Taking Issue with View on Liberals vs. Conservatives

Catherine Caldwell-Harris’ article “How a Liberal Learned to Respect Conservative Thinking (and Accept the Fact That, Yes, the Right Is Happier Than the Left)” (Fall 2013) did nothing to diminish the sense that liberals’ view of conservatives portrays us as anthropological oddities and curiosities like cargo cults. Also, by the way, conservative values do not include not caring about global warming, the exploitation and vilification of immigrants, holding men and women to different standards of sexual behavior, and dismissing those living in poverty. Her offhand inclusion of that statement as fact is insulting and incorrect. Conservative values include a belief in the founding principles of our republic, faith that the Constitution rightly limits the power of federal government, and that a free market is the foundation for prosperity. You can argue that the flip side of a belief in self-determination and self-reliance creates unfair outcomes for some, but any reasonable examination of societies where the governing class and bureaucrats control the means of production to theoretically ensure equal outcomes, as opposed to equal opportunity, doesn’t build much of a case for individual growth. But to offhandedly dismiss conservatives as uncaring and scientifically challenged just continues the divide.

Michael H. Bartlett (CGS’72, CAS’75)
Davie, Fla.

I enjoyed reading Catherine Caldwell-Harris’ article. I strongly disagree, however, with her understanding of what American conservatives truly believe. She defined American conservatives as group-thinkers who value tradition and conformity over individuality and self-expression. On the contrary, I think she has confused the right with the left. Conservatives take great pride in individuality, which goes hand-in-hand with free market and small government thinking, and challenging the collective. Hence the historical animosity between American conservatives and communist and socialist societies. The right is also happier than the left because conservatives tend to be more laid-back and tolerant of other people’s individuality and differing opinions. In contrast to conservatives, liberals are the ones who often get bent out of shape if a core liberal value is challenged. Liberals are the ones who believe that the social good should trump the individual and that liberal views of social justice are more important than individual liberty. I think Caldwell-Harris needs to rethink her understanding of American conservatism and liberalism.

Al Converse (SMG’65)
San Diego, Calif.

I’m moved to write to you because of a feeling of disappointment.

I know that Bostonia is a liberal magazine, but when I read the title of Catherine Caldwell-Harris’ article, I felt a sense of glee. My niece is a liberal, and I felt that perhaps I could send a copy of this article to her so that we could find common ground.

But no. What was veiled as a thoughtful journey of a liberal who “learned to respect conservative thinking,” is instead a condescending, twisted dissertation about some vague theoretical nonsense based on superficial stereotyping that is typical of social psychology taught in universities today.

Whether people say, “I love you,” or believe that teaching their children to work at after-school jobs is good for them is a cultural issue rather than an example of political or social liberalism or conservatism. Such confusion of the disciplines immediately made me realize your article was a disguised attack.

The years the author spent holding conservative values in contempt say a lot about her own biases and state of misinformation. She intimates that conservatives “don’t care about global warming.” I find that superficial. The global warming debate is very scientific and detailed. What one believes about the science is based on how well-read you are on the topic. Caring is not what the debate is about; but too many times I have witnessed liberals using emotionalism to muddy the waters in debates. Do conservatives “exploit and vilify immigrants”? That may be her interpretation of a conservative’s belief in the rule of law and in keeping Americans safe at our borders. Again an emotional response to an intellectual debate.

I found her words to be packed with emotion and irrational ideas. Like this one: “Do conservatives dismiss those living in poverty?” I think she watched the movie A Christmas Carol one too many times. All conservatives are not Scrooges, but government waste is out of control and the number of people on welfare and the amount of money that is obtained by fraud and the misuse of the welfare system is well-known. A conservative’s concerns about this waste and fraud is not a dismissal of the poor. So what is she talking about?

I was a liberal once, and even though I never had purple hair, I rebelled against authority. I was against patriarchy and racism, and I was critical of my country in Vietnam. I wore no bra and supported myself after divorce. I learned many valuable lessons since then. I learned that even though my parents took conservatism a bit too far, their core values were right. I learned that even liberals can rule in a way that curtails individual expression, e.g., the wave of political correctness fostered by liberal media and bias. Enforcing overarching authority is what’s going on in our administration today. Our president is ruling by executive privilege instead of respecting and using the democratic process, but I don’t hear the liberal press or liberal political leaders standing up for the American people against the dictates of a few. And conservatives are not the hoarders the author implies that we are. We believe in giving to worthy causes and in teaching people to fish rather than giving away resources to those who will milk the system and never learn to fend for themselves. How did she feel watching the IRS employees enjoying expensive parties on taxpayer dollars? I was disgusted and felt used. When will liberals realize that government has grown too big, powerful, and greedy?

