberal vs. conservative" groupthink"

Just a nit, but the point of my exerpted quotes above is that it's really more "conservative vs. liberal". Not to suggest that the "groupthink" game is unilateral, but at least on the blogs I read there is an unmistakable asymmetry: self-labeled liberals seem more likely to criticize specific people/groups for specific policies/actions (eg, the fifth quote) while self-labeled "conservatives" seem more likely to criticize the nebulous entity "left/liberals" (eg, the other five), a supposedly homogenous group comprising the naive, envious, ignorant, anti-capitalistic, unpatriotic, pacifistic, etc, etc. Sometimes it's an adjunct to specific criticisms, but often it's in lieu of any specifics, ie, just name calling. Eg, in the comments in this thread the ratio of comments using "left/intellectual/academic" et al as nouns to those using "right/conservative" et al is at least five-to-one despite the proportion of substantive comments with an arguably rightward slant being less than half.

- Charles

I appreciate the comments to my post but let me provide a bit of background: I definitely do not see myself as a "conservative", and my characterization of what I believe is the modern meaning of "leftist" is not a right-vs-left attack. I am a radical anarchocapitalist (i.e."wingnut" in mainstream political terminology) and I find myself equally distant from the stereotypical leftist and his all-out conservative counterpart.

The format of a blog comment page is not the optimal medium for addressing the remarks about some specifics I mentioned (this would require too many pages of disambiguation and digression), so I'll revisit only the generalities here:

I do think that the cardinal elements of "leftism" are indeed egalitarianism, statism, pacifism and atheism. Could a leftist be all warlike, godfearing, anarchist and elitist? Can anybody claim that the academia primarily attracts aggressive, dominant individualists with a mystical bent? Unless the answer to both questions is yes, my analysis does capture a bit of the truth.

Rafal

"Could a leftist be all warlike, godfearing, anarchist and elitist?"

But that's not what you seemed to be saying before, viz:

"in the end we have what makes a leftist nowadays - egalitarian, pacifist, statist, openly atheist, all concentrated in the academ[y]."

The first is essentially:

L = not(notA AND notB AND notC AND notD)

while the latter I assume to be:

L=A AND B AND C AND D

You do understand that these are not logically equivalent, right?

"Can anybody claim that the academ[y] primarily attracts aggressive, dominant individualists with a mystical bent?"

This seems to be intended to equate pacifism with non-aggressiveness, egalitarianism with non-individualism, atheism with non-mysticism, and - by default - statism with being "non-dominant". IMO, the first three are not equivalent, and since I have no idea what "dominant" means in this context, the last is (for me) meaningless. Ie, the question seems irrelevant to your position.

So, to essentially repeat an earlier query, why is it so important for you (and others) to characterize what you call "the left"? Why not just pick some issue of importance to you and argue your position? Eg, if you feel strongly about anarchocapitalism, I - being almost perfectly ignorant of it - would be happy to hear your views and thereby get some insights. But I frankly don't give a rat's ass about your (or anyone else's) ideas on what constitutes a "leftist", IMO a meaningless and therefore useless label.

- Charles

Answer to Charles: The debate is about leftists in academia - isn't it then useful to define what one means by the term? We could discuss themes close to my heart, like non-violence but this would be the wrong forum. If one should truly "not give a
rat's ass" about our hosts' ideas on this subject, then commenting on them would be
pointless, wouldn't it?

Now ad meritum: Of course, I do not equate such complex notions as "pacifism" or "nonaggression", I merely point out that certain psychological predilections can make you more likely to espouse some beliefs and choose certain environments. For example, the desire to dominate may contribute to the belief that a war may be just while a more passive frame of mind may lead you to the opposite conclusion.

What I would really want to know is: Do you take issue with my claim that academic environments, as opposed to business environments, tend to attract persons likely to be egalitarian, statist, pacifist and openly atheist? I cannot quite understand from your comments if this is indeed what you are objecting to.

This
is

a test.

