Today at UCLA, there will a post-election event that promises to feature a “range of perspectives.” Prof. Bainbridge, who teaches law at UCLA, observes that the range of perspectives covers the gamut from A to B. Excerpt:
Who on this panel will speak to–let alone for–students who have “earnest excitement about our new President-elect”? Nobody is the answer.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, this is happening at universities all over the country. What the people putting these programs together don’t seem to get is that it is not every student or faculty member shares their world view. As such, while they worry a lot about people being alienated, they are blind to the sense of alienation felt by students or faculty who don’t share their PC orthodoxy. Of course, they also don’t seem to get that the election result is, in some small–but not, I think insignificant–part, a reaction to the pervasive left-liberal hegemony on college campuses.
Emphasis mine. Listen, academy, Jonathan Haidt and his Heterodox Academy colleagues keep trying to tell y’all that you are digging your own grave with this stuff, but you won’t listen. This UCLA event is precisely the kind of sham diversity that leaves liberals blind to the world around them. You can see it clearly when it’s Liberty University chancellor Jerry Falwell compelling students there to listen to right-wing hacks at chapel. But it’s gospel when it comes from ideologues who tell you what you want to hear.
David Dayen, a liberal writing in The New Republic, engages in some admirable soul-searching. Excerpts:
No, this was a rage election: a rage built up over many years, among people who’d decided they were disrespected, abandoned, and voiceless.
Liberals weren’t completely caught unawares. We recognized the rage—how could we not? We saw it in our social-media feeds all year. We read (and wrote) endless articles featuring reporters edging out to Red America, armed with a notebook and a pretense of empathy, to see what Trumpism was all about, why the fever seemed to be running so high among these people.
And what did that produce? The daily filling of a basket of deplorables. I sometimes refer to it as “point-and-laugh” liberalism. Our relentless mockery of Trump and his followers helped fuel the backlash and make it spread.
The rage in the country isn’t limited to the stereotypical rural white American of the liberal imagination. We know that now. Trump didn’t just win in small towns, though he galvanized communities there. He surged in the aspirational exurbs where conservatives rule culturally. He also surged in Rust Belt communities that voted for Barack Obama twice. Places like Scranton, Pennsylvania; Youngstown, Ohio; Janesville, Wisconsin; Orange County, Florida—places that have trended Democratic in some cases for decades—moved away from the Democratic candidate. Hillary Clinton either lost or battled to a draw in those regions, which had made up margins of victories for past Democratic presidents. Even union households voted in high numbers for Trump.
Liberal Democrats knowingly snickered at Trump’s lack of campaign offices or ground game. Built reams of evidence out of polls. Never missed the stray comment from the craziest conservative or Trump surrogate in the country, and offered it up for mockery. We turned “economic anxiety” into a meme that implicitly belittled anyone who didn’t find their life wonderful.
Read the whole thing. I hope to read something from the left as good at ripping apart the kind of liberalism that led to Trump as was Tucker Carlson’s epic piece in January eviscerating the kind of conservatism that led to Trump.