Daniel Sutter: Why do liberals think I’m stupid?
Perhaps because they read my columns. My Dad used to say that it’s better to keep quiet and let people think that you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Sorry, Dad, I didn’t follow your advice. This question may have a more subtle answer, one that perhaps provides insight on the tenor of discourse in America today. And Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, helps illustrate the problem. Disagreement on values and ideas can be emotionally stressful. Life is about choices, and we have no text book with answers in the back. People rely on faith, reason, and elders, among other sources, for guidance. No one can ever be one hundred percent certain, creating scope for doubt. Agreement boosts our confidence. After a math test, it is reassuring if other students got the same answer. Agreement suggests that you were doing the problem right and eases self-doubt. And if everyone got the problem wrong, there may be a curve. The expression of dissent can additionally destabilize institutions. Many people might share doubts in silence; voicing a shared desire for change can spark change. It is no accident that churches and governments have long silenced opponents and heretics. You might think that professors would relish debate with colleagues holding fundamentally different views on society or how to study our subjects. Yet we also find disagreement discomforting, and the most useful research discussions are often with colleagues who think similarly. Intellectual disagreement poses another challenge, which is where Mr. Jefferson comes in. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson’s words inspired America’s fight for independence, and millions of people across the globe since. Mr. Jefferson contends that these truths are self-evident, which means obvious or not needing explanation. Yet in 1776 kings ruled most countries, the Declaration did not recognize equal rights for women, and Mr. Jefferson held slaves. It seems like the principle of political equality needed some explaining. We still often consider our ideologies and beliefs to not only be true, but obvious to any thinking person. For instance, I think that voluntary exchange obviously makes all parties better off. Yet this can’t be self-evident because many professors believe that businesses exploit their workers and customers. If our ideology is self-evidently true, how do we interpret professors who disagree? One possibility is to dismiss them as not bright, to answer my opening question. Professors’ test scores and grades prove we are all intelligent otherwise. A professor’s stupidity here is like being unable to recognize a simple arithmetic mistake at the start of a long math problem. Liberals probably wonder why free market economists like me can’t understand that advertising manipulates consumers into buying things they do not want or need. Alternatively, a dissenting professor may be insincere, arguing something he or she does not truly believe. Some people (especially professors) enjoy being contrarians, while others might deny the obvious out of self-interest. Insincere professors are often seen as apologists or possibly even shills?Professors have enough points of sincere disagreement that we do not need to waste time debunking arguments which no one truly believes. Surveys routinely document that liberals far outnumber conservatives on the faculty in many university departments. Liberal dominance increases the value of disparaging dissenters. Disparaging the handful of faculty conservatives as stupid or shills, allows unanimous support among all who matter for liberal proposals like universal government-guaranteed basic income. Incivility is a hallmark of discourse in America today. I believe that the belief that views about the organization of human society can be self-evident contributes in in some meaningful way. If we recognize that reasonable people will disagree over complicated issues, perhaps liberals, conservatives and libertarians will again talk and listen to each other. ••• Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Anti-Donald Trump bar earmarks its profits for progressive causes
Liberals who feel the current Republican presidential administration is driving them to drink now have the perfect place to do it. A new bar, Coup, opened this month with protest-themed decor, a distinctly anti-President Donald Trump vibe and a promise by its owners to donate their profits to organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood. Patrons are offered a chance to earmark where their money goes. When they buy a drink, they get a token to drop into one of a half-dozen jars, each labeled with the name of a nonprofit group. The list of recipients will rotate. Jars on tap this week included the Natural Resources Defense Council and Human Rights Watch. Tokens also are on sale for $5. After labor costs, liquor bills and other expenses are paid, the profits are divided among the groups based on the number of tokens they receive. The bar was the brainchild of partners Ravi DeRossi, Sother Teague and Max Green. It’s housed in a small Manhattan space where DeRossi used to have a restaurant. The decor is modern protest. Rolls of butcher paper have been attached to the walls, inscribed with slogans like “The Pilgrims were undocumented” and “They tried to bury us. They didn’t know we were seeds.” DeRossi, who owns several bars, said he was depressed by the election, which sent him into a dark mood for several weeks. “I couldn’t sit at home and sulk,” he said. “I wanted to do something more positive.” The bar’s name, Coup, is a reference to a sudden seizure of power from the government, rather than a house for chickens. DeRossi and Teague said it was the only name they all agreed on after starting out considering slightly less aggressive monikers. DeRossi said he wasn’t worried about backlash or bad reaction from Trump supporters. “We’re in New York City, where 90 percent voted essentially for this bar,” he said. All are welcome, he added. “If people want to come in that are Trump supporters, they’re more than welcome to come in and have a drink,” he said. “They’ll be treated with respect as long as they treat us with respect, and knowing that their money is going to these specific organizations.” Trump has promised to “make America great again.” He has pushed to deport immigrants who are in the United States illegally, saying he wants to make the country safe, and he has said he’s working to reform the tax code to lighten Americans’ financial burdens, ignite economic growth and simplify tax filing. For people looking to make less political donations at the bar, they could drop a token in a jar for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Choosing to drink at Coup “makes you feel like you’re doing something,” said Matthew Hayes, an attorney who was there with two friends. “Instead of just getting sotted, you can also throw something to a good cause.” He said it was also an opportunity to interact with strangers over topics like politics that people might avoid in other social settings. “By putting yourself in a situation like this where it is a politically themed bar,” he said, “that kind of takes politics off the Don’t Talk About table.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