-c

"The debate is about leftists in academia - isn't it then useful to define what one means by the term?"
If I thought that the term had a useful definition, perhaps. But since I don't (and see nothing in the feeble attempts herein to alter that opinion), I consider the original post and the more "on-topic" comments to be worthless (at best).
"the desire to dominate may contribute to the belief that a war may be just while a more passive frame of mind may lead you to the opposite conclusion."
Again, perhaps, but that's psychology, and either knee-jerk reaction could lead to egregious error. My interest would be in whether or not there is a convincing argument one way or the other. Rightly or wrongly, I thought the attack on the Taliban justified; rightly or wrongly, I thought at first that the invasion of Iraq was also but by the time of the invasion was certain it was not; rightly or wrongly, I consider an attack on Iran under the present conditions would be criminal. So, am I of the left or the right? And what conceivable difference could it make vis-a-vis that issue?
"Do you take issue with my claim that academic environments, as opposed to business environments, tend to attract persons likely to be egalitarian, statist, pacifist and openly atheist?"
I consider the terms to be too ambiguous (eg, what kind of "academic environment" or "business environment") for the question to be meaningful and frankly don't understand why it's even of interest. Let's take the one parameter in which I might have some remote interest - atheism. Even assuming we agree on the meaning of the word (not as easy as you may think), why should I care? Now if a particular state-supported school decides that among all petitions for supporting funds either an atheist club or a religious club will be denied, then I become massively interested because I follow 1st Amendment freedom and establishment clauses jurisprudence. But the distribution of faculty religious preference? Again, I give not a RA unless those of one preference are proselytizing that preference. And even then, it seems that whether the offenders comprise a majority or a minority shouldn't affect my position.
- Charles

Sorry - let's try again. For some reason, I have formatting problems on this blog system.

"The debate is about leftists in academia - isn't it then useful to define what one means by the term?"

If I thought that the term had a useful definition, perhaps. But since I don't (and see nothing in the feeble attempts herein to alter that opinion), I consider the original post and the more "on-topic" comments to be worthless (at best).

"the desire to dominate may contribute to the belief that a war may be just while a more passive frame of mind may lead you to the opposite conclusion."

Again, perhaps, but that's psychology, and either knee-jerk reaction could lead to egregious error. My interest would be in whether or not there is a convincing argument one way or the other. Rightly or wrongly, I thought the attack on the Taliban justified; rightly or wrongly, I thought at first that the invasion of Iraq was also but by the time of the invasion was certain it was not; rightly or wrongly, I consider an attack on Iran under the present conditions would be criminal. So, am I of the left or the right? And what conceivable difference could it make vis-a-vis that issue?

"Do you take issue with my claim that academic environments, as opposed to business environments, tend to attract persons likely to be egalitarian, statist, pacifist and openly atheist?"

I consider the terms to be too ambiguous (eg, what kind of "academic environment" or "business environment") for the question to be meaningful and frankly don't understand why it's even of interest. Let's take the one parameter in which I might have some remote interest - atheism. Even assuming we agree on the meaning of the word (not as easy as you may think), why should I care? Now if a particular state-supported school decides that among all petitions for supporting funds either an atheist club or a religious club will be denied, then I become massively interested because I follow 1st Amendment freedom and establishment clauses jurisprudence. But the distribution of faculty religious preference? Again, I give not a RA unless those of one preference are proselytizing that preference. And even then, it seems that whether the offenders comprise a majority or a minority shouldn't affect my position.

- Charles

Good heavens. This was such a respectable blog.

Nowadays the posts read like a "From the Left" AOL chatroom, circa 1996 or so.

Get real, Leninists.

The thread seems to have evolved to wrestling over college faculty being "leftist" but began with "Intelletucals, Free Speech and Capitalism"

To which Becker leads with:

"Posner's examples offer strong support for the sharp limits on free speech in American universities."

....... Assuming that today's very diverse group of university faculty were to be found guilty of being to the "left" of some marker (as set by business? international capitalists? other objective groups with no agenda?) would it create such fear that free speech be sharply limited? Muzzle the voices of intellectuals? To save the nation?

