There is more to say about Lincoln, but this letter has gone longer than I intended. Not only do I admire Lincoln, I love the guy. To me, he was the true “philosophical statesman,” one who was truly good and truly wise. Standing in front of his critics, Lincoln is a colossus, and all the Lilliputian arrows hurled at him bounce harmlessly to the ground. I confess that I cannot put Ronald Reagan—not even George Washington—in the same category as Lincoln. He is simply the greatest practitioner of democratic statesmanship that America and the world have yet produced.
21
The Self-Esteem Hoax
Dear Chris,
I understand that the president of your college has proposed “self-esteem workshops” for women and minorities. The premise of this seems to be that racism and discrimination cause these groups to feel bad about themselves, and that this low self-image translates into women avoiding “hard” fields, such as engineering, and into blacks and Hispanics doing poorly in school. If only we raise the self-esteem of these groups, the reasoning goes, surely the women will en-roll in engineering courses in greater numbers and the blacks and Hispanics will produce higher test scores. Such reasoning is fallacious.
Is it important to feel good about yourself? I am not sure about this. Sometimes when I feel very good about myself, I am on my guard because I realize that I am about to do something incredibly stupid. Feeling good about myself does not make me smarter or better. Alas, these truths are lost on modern liberals.
One reason liberals support political correctness is that they believe stern social controls are needed to prevent insensitivity and bigotry because those things gravely injure the self-esteem of women and minorities. So, too, many liberals don’t like standardized tests because some people do better on those tests than others, and liberals worry that poorly performing students may suffer blows to their self-esteem. One school program, Outcomes Based Education, downplays grades and other measures of merit and instead focuses on such things as maintaining “emotional and social well-being” or developing “a positive personal self-concept.”
In addition, liberals frequently seek to modify the traditional curriculum in colleges and universities because they assume that reading Plato, Dante, and John Locke reinforces the self-esteem of whites while undermining the self-esteem of minorities. The general assumption here is that white students have big smiles on their faces because, you know, Homer wrote the Iliad. Liberals want the curriculum to emphasize the achievement of non-Western cultures and minority groups. In a sense, they are attempting to reassure minority students by saying, in effect, “Are you down in the dumps? Don’t worry, your ancestors invented the traffic light.”
Self-esteem is a very American concept and Americans, perhaps more than anyone else in the world, tend to believe that feeling good about yourself is an essential prerequisite to performing to the best of your ability. Self-esteem is also a democratic idea. In a hierarchical society, one’s self-image is determined by one’s designated role: as brahmin, as elder, as patriarch, as peasant, and so on. Aristocratic societies do not speak of self-esteem but of honor. In a democratic society, self-esteem is claimed as an entitlement. Unlike honor, it does not have to be earned. Self-esteem in the West is largely a product of the romantic movement, which exalts feelings over reason, the subjective over the objective. Self-esteem is based on the wisdom that Polonius imparts to Laertes: “To thine own self be true.”
But does a stronger self-esteem make students learn better? This seems dubious. Institutions such as the Jesuits and the U.S. Marines have for generations produced impressive intellectual and motivational results by undermining the self-esteem of recruits. I am the product of a Jesuit education, and one of my Jesuit teachers liked to say that “be yourself” is absolutely the worst counsel you can give some people. He’s right: This is not the kind of advice we want to give to Charles Manson or Hitler. The Jesuits and the marines are both famous for first degrading the pride and self-image of youngsters and then seeking to reconstruct them on a new and firmer foundation.
Several years ago, a group called the California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem (no, I am not making this up) conducted a study to explore the relationship between self-esteem and academic performance. The study found, to its own evident chagrin, that higher self-esteem does not produce better intellectual performance. Nor does it produce more desirable social outcomes, such as lower teen pregnancy or reduced delinquency.
These findings have been corroborated by academic studies—footnoted in my book The End of Racism—comparing the self-image and academic performance of American students with that of students from other industrialized countries. Consistently, American students score higher on self-esteem. Yet on actual reading and math tests, American students perform near the bottom. These results show that it is possible to have a healthy ego and be ignorant at the same time. Similarly, within the United States, black males have (you may be surprised to discover) the highest self-esteem of any group. Yet on academic measures black males score the lowest. The reason is that self-esteem in these students is generated by factors unrelated to studies, such as the ability to beat up other students or a high estimation of one’s sexual prowess.
None of this is to suggest that the research on self-esteem shows no relationship between self-confidence and academic performance. There is a relationship, but it runs in the opposite direction. Self-esteem doesn’t produce enhanced achievement, but achievement produces enhanced self-esteem. In other words, feeling good about myself doesn’t make me smarter. But when I study hard, when I discover the meaning of a poem, when I find the amoeba under the microscope, when I see my way through a difficult math problem, then I feel exhilarated, and my self-esteem is justly strengthened.
That’s a lesson that I wish more liberal educators would take to heart.
22
Who Cares About the Snail Darter?
