Faculty Tenure: Crucial or a Vestige?

The granting of tenure to professorial faculty at the nation’s universities is a long and venerable tradition. A professor with tenure has a life-time appointment that can only be revoked if the recipient commits some egregious transgression, which is usually summarized by such formal labels as moral turpitude, gross negligence or dereliction of duty. In effect, the only tenured professors who get the sack are those who have robbed a bank, raped a co-ed or pistol-whipped a colleague. The only exception to these draconian circumstances is when a university program or degree, which encompasses the professor’s academic discipline, is discontinued. But even then, the university usually finds an alternative academic home in which the professor can carry on his duties, his life-time appointment undisturbed. In short, with extraordinarily rare exception, a tenure appointment is indeed a life-time position.

Why would a university agree to make an appointment that so severely restricts its ability to terminate an underperforming, even incompetent employee? The answer goes back to the dawn of the modern university. The role of the faculty, as originally conceived, and as interpreted still to this day, was to discover truth, wisdom and beauty in the subjects that command human interest (e.g., math and science, engineering, medicine, law, humanities, the arts, economics, politics, agriculture, and so on) and to transmit their findings to students and to the society at large. To do so, faculty need to be free to pursue controversial theories, novel ideas and unexplored terrain. Their discoveries may prove discomforting to those who sponsor, donate to or otherwise manage the university, and who therefore – to silence the faculty member – might be in a position to fire, or to influence those who could fire the faculty member. In order to guarantee the faculty member’s academic freedom to pursue knowledge down whatever path it leads him, the system of granting tenure was instituted. The only comparable situation is with federal judgeships as conceived of in the US Constitution.

Well, the reasoning is sound. And it is certainly the case that scores of advances in the subjects listed earlier have been pioneered by faculty research at American universities. So what’s the problem? Why is the tenure system under attack? Here are some reasons:

  • Until roughly 50 years ago, tenure was granted to only a tiny fraction of the population representing the intellectual elite, many of whom did use their unique academic freedom to bring forth sparkling new ideas and inventions. Today there are literally hundreds of thousands of tenured faculty in the United States. Clearly, the ranks of tenured faculty contain far more than just the absolute intellectual cream of American society. Moreover, while many professors (perhaps most) do fine work, the vast majority are not engaged in research that could expose them to the whims of someone who might fire them without cause. The academic freedom that is provided by the cloak of tenure has been granted to far more individuals than the small number who might really need it.
  • Not surprisingly, in a program of this magnitude, there are bound to be abusers. Those of us who spend our lives in academia are sadly all too familiar with colleagues who use tenure as a shield to protect themselves from the consequences of shoddy research, an inadequate amount of research, poor teaching, irresponsible administrative habits, questionable personal behavior and an overall job performance that is the antithesis of what the public would consider elite – and therefore worthy of a life-time appointment.
  • Tenure has served as a poor role model. Tenure-like systems now extend (beyond federal judgeships and academic professorial faculty) – both formally and informally – to public school teachers, many government workers, certain unionized positions and even to corners of the corporate world. Ultimately, there is no good rationale for any of that. But as long as the academic tenure model can be held up as a salutary structure, it serves as an example to be copied.
  • Tenure contributes to the ossification of academia. The number of sexagenarian, septuagenarian and even octogenarian faculty on American campuses is startling. These are not the groups on campus from which innovation originates.
  • Perhaps counter intuitively, tenure reinforces groupthink on campus. The overwhelming dominance of a leftist worldview among campus faculty is well-known, amply discussed by many (e.g., in The Coming Decline of the Academic Left) and no longer in dispute. Well, once the universal mindset is established, the presence of deeply entrenched forces effectively prevents any serious challenge to the dominant mindset. Moreover, those just starting in the system and hoping for tenure themselves have little motivation to rock the boat by challenging prevailing “wisdom.”
  • The dynamic nature of American business includes the freedom to fail. The number of successful businesses built on the wreckage of previous, failed endeavors is astounding. Tenured professors have no freedom to fail. Thus the corresponding motivation to succeed that accompanies creative destruction in business is totally absent in academia. It’s hard to learn from your mistakes if no one ever acknowledges that you have made any.

