The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 14, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 6, 1980 Page: 2 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
A liberal requiem
Tuesday night was a depressing evening for American
liberals and progressives. Not only did Ronald Reagan win—
and win big—but also Senators George McGovern,, Frank
Church, John Culver and Birch Bayh lost. Slain by the "Moral
Majority." They were good senators with good ideas, but their
solutions to America's problems are no longer in fashion. "So it
goes," to quote Kurt Vonnegut.
Many analysts are already calling the overwhelming
Republican victory the long-awaited "emerging Rebublican
majority," a party realignment matching that of the New Deal
in 1932. That, in my view, is probably the case (although for
those of you keeping score, my predictions have been
notoriously poor all year). I would characterize it, however, as
a new party adjustment, rather than a realignment, because this
election contained no new polarizing issues that have cut across
party lines. The basic issue is the same as that of 1932—the
government's role in the economy—but the electorate has
shifted towards the Repiftriican's answer.
Political scientists will have a field day with the event. It
should keep most of them busy for the next ten years. As for the
rest of us: I don't predict disaster. I'm not catching the next
plane to Canada. I'll wait—and see (but I'll keep $250 in my
bank account just in case).
Rice, characteristically, simply followed along.
Traditionally Republican in presidential years, precinct 361
voted Republican in most races. Of the eight Democrats who
won here (Andrews, Temple, Nugent, Colbert, Driscoll,
Heard, Smith, and Bass), only one (Colbert) is not
conservative. Which only proves what most of us knew already:
Rice students, despite what they say about themselves (46
percent said they were "moderate" in the Thresher/KTRU
poll), are conservative—even for this conservative state.
What does this conservative movement in Texas and in the
nation mean? Politically, it means voters feel the liberal
solutions to problems are no longer valid. Sociologically, it
means the baby boom generation has grown up. They
experimented with society in the sixties, and with themselves in
the "me-decade" of the seventies, but want to settle down to a
quiet, conservative, staid life in the eighties.
Liberalism is dead. The liberal doctrine of the past fifty years
no longer works. That doctrine gave us new hope in the thirties
and a new equality, in sixties. It spoke for the poor, the needy,
and the dowri-trodden in an era of affluence. That era of
affluence^jone. I don't think even Ronald Reagan and the
Republican-miracle can bring it back. But neither can the few
who still dare to call themselves liberal.
The message of liberals and progressives will live on,
however, even in those who wave the banner of conservatism. If
history is a judge, it will return. But before it can, liberals must
find new answers to the problems that concern the poor and the
minorities. They must find a new melody for the old themes of
Lincoln. Roosevelt, and Kennedy. That is the challenge to the
modern American liberal. But a new commitment to the goals of
the old liberalism is needed. Without that commitment, a new
liberal resurgence could take a long time. For the oppressed
peoples of America, it could be a long, cold wait.
—Richard Dees
ey R CrUKLmr
ITS EAnteitS STEUcAE
fclRATELOfr; FII0AU1 SLANTS OFF ...
C
v n _ y ■ <
f
V
y
'JO
£T
" r TAKE IT THAT YOU
\WiE New W THIS, HELMShMJ? .
Lyes SIR. SIR
(^ycu DRIVE LIKE A HoviSTfr
LETS Gave "THE asoMoiw
SPOKTIrtGrCHMCE TO DejTROV
US BY THEMSELVeS ,0K?
tiovis-re^t^"*5)
Hes SIR, \
J NEXT WEEK ElNSTtlisj's Grthsr
SPANNING THE HEPGES/by David Dow
A unique bumper sticker urges
whoever happens to see it to "Say
Something Good About
America." A rather poignant plea,
and not a bad idea. The only
danger is that in lauding the
deserving aspects of our system, we
will become indolent in
maintaining them. Praise is fine as
long as it does not supplant the
eternal vigilance necessary to
preserve liberty.
American egalitarianism is a
case in point. Beneath nearly every
virtue of our democratic system
lies an historical commitment to
egalitarianism. Scholars disagree
as to what this Jeffersonian ideal
originally implied. Writing in the
New York Review of Books,
Andrew Hacker attributes to
Jefferson the view held by Thomas
Hobbes and Adam Smith that all
men are born with essentially
similar mental and moral qualities.
A revisionist analysis of his
beliefs, however, contends that
Jefferson intended the phrase
"created equal" to encompass only
moral acuity, not mental prowess.
Hence, to borrow Hacker's
example, a plowman will decide a
moral case as well as a professor,
perhaps even better since "he has
not been led astray by Artificial
rules." '
One thing is clear: Jefferson did
not extend any notion of mental
equality to blacks, which suggests
that the revisionist interpretation
of his egalitarianism is more valid.
Moreover, Jefferson's relegation
of blacks to an inferior intellectual
status has important con-
temporary ramifications:
American policy designed to
protect this egalitarian ideal ought
not to depend on the tenuous
foundation of innate mental
equality. That is doctrinally
significant because even if no
specific races are mentally inferior,
there are undoubtedly disparities
4LM05TA
mm
SITTING,,,
MONTH
AFT6R
TGNIN6 TO
....J) MSN ANP
RELIGIOUS
80
in intelligence, and it is not
unreasonable to insist that one
factor (possibly unquantifiable) is
hereditary, meaning that some
Americans are "penalized" from
birth.