Dear Chris,
As you say in your letter, liberals think that conservatives don’t care about the environment. But this is silly. We like trees, rivers, and baby seals as much as the next guy. Indeed, as conservatives, we should be dedicated to conserving God’s green earth, and we are. It is hard to quarrel with the environmentalist claim that the ecosystem is a precious and fragile thing, and that man has the power to destroy it. The stewardship of nature is now a human responsibility.
The problem with the environmentalists is that the movement seems to have been taken over by the environuts: vegetarians, organic farmers, fruit-juice drinkers, garbage-sorters, tree-huggers, and earth-worshippers. These people do not have a reputation for being rational. Indeed, they seem to operate in perpetual alarmist mode. Thus they routinely exaggerate the threat that economic growth, technology, and human beings themselves pose to the planet. Moreover, the solution of many environmentalists—to restrict growth, to oppose “artificial” technologies such as pesticides and bioengineering, and to limit the aspirations of the world’s people—is impractical and harmful. Recycling and organic farming are not the answer.
Let’s begin with the tall tales that environmentalists Lester Brown and Paul Erlich have been spinning for decades. They have warned that the earth is running out of food and water, that pollution levels never abate, that the population of the earth is surpassing the earth’s capacity, and that massive ecological and human disasters are imminent. In reality, agricultural production per head has risen; known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals are greater than previously thought; economic growth has produced lower birth rates and successful efforts to reduce pollution levels, and none of the horrors predicted by the environmentalists has come to pass.
Global warming? I confess that I am not agitated by it. Scientists estimate that the earth’s temperature has risen by one or two degrees over the past one hundred years. I repeat: over the past one hundred years. This is a problem? One of the drawbacks of life in the United States is that it’s too cold! If global warming is causing a rise of two degrees per century, by
my calculation the United States will have the perfect temperature in the year 2700 A.D. True, by this time the people along the Equator may have to put on quite a bit of sunscreen, but Brazil’s loss is Minnesota’s gain.
On a more serious note, Chris, I believe that the solutions of the environmentalists are even less plausible than their forecasts. How likely is it that the environmentalists can persuade people in the West, and in the Third World, to limit their aspirations to have a better life? How convincing is it to say to a Brazilian farmer, “We are more concerned about the rain forest than about your chances to feed your family?” Does it make sense to tell a poor logger, “Don’t cut down those trees because they are home to a very rare breed of ant?” There is virtually no chance for such arguments to succeed. Nor are the environmentalists likely to convince Third World people to have fewer children because the world is projected to have too many people in the year 2050.
The basic flaw of the environmentalist approach is its unremitting hostility to growth, affluence, and technology. Indeed, growth, affluence, and technology are the best hopes for saving the earth. Rich people—not poor people—join the Sierra Club. Only when countries become rich do they start worrying about pollution, and have the resources to tackle the problem. Moreover, affluence is a nation’s best contraceptive: It is a universal demographic law that when countries become wealthier, their birth rates drop. Indeed, the wealthiest nations have seen birth rates drop so low that they are considerably below replacement levels.
Finally, technology—not the naturalistic lifestyle—is the best way to preserve the environment. Organic farming, for instance, provides employment for lots of poor, simple folk and produces crops that upper-middle-class people are willing to pay more for. Organic farming, however, is inefficient. It consumes large tracts of land to produce very small potatoes and strawberries. High-yield farming is vastly more efficient. Pesticides and bioengineering help farmers produce the most crops out of the least amount of land. When we get higher yields from our farms, we leave more room for wilderness.
By opposing the solutions that have the greatest chance to work, the environmentalists reveal themselves to be unwitting enemies of the planet. We cannot rely on these people to save the earth. Rather, conservatives must assume the responsibility of being the true stewards of creation.
23
Against Gay Marriage
Dear Chris,
Recently I saw a group of gay men marching in a pro-choice rally. They were dressed in the stereotypical style of gay camp, and they carried banners that listed various homosexual organizations and said things like QUEERS FOR CHOICE. I asked myself, what possible interest could homosexuals have in this issue? Then I realized that gay activists hope to legitimize their lifestyle by promoting a view of sexuality that is completely severed from reproduction.
As the political activism of gays today suggests, homosexuality has become an ideology. That seems to distinguish it from homosexuality in the past. Among the Greeks, for instance, there were lots of homosexuals. Socrates, I suppose, was a homosexual. But this fact tells us nothing about what Socrates thought about democracy, or about poverty, or about how Greeks should treat Persians. Now, by contrast, homosexuality has become a worldview.