These are serious criticisms, which call for responses. How might the academic world respond? There are three possible courses of action. First, one could argue that, for all its flaws, tenure protects academic freedom and the latter is so important that it is worth the cost of the ill effects just described. The opposite response would be that the costs are so outrageous that the practice must be halted – tenure should be abolished. Perhaps there is a reasonable course of action in between these extremes. I’ll probably get crucified for suggesting such a course, but the luxury of retirement does afford a certain degree of literary freedom – so consider the following.

There already is a probationary period for faculty who aspire to a tenured position – it’s called an assistant professorship. Generally, it lasts 5-6 years. But many institutions treat it as a pledge period and grant admission to tenured status perfunctorily. Even those institutions that examine an assistant professor’s tenure credentials carefully are wont to “graduate” many who, while they will prove to be solid teachers and researchers, will also work at a level that hardly requires academic freedom. Here’s an alternative:

  • Only those assistant professors who demonstrate extraordinary levels of scholarship, creativity, imagination and leadership would be granted tenure – say 15-20% of the candidate pool.
  • In order to facilitate such a critical decision, the length of the probationary period would be extended to 8-10 years.
  • The best of the rest would be offered renewable, long-term contracts, say 5-10 years.
  • The next coterie would be offered short-term contracts, say 2-4 years.
  • And finally, those who don’t pass muster would be let go.
  • Contracts may or may not be renewed, but if the latter, a long grace period would be standard.
  • Those granted tenure would be called Professor; those offered contracts, Associate Professor.

A successful implementation of this plan would address all the elements of the critique above. The plan could be further improved with two more wrinkles: (i) allow for the extraordinary possibility that an associate professor up for contract renewal would have elevated the quality of his work to such an extent that tenure is now an appropriate consideration; and (ii) institute 10-year reviews of professors, with the possibility of “demotion” to associate professor. Of course (ii) would make the term “tenure” problematic and for that reason I am of mixed mind on (ii).

American universities stand on a precipice. The problems are manifold:

  • The cost of the product they dispense to students is astronomical.
  • Too much of what is called higher education is more accurately described as indoctrination. (See ibid again.)
  • Because of bloated administrative staffs, university budgets are absurdly inflated. The traditional three sources of revenue – state appropriations, federal grants and student tuition/fees – are tapped out.
  • Students are drowning in debt.
  • The value of what students (and their parents) obtain in return for their expenditures and debt is debatable.
  • Too much of the education is provided by adjunct faculty.
  • Universities lag behind K-12 institutions and the private sector in the deployment of technology.
  • Universities are often slow to innovate, and are being challenged by for-profit institutions.
Addressing the tenure issue will not solve all of these problems. But if universities can muster the courage to address the tenure issue in a meaningful way, then perhaps they won’t find some of the other problems to be so intractable.
____
An abridged version of this article appeared in Minding the Campus under the title, How to Save Tenure–Cut it Way Back. See:
The article in the form it appears here also appeared in The Intellectual Comservative at:

Does John Roberts’ Capitulation Spell Doom for the US?

Anyone who engages in a competitive sport has experienced the moment when, even though the outcome of the match or game is theoretically still in doubt, the participants know absolutely who shall prevail. To look in your opponent’s eye and to see that he believes he cannot win brings an exhilarating satisfaction. By the same token, to see in your opponent’s visage the certainty that he will triumph is deflating beyond measure. Perhaps the most famous incident of such a moment in sport occurred in 1964 when, at the end of the sixth round, Sonny Liston peered across the ring at Cassius Clay and knew that his goose was cooked; so he dreamt up a phantom shoulder injury and conceded defeat.

Something similar often happens in the lifetime of a nation or a regime. The nation, or its present government, might appear to be sailing along smoothly, even successfully. But anyone paying attention realizes – generally because of one or more signature events that have happened recently, and because of the peoples’ and the government’s reaction to said events – that the regime (or nation) will not survive. The exact nature of the death scene might not be apparent, nor its timing; but its inevitability is assured and even those who recognize its imminence are powerless to prevent it.

