Thoughts from my English class

I wrote this in class while pretending to take excessive notes on Tristram Shandy. Not that I dislike Tristram, but I could not prevent my mind from wandering off... perhaps because of the inevitably political atmosphere of the last few weeks, and our professor opening class by asking who stayed up late to watch election returns, and then the talk of "progressive" and "conservative" ideologies in 18th century English literature.

So here are my thoughts of the moment, complete and unabridged, as they came to me:

***

Today we are using the word “progressive” to refer to one strain of 18th century thought. I cringe at every utterance, but of course the others love it. Aside from my general distrust of “progress” anyway, I am troubled in all scenarios by those who sub “progressive” for “liberal” or “radical” as contrasted with conservatism. It is biased. And it pretends not to be, which is even worse. Few want to be accused of being a Luddite, or even digressive, so they will of course endorse that progress. But here we have a false dichotomy whereby anyone who is conservative is accused of being backward. But perhaps they are merely cautious. Or perhaps they just disagree. Why use this misleading distinction?

Being in this environment—not just this class but the whole northeast—has brought me to really dislike American coastal liberalism. Those in industrial regions who care about labor and so on are not of concern to me. They have to work for their interests. They can be “liberal” in their way. But it is this ego-building elite coastal liberalism that I loathe. They are not all on the coasts—but they look to the coasts. Those on the coast look to Europe, or else Canada, for their guiding light. One of these inland coastal elite liberals—however much he may fight this category—has just been elected president. The coast then has built up even more its arrogance. And the Academy is at the center of it all. It sees itself as holding answers, of safeguarding the search for those answers. Yet it assumes somehow that people will come to the same answer in a particular circumstance. Surely, they are quite tolerant of people in other parts of the world. To a point. But here, they believe that anyone who is “intelligent” will agree. Hence the unchallenged use of these heartwarming, biased references to “progress.”

They may be shocked to learn that in me they have an opponent. Perhaps they will blame my provincial origins, where I had insufficient training in coastal progress. Perhaps they will blame my failure to reject my family background as part of proper maturation. Perhaps one will realize that I have read and studied and simply have come to different conclusions on issues and philosophies? That I find unlikely. The Academy thinks too highly of itself, believes too deeply in itself. It clings to guns and religion of its own, having turned men into gods by whose devout progressivism they can maintain their ultimate faith in our own ability and freedom to do what we want. The Academy assumes this is true and is shocked, shocked! at any challenge, just as much as some hinterland evangelical might be upon learning that the American coastal liberal has not been saved.

I have a dream of an America in which I am not judged by my degree of willingness to identify with the values, or belief in nonexistence of values, of the arrogant Nor’Easterners. Of course not all these Nor’Easterners are so arrogant—but this generality I oppose. Perhaps by the avoidance of inherently biased terminology we can create a more balanced intellectual environment. I certainly do not ask that the people who make up the Academy change their personal opinions—but I do ask that they not ask this of me.

***

In keeping with the theme of my last post, which was much too long ago, I will add specifically: let the new majority not tyrannize the rest of us. Let us work together, but do not expect us to conform, either. There may be times for compromise, but those who continue to disagree need not be shoved to the margins, and must not be forced to end disagreement. Like the Academy, shouldn't we have a free exchange of ideas?