Supposing a "leftist" faculty had the power to limit speakers to leftists only for the few years that 25% of our young people are on a campus, would they not soon lose their credibility and become irrelevant artifacts? If there exists any imbalance is it not more than offset by the corporate financed production of books and speakers of The Heritage Foundation and other well funded propaganda mills of the right?

Instead of "sharp limits" on free speech in our universities if we believe in democracy we should hear from many voices and trust that students and others can find the truth or their truths from the cacaphony.

If I wanted to worry about limiting free speech I'd be more concerned about the hours of right wing talk radio being pumped out on Clear Channel's 1100 radio stations at a much more vulnerable audience and not so much for their universal beliefs that a revisionist version of Reaganism represents the perfection of our time, but for their intellectual dishonesty and cowardly refusal to interrupt the continuous stream of propaganda delivered on our public airwaves with anything remotely akin to the honest debate that we need.

Charles, you say (again) that you don't give a "rat's ass" about the subject, that the terms used in the discussion are more or less meaningless and in general you imply that we are all wasting our time here. Please forgive me if I should henceforth disdain to answer your comments.

But since the question of why bother talking about free speech in academia has been raised, here is my take: The urge to suppress the opinions of others runs strong in all of us. Even I see it in the darkest reaches of my motivational system. Most humans, in any part of the political spectrum, will happily let this urge run rampant - and the only protection that I know is political diversity sufficient to preclude the formation of strong majorities. That's why having a university full of leftists is bad, just as bad as having a congress full of bible-thumpers, or a justice department full of neo-cons.

Rafal

Why are markets so scary? Some things (liberal) academics get wrong: http://organizationsandmarkets.com/

Sec. Rumsfeld shouldn't be a fellow of the Hoover Institution because he is, without a doubt, the worst Defense Secretary since Robert McNamara. He has been consistently wrong on nearly every major decision he has made since December 2001, and he has fostered a culture of sycophancy and close-mindedness in the Pentagon that matches anything at a leftwing US university. He has, furthermore, acquiesced to blatantly illegal behavior (ie. torture) that is banned by US statutes.

And yet, after this litany of failure, you would have him be presented with what is, more or less, a sinecure at one of America's top research institutions.

Professors, his political allegiences and high position in the Bush administration are not what make Rumsfeld overwhelmingly unworthy of such an honor. His incompetence, stubbornness, and dereliction of duty, however, in a less high profile figure, would automatically disqualify him.

Rafal sez:

"Most humans, in any part of the political spectrum, will happily let this urge run rampant - and the only protection that I know is political diversity sufficient to preclude the formation of strong majorities.

That's why having a university full of leftists is bad, just as bad as having a congress full of bible-thumpers, or a justice department full of neo-cons."

Rafal: It's hardly been established the the colleges and universities are "full of leftists" or lacking in political diversity. My own guess at what constitutes "leftists" in academia is the professors irksome practice of exposing the often unsupported canards of today's "conservative movement" to the intellectual questioning and debate that they do not receive anywhere else.

With college students roughly approximating the upper 25% of high school grads and our next generation it's hardly a forgone conclusion that any political bias in the few courses most take where political bias has any relevance at all is likely to have any lasting effect on the student body. An indicator? Those who went to college in the "liberal" 60's and 70's lean far more "conservative" than those who went to college in the 40's and 50's. They/we have elected either conservative or "conservative" presidents since 1980, and I'd include Clinton as being no more "leftist" than a moderate Republican and on par with Nixon and Ike. They also ended a 35 year run of Democratic majority in Congress and gave us a dozen years of a Republican majority. (and massive debt?)

As for "leftists" on university faculty being as bad as "a Congress full of bible-thumpers" or a heavily politicized Supreme Court "full on neo-cons" the word hyperbole hardly serves; as we've seen the latter have direct control of issues such as approving war if only by default, and deciding a Presidential election, while the advise and opinions knowledgeable experts in academia were utterly ignored by the small band of the ideologically driven neocons you mention who happened to be near the levers of ultimate power.