A classic example is the Suez crisis of 1956, following which it was absolutely obvious that Great Britain’s three and a half century role as one of the paramount powers on the globe had come to an end. The nation did not disappear, but England had sunk to the level of a second rate power whose influence in the world was a mere shadow of its former scope. The monarchy continued, the Commonwealth limped along, England retained its permanent seat on the Security Council; but the entire world recognized that Britannia no longer ruled the waves, nor would it ever again.

At the opposite end of England’s reign one finds a moment when its predecessor surrendered the throne – i.e., the defeat of the Spanish Armada by Queen Elizabeth I’s forces in 1588, which marked the end of Spain’s century-long stretch as the world’s pre-eminent power. The Spanish ‘Empire’ lasted until the Treaties of Utrecht in 1713, or perhaps until Napoleon beat them up badly in the early 1800s, or maybe even until the US provided the final coup de grâce 90 years later. But three hundred years before San Juan Hill, Spain’s status as the major world power came to an end, and all knew it.

On the other hand, sometimes when the epiphanous moment occurs, it is not acknowledged, or if it is, its consequences are denied – making for an even more calamitous collapse in the long run. Two examples of the former are Nazi Germany immediately after the assault on Stalingrad stalled and Imperial Japan after the battle of Midway. Regarding the former, certainly many on Hitler’s staff – especially after America entered the fray – foresaw that the tide of the war would change. Some might have favored seeking a negotiated settlement with the Allied powers. But Hitler was blind to the tea leaves, and his was the only opinion that mattered. Had he entered negotiations for an armistice at that point, he might have salvaged some sort of regime – and millions of lives would have been spared. But he failed to recognize the inevitable.

Regarding Japan, in spite of having all the tactical advantages, the Japanese Navy was defeated at Midway, a mere six months after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Yamamoto – who is reputed to have seen the future accurately even as he planned the attack on Pearl Harbor – was in a distinct minority. Overall, Imperial Japanese militants failed to recognize that their war effort was doomed.

Two examples of the latter – i.e., where recognition occurs, but is ignored – are Lee after Gettysburg and Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Both saw the handwriting on the wall — one of them literally. But Lee was unable or unwilling to try to convince his superiors to sue for peace. And although Gorbachev clearly saw that he was playing a losing hand, he fooled himself about the coming total collapse of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Unlike the German military staff or Yamamoto, neither of whom was in a position to change the history that they saw unfolding, both Lee and Gorbachev might have been in such a position.

A common thread in virtually all these scenarios is the presence of war. Indeed, the decisive moment in the death of a nation or a regime is often marked by a military event. But not always. The Brits were actually victorious in the brief 1956 Suez skirmish – admittedly against a vastly inferior foe. It was in the aftermath, in which Eisenhower unceremoniously and unconditionally ordered the English to withdraw, that it became clear that Great Britain – despite its former military élan – was now a zephyr compared to the US and no longer controlled its own fate.

Here are three more such existential moments that did not involve war at the defining instant:

  • When de Klerk freed Nelson Mandela, it was completely clear that the days of the apartheid regime in South Africa were numbered.
  • A hundred years ago, Argentina was poised to rival the US as an emerging entrepreneurial society. But then they fell off the track by experimenting with collectivist policies. The US left them in the dust. Then when they elected Juan Peron, the Argentineans sealed their fate as a statist and corrupt society.
  • It is hard to pinpoint a single event in the last 70 years that heralded the fall of Europe. But after 40 years of self-flagellation for the horrors that they inflicted upon themselves in two world wars, at some point in the last 30 years it became clear that Europe had totally lost faith in its culture, its heritage and its religion. (After all, another word for Europe for centuries was ‘Christendom.’) As the institutionalization of the European Union progressed, it became evident that the Europeans were basically committing political and cultural suicide.