Are conservatives happier than liberals? Well, in the article she says that liberals are “less socially astute and less attuned to the needs of others…” I think that again belies prejudice and simplistic thinking. I find many liberals may just suffer from sloppy thinking and use abstraction as an excuse to inflame emotions as a weapon in an intellectual debate. Liberals should be very happy today because their ideas are being forced on all of us with no regard for fairness or the impact on our form of government, the economy, or our standing in the world.

Which system is better? I think the founders of our country and our Constitution had it right. They were visionaries. No other country in the world has a better system. We started out as revolutionaries and perhaps the truth lies in the idea of adaptation and evolution. We have to adapt to the times and maybe the time is now for a new revolution, one that reinforces conservative values and exposes liberalism for what it is: guilt-ridden idealistic utopianism with the Robin Hood approach to redistribution of wealth, which has destroyed our economy. Communist countries have been there, done that. I’ll take America, thank you.

Julianne Weinmann (SED’73)
Great Meadows, N.J.

While I’m always happy to encourage honest communication, I must take issue with some comments by Catherine Caldwell-Harris.

I’m proud to be socially and politically progressive, as are many of my friends and associates, and surprise, we are socially astute, agreeable, and conscientious, have cohesive families, and are gracious hosts. But unless a work contract prohibits it, I fail to see how the color of anyone’s hair could possibly be relevant, beyond a fashion statement. Do men get fired for wearing toupees (trés gauche)? Do women get dismissed for bleaching their hair platinum blonde? I wouldn’t dye my own hair purple, but I will absolutely support your right to do so.

Caldwell-Harris’ assertions are ludicrous. I could just as easily claim that conservatives are more likely to get breast augmentation and be condescending to store clerks. Oh wait, are those things true?

I don’t know what happened to send Caldwell-Harris scurrying for cover, but to tout “purity” and “prioritizing in-group” members? Has she studied World War II history? And has she noticed how prioritizing of in-groups has stalemated our Congress? America is diverse and messy by design. That’s called a democracy, and it’s one reason why the immigration rate from China to the United States far exceeds the reverse trend.

Finally, to the crux of Caldwell-Harris’ thesis: some people are happy, some are not, and there is no monopoly on misery in either camp. Even among the wealthiest Americans of both parties (who by all rights should be happy, as they are saving so much in taxes), plenty are unhappy. I personally feel sorry for the low-income Republicans who consistently vote against their own self-interest, but I suppose happiness is subjective.

I suppose one could be happier if she truly believes that climate change, factory farming, and starvation in developing countries are “far removed from the ordinary American’s day-to-day existence.” It is precisely this attitude that is responsible for the dire effects we’re now feeling from climate change—or don’t they show typhoons, floods, and melting ice caps on Fox News? Factory farming is incredibly important to our daily lives if we shop at a grocery store, but maybe Caldwell-Harris doesn’t worry about epigenetics and aggressive illnesses, hormones, and GMOs.

Incidentally, I’ve never known Alternet.org to vilify conservatives. The verb implies “slanderous and abusive statements,” and while the website definitely has a point of view, it takes pains to present accurate facts about a broad spectrum of troublesome issues, not just political. I wish I could say the same for Fox.

Abigail Lewis (CAS’69)
West Hills, Calif.

Mixed Feelings on Silber

I, too, write to thank you for your recent profile of the late John Silber (“BU President Emeritus John R. Silber Dies at 86,” Winter-Spring 2013), which made for fascinating reading. My feelings about him are mixed, which was reflected in the tone of the many letters you received. On one hand, he was a brilliant mind, true scholar, and visionary leader, who—through force of sheer will—dragged a mid-level, backwater university into the nation’s top 50. Thanks to his drive, the value of my diplomas is greater than when I graduated.

Given this, you’d think I’d view the man with unvarnished admiration, but this is not the case. His disdain for the students, his ruthless treatment of many members of the faculty, and the general lack of personal skills have left many potential donors still smarting from his remarks decades later. The fact is that I’ve yet to write a substantial check to Boston University, nor is BU included in my estate arrangements. When will I be ready to donate and put the Silber years behind me? I’ve absolutely no idea. Give me another 30 years, and then, maybe.

Jane A. Berryman (CAS’84, COM’84)
Philadelphia, Pa.

Illustration Error

I read Bostonia every issue, although it is my wife who has the BU affiliation.

I’m sorry to report a small error in the article “Sugar Fix” (Summer 2013), both a heartwarming and heart-wrenching tale.

In the anatomical diagram at the bottom of page 34, the labels “liver” and “stomach” are transposed.

John W. Peterson
Marblehead, Mass.

Editor’s note: We regret the error and have corrected the illustration online.