I find it honest of you to mention the urges to suppress the voicing of opinions you don't like and hope you develop more trust in the exercise of free speech and democracy. As for achieving diversity, we're far better served by an open system of a wide variety of voices than one choked down to only those voices that are "acceptable" as Becker seems to prefer. Surely the appearance of Ahamdinejad has inspired much beneficial discussion and debate.

Rafal:

I am willing to passively read a discussion of whether there is bias (presumably liberal) on college campuses, a topic on which I have nothing to say, not having been in that environment in decades.

I am less inclined to passively read people defining "liberals/leftists/whatevers" as collectively having inclinations which are extreme, manifestly ridiculous, or otherwise indicative of mental defect, an assertion which is obviously insulting. Despite echewing labels, if I have to accept one it would be some variant on "liberal", and my positions on those few issues about which I consider myself sufficiently informed to have an opninion, are neither extreme, ridiculous, nor indicative of mental defect. Hence, my simultaneously hostile and dismissive demeanor.

It appears to me (the post was not a masterpiece of coherence, so I'm not quite sure) that Prof Becker has (implicitly) chosen to equate "left", "liberal", and "intellectual", and then to suggest that this group is characterized by opposition to capitalism, an accusation that I consider to be firmly in the second category. Several comments in this thread also fall into that category.

You have proposed a definition of leftist which (to me, at least) is not particularly insulting (I'm not quite sure what a "statist" is, and I have my doubts about the rationality of pacifism, so I don't know whether to be insulted or not). So, although I don't see what benefit accrues to tryng to shoehorn an inevitably hetrogenous group into a stereotype, I'm willing to address your attempt to do so. If in the process I offended you, I apologize - it wasn't my intent. If I thought your comments were "worthless", I wouldn't bother to respond.

As to free speech, if I were convinced that the fact that a substantial majority of academics vote for/contribute to Democratic candidates suggested a threat thereto, I'd be with you. But I'm not. IMO, recent events raising the issue don't tell us much about the state of free speech in academia. IMO, AhmadiNejad shouldn't have been invited to speak at Columbia (because he predictably had nothing very interesting to say) but once invited should have been treated politely; I don't know the details of the Summers-UC flap, but unless there's something beneath the surface, I'd say disinviting him was inexcusable; and although Rumsfeld should be allowed to speak wherever he's willing to do so, I don't have a problem with the petitioners' challenging his appointment to Hoover.

But again, given these positions, would you label me "left" or "right"? And whichever you choose, what would be added to a discussion by choosing either?

- Charles

I don't see how so many people can suggest that universities do not in fact have a 'liberal' bias. Seriously, I don't fault Posner for not providing stats in this case. The fact couldn't be more obvious. Honestly. But to prevent further time being wasted on this silly point, I cite:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/%7Engross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf

Which indicates that 77.6% of professors voted for Kerry in the 2004 election. With the tendency to vote democratic being considerably higher in the humanities and social sciences, fields in which professors are most likely to have the opportunity to incorporate their political views into the curriculum. Although we may note that preference for Kerry over Bush was roughly 3:1 in economics departments and 2:1 in business departments. So even these bastions of 'conservatism' were more 'liberal' than the population at large.

I scare quote liberal and conservative in the above discussion because, for my own point, I would like to argue that the very concept of left and right, liberal and conservative, is of dubious utility. The fact that the natural equilibrium of our American political system is that of a political duopoly seems to have lead to the de facto assumption that it is reasonable to express the universe of possible political viewpoints as consisting of a one dimensional spectrum. The implicit assumption being that each party represents a bundle of political views and that all other viewpoints can be defined by some linear combination of these two bundles. I would be surprised to find any educated person trying to support this assumption explicitly, but I wish acknowledge the absurdity of this common mode of thinking and abandon the entire concept of left and right in favor of a consideration of individual issues on their own merits.

The disutility of such linear thinking can be seen clearly in the above 'discussion'. The absurdity of creationism, or the misguidedness of the American invasion of Iraq, have no logical bearing on the merits of policies in health care, or energy. Yet representing political possibilities linearly allows one element of a bundle to taint the entire set of preferences and thus is expected to force reasoning individuals toward the opposite end of the spectrum.

