Taves: Let us begin with the claim that universities are deadly to serious intellectual work. The university ethos fosters mediocrity, boredom and gutlessness. It has become a haven for conformist intellectuals who value patronage and status over intellectual quality and challenge. “Radical” academics are no exception; they too have bought into hyperspecialization, empiricism, professionalization, abstract theory, and have become marginal, predictable and politically irrelevant. If such is the case, what are the implications? Siegel: There is certainly a sense of pervasive (...) malaise on campus. Everyone seems to agree that there is an institutional and intellectual crisis of the disciplines. (shrink)

I spent last year teaching in Paris and when I came home for visits, Emil and I would play the analogy game between Western European and American political tendencies. Besides the obvious matches between Reagan, Thatcher and Chirac, we talked of the similarities between George Will and Ian Gilmore, the intellectual spokesman for the Tory Wets, both of whom drew on the same stock of quotes from Bolingbroke, Hume and Burke. But what of the American neo-liberals? Who were their counterparts? (...) Despite some obvious similarities between the British Social Democrats and some of the French high-tech socialists, it was difficult to compare the neo-liberals to any other European formation. (shrink)

Until the mid 1970s, pragmatism reigned as the “almost… official philosophy of America.” European critics charged that James’ and Dewey's pragmatism was less a philosophy than a “method of doing without one.” But pragmatism's loose and democratic emphasis on problem-solving suited the unbounded American personality with its optimistic faith in persistent progress. Dewey's pragmatism was at once so democratic and informal in its emphasis on shared methods of rational inquiry that Bertrand Russell once accused him of “being unable to distinguish (...) between the work of a scientist and that of a bricklayer.” Pragmatism was so central to America's sense of itself, noted a widely-read 1950 Amherst College pamphlet on “Pragmatism and American Culture,” that to question its merits was to place “American civilization itself on trial.”. (shrink)

Le Monde's financial analyst Paul Fabra captured the essence of the Western “Alliances'” difficulties in an article describing European reactions to Carter and Reagan economic policies. Under Carter he noted, the U.S. initially followed an expansionary policy of low interest rates and increased public spending driving the dollar downward. The cheaper dollar increased both American exports to Europe and European complaints about American competition. Reagan reversed course and the Europeans had a different, though equally intense set of grievances. “The fact (...) is,” concluded Fabra, “Europe is uncomfortable with a strong or weak dollar.” He might have said a strong or weak America. (shrink)

R. Emmett Tyrrell, the editor of the neo-conservative monthly The American Spectator, has been justly denounced as a “mean-spirited punk” by fellow writers from The Nation and The New Republic. Tyrrell, a knock-down version of H.L. Mencken, writing without the master's verve or wit, is indeed a pretentious and thoroughly unpleasant fellow whose book The Liberal Crack-Up is given over to a nuke-the-whales humor, i.e., an extended and generally senseless tirade against feminists, peaceniks, environmentalists, etc. It is all the more (...) disturbing, then, to see that in one lucid moment, the chapter on “Whatever Happened to Liberalism,” Tyrrell makes some worthwhile points. (shrink)