Has the US just witnessed a defining moment? Does the betrayal of the conservative cause by Chief Justice John Roberts – a distinctly non-military event – qualify as such a moment for the US? Certainly some of the conservative pundits think so. And yet the right wing ether is full of hopeful articles about the ‘clever, ulterior’ motives of the Chief Justice and how in the end his ruling will redound to the advantage of the conservative cause. But anyone with his head screwed on straight recognizes that Roberts was intimidated by Obama and the mainstream media, and that he represents yet another in a long line of supposedly conservative Supreme Court justices who have defected to the liberal enemy. Moreover, this monumental surrender is indicative of a loss of faith – both by the people and by so-called conservative leaders – in the nation’s ability to reverse a century long slide into Euro-socialism.

Have we indeed passed the tipping point? It is not unreasonable to survey the wreckage inflicted on the nation since Reagan by progressives (Clinton, Obama) and faux conservatives (both Bushes), and thereby conclude that the Constitutional Republic known as America is doomed, and perhaps has already expired. Our economy is at best in a state of permanent semi-stagnation; our military capabilities are in sharp decline; the progressives control virtually all of the opinion-molding organs of society, which they use to brainwash the people; the federal debt is a major calamity that will wreak havoc very soon; our culture is saturated with pornography, drugs and violence, multiculturalism and secularism; we sit on the world’s greatest energy resources and we refuse to tap it; the federal behemoth consumes a fatal proportion of our GDP and regulates the minutiae of our lives; and worst of all, more than half the population is either oblivious to or favors these developments as evidenced by the, at least, 50-50 chance that it will compound the astounding error of 2008 and re-elect the only anti-American president in the nation’s 236-year history.

One could, on the other hand, claim that the preceding argument is excessively pessimistic. After all, our nation has experienced times of greater stress and weakness than the present: the Civil War, the Depression, the 60s and 70s when society seemed to be unraveling before our eyes. Moreover, as a stock broker said to me in 2010: ‘The market factored in Social Security; the market factored in Medicare; the market will factor in Obamacare.’ And perhaps he is right as clearly the market’s reaction to Roberts’ treachery has been mainly a yawn.

But perhaps the market’s yawn is not one of a large, successful and complex society simply digesting an alien body; but rather that of an organism meekly accepting the inevitability of its transformation under the influence of that foreign body.

I was extremely depressed by Roberts’ betrayal. But I tend to be a ‘glass is half empty’ kind of guy. For once, I am hoping that the glass is still half full.
______
This article also appeared in The Land of the Free at:

Does the ‘God Particle’ Prove that God Does or Does Not Exist?

The scientific world is abuzz with news of the ratification of the existence of the subatomic particle called the Higgs boson – or more colloquially, the ‘God particle.’ This subatomic particle’s existence – which was verified recently (with virtually near certainty) by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland – lends credence to several long-standing physical theories such as the so-called Standard Model and the Big Bang Theory.

 

The nickname God particle is ironic for two reasons. First, generally, the nuclear physicists who deal with these matters – postulating the fundamental physical laws of the universe and then setting about to either verify or refute them – tend not to be regular church-goers. While there are some highly prominent scientists who balance personal, religious beliefs with professional, scientific quests, most probably go along with the thoughts of the world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking:

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. [Interview in The Guardian, 7/9/12]

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God… [from his book; The Grand Design, 2010]

So it is a bit ironic that physics’ most famous quest has resulted in the discovery of the ‘God particle.’ Most physicists are quite comfortable having their names associated with famous – even if dead – humans like Newton, Einstein or the afore-mentioned Hawking. One will find few, if any, attributions to deities in the objects that physicists discover and name or the theories they propose.

Second, and more importantly, the discovery that the God particle really exists does not – as the name suggests – imply that God played some role in the creation of the universe. In fact, quite the opposite. The matter is discussed at some length in the July 9 Daily Beast by Lawrence Kraus, a well-known physicist/cosmologist from Arizona State University:

This term [God particle] appeared first in the unfortunate title of a book written by physicist Leon Lederman two decades ago, and while to my knowledge it was never used by any scientist (including Lederman) before or since, it has captured the media’s imagination.