In the spirit of this argument I will close by saying that I think that academics are biased in favor of socialistic policy. While I will not dispute that professors disagree with many elements of the republican platform for reasons that are merely logical, and that in this way the correlation is driven by their high level of education inspiring them to be more discerning than the general population, in the case of academic favor for socialism I see an ingrained bias. My disagreement with the policies of socialism stems form various empirical and theoretical economic considerations. I merely consider them inexpedient techniques, even if one were to aim primarily at the reduction of inequality and unfairness. I believe that a majority of economists would agree with this judgment, to one degree or another. But I believe that many professors in the humanities and social sciences provide an interpretation of their field that is skewed in favor of an interventionist, or planned approach to economics. Indeed, the above linked paper indicates that 17.6% of social science professors would self identify themselves as Marxists (with 24% identifying as radical liberals, and a ratio of 14:1 voting democrat). That such a large number would make so strong a statement suggests to me that many more lean toward such ideas with slightly more moderation. It is my belief that this preponderance of socialist thinking is perpetuated by biased presentation of course material in the above fields and by the pressure of seeking peer acceptance in scholarly circles. I do not mean to say that these professors are not firmly convinced of the correctness of their view, merely that their conviction is the result of irrational processes.

I think that Posner's post implies that it is those attempting to support such biased illogical views who are forced, due to the inadequacy of their reasoning and argumentation, to resort to tactics such as politically ostracizing those whose conclusions (or even hypothesis) conflict with their views.

Daniel Klein's post above prompts several reactions. Let me quote some of Klein's statements below and respond to them.

"I am a classical liberal economist at George Mason University."

Don't hold your breath waiting on my contribution to my alma mater to fund an endowed chair for you to sit on.

"I have published a great deal of research on the ideological profile of faculty."

Now there is a really important topic concerning really important people addressed by a really important author. Scholars studying what other scholars think and do evidently is an important form of scholarship these days. No doubt it beats having to get and hold a real job.

"If I had been on the Stanford faculty, I too would have signed the petition against the university having any affiliation with Rumsfeld."

Another Lilliputian.

"A shame that Gary Becker plays in the 'liberal vs. conservative' groupthink. He is a smaller man than Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman."

Prof. Becker is a "smaller man"? What an unbelievably cheap statement by someone who poses as an economics scholar. Klein, please give up blog commentary. It detracts from your vigil by the phone awaiting word from the Nobel Committee that will never come.

Charles,

It looks like we would easily agree on many particulars, like the opinions about inviting Ahmadinejad, disinviting Summmers, or the utility of the war in Iraq. I am glad to see you noted that my definition of a leftist is not particularly insulting, describing the stereotypical leftist as an egalitarian, statist,pacifist atheist. From my observations, these actually are frequently accepted by many individuals as a package, which is why I use them to define this distinct political identity. I am a radically anti-war atheist myself, and if anybody were to call me a "liberal" because of these views, I would be proud of this epithet. However, it would be a misnomer, since I am also completely indifferent to the question of equality of outcomes, and I am loath to authorize the initiation of force on my behalf. I am especially serious about the latter issue, and it forms the cornerstone of my moral and political thinking. Unfortunately, a very large number of academics seem obsessed with the issue of equality of outcomes (which they call "fairness" but I call egalitarianism) and are always ready to clamor for the application of the brute force of the state to advance their causes (which many of my persuasion call statism). I hope you will agree that egalitarianism and statism are in fact more common among academic than among business elites. Among some disciplines, in the humanities, such views have an almost monolithic following. These two, in my opinion, wretched and destructive tendencies, are what worries me about academic leftism. Of course, there is a whole lot of other social phenomena that bother me - xenophobia, the rise of the police state, the never-ending state of war, politicization of natural sciences, environmentalism, erosion of the separation of church and state - but these are something to be discussed when Judge Posner writes a post on "What's wrong with conservatives", or "The Green menace".

