Brainwashed

by Ben Shapiro

  HOW THE REPUBLICANS RUINED AMERICA

  The first week of lecture in my “National Institutions: Congress” course, Professor Barbara Sinclair dragged out the liberal playbook. Republicans were “extreme,” she told the class, while Democrats were “more diverse.” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was “extremely conservative,” while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was “answerable to her constituents,” and “couldn’t be that liberal.”54 This kind of propaganda flows from professorial podiums every day. So it should be no surprise when professors claim that Republicans are ruining our country. After all, they’re the “extremists,” while Democrats are more tolerant and “diverse.”

  UCLA Professor Kenneth Schultz says, “Republicans have not historically been the party of human rights.”55 Oh. So all that stuff about Lincoln and the slaves was a big lie?

  Professor Lynn Vavreck of UCLA taught my “Introduction to American Politics” class during Winter 2002. She had a field day with George H.W. Bush’s 1988 “Revolving Door Ad.” The ad, run by the Bush campaign against Michael Dukakis, highlighted Dukakis’s softness on crime. Vavreck first told the class that the ad revived memories of the independently-produced “Wille Horton Ad,” which revolved around Willie Horton, a violent felon given furlough under Dukakis’s Massachusetts administration. With furlough in hand, Horton went on to rape a woman in Maryland and stab her boyfriend. After connecting the two ads, Vavreck detailed all of the inaccuracies in the “Revolving Door Ad” with verve and vigor. About half an hour later, she showed her “favorite” campaign ad, a Michael Dukakis ad depicting a sweaty, fat Republican talking about politics.56 For some strange reason, she did not critique the ad or discuss its inaccuracies.

  An assigned text in that political science class states: “From 1929 until 1933, the Republican party presided over the worst depression in American history.”57 Funny how that works. According to the text, the Great Depression only lasted for four years. In reality, the Great Depression lasted another eight years after that, for two Democratic administrations under FDR. And as historian Jim Powell has argued, Roosevelt’s economic policies actually made matters worse, prolonging and deepening the Depression.58

  Professors hate the very notion of missile defense as proposed by those war-mongering Republicans. Some 74 percent strongly oppose a national missile defense system, as opposed to 70 percent of the general public who favor it.59 Albert Carnesale, the chancellor of UCLA, says that “a missile defense shield is not the answer to the threat of weapons of mass destruction.”60 More than thirty professors and members of the Union of Concerned Scientists urged the Bush administration to forego national missile defense at least for the present.61

  Don’t even ask about school vouchers. Despite their stunning success wherever they have been tried, professors would rather hang themselves with their shoelaces than condone vouchers. About 67 percent of professors oppose the use of school vouchers.62 Professor Paul Peterson of Harvard University wrote a book lauding school vouchers, and immediately came under attack from his fellow intellectuals. Professor Henry M. Levin of Stanford University claimed that Peterson was biased: “There’s no question that he’s a passionate advocate for vouchers . . . And that certainly dominates his perspective on these evaluations.”63 Bruce Fuller, a researcher from UC Berkeley insulted Peterson’s research technique: “Even when he has limited data, he’s always squeezing out whatever data he can to arrive at a predetermined answer.”64 This is typical. If you don’t follow the party line, you get slammed.

  Professors never forget the dastardly antics of the rotten Republicans and the manic media during the Clinton impeachment debacle. They remember “Kenneth Starr’s sprawling $40 million, five-year investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton”65 and “the news media’s obsessive coverage of the scandal.”66

  After all, professors were some of the biggest backers of Clinton during his scandals. Four hundred professors signed an ad urging the GOP-controlled Congress not to impeach Clinton, while at the same time insisting that they were “non-partisan.”67 Professor Sean Wilentz of Princeton testified on behalf of President Clinton: “If you believe [Clinton’s crimes] do rise to that level [of impeachment], you will vote for impeachment and take your risk at going down in history with the zealots and the fanatics.”68

  And then there are the extremists. Professors Bill Mullen and Kevin Borgeson of Stonehill College likened prominent conservative David Horowitz, a Jew, to radical Holocaust denier Bradley Smith. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a devout Christian who as Missouri governor asked his weekly prayer meetings to be non-denominational so as not to offend those of other faiths, was slurred as a member of a phantom “racist right.”69

  On a wide variety of issues, the professors hew to the party line, and that means the Right can do no right. It’s no coincidence, and it’s an educational travesty.

  OUT, DAMNED CONSERVATIVES!

