Yale: so damn liberal, it hurts

One doesn't need to be too observant to discover what a socially liberal campus Yale is. Not a day goes by in which I do not run into a Nader supporter or walk over a "Gore-Lieberman in 2000" sign. But I am often struck by the extent of Yale's liberalism when it comes to intolerance of discussion about fiscally conservative ideas. While I certainly admire and support people's wishes to provide for any and all, I am surprised that many Yalies don't see the market as a mechanism where this can be done. The market's competitive forces are often maligned as harbingers of evil for human rights, public schools, and Social Security. As the world's most developed democracy, America deserves to have all views heard and debated, not simply discounted, as often happens here. In fact, it is at a place like Yale where we should expect open debate to happen. Yet I fear it does not.

One glaring example of the degree of liberal intolerance is the strong sentiment on campus against international trade. Many Yalies argue for noble causes like better labor conditions and environmental standards. To achieve these goals, some call for the dismantling of the WTO and the halting of trade with nations that do not abide by our standards for labor and the environment. The notion that trade doesn't provide any benefits is false. Free trade provides jobs in developing nations that are (believe it or not) better than other jobs in those countries, and not engaging in trade with these nations isolates them when many of them are struggling democracies in need of American support. Globalization links nations with a foundation of mutual benefit and need. From here, discussions on human rights and legal systems are legitimized and entertained.

Yalies' adamantly liberal stance with regard to health care and education is also short-sighted. The debate about whether or not to provide a social welfare net is finished. Both Democrats and Republicans are working towards such a system. But how we create the system will determine its longevity. Using market mechanisms in Medicare and education seems like a good way to spend limited tax dollars because competition will make institutions like the public school system offer better products. At Yale, most of us see little merit to this method of allocating funding to programs. To this, I ask, what are the real alternatives to the status quo, which is essentially a single-service provider—the government monopoly—that is often unchecked and prone to waste?

Yalies' cynicism about the market is rooted in the skepticism of the Republican party and its leaders. This election has been an eye-opener for a foreigner like me. After each of the debates, many of my friends told me about how Al Gore demolished George W. Bush, DC '68, and how stupid Bush was. Yes, Gore won many points, but Bush was not floored. Dare I say it? He won points too. But this reality was not even contemplated by many of my friends. While watching the debates with those friends, I realized why nobody saw any positives for Bush: nobody listened to him but instead just made fun of him. Ignorance is the biggest obstacle to any meaningful discussion, and I witnessed much ignorance when trying to discuss the debates objectively. What is dangerous here is that we discount Bush without really knowing what many of his main ideas are.

Whether as anti-WTO protestors or election followers, we as a community would serve ourselves and our causes a whole lot better by first understanding the platform of the other side before belittling it. If we open our minds, maybe we'll find that some of them—like ideas about incorporating market practices into government—will not cause our country to go down the proverbial drain. But most importantly, knowing about those perspectives different from our own will help Yalies articulate their thoughts in a more convincing way.

Ranjan Goswami is a junior in Davenport.

Graphic by Sarah England.

Back to Opinion...