Santa Barbara, Calif. on October 31, 2019

I’ve shifted to a good-news / bad-news stance towards the Trump victory. 

The good news is that Harris’s defeat discredited Clinton-Obama neoliberalism as the Democratic party’s dominant center.  Harris ran a good campaign with corporate Bidenism and it failed.  Trump ran a bad campaign opposing that and it succeeded.  Center-Dems will fight (e.g. for the “abundance agenda”) but this loss was their loss and they lost big.

 

This gives the left a massive opportunity to theorize and build a better Bernieism across race and class. This would be a new model democratic socialism, one that would not downplay the civil rights gains of the past 80 years, including trans rights.  (The widespread freakout about the means to trans equality and racial equality is an underanalyzed driver of the Trump victory.) But this is America, so this new New Left will be called something horrible like “pocketbook populism” (Robert Kuttner’s term, who’s been writing accurately about this for decades (e.g. this 2014 critique of Obama).  In 2024, anti-corporate Democrats often ran ahead of Harris in Trump districts and often won.

 

The bad news is that Trump is the most regressive slayer of neoliberalism I can imagine. If the majority wanted to reduce inflation and make things fairer for the working class, they did it in the worst possible way.  

 

His (small) majority voted for oligarchic capitalism that will make the price of eggs go up, and houses go up, and insurance go up, and medical costs go up. They voted for deregulation that will make Big Egg get bigger and make monopoly pricing easier. They voted for an openly racist version of cheap eggs and ham, the most openly racist since Alabama Governor George Wallace’s campaign in 1968. They voted for the most misogynist version: white women voted 53-47 for Trump after he took their reproductive rights away and lost a civil suit over sexual assault. They voted for his spectacle of coercion and force, for the dictionary definition of an authoritarian personality.  Left rebuilding starts in a deep cultural and psychological hole.

 

The big question here is why does economic anger pushes people to the cultural right? This has happened all over the world: Hungary and Poland, Brazil and Argentina, India and the Philippines. The U.S. is a standout in this rear guard. The cultural win against “woke” will push the U.S. further behind in the sectors most beloved by Trump’s base, like manufacturing. Speaking of which, the U.S. is behind China in green tech and under Trump will never catch up. If status-quo economics is your problem, why solve it with the cultural right? 

 

People are right to focus on our messed-up information ecosystem. But the explanation I’ll start exploring for this rightward shift is education. Racist anti-neoliberalism seems to work less on a common type of thinking person. Same goes for economically incoherent plutocratic anti-neoliberalism. 

 

By “thinking” I mean people who gather a decent amount of information—and know how much they have.  They use that information.  “Thinking people” assume that information should shape their conclusions and actively use information to shape them. These people are comfortable going back and forth between evidence and argument to check the fit. They actively respond to misfits between facts and claims. They see changing their claims to fit new evidence as good rather than weak.  Also, they think about how they think about politics, family dynamics, their jobs, and other things. 

 

Obviously everyone thinks. But there is huge range in how well people think, even in one person over time.  Thinking is hard.  Thinking takes time, as the political activist and thinker Freddie Payne used to say.  Thinking is easily rushed by the pressures of everyday life.  Thinking is also burdened or impaired by limits in training, comfort with various kinds of data, etc.  My experience, including forty years as a college teacher, is that everyone is smart but that they often do not think.  Or they often don’t think well.   

 

I don’t know how to put this politely.  It feels elitist and obnoxious even to bring this up. But a teacher’s job is to evaluate the quality of thinking every day.  Ironically, society gets very upset when we don’t do this, invoking grade inflation or social promotion). 

 

Also, “anti-intellectualism in American life” has long bullied educators out of being able to talk about bad thinking as a public problem.  Nixon and Agnew, Reagan and Bush were good at this.  But Trump is the Bully King.  In spite of this generations-long propaganda campaign, we do need to be able to talk about the power of ignorance in American life—and in that of other countries.

 

So onward: Universities obviously aren’t the only sites of systematic thought. Social movements think, sports fans think, auto mechanics and farmers think.  However, thinking is taught, cultivated, coached, corrected, and enforced systematically by universities.  

 

Three aspects  of university thinking are especially important, in part because they’re not always easy to find elsewhere. 

 

One is thinking about thinking, or meta-reflection.  Is my thinking suited to this problem? How is my thinking going? How can I tell how well it’s going? Do I need to change my method? Do I need to start over with different data? Can I stop thinking now, or do I need to keep going? 