“There have always been atheists among us,” Edmund Burke wrote. “But now they have become turbulent and seditious.” This is the way I feel about the gay movement. Following in the path of the civil rights movement, the gay activists have developed a shrewd three-step maneuver. The first step is Tolerance. Here the argument is, “You may think we are strange and disgusting, but put up with us.” And many Americans go along with this. Then the gay activists move to stage two. This step may be called Neutrality, and it involves a stronger claim: “You should make no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality.” If heterosexuals can marry and adopt children, for example, gays should also be able to do so. If this step is conceded, the gays are ready to advance to stage three. This step may be termed Subsidy. “We have been discriminated against for centuries, so now we want preferential treatment.” The military, for instance, could be required to admit a certain percentage of gays every year in much the same way that it enforces goals and quotas for women.
The big issue now is, of course, the issue of gay marriage. It does not appear that very many gays want to marry. The reason for this seems fairly obvious: Marriage could put a serious crimp in the promiscuous lifestyle of many male homosexuals. But gay activists have lined up behind the marriage cause, partly to collect health benefits and other legal advantages conferred by marriage, but mostly to gain full social recognition for homosexuality. The real goal of the gay movement is to break down moral resistance to the homosexual lifestyle. Already gays have made considerable progress in this area. Not long ago homosexuality was considered an illness. Now moral criticism of homosexuality is described by gay partisans as a kind of psychological disorder. The person who has moral qualms about homosexual behavior is said to be “homophobic.”
Should gays be allowed to marry? Perhaps the most ingenious argument in favor of this has been offered by journalist Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan concedes that some elements of the gay male lifestyle, such as reckless promiscuity, endanger society as well as the lives of the homosexuals who live this way. Sullivan argues, however, that it is social ostracism that marginalizes homosexuals, especially male homosexuals, and makes them behave in this manner. If gays are allowed to be part of society—engaging in its normal rituals, like marriage—then Sullivan is confident that this outrageous element of gay culture would diminish. Sullivan’s argument can be condensed to the slogan “Marriage civilizes men.”
But Sullivan is wrong. Marriage doesn’t civilize men, women do. Ronald Reagan made this point many years ago. If not for women, he said, men would still be running around in animal skins and wielding clubs. Reagan’s point was that male nature needs to be tamed, and that the taming is done by women. I agree completely with Reagan on this point. Untamed male nature can be witnessed in the lifestyle of gay men who have had hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners. Female nature is something quite different, and once again we see it in the gay community. Lesbians seem far more capable than gay men of sustaining long-term relationships.
“But why should we prevent people who love each other from getting married?” This is the argument I hear repeatedly, both from gays and from non-gays. Here is the problem. Marriage is defined as the legal union of two adults of the opposite sex who are unrelated to each other. This is the basic definition. Now let’s assume we revise the definition to permit gay marriage. What if a group of Mormons, joined by a group of Muslims, presses for the legalization of polygamy? The argument proceeds along the same lines: “I want to have four wives, because we all love each other.” And another man says, “Why shouldn’t I be able to marry my sister?” And yet others make more exotic claims: “I love my dog and my dog loves me.”
The point is that love is a desirable but not sufficient condition for marriage. Why, then, does society have these specific criteria? Why privilege this particular arrangement and grant it special legal status, including the social recognition and tax benefits that go with it? The reason is that marriage is the incubator of children. It is the only known arrangement for the healthy cultivation of the next generation. Bearing children is one area in which gay couples are inherently deficient. In one incident at Dartmouth, Professor Hart was approached by a homosexual English professor who said to him with intense conviction, “Jeff, I really want to have a son.” Hart replied, “Don, I think you’re going about it the wrong way.”
Andrew Sullivan is not satisfied. He points out that some heterosexual couples can’t have children, yet society doesn’t prevent them from getting married. This is a bad argument that misunderstands the nature of social rules. Consider this: You have to be sixteen years old to drive and eighteen years old to vote. The reason for the rule is that driving and voting require a certain level of maturi
ty. True, some adults don’t have such maturity, yet we don’t exclude them. True, some minors could probably drive and vote effectively, but we don’t let them. The point is that rules are general propositions based on a presumed connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired, even though the result may not always be favorable. And so it is with marriage.
What about adoption? Should gays be allowed to adopt? Yes, under certain circumstances. Certainly I can see why an adoption agency might decide that it is better to place a child with Rosie O’Donnell, the lesbian television host, than to have that child grow up in foster homes. On the other hand, heterosexual two-parent families should in general be preferred to homosexual couples. The reason is that children benefit from having a father and a mother. Children relate differently to dads than to moms. I learned a lot about being a man from my dad. There is no way I could have learned those things if I had been raised by two moms.
Gays in the military? Yes! What could possibly be the problem with this? Do you mean to say that, simply because large numbers of homosexual males are placed in the same barracks where they eat together, shower together, work out together, and sleep together, there’s sure to be sexual involvement? Nonsense! I think we can fully expect homosexual behavior to be just as rare in our military facilities as it was in the Spartan wrestling pit. Chris, just because gays are allowed in the military doesn’t mean they’ll use it as an outlet for their sexual urges. Next homophobes will say that gays shouldn’t be ordained as priests because they will take advantage of the altar boys.
Letters to a Young Conservative Page 12
