Over the years, Dartmouth has developed a reputation for patently self-serving conservatism. Here we cherish our time-worn institutions, even though the behavior they often engender runs contrary to the basic tenants of social conservatism. The aged, predominantly white patriarchs of Dartmouth's past favor good cigars, fine wine and dinner parties over pot, cheap beer and public drunkenness. However, the patriarch and the fraternity brother are both enmeshed in the all-consuming web of conservatism, two peas in a misshapen pod. Not surprising, given that the basic theme of conservatism is "Let me do what I want, when I want, regardless of the consequences." So, for the brother, his beer; for the patriarch, his Cuban cigars. And for all adherents of conservatism, a healthy dose of the status quo.
America, like Dartmouth, is largely conservative. We want our laws and our institutions to safe-guard everything we have or might acquire. When I say "we," I mean the financially secure (excuse me for alluding to that new-born Bogeyman, "classism" -- as we all know, the rich in this country are hardly ones to take advantage of their unlimited wealth and resources). Thus, sentencing for cocaine possession depends on the type of cocaine (the businessman's drug or the addict's), and we clamor for mandatory sentencing laws to ensure that drug addicts are put away for as long as possible rather than assisted in their rehabilitation efforts.
We allow corporate tax loopholes to make a mockery of our taxation system and look the other way when businessmen dishonestly write off cars, meals and entertainment as "business expenses." Then we complain about our arduous financial burden and beg our politicians to institute a flat tax rate. And we write columns entitled "On the Importance of Money" (The Dartmouth, Feb. 12), which are intended, I suppose, as reminders that being rich, selfish and lazy is perfectly acceptable.
Damn the articles, damn the campus politics, damn all those who portray this school as a playpen for private-school brats with too much beer and spending cash for their own good. There are level-headed Democrats at Dartmouth. We are here, we exist, and no, we don't like Uncommon Threads either. And yes, we find the Jacko extremely funny, and, for the most part, fairly responsible in its use of satire. That's right, there are liberals at Dartmouth who don't march or deface public property or paper the campus with written accusations about activities which do go on (let us be honest) but of which we have no direct proof.
But how, you ask, can I endorse liberalism, being white, male, straight and upper-middle class? Easy.
To begin with, I know I have it good. I'm lucky, damn lucky, and no, my parents didn't "make their own luck." They did what almost any person, black or white, rich or poor, would do if given the opportunity. They tried their hardest, set goals and created for themselves and their children a loving environment in which hard work and personal integrity were valued.
And so I was born into a world where doors opened for me at every turn, yet I know too many men and women who have never even seen the doors I've opened, let alone passed through them. So if giving someone else the chance to live the life I've led means a few thousand dollars more in taxes, I'll pay those taxes; if it means I go to Penn instead of Princeton, I'll make that "sacrifice." If it means some of my tax money goes towards welfare programs for the poor instead of institutionalized welfare for corporate America, I'll applaud that diversion of funds, and if it means I have to feel guilty that we live in a world which discriminates, which closes doors that should remain open, then I can deal with guilt. I can live with it, because there's so much else out there I couldn't live with, which someone else is living with right now.
Liberalism is the logical outgrowth of human nature. As a species, we are unmatched in terms of cruelty and irrational behavior. We screw up, and we screw up often. Nothing is as it should be, for I have every confidence that in 100 years they'll look back at us and wonder how we possibly remembered to put our pants on one leg at a time. Liberalism holds that the more you look at something, the more you realize that the thing you're looking at stinks. Indeed, the residue of human weakness taints every system, every institution, and thus everything can be improved upon.
It is for this reason, I believe, that most academics are liberals. It's not because college hiring committees discriminate; it's because when you've looked at poverty for 30 years from every possible angle you're unlikely to emerge from your studies with the observation "Well, my friends, you were right: poor people are lazy." More likely, you'll tug at your collar uncomfortably and say "Well, my friends, I'm afraid I've found yet another group we've been screwing over for the past 1,000 years."
Finally, liberalism makes sense because it takes into account the realities of human experience. When you've been homeless for even a month, your feelings about homelessness change forever. When you've faced abuse at the hands of police, you feel a bond with inner-city residents for whom the police are a constant menace. When you find out your sister is a lesbian, you suddenly view the subject of gay rights differently. In short, when you discover the world is gray, you wonder how you ever could have thought it was black and white.
So for all the scrutiny they've afforded campus liberals, Dartmouth conservatives have missed the boat entirely. Instead of acknowledging the old-fashioned liberals at Dartmouth, they've chosen to focus on those whose outrageous exploits are a constant source of awe and amusement to Democrats and Republicans alike.
Perhaps we should direct our criticism towards the political party which welcomes both religious zealots and cash-crazed businessmen, uneducated white males toting weapons and elitist Ivy-Leaguers who are afraid of uneducated white males toting weapons. Perhaps we should question a party which has, as its basic tenants, insensitivity and ignorance. For the card-carrying Republican, "Don't know, don't care" is the order of the day.
Liberals patrol the divide between human and animal, embracing the value of compassion even when it seems, as now, quite unfashionable.