 

A second aspect is the relation between thinking and feeling.  Universities uphold a standard of disinterestedness, however difficult or theoretically unattainable that is. The student or researcher is not allowed to let their convictions control their inquiry or conclusions.  If you’re a left-wing political scientist, you’re not allowed to let your anger at Trump’s win push you to conclude that all Trump voters are economically illiterate racists—or shape your study to that premise.  If you’re a white Christian, you’re not allowed to let your indignation at local news coverage of undocumented immigrants push you to conclude that  American identity is under existential attack—and bake that into your survey or teaching. 

 

A century of research has shown how our emotions do shape our thinking and that there’s no clean opposition between reason and emotion. And yet universities teach ways of managing the continuous interaction so research is more rather than less accurate about the reality outside our heads. 

 

Third, universities expose students and instructors to multiple methods.  Engineering students are usually required to take a literature or history course where they learn hermeneutics—how the interpretation of language has procedures and methods that they can apply.  Whether or not students align with the content of particular courses, a graduate from a US college or university knows that cultural and social knowledge is a practice with its own methods and bodies of learning, and not brainwashing that can be contrasted with the quantitative methodologies of the sciences.  I don’t know where else one learns qualitative methods. This learning is a huge advantage in evaluating cultural or historical issues like calls for reparations for slavery or the ethics of taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages.

 

To someone with cultural expertise, nearly all Republican efforts to stigmatize critical race theory, trans rights, and other historical or civil rights issues depend on a lack of cultural knowledge and basic competence with the disciplines.  Their arguments sounded wrong, or dumb, or driven by an angry vendetta.  Exposure to the underlying issues, like the relation of critical race theory to “critical legal studies” forty years ago, offers the college goer some immunity from false statements about them.  One might still vote for De Santis or Trump or support the hostile takeover of New College, Florida, but not so much on the false ground that CRT is a novel reverse racism against white people. 

 

Okay, that’s the short brief on university learning.  What does university learning do to voting patterns? 

 

There’s this long-term trend.

SOURCE: John Burn-Murdoch, Financial Times

 

Republicans lost the overall college vote during Bush II’s administration and have never gotten it back. 

Why then? A defining feature of his administration was its fabricated lie about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the cover-up of related measures, like bulk data collection on US resident. It was alienating, day after day, to watch the falsification of evidence and the nonstop deception.  

Bush II’s second feature, as he settled in, was to strut his policy illiteracy and tie it to success.

He promoted Social Security privatization like this:

Bush often appears with an “expert” who supports his Social Security plan—some adviser, professor or smarty-pants whom the president likes to use as a foil to contrast with his own academic record. “I’m a C-student,” Bush said proudly in Louisville . . .“He’s the PhD. He’s the adviser.  I’m the president. What does that tell you?” (Cited in Andy Borowitz, Profiles in Ignorance, 117-18). 

Well, it told a lot of people that Bush didn’t care enough about the truth not to destroy Iraq.

 

 Which brings us to Trump, who as a liar and shit-talker is the Greatest of All Time.  

 

The evidence we do have suggests that voters who answer basic questions incorrectly skewed away from Harris and towards Trump.

SOURCE: Clifford Young, Sarah Feldman, and Bernard Mendez, Ipsos

 

The smallest point swing is 29, for the stock market question.  The other gaps are in the range of 80-90 points.  There’s an awkward correlation: if you get the wrong answer, you’re more likely to vote for Trump.

 

The same October Ipsos poll linked error on one salient issue to Republican preferences on other issues. The result is the same. 

 

SOURCE: see above.

 

Right answers line up with Harris; wrong answers line up with Trump.  

 

The effect isn’t specific to a particular policy area. There’s not just a policy gap but a knowledge gap between Trump and Harris voters, with Trump voters having less knowledge or wrong knowledge. 

 

Other things being equal, a Trump voter is likely to be wrong about policy facts and therefore likely wrong about the future effects of their candidate’s views.  

 

The Trump win also means that the less informed now rule the more informed through the incoming Trump administration. Voiding California’s net zero laws, or a state’s offshore drilling restrictions, or its banking regulations, or rules against use of local police for migration enforcement, you name it-- the low information voter has in effect decided for everyone. 

 

I am not calling Trump voters generally deluded or dumb.  But as I mentioned, I taught for 40 years. And when I said, “you didn’t do the reading,” I was not saying “you’re not smart enough for my class.” When I said, “that’s not really what this author is saying,” I did not mean, “why are you more stupid than Priti over here?”   What I meant was, you didn’t learn the material so you’re not doing a good job of thinking about it.  That’s literally what I meant. 

 

The data we have suggests Trump voters were less likely to have done the reading or the problem sets—or to have thought about them.