  Republicans are not welcome on campus. Conservatives are not even allowed to speak at college graduations. The Center for the Study of Popular Culture researched the political views of graduation speakers over a ten-year period, covering thirty-two colleges, including all Ivy League schools. Speakers with liberal ideas outnumbered speakers with conservative ideas by a margin of 226-15. Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not invite a single conservative to speak; during the same period, they invited 173 liberals.70

  When UCLA invited First Lady Laura Bush to speak at the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies commencement, all hell broke loose. Even though it was clear from the first that Bush would not accept, students protested the invitation with all the strength in their leftist bodies. “We will not stand by and allow her presence to go uncontested,” vowed Estela Zarate, a doctoral student in education.71

  Meanwhile, leftists are welcomed with open arms. Al Franken, vitriolic liberal, had an academic fellowship at Harvard University during 2003. He was given fourteen assistants to help him research his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. This great work of scholarship includes chapters entitled “Ann Coulter: Nutcase,” and “I Bitch-Slap Bernie Goldberg.”72

  And that’s not all. Franken used official Harvard University letterhead to play pranks on prominent conservatives. Franken sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking Ashcroft to share his experience with abstinence for “a book about abstinence programs in our public schools entitled, ‘Savin’ It!’” He told Ashcroft that the story would be used to show that the Bush Administration is “setting the right example for America’s youth.” He informed Ashcroft that he had “received wonderful testimonies from HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, William J. Bennett, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Senator Rick Santorum, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.” The entire letter was bogus. In fact, Franken wanted material for his book. As columnist Michelle Malkin puts it, “Ridiculing chaste young people and their abstinent role models as oddballs and prudes may score Franken a few points at Hollywood and Harvard cocktail parties.”73

  DONKEY U.

  Tax cuts are evil. Welfare reform is evil. Social Security privatization is evil. Lack of a “living wage” is evil. Private ownership of health care is evil. Missile defense is evil. School vouchers are evil. The entire history of the Republican party is evil. Well, then, what are all the poor students to do?

  Vote Democrat.

  3

  WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

  There are the Democrats, and then there are the Reds.

  If the twentieth century taught us one lesson, it is that socialism fails wherever it is tried. It failed in the Soviet Union. It failed in China. It failed in Tanzania, North Korea, and Cuba. And it hasn’t exactly made Sweden, France, or Finland world powers. The last century is hard evidence that without a capitalist economy, a country will find itself in dire straits.

  Professors still haven’t learned that lesson.

  Classes on Marxism exist at ma
jor universities across the country, including Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, Bucknell University, Carnegie-Mellon University, Duke University, Emory University, New York University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, University of Chicago, Amherst College, Carleton College, Oberlin College, Reed College, Vassar College, Wellesley College, University of Arizona, University of Colorado, University of Florida, University of Iowa, University of Kentucky, University of Massachusetts, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill), Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of Texas, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, and virtually the entire University of California system.1

  Amherst College offers “Taking Marx Seriously.” The University of California at Santa Barbara offers “Black Marxism.” Rutgers University offers “Marxist Literary Theory.” University of California at Riverside offers a Marxist Studies minor.2

  Professor Richard Sklar of UCLA described socialism as a “great idea”3 and communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung as a “great leader.”4 Implementation of socialism has resulted in more deaths than all the international wars of the twentieth century combined. Is socialism really a “great idea”? Mao caused the deaths of millions of his own people. Does that constitute great leadership?

  Professor Dirk Struik, mathematician at MIT, stated that “From my student days on, I found the study of Marx’ way of thinking has been helpful.”5 Professor Cornel West’s biographical sketch, quoted on numerous Web sites, describes his philosophy as one that “seeks to revive the best of liberalism, populism and democratic socialism.”6 Professor A. Belden Fields of the University of Illinois leads the socialist group on campus in monthly discussions.7

  When Tony Kushner, poisonously socialist playwright, spoke at Cornell University, he wittily remarked, “Capitalism sucks, we all know it.”8 Kushner, according to the Cornell Chronicle, “discussed the evils of capitalism and individualism” and “as an alternative, he offered socialism, which he said embodies beneficial cooperation rather than competition.”9 Great alternative. At least, that’s what the professors thought.

  Ron Wilson, a professor of theater and film, lauded Kushner: “Kushner’s combination of whimsy with intellectualism made for an interesting evening.” According to the article, Professor Joyce Morgenroth, associate professor of dance, “said she liked the way Kushner weaved together many different themes but kept touching ground. ‘He kept bringing the audience back to earth.’”10

  I recall sitting in my Geography 5 class early during my freshman year at UCLA. Professor Joshua Muldavin taught the course. Along with learning that Western nations destroy the earth’s peoples and ecosystems, we also learned about his virulent anti-capitalism; the only question was whether he was a full-fledged communist. He answered that, and fast. Relating the story of a student who had asked about his communist leanings, the professor addressed the class, “So he asked me if I was a communist. I said, ‘If being a communist means that I care about all people, that I want to reduce inequality and help the poor, then yes, I’m a communist.’” I sat there, stunned. The rest of the class laughed and applauded.

  The far left of the university faculty are as red as overripe tomatoes. And they’re bombarding students every day.

  CAPITALISM: THE FLAWED SYSTEM

  The Leon Trotsky wing of the university hates capitalism with a vengeance. According to this faction, capitalism does nothing good; it only broadens the gap between rich and poor and results in the exploitation of people for the sake of money. Any economic growth is not due to a free-market economy, but to some other factor.

  Professor Sklar told our class that “intellectuals aren’t as anti-capitalist as they were twenty-five or thirty years ago.”11 I wasn’t around that long ago, but if professors now are less anti-capitalist than they were then, I can’t imagine how bad it was then.

