Of all the rhetoric that we have heard during this Republican primary, it is perhaps this comment from Rick Santorum that is the most perplexing:
“President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.”
While Barack Obama’s intention behind the comment was not explicitly to promote a liberal education – but merely to suggest that education, whether it is technical, vocational, preprofessional, or liberal is, on balance, a benefit – Santorum’s disgust for ‘liberal academia’ is quite transparent. Is this attitude antithetical to the foundations of our democratic society? Or, to put it another way, are American politicians still playing the same game?
Politics, if it is a game, should be played according to a set of tactical, regulative, and constitutive rules. Tactical rules are the strategies that are employed by a team or player in an effort to win the game. For example, if I am playing chess, my opening move won’t be white pawn from h2-h3, since that doesn’t make any strategic sense whatsoever within a normal chess game. Regulative rules are those guidelines that keep each side from gaining an unfair advantage, or exploiting loopholes that might exist due to the way the constitutive rules are described or set. It is possible to break regulative rules and still be playing the same game. The constitutive rules, by contrast, are what defines the game itself, and changing them entails playing another game altogether. You are not playing chess if, for example, you declare that your winning the game is a result of you, yourself, being checkmated.
To see whether or not American politicians are still playing the same game, it is helpful to get an idea of what the goal of politics actually is. Is the goal simply to win — to be elected President, for example — at all costs? Probably not, since we wouldn’t want a presidential candidate to win by intentionally sabotaging the country, for example. Indeed, this strategy would be contrary to the very purpose of the office for which the candidate is running. We might say that the point of the political process is to elect someone into a position of public power who promotes the general welfare of the people.
Is this goal consistent with the de-valuing of, or hostility towards, a liberal education? Historically, a liberal education was a privilege of the elite, or landed gentry – when one’s income was secure, it was appropriate to be educated in rhetoric so as to become an active, engaged citizen, who could not only make arguments, but listen and assess the arguments of others. In contemporary civil society, it seems like education supports the democratic process, insofar as it exposes individuals to different points of view, and teaches them to critically assess those views, both for their strengths and weaknesses. In this way, a liberal education promotes tolerance and recognition of divergent values; and so also promotes other-regarding virtues that are necessary for solidarity, and, by extension, the flourishing of a democratic society. The major difference, of course, is that in our contemporary context, a liberal education is generally democratized among all classes; it is no longer a privilege of the few, nor should it be.
Even if President Obama’s point was to encourage a liberal education (which it was not), would this be so terrible? I do not see what is so offensive about cultivating a population comprised of well-informed, educated citizens. Santorum, however, seems to want to foster a climate of distrust and intolerance of opposing views, which might be fine if the goal of politics is to win at all costs. However, insofar as the solidarity necessary for well-functioning democratic societies is secured best through education, then it seems that conservatives like Santorum would benefit from remembering the constitutive rules of the political game. Sometimes a win for a particular candidate is a loss for American society, and I do not think that such a loss is consistent with the point of the political process.
I think we’d all do well to remember James Madison and Federalist #10 here, where Madison talks of factions and their threat to the common good. Of course, to remember lessons from the Federalist Papers, we have to have read them, and what better place than within the academy itself?
Ethics for Adversaries 