So, to summarize, I strongly disapprove of a large part of the package of ideas that many modern American academics believe in. I am sad that these ideas and attitudes are so common. I hope that the progress of science, one retirement at a time, will eventually make them obsolete.

As to the question of whether you, Charles, are a leftist, I don't quite know the answer. Do you support forced trade unionization? Is FDR one of your heroes? Do you think that Title IX is the pinnacle of fairness in gender relationships? If your answer is no to all, probably you are not.

Rafal

Charles,

It looks like we would easily agree on many particulars, like the opinions about inviting Ahmadinejad, disinviting Summmers, or the utility of the war in Iraq. I am glad to see you noted that my definition of a leftist is not particularly insulting, describing the stereotypical leftist as an egalitarian, statist,pacifist atheist. From my observations, these actually are frequently accepted by many individuals as a package, which is why I use them to define this distinct political identity. I am a radically anti-war atheist myself, and if anybody were to call me a "liberal" because of these views, I would be proud of this epithet. However, it would be a misnomer, since I am also completely indifferent to the question of equality of outcomes, and I am loath to authorize the initiation of force on my behalf. I am especially serious about the latter issue, and it forms the cornerstone of my moral and political thinking. Unfortunately, a very large number of academics seem obsessed with the issue of equality of outcomes (which they call "fairness" but I call egalitarianism) and are always ready to clamor for the application of the brute force of the state to advance their causes (which many of my persuasion call statism). I hope you will agree that egalitarianism and statism are in fact more common among academic than among business elites. Among some disciplines, in the humanities, such views have an almost monolithic following. These two, in my opinion, wretched and destructive tendencies, are what worries me about academic leftism. Of course, there is a whole lot of other social phenomena that bother me - xenophobia, the rise of the police state, the never-ending state of war, politicization of natural sciences, environmentalism, erosion of the separation of church and state - but these are something to be discussed when Judge Posner writes a post on "What's wrong with conservatives", or "The Green menace".

So, to summarize, I strongly disapprove of a large part of the package of ideas that many modern American academics believe in. I am sad that these ideas and attitudes are so common. I hope that the progress of science, one retirement at a time, will eventually make them obsolete.

As to the question of whether you, Charles, are a leftist, I don't quite know the answer. Do you support forced trade unionization? Is FDR one of your heroes? Do you think that Title IX is the pinnacle of fairness in gender relationships? If your answer is no to all, probably you are not.

Rafal

Well written, thought provoking comments by Professors Becker and Posner. The intellectual left are not opposed to living right ... they are opposed to the Holocaust or any future activities mimicking Holocaust thinking, imperialist ambitions creating a nuclear war (i.e. the US igniting WWIII) ... they may be jealous of the CEO paychecks commanded by current war profiteers such as Haliburton, Cummins Engine, Blackwater but oppose the manner in which these companies make their money ... and the 'beat goes on' ... which came first the chick or the egg....

Hank sez:

Which indicates that 77.6% of professors voted for Kerry in the 2004 election. With the tendency to vote democratic being considerably higher in the humanities and social sciences, fields in which professors are most likely to have the opportunity to incorporate their political views into the curriculum. Although we may note that preference for Kerry over Bush was roughly 3:1 in economics departments and 2:1 in business departments. So even these bastions of 'conservatism' were more 'liberal' than the population at large.

.......... I'd suggest the 2004 election wasn't much of an opportunity to test whether professors lean sharply to the left. First there'd be the natural rejection by those who've invested much of their lives working very hard toward becoming educated, of one who spent much of his adult life as something of a wastrel who never prepared himself for high office.

Also, after the first 4 year preview both the economists and business profs would be quite concerned as the Bush policies based upon something other than accepted economic principles had wrought just what we all feared, along with an ill-considered and poorly executed war. There seems little there for a knowledgeable voter be they "Right" or "Left".

Speaking of which! I truly enjoyed Raf's litmus test!

Do you support forced trade unionization?

............ "Forced??" Ha-ha! In a nation where the foundations of the labor movement were gutted during the Reagan era of a quarter century ago? Read up a bit on what constitutes "good faith bargaining" by the corporation. ie. showing up at the meeting. Period.