Yet political liberties are not to
be distributed differentially
according to such differences.
Neither, 1 would argue, should
economic liberties be alfocated in
accordance with intellectual
variations. But they are. A ditch
digger who performs hs job well
does not receive the same reward
as a doctor who performs his job
well. Both are guaranteed a speedy
trial by jury if accused of murder,
but only one can afford to hire a
Racehorse Haynes to defend him.
An unjust distribution of wealth
vitiates the very core of the
American ideal by ultimately
producing a skewed allocation
even of political freedoms.
Egalitarianism gets applied
imperfectly so that, to paraphrase
Orwell, some are more equal than
others.
Often entire minorities are
affected. Inventors of affirmative
action sought the solution to this
problem in education. Proceeding
on the allegedly Jeffersonian belief
in innate mental equality, the
policy makers hoped that equal
intellectual training would
mitigate the economic disparities,
or at least provide the mechanism
to ameliorate them.
That theory is escapist in its
conception and ludicrous in its
application. It is escapist because
affirmative action does not speak
to the problem of how to adhere to
our egalitarian ideals if equal
education fails to create a just
economic distribution, which,
given inherent mental differences,
it will inevitably fail to produce;
the policy is ludicrous because
even if education is a panacea,
preferential admissions treatment
should be offered only to those
individuals specifically deprived
of the opportunity to receive an
adequate education. Admittedly,
one can safely say that certain
minorities as a whole have been
subjected to damaging dis-
crimination, but it does not follow
from that obvious truth that every
single member of that minority
suffered and is therefore entitled to
special treatment. Holding
otherwise only evidences the
odious, potentially repressive
theory that certain races as a whole
are intellectually inferior.
American egalitarianism we
lavishly praise becomes a vapid,
even pernicious doctrine if it
means only that all of the original
members of society have equal
opportunities and the unavoidable
subsequent disparities, which,
mind you, augment with each
passing generation, are permissible
since they derive from a just
foundation. If it means anything,
egalitarianism means more than
that. Indeed, it requires not a social
levelling customarily associated
with Communism, but an
elevation of presently oppressed
segments of society; not a razing of
American prosperity and an
imposition of ascetic frugality, but
an extension of comforts and
luxuries to the presently destitute.
In theory, we can say a multitude
of "good things" about a nation
whose ethical foundaiton is an
egalitarian one. In practice, the
elegy is inappropriate if the nation
does not adopt policies which
realize the ideology.
THRESHER
RICHARD DEES
Editor
DAVID ROSS
Business Manager
Anita Gonzalez News Editor
John Van der Put Managing Editor
Carole Valentine Advertising Manager
Steve Bailey Sports Editor
John Heaner Fine Arts Editor
Laura Rohwer Photography Editor
Kelvin Thompson Back Page Editor
Nancy Edmonson Asst. Business Manager
Assistant Editors Bruce Davies, Ruth Hillhouse, David Keen. Jay Grob
Contributing Editors David Dow, Karen Strecker, David Butler
News Staff Allison Foil, Pam Pearson
Jeanne Cooper. Matt Dore, Ellen Spraul. Joan Hope, Michael Tinkler
Michael Trachtenberg, Sumit Nanda, Jay Grob, David Keen.
CeCe Clossman, Jonathan Buck
Fine Arts Staff Cris Castaneda, Geoff Spradley,
Scott B. Solis. Thorn Glidden, Andy Hathcock, Deborah Knaff, Edward Joseph James Burke,
Tom Birch. Barry Watkins, Steve Bailey. Jay Grob, Kay Abrahams, Norman Mailer,
Charles Rudolph, Gary Cole
Photography Staff Walter Underwood, Sharon Kile,
Naomi Bullock, Paul Williamson, Kevin Golden, Frank Worley. Mike Gladu,
Bruce Davies, Carol Johnson, Rosanna Dill, and Grungy'"
Sports Staff Donald Buckholt, Michele Gillespie
Greg Holloway, Dave Chilton, Duane Berry, Kay Abrahams.
Ken Klein, Margaret Bennett, Sandy Snyder.
Art 7? Harold Nelson, Randy Furlong
Production Staff Kathryn Mason. Mike Dishart.
Hank Petri, Jeanne Cooper, Pam Mason, Elif Selvili, Julie Robins.
Ellen Spraul, Pam Pearson. Ann Betley, Lisa Yce, Ron Stutes,
Matthew Wbb, Steve MacCall, David Miller, Jeff Zweig
Circulation Stall Vincent Fonesca, Donna Roth
The Rice Thresher, the official student newspaper of Rice University since 1916. is published on
Thursdays during the school year, except during examination periods and holidays, by the students of
Rice University. Editorial and business offices are located on the second floor of the Rice Memorial
Center, P.O. Box 1892. Houston. Texas 77001. Telephone (713) 527-4801 or 527-4802. Advertising
information available upon request. Mail subscriptions: $ 15.00 per year The opinions expressed herein
arc not necessarily those of anyone except the writer. Obviously
® 1980 The Rice Thresher All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, November 6, 1980, page 2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Dees, Richard. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 14, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 6, 1980, newspaper, November 6, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245454/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.