What makes this term particularly unfortunate is that nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming the particle in question is indeed the Higgs, it validates an unprecedented revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics and brings science closer to dispensing with the need for any supernatural shenanigans all the way back to the beginning of the universe…If these bold, some would say arrogant, notions derive support from the remarkable results at the Large Hadron Collider, they may reinforce two potentially uncomfortable possibilities: first, that many features of our universe, including our existence, may be accidental consequences of conditions associated with the universe’s birth; and second, that creating “stuff” from “no stuff” seems to be no problem at all—everything we see could have emerged as a purposeless quantum burp in space or perhaps a quantum burp of space itself. Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.

So the term God particle was first used by a scientist, but was picked up and popularized by the media. It’s catchy and enhances interest in the subject among the public. But like so much else that the media promotes, it is misleading and inappropriate.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Inauspicious Beginning to the Most Important Election in Decades

The presidential nominees for the election this fall are set. The battle lines are drawn and the legions of supporters for each side are increasingly engaged. It is shaping up to be a monumental struggle, reflective of the fact – as we are told often by the pundits – that this is the most important election in decades. But if that is so, then why are the media and the campaigns largely focused on some of the most trivial, irrelevant and inconsequential issues?

The public is yearning to hear serious discussion of such weighty matters as: the federal deficit and debt; the role and size of government; the level and nature of taxes; the size and posture of the military; how to restore and grow the economy; the ongoing relevance of American exceptionalism and the reality of the American Dream for the future; whether the inspiration for our nation should continue to come from the Founding Fathers or instead from late 19th/early 20th century European progressives; and which ideals America should pursue – liberty, opportunity and responsibility or equality, fairness and entitlement.

Instead we are treated to a diet of pathetic platitudes on peripheral problems of little import, which shed no light on the fundamental issues that do indeed make this the most consequential election since 1980, or perhaps since 1936, or maybe 1912, or 1860, could it be 1800, or conceivably ever.

The media coverage of the campaigns is saturated with ridiculous stories about: what the candidates did as adolescents; events in their parents’ or grandparents’ lives; whether their wives are admirable or not; how many bucks they’ve accumulated in their lives, and how; whom they hung around with in their past; how assiduously they pursue their religion; and various other personal minutiae, which, while interesting, is not at all what makes the selection between them of such great moment.

Of course, the answers to these questions tell us something about the character of the candidates, and that is important – but not absolutely critical. We’ve had scoundrels who were presidents of great consequence (Jefferson, FDR) as well as megalomaniacs who were flops (Nixon, LBJ) and others in between (Clinton). We’ve had paragons of virtue who succeeded spectacularly (Washington, Lincoln, Coolidge), failed miserably (Carter, Hoover) or landed somewhere in between (Ford, Truman). Let us grant that Obama and Romney are men of good character. Much more importantly, the people are desperate to understand where they truly stand on the grave issues that confront the nation, which policies they plan to implement to address those issues, and what qualities of leadership they possess that will enable them to do so successfully.

In fact, when the media does finally move from character matters to the issues, we are treated to:

  • the “war on women”
  • amnesty for the children of illegal immigrants
  • gay marriage
  • the availability of contraception
  • fast and furious
  • the Arab spring
  • White House security leaks.

Again, these are interesting, but they do not strike at the essence of the existential choice that awaits us. The first four (of these seven) are imaginary issues, promoted by the left; the last three, while quite serious, are advanced by the right as a means to embarrass the Obama administration. The absolutely critical issues outlined in the opening paragraph receive scant attention, while the above seven of lesser – or no – importance get most of the ink. How does this come to pass?

The answer for the first group is simple. Obama has been revealed as the incompetent, inexperienced, hardcore leftist that he is. Rather than unite the country behind a post-partisan, pragmatic, problem solver as he advertised himself – and as far too many Americans naively assumed him to be; he has plunged the country into a statist, debt-ridden, economically stagnant, environmentally hysterical, energy-starved, militarily ambivalent funk that has endangered the nation, and especially its children. It is a record that must be ignored if he is to secure a second term. And his treacherous allies in the media are most happy to accommodate him. Thus they attempt to keep the focus of the campaign on peripheral issues that can be twisted to Obama’s advantage.