Is FDR one of your heroes?

......... Yup! Details available.

Do you think that Title IX is the pinnacle of fairness in gender relationships?

.............. Ooh! "pinnacle?" Perhaps IX would have to yield to sufferage, but is there a general belief, on the "right" that, "in fairness" women should be discriminated against in school programs funded with Federal dollars?

If your answer is no to all, probably you are not.

.......... Geez Raf not one question about paying our bills when they come due? or cutting spending to approximately match revenues? Not getting unnecessarily entangled in costly foreign adventurism? If there were some traditional conservative qualities in your test I'm sure I could get an honest C+ instead of flunking completely.

Rafal:

Oh, despite our spirited exchanges, I had no doubts that we were broadly aligned in positions on issues.

"these actually are frequently accepted by many individuals as a package, which is why I use them to define this distinct political identity."

And this is really where we diverge somewhat. I agree that positions tend to come as a package. And I agree that some positions (eg, atheist, egalitarian, and pacifist - although in its weak sense) are more likely to be found in someone arguably of the "left". However, I infer that you are equating "egalitarian" with believing in "equality of outcomes". The dictionary.com definitions don't help, so I'll just say for that for me - and I think almost all of my "liberal" friends - we would define it as "maximum equality of opportunity within practical limits". Of course, this doesn't help much because of the qualifier "practical", but the point is that it's an aspirational belief, not a program of action.

I also infer that your concept of "statism" is roughly that of dictionary.com: "concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty". Again, neither I nor my friends would sign on to that. I do support redistributive taxation because that is an inevitable consequence of implementing any approach to "equality of opportunity" that I can envision (if it could be done for free, what conceivable opposition could there be?). But I don't support a planned economy (which I believe was the actual target of much of Hayek's work - even he acknowledged the need for some assitance to those incapable of competing in the free market), and to the extent I understand it, I could support Randy Barrett's libertarian interpretation of the 9th Amendment. Although I believe in the vesting of political power in the people, I believe in vesting it via the founders' vision of representative democracy via representatives who - Madison hoped - would be of "the most attractive merit". Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear that hope is not currently being realized.

Once again, there is a tendency in the post and some of the comments to drift between "what characterizes a "liberal/leftist" and "what's wrong with academics/intellectuals". To repeat, I have nothing to say about the latter. As to your specific questions, as think I said earlier I don't take positions on topics of which I am ignorant, and all those qualify.

On a personal note, what is your ethnic background (or more to the point, the source of your names)? My wife is Polish, so I am pretty familiar with "-ski" names, but I haven't encountered "Rafal" before.

- Charles

Everyone, STOP irrelevant emotional reactions. Becker's main point here is:

************************************************
[Assumption]Intellectuals in academism are more removed from the real world (than non-academics).
->Academic intellectuals tend to ignore real world evidence on govermental failures.
->Academism has a leftism bias.
************************************************

This is Becker's new account here. Things about Rumsfelds etc. are NOT the central issue.

Please focus on discussion about these two "logical arrows(->)" and the assumption.

Do you think Becker made mistake in the assumption? Or one of the arrows (or both) are wrong?

(Prof. Klein, whether Becker is "small" or large is not the issue at all. Do you CARE whether Keynes was homosexual when you critisize IS-LM analysis and/or Keynesian policies? Probably no. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

The demand that you often see for empirical data supporting the notion that academia leans drastically left is only an attempt to distract or distort a real consideration of its effect, because such lean is so stunningly obvious as to require no debate. Yet in order to get past this needless distraction from the real analysis the data is developed and consistently shows this leftward lean, we then have to debate whether the data is good or not and the conclusions to draw from it. This is all a delaying tactic by those in academia who would do whatever is possible to stave off the day of reckoning. How hypocritical to purport to be open to intellectual arguments of all stripes yet to do all that is possible to avoid facing up to one that might shed light on embarassing truths.