 

The person who thinks carefully about the Trumpian gulf between fantasy and reality doesn’t have to have gone to university. But such is the relation to thinking that universities systematically teach and also insist upon.  A B.A. is a wager: it increases the odds of thinking through an issue in a way that confronts and works through one’s feelings, especially negative feelings of anger and resentment of the kind that drives the Trump crusade.

 

With this orientation towards thinking, a voter will, I believe, have a harder time convincing themselves that Trump, who they can see is a flaming plutocratic racist with overt hostility to women who reject sexual harassment, and who is the textbook definition of the authoritarian personality, was going to deliver prosperity to the honest working class. That’s how I read those graphs.

 

Whatever the New Left for 2030 is going to be, it will have to reinstall real education as the basis for democratized policy on climate, inequality, and everything else.  This means some kind of higher education for absolutely everyone, no questions asked, no preconditions about mind or motive, and entirely debt free.

 

Many people are worried about the damage the Kavanaugh appointment will do to the Supreme Court and to American politics.  I'm worried about the new damage it did to the public understanding of academic knowledge.   Brett Kavanaugh (left, in my one personal photo of the hearings, taken September 27th) and other Republicans attacked the equivalent of basic research-- an unrestricted FBI investigation-- as nothing more than a political hit, while generating fake academic knowledge to exonerate him.  

This reduction of knowledge to partisan politics was supposedly a left postmodernist position, but it has in fact been a right culture-wars argument about the nonsense of academic research.  It has hurt academia of course, but has also torn the intellectual fabric of society.  It weakens public resistance to the political dismissal of validated knowledge about everything from the effects of sexual trauma to Trump family tax evasion to climate change.  Political dismissal supports a he said/she said deadlock on any issue, making Americans even more fatalistic about resolving differences with force instead of knowledge.

Academic knowledge rests on a few basics that we don't make explicit enough.  People may not ever expect politics to follow academic standards of evidence and argument, but they should be able to  tell them apart--and also to recognize the superiority of academic standards for knowledge to political ones. This is particularly important when politicians claim valid knowledge to justify political decisions.

As I go through these standards, I will omit breaches that come from within academia itself.  I am aware of them.  For example, the dependence of research on private money presents opportunities for bias, corruption, and neglect of the public interest.   But breaches are no reason not to compare public debate to the knowledge standards that academics struggle to adhere to--and that produce much better arguments and conclusions than what we've been hearing in U.S. public debates about pretty much everything. 

The first of these standards is that academic research cannot be coerced, predetermined or discredited in advance by direct or indirect authority.  Academic freedom includes the freedom of an inquiry from being steered or suppresed by bullying, intimidation, slander, and blanket accusations of bias and political motives. In contrast, discrediting the allegations against Kavanaugh was a key Republican strategy, and doing it with white male anger was a calculated strategy.  Here's Kavanaugh:

When I did at least OK enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed.

Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee, and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn’t take me out on the merits.

When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford’s wishes. And then — and then as no doubt was expected — if not planned — came a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred.

Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense, reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media.

This has destroyed my family and my good name. A good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government.

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions, from serving our country.

And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.

Kavanaugh was marshalling the essential claim of the culture war on academia--the pretended pursuit of truth is a cover for the politically-motivated destruction of respectable people and their values--to discredit the entire second round of research.  Having refused Sen. Dick Durbin (D-WI)'s request that he call for a full investigation of the charges against him, Kavanaugh then helped convert the FBI's supplemental background check from a required to an offensive act.

The second feature of academic knowledge is that it has to be impartial. This doesn't mean that the researcher's procedure is value-free.  It does mean that the researcher may not let self-interest control the research design, such that it leads to an answer that is more likely to benefit her, her team, or her institution. Researchers control self-interest with various well-known modes of self-reflexivity.

Thanks to reporting by Peter Baker, Nicolas Fandos and others, we know that this principle was violated when the FBI's supplemental background check was structured through a series of political negotiations.

When Mr. Durbin [D-WI] asked Judge Kavanaugh to turn around and ask [White House counsel] Mr. McGahn to request an F.B.I. investigation into the charges against him, Mr. Graham erupted in a ferocious, finger-wagging lecture. Other Republican senators began channeling their inner Trump and lashing out on Judge Kavanaugh’s behalf as well.

Republican senators met that night just off the Capitol Rotunda. Ms. Collins said she would find it hard to vote yes without a sworn statement from Judge Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge denying that he saw what Dr. Blasey described. Aides to Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Judiciary chairman, got a fresh statement from Mr. Judge within three hours to satisfy her.

Mr. Graham went to dinner that night at Cafe Berlin with Ms. Collins and two other undecided Republicans, Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. They discussed whether a limited F.B.I. investigation might assuage them.