  An assigned article for UCLA’s Geography 5 course in Winter 2001 stated, “‘market-oriented’ systems of production and distribution do not have a good track record in feeding people, nor in tackling the underlying structures of poverty which consign over one quarter of the world’s population to hunger.”12 That’s a surprise. Last time I checked, non-“market-oriented” systems had starved twenty million people in the USSR, thirty million people in China, and millions more throughout the world. Guess I must have missed the part in America’s history where its market-oriented system killed millions of citizens.

  The course syllabus for UCLA class Geography 4, entitled “Globalization: Regional Development and the World Economy,” reads, “At the end of the course students should be able to understand the basic features of the world economy, how it developed historically and how these processes create inequality and poverty.”13 It is implicitly assumed that capitalism causes inequality and poverty. Excuse me? Every country that takes part in the world market has experienced economic growth. If the gap between rich countries and poor countries widens, that does not mean that the poor aren’t also getting richer; it’s a question of comparison. Let’s say, for example, that I make $100,000 per year as an executive, and you make $30,000 per year as a teacher. At Christmas, I get a raise of $5,000, and you get a raise of $1,000. Our income gap just widened by $4,000, but you are still making more money than you used to. Inequality by itself does not imply creation of poverty.

  Professor Robert M. Solow of MIT, a Nobel laureate, echoed complaints about capitalism causing “inequality”: “laissez-faire capitalism tends to generate vast inequalities of income and even vaster inequalities of wealth.”14 Fellow MIT Professor Kenneth Arrow, another Nobel laureate, agreed: “capitalism itself doesn’t work very well when it’s not regulated and when there aren’t checks and balances on it.”15

  Professor Thomas Sugrue of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia sees capitalism as the cause of black underdevelopment. Capitalism causes inequality, he says. (Haven’t we heard this before?) And not only does capitalism cause inequality, “African Americans have disproportionately borne the income of that inequality.”16 Wrong. Sorry, professor, you don’t win the free car. Want to try for a washing machine? Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute and Robert Margo of Vanderbilt University calculated that over the last century “the average black income has increased much faster than average white income.”17

  The most pro-capitalism philosopher in recent history, Ayn Rand, is lambasted by professors. Professor John Russon of Penn State said, “There’s nothing particularly original or interesting in her ideas and she certainly doesn’t make it onto the list of philosophers to study.”18 Associate Professor Michael F. Szalay of UC Irvine concurs: “her stuff, philosophically and politically, is kind of crackpot stuff . . . Objectivism is not taken seriously by philosophers anywhere.”19 As a religious person, I do not agree with much of Ayn Rand’s profoundly negative view of religion. Still, to minimize her contribution to philosophy is ridiculous. Her espousal of capitalism is incredibly important, today more than ever before. With taxes rising and government intervening in all sectors of life, her libertarian philosophy is required at least to balance the debate.

  Avowed Marxist and tenured professor at the University of Texas, David Michael Smith, called capitalism “a system based on exploitation and oppression and domination and racism and war—and lots of other things.”20 Right. And socialism is a system based on pretty butterflies and flowers and tolerance of all living creatures.

  “PROFIT” IS A DIRTY WORD

  Professors make “profit” into a curse word. If something is bad, it must be because people are doing it purely for profit. Providing a service is only worthy if it is done altruistically. Professors ignore the fact that man is a reward-driven being and that profit is the surest incentive for hard work.

  Perhaps the best example is professors’ ha
tred for the tobacco industry. Professors rip tobacco companies because they operate based on profit motive. Professor Fletcher Baldwin of the University of Florida is happy that “My state is stripping the profit of the tobacco industry in the United States.”21 Will that be such a great thing when thousands of people lose their jobs?

  “Tobacco terrorists hate our freedom . . . They hate our freedom from nicotine addiction and premature death,” says Professor John Creed of the University of Alaska. “Big Tobacco makes big profits from this completely preventable epidemic that kills 400,000 Americans annually.”22 Oh, come on. Tobacco terrorists? Are they flying planes loaded with cigarettes into buildings? All tobacco companies do is provide a product to an eager market. Is that such a crime?

  It is according to David Kessler, dean of Yale Medical School: “It is too easy to be swayed by the argument that tobacco is a legal product and should be treated like any other. A product that kills people—when used as intended—is different. No one should be allowed to make a profit from that.”23 Wait . . . aren’t people voluntarily buying tobacco products? I haven’t seen any Philip Morris employees breaking into people’s houses and forcing innocent people to smoke cigarettes at gunpoint.

  Let’s not forget Burger King and McDonalds, those horrible proponents of heart disease. Professors hate them as well, for similar reasons.

  Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University and author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Manipulates What We Eat to the Detriment of Our Health, sees Americans as stupid baboons forced into being fat by advertisements. “It’s not fair,” Nestle whines. “People are confronted with food in every possible way to eat more. The function of the food industry is to get people to eat more, not less.”24 Naw, really? You mean food companies, like, want us to eat their food so they can make money? How awful!