The accidental complicity of the right in this dreadful game is more surprising. The media strategy outlined above keeps them off balance. Instead of concentrating on the main issues that would galvanize the voters’ attention, they waste time and resources addressing the trivia that the media tosses at them. Perhaps more out of pique than planning, the right doesn’t counter with a bold treatment of the crucial issues, but instead it lobs bombs of its own (like the above three) designed to make Obama look bad. Even if these gain some traction with the voters, it distracts them from the critical issues that should decide the election.

Obama and his cronies in the media will not cease to raise absurd issues, divorced from his atrocious record of the last three and a half years, and designed to pander to various special groups that he believes can ensure his re-election. Romney and his cohort need to avoid the trap of meeting Obama on the stage he has invented for the battle. Romney and supporters like Paul Ryan clearly have some good ideas for reversing the downward spiral instigated by Obama and his leftist minions. It is those ideas that Romney should be pressing on the American electorate. The voters are smart enough to separate bold solutions to critical problems from the silly smoke puffed out by the Obama men to divert attention away from his dismal record.
_________
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:
 as well as in The Land of the Free at:

Which is More Dangerous: Obama’s Head or Obama’s Heart?

Two of the more fascinating reads published recently are Mark Levin’s Ameritopia and Dennis Prager’s Still the Best Hope. Both provide penetrating analysis on why a century of progressivism has propelled the USA to the brink of a national catastrophe. And both offer a compelling vision of a return to bedrock conservatism as the only and obvious solution to the economic and cultural calamities that barely checked liberalism has bestowed upon the nation. Each author writes with great passion, as exemplified in the following typical excerpts:

Levin. America today is not strictly a constitutional republic because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, federal power. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. America is becoming, and in significant ways has become, a post-constitutional, democratic utopia of sorts. It exists behind a Potemkin-like image of constitutional republicanism. Its essential elements and unique features are being ingurgitated by an insatiable federal government that seeks to usurp and displace the civil society.

The Founders would be appalled at the nature of the federal government’s transmutation and the squandering of the American legacy. The federal government has become the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. Its size and reach are vast. Its interventions are illimitable.

Prager. This book delineates with scores of examples the toxic impact Left-wing thought and actions have had on civilization. From the far Left – with its virtually unparalleled mass murders and totalitarianism – to the democratic Left, nearly every area of life that the Left has influenced has been adversely affected. The culture has been debased, from the fine arts with their scatological exhibits and contempt for beauty and excellence, to the popular culture’s nearly omnipresent vulgarity. Education has been corrupted, with students learning less and propagandized more. Economies have been wrecked by the irresponsible accumulation of debt, almost entirely a result of government expansion and entitlement programs. Masculinity and femininity have been rendered archaic concepts. The will to fight evil has been almost eradicated in the Western world outside the United States. The moral character of great numbers of people has been negatively affected … [by] the effects of the welfare state on the character of citizens. And in the United States the Left has marshaled its influence in schools and universities, labor unions, news media, entertainment media, and the arts to undermine the bases of Americanism – liberty, small government, God-based ethics, and E Pluribus Unum.

The authors’ passionate arguments lead them to very similar conclusions. However, there is a major difference in the approaches of the two works. Levin emphasizes the flawed political and economic theories that animate the progressive agenda. He explains how four fundamentally utopian fantasies (Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto) have provided the political playbook from which liberals over the last century have drawn their inspiration and hatched their strategies. Prager, on the other hand, attributes much of the motivation for liberal initiatives to a reaction to the innate feelings that progressives have about the issues that confront the nation. Rather than follow a specific blueprint for ‘hope and change,’ progressives are inclined, according to Prager, to follow their feelings about how things should be, why they are not and how to bring them about.

Of course, whether they heed their head or their heart, liberals advance their progressive agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence that their statism results in: high unemployment, decreased productivity, diminished freedom, cultural decay, inadequate defense capabilities, entrenched poverty, and the erosion of family, community and the pillars of civil society. Now the most important progressive operating in the US today is President Obama. Any self-respecting conservative – and one would hope, any objective American who is not hypnotized by leftist propaganda – is appalled at the economic and cultural carnage thrust upon the country by the Obama administration. His removal from office is mandatory if the country is to be rescued from the pit toward which he is driving us with reckless abandon. Therefore, to maximize the chances of that eventuality, it would be helpful to know exactly what motivates the President – his head or his heart?