My wife is a professor (at the University of Chicago, as it happens). I was an entrepreneurial businessman for years. So I have deep knowledge of both ends of this.

The faculty there is OVERWHELMINGLY leftist/left/Democrat/socialist/communist/dreadlocked-Drum-Circle/whatever. To argue the contrary is to enter flat-earth-land and embarrass yourself. I lived in Hyde Park for years and walked the campus daily. Whether it's 75% or 80% or 90% lefties is irrelevant; it's overwhelming and pervasive.

University types tend toward government/state solutions because they have not worked in the real world for the most part. They have never employed anyone, they have never fired anyone, they have never borrowed money to run a business (and had to pay it back with interest), they have never had to worry about efficiency or getting a job done on time, they have never had to please or placate a customer or some government bureaucrat, they virtually never have to negotiate, they have never had to make a sale, they have never had to produce anything of real value to another person, they have never had to fill out tax form after tax form after tax form, they have never had to weigh economic options, they have never taken risks, etc.

Experience with all these things tends to pull people to the right, to an understanding of how markets function and why they are absolutely necessary for things to work well.

I have known more academics than I can count, and most of them don't have the sense to run a hotdog stand, regardless of how brilliant they may be in their individual fields (and in the humanities it's often not too brilliant indeed).

But you can NEVER NEVER NEVER persuade them of this. You can point this stuff out until you are blue in the face and you may as well be talking Kant to a cat. They take their foundational beliefs on faith as surely as any "Bible-thumper."

Take them out of their cushy, often overpaid jobs and some of them would literally starve to death in two weeks.

Neuroeconomist asks us to focus on Beckers point:

[Assumption]Intellectuals in academism are more removed from the real world (than non-academics).
->Academic intellectuals tend to ignore real world evidence on govermental failures.
->Academism has a leftism bias.

.......... Good idea! though I find considerable bias even in your summary of the thesis.

Is the "real world" only that of corporate dominated lassez faire economics? (Except when pork and socialist benefits are doled out from the top? ala the recent prescription drug bill that protects big pharma from global competition as well as most other forms of competition, and executed by "the right?")

Or is the "real world" a compendium of what results after the interplay of (mixed) capitalism that is tempered by inputs from our democratic processes including campus intellectuals?

In addition to determining whether the questioning of our ever-changing society by academics is "leftist" it would be good to consider whether that's a bad thing. For example do we all agree that the rapidly widening gap between haves and have nots is "best?"

Given our massive, growing, and (Gspn, unsustainable) trade deficit, are the compensation gains of the upper income and managerial group justified? Given our failure to compete? Who would be responsible for environmental issues were it not for the "leftists" who study these matters along with political inputs from those who are typical painted as "leftists?"

As for the question of governmental failures, what of the business failures? The S&L debacle of the min-80's? Enron? The CA "energy crisis?" And today's "curiously" uniform pricing of oil at five to ten times the costs of production?

Would it seem wise of any objective and somewhat disinterested observer such as college faculty to urge yet lower wages for those who've made no gains in recent years? or lower environmental standards? Lower taxes for "our" corporations ensconce in the Bahamian tax havens from which they direct their abusive tax avoidance schemes?

Is commenting on, or questioning these matters "leftist?" Or simply concern as to whether the machine will continue to run and provide a decent living standard for most Americans and perhaps other citizens of the world.

Chester: Perhaps you're overlooking the product created by our college staffers.

"they have never had to produce anything of real value to another person"

............ and now you have me wondering how to estimate the added-value created by them.

I suppose we could start by crediting them with some percentage of the million dollars of increased lifetime earnings. Then we could consider that company's gross and that of our GDP is increased by more than what is paid to them. But there's more yet; today most of our high tech entrepreneurs owe much of their success to their college education. Then, with fair frequency the US military turns to academia for answers to its problems. Well, you get the idea.

I've produced quite a bit in the private sector and have been fairly well paid for my efforts, but at times look on somewhat enviously at what is produced by educators. The product is shipped only once a year, often late in the day wrapped in cap and gown and constitutes about 25% of our workforce, though that number is well short of our needs.