The next morning, Mr. Flake announced that he would vote for Judge Kavanaugh in committee, only to change course after being confronted on an elevator by women who told him they were victims of sexual assault. Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski were already talking by phone when Mr. Flake called them from a committee anteroom asking if they would back him in demanding a one-week F.B.I. inquiry.

Later that day, the three joined other Republican senators in Mr. McConnell’s office to discuss what the F.B.I. investigation should look like. The three undecided Republicans settled on four people they wanted to hear from: Ms. Ramirez, Mr. Judge and two others identified by Dr. Blasey as being elsewhere in the house at the time she was allegedly assaulted.

Republicans organized the investigation to get the right answers for their remaining fence-sitters.

The investigation violated academic standards in a third way.  Academic research must respond to new information or anomalies, which are facts that don't fit the guiding hypothesis. The research needs to be open to its own enlargement, complication, or refutation at each and every point.

Instead, the Republicans set aside the major new anomaly in their theory of Kavanaugh's victimized goodness by declaring that Julie Swetnick's claims were "too over the top" to be considered.  They asked rhetorical questions whose answer was predetermined, like "Why would [Swetnick] as a college student repeatedly go to high school parties where young women were gang raped?" Of course academic researchers don't have the time or money to investigate everything, but they can't rule out possible holes in their theory with one-line objections or ad hominem attacks.

Fourth, academic research has to show its data and results to the whole knowledge community. It can't give selected results to just a few people under predetermined conditions.  In the Kavanaugh case, the FBI sent one copy of their report to the Senate, which senators could view only in a secure room without the ability to copy or to take notes.  The report was not released to the full Senate to say nothing of the public.  This of course eliminates the possibility of an impartial evaluation of scope, quality, and results performed by people other than the interested parties.

Academic research is conducted by regular humans who bring their preferences, identities, hopes and fears to work, which is why a fifth feature is so important. Once findings are released, they have to achieve a decent general agreement before they are passed on to be applied in the wider world.  When they are disputed, they are re-tested, reanalyzed, and revised until most if not all researchers in the relevant fields can at least provisionally accept them.  Think climate change modeling as an example, which has over the years gathered near unanimity about the main points even as details remain disputed and methods continue to change.  Good researchers don't pitch research results to policymakers before they have won general consent. Exactly the opposite happened in this inquiry.  Nearly half the Senate rejected the validity of the FBI's findings, with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) calling it a "bullshit investigation."

Because none of these five academic standards were followed, the pivotal moment of Republican knowledge production--Susan Collins' brief for Kavanaugh--amounts to an apology for a political position that was decided in advance.   It takes the politically-framed investigation at face value, asserting non-confirmation of Blasey Ford's story even though the FBI was in no position to confirm it because they were not allowed to interview the many people who claimed to have information. Collins wrongly treats the cherry-picked interview list as dispositive.

Collins also considers no evidence contrary to her "yes" position.  She does not separate the textual evidence of Kavanaugh's (also cherry-picked) opinions from Kavanaugh's claims about himself in interviews with her.  Collins then claims, while offering no evidence at all, that Ford was deluded about her attack: "she is a survivor of sexual assault," Collins writes, but just not the one by Kavanaugh about which Ford claimed 100% certainty. 

Perhaps worst of all, Collins reintroduces a genteel version of Lindsey Graham's and Kavanaugh's smear of the inquiry itself as nothing more than a Democratic hit.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not [of] the allegations raised by professor Ford, but of the allegations that when he was a teenager Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facility gang rape.

This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That’s such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our a American consciousness.

Collins doesn't actually know that the allegation is outlandish because her party blocked its investigation.  Rather than data she gives us a milder form of the male rage that had disparaged the investigation the week before.  Her tacit claim is that a full FBI investigation would be the tool of a Democrat political conspiracy that runs roughshod over the core American value of presumed innocence.  Then she concludes,

my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5 to 4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored.

Once you take leave of argument and evidence, its hard to return to your senses.

Kavanaugh's confirmation showed the extent to which power politics depends on invoking academic-style knowledge, even as it violates academic standards.  The default scenario for the next year is a continuation of culture war gridlock. Journalists and social media will continued to investigate Kavanaugh. The White House will denounce any new evidence as a politically-motivated lie.   Fewer and fewer people will see the Supreme Court as politically neutral, even as bad evidence for its neutrality will be advanced.  In the deepening cynicism about knowledge itself, universities will continued to be viewed as the Democrat's propaganda arm, their pale imitation of Fox News.

Why can't universities do a much better job of explaining standards of academic knowledge?   The country that isn't sure what real knowledge is, is doomed not to have it.