Levin and Prager are in apparent agreement that the progressive portion of America comes in two flavors – intellectuals and, for lack of a better term, ordinary foot soldiers. The former consists of professors, lawyers, school administrators, Hollywood glitterati, liberal think tank leaders, librarians, journalists, most media types, certain philanthropists, many clergy and even some corporate moguls. These are people who are true believers in Levin’s four utopian (actually dystopian) fantasies; people who are convinced that America’s founding was based on flawed principles, and that the country must be remodeled according to a more progressive image. The insidious nature of their venture is that they pursue their revolutionary goals using the language and tools of the Founding (the Constitution, the invocation of freedom, appeals to rights), but at every turn, they subvert founding principles to serve their revolutionary purpose. The danger they pose to the Republic springs from the transformational plans in their heads.

Progressives who lead with their heart, on the other hand, tend to be “ordinary” Americans – government employees, union laborers, school teachers and secretaries, cops and cab drivers, farmers, firemen and factory workers – who feel  that rich people have too much and more of their wealth should be spread around. They’ve never read Levin’s four utopian fantasies and rarely, if ever, think about the philosophical characteristics of progressivism or conservatism. Throughout their entire life, they have been subjected to a progressive programming (really a brainwashing) carried out by their teachers, public officials, union leaders, media sources, liberal clergy and even their parents. They are clueless as to the radical alteration that American society has already undergone. What they do know is: they are uncomfortable with perceived inequities in American society; the government has had success in the past at alleviating the discrepancies; but much more needs to be done in that vein. They have been told, and they believe that America’s economic system, i.e., free market capitalism, while it offers the opportunity for a few to amass great wealth, keeps most citizens – like themselves – in a perpetual state of stress trying to meet monthly bills, perform satisfactorily on the job, provide adequate sustenance for one’s family and find some time to enjoy life.

Moreover, such thinking infects the substantial portion of the population that does not consider itself progressive. As Prager relates, the pervasive liberal brainwashing to which all of America is subject explains how, despite the fact that only 20% of the people self-identify as liberal – whereas 40% self-identify as conservative, and another 40% as moderate – a hardcore, unabashed liberal like Barack Obama could be elected President.

Obama is clearly from the intellectual class, not a foot soldier. So the answer to the question posed in the title is presumably that his head is more dangerous than his heart. Ah, but here is a point that is mentioned, but not emphasized in both books. Namely, the heart of an intellectual progressive is every bit as devoted to the progressive cause as is his head. Progressives are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their philosophy and the justice of their cause. Therefore, the legitimacy and necessity of the remake of society that they seek to engineer – and at which they have been remarkably successful – is so deeply ingrained in the fiber of their being that it is inevitable that their feelings about the cause are as strong, if not stronger, than they are among the foot soldiers. In principle, one can argue with and try to persuade a progressive of the error of his philosophy if his motivation is solely intellectual. But if the impetus is internalized and abetted by powerful feelings, then – as anyone who has tried knows – arguing with a progressive is a futile exercise.

So a final word to conservatives. When criticizing Obama, it is pointless to attack his feelings, preferences or motivations. The feelings are ingrained and will not change. Moreover, attacks on his personality or character are likely to be a turn off for “moderate” or undecided voters. Instead, it is Obama’s progressive philosophy that should be squarely in the cross hairs. At this point, at least half the voting public recognizes progressive policies for the disaster they represent. Conservatives only need to convince a few more undecided voters of the danger posed by Obama’s head – and his heart – should he gain a second term. By attacking progressive principles, and by providing beneficial conservative alternatives, Mitt and the GOP should be able to chase Obama from the White House without breaking a sweat.
____
This article — without the quotes from Levin and Prager — appeared in The American Thinker at:
 and in The Land of the Free at: