Is it wrong to teach liberalism as the correct ideology?

[Paradoxical]

I ask because I spoke to a "traditional conservative" today who was given a 99% on a paper he turned in espousing his political ideology as correct and sustainable.

It seems as though we are sacrificing correctness in favor of "fairness". I honestly do not believe that a traditional conservative deserves a 99%. There comes a point when one must accept reality.


On edit: By liberalism, I do not mean classical liberalism. I mean modern forms like welfare-state liberalism.

[BzaDem]

1. What do you mean for an ideology to be "correct?"

[Paradoxical]

2. Factual, beneficial to society.

[BzaDem]

4. How is an ideology "factual?" Competing ideologies have competing values.

How is one ideology "factually correct," any more than your opinion of a movie "factually correct?"

It might make sense to define some notion of superiority, and then argue that your ideology is superior according to that notion. But I don't see how you get from there to "factual."

[Paradoxical]

5. Ideologies should not be based solely on opinion.

An ideology built on nothing is weak, at best.

One that is based on empiricism will hold up stronger to criticism and will function better in reality; since reality is based on empiricism and not the wild fantasies of conservatism.

[BzaDem]

6. But the foundation of an ideology is a set of values -- not facts.

Facts and empiricism are certainly important in how you create policy to adhere to a set of values. But the values themselves are values -- not facts.

For example, one ideology might favor maximizing the welfare of the average person. Another might favor maximizing the welfare of the poorest person. Another might favor a set of absolute rights, independent of the resulting welfare of people in the society.

But if you are going to claim that your chosen ideology is somehow better than their ideology, you have to define what "better" means in this case. You can't simply say your ideology is "factual" and leave it at that.

[Paradoxical]

7. Unless I am completely out of touch, the point of an ideology is to benefit man.

Or benefit society. If you look at the purpose of an ideology from that perspective, choices are no longer subjective.

[BzaDem]

9. But many people have very different ideas of what an optimal society looks like.

Some people (fortunately a small number) think that society benefits most under absolutely pure, unregulated freedom to transact or contract in a market (with no government intervention whatsoever).

They are NOT claiming that this necessarily benefits everyone (for example, they don't necessarily think that this maximizes the aggregate "happiness" if there is such a thing). They simply believe that a society is measured by how "free" people are from any government intervention, and that aggregate happiness is irrelevant.

You, on the other hand, seem to assume that "benefits society" always means something like maximizing the welfare of the average person and the poor, with government intervention as necessary. I think most people (fortunately) agree to a definition that is at least similar to this (i.e. looks at the results). But not all do. Just because someone has a pure libertarian ideology doesn't mean it isn't an ideology -- even though they have a very different basic concept of what "benefiting society" means.

[Paradoxical]

15. Okay, for instance, I think we can all agree that we want less drug addiction.

Well, it turns out that a healthy welfare-state actually reduces the rates of drug abuse and relapse.

A traditional conservative would most likely argue that religious intervention can solve most of societies ailments. Which is utter nonsense.

[cali]

39. but people have very different ideas as to what is to the benefit of humankind

(humankind constitutes more than just men) they have very different ideas as to what benefits society.

[cali]

3. maybe it was a well written and well constructed paper

maybe he/she made a good argument.


there could well be legitimate reasons why he/she got such a high grade.

[a la izquierda]

42. You may be right...

I have students with whom I know I disagree-not because of anything I've ever said, but because of how they approach the material. If they can pose valid, constructive arguments, so long as they're not factually wrong, they deserve as good a grade as someone with whom I suspect I agree.

[ixion]

8. There is o such thig as a 'correct' ideology

because ideology is not objective.

[wickerwoman]

10. First off,

which "liberalism" are we talking about? Social or economic? Because classic economic "liberalism" means something closer to free market laissez-faire capitalism or libertarianism."Neo-conservatives" in the US are called "neo-liberals" in the rest of the world.

So my short answer is "yes, it's wrong to teach liberalism" but mostly because free market, limited government liberalism is wrong.

In terms of teaching, at the college level I think teachers should be honest about their own positions in class but should try to grade objectively. If you were in a class with a raving right wing lunatic lecturer would you accept a D on your paper because the lecturer disagreed with you politically?

And unless you've read the paper, how do you know that it was poorly written or argued? Maybe he made a brilliant case. If nothing was factually incorrect, the student argued well, cited good evidence from reputable sources and put the work in, I would give the paper an A even if I disagreed with the thesis. :shrug:
I always saw my role as promoting critical thinking and evidence-based argumentation, not indoctrinating students into my worldview.

[Paradoxical]

11. Not talking about classical-liberalism.

Talking about modern liberalism. Like welfare-state liberalism.

[themadstork]

13. Factually correct, well-argued, reputable sources, good evidence, brilliantly written. . .

to what extent can a person still disagree with that? I'm trying to imagine a case where a person can craft their argument perfectly and yet I would still disagree. What would be the basis of my disagreement? That they did not address the whole issue, or have neglected Important Study B? Both imply shortcomings in argumentation.

It seems like disagreeing with someone even though they've done everything correctly would be admitting that there is no objective basis for truth. That all we can do is "make our case."

How can I disagree without taking issue with some part of a person's argument?

[wickerwoman]

19. I think there are situations where there are more than one correct answer

(or alternately no really good solutions) and where decent arguments can be built for more than one position.

I'm working on a paper at the moment on design for disability access. If you design curb with ramps, they're easier for people in wheelchairs to use but harder for people with guide-dogs. So what is the solution? You can make a factually correct, evidence-based argument for either building ramps or not. You can argue that blind people should find another alternative to guide dogs if they can't be trained to negotiate ramps or you can argue that wheelchairs should be designed to climb over curbs or you can argue for better designed ramps with visual clues for the dog, etc. You can argue that there are more people with wheelchairs than blind people so their needs are more important or you can argue that the danger is greater to blind people or that the impediment is greater to people in wheelchairs and on and on.

Anyway, if I was grading the papers for this assignment, I wouldn't let my personal preference for one solution lead me to give lower grades to people who built reasonable, evidence-based arguments for other alternatives.

Coincidentally, I don't believe in an objective basis for truth, but I do believe in better and worse arguments which can be tested through observation and experimentation. And grades are a spectrum. You don't need a perfect "correct" answer to get an A. You just need an "excellent" one (especially compared to your classmates). This leaves room for some flaws and certainly for some differences of opinion.

[themadstork]

40. True. . .

But I think there's a functional difference between "yeah, that could probably work too" and "perfectly argued, but I still disagree." what I'm wondering is what's the basis for disagreement in the latter case. I sense that there are instances where it may make sense, and I keep trying to think of them, but so far it seems to keep boiling down to "Nyah Nyah."

Also. I find it interesting that you claim to not believe in an objective theory of truth, but then basically describe just that. I think the word "objective" has gotten a bad rap through general misuse. It's become synonymous with "unambiguous, simplistic, indubitable," which is a shame. Maybe an easier way of putting it is that truth is a social idea, which I think everyone but the most committed solipsists would accept.

[Yo_Mama]

30. Bravo

I always saw my role as promoting critical thinking and evidence-based argumentation, not indoctrinating students into my worldview.

If you teach that way, ideologies that have strong practical, evidential support will emerge as winners, whereas if you try to teach your own worldview, there is just resistance.

In practice most ideologies, when stated in words, reach empirical boundary conditions which vary according to the practical limitations in the particular time and place.

[themadstork]

12. Not sure what is meant.

But I think that obviously regressive or hate-derived ideologies should be pointed out as such. And if one teaches about an ideology teach only thst which stands on its own as ideology. I.e., much of what passes for American conservatism today would be rejected as irrational bigotry. It would be wrong to present the birther stuff as if there were really some rational basis for doubting O's citizenship. One could present the core tenets of trickle-down but, as would be the case w/ any ideology, hopefully it would be followed by a frank discussion of what has or hasn't been accomplished in its name and why its adherents prefer it over the other options (i.e. what material benefit do they derive, what larger societal effect do they hope to incur).

With any belief system I think it's important to examine the extent to which it's based in rational thought, its underpinning values, any obviously fallacious arguments commonly advanced on its behalf, and the real-life consequences brought about so far by its adherents. Basically the teacher should foster debate and avoid the realm of propaganda and irrationality. Usually best accomplished by examining a wide array of sources, as confronting an abundance of perspectives will cast into doubt whatever rigid status-quo doctrine the student has inherited. Presenting one as The Correct Ideology only shuts down this process, as one group of students will totally agree, another will dismiss it out of hand, and the last group will become very confused or will simply tune out.

[barbtries]

14. i really wanted to say no

but i said other and here's why. if you teach your children to care about others including those less fortunate, if you teach your children that we are all of the human race together on this planet, if you teach your children to care, they will probably grow up to be liberal. it's the humane way.

[Obamanaut]

16. Was the 99% grade that was given a higher grade than you rec'd? If so, is

that part of the problem?

[Paradoxical]

17. I haven't turned in my paper yet.

He turned his in early.

[Obamanaut]

20. So he did his work, probably well, ahead of a deadline and submitted

the finished product early.

Well. There you go. A self starter who will quite likely succeed.

[Paradoxical]

22. Turning a paper in early should not weigh heavily on it's grade.

In fact, it really shouldn't matter at all. What should matter is content. And I find it hard to believe that anyone could receive a near perfect score on the paper. Let alone a traditional conservative.

I fully expect to get 95% or above. And I in no way expected any competition from traditional conservatives.

[Obamanaut]

27. How do you know that the early submission affected the grade?

Why would you think that it did?

Competition comes from unexpected sources, but, is this a competition? Are you in it to get a better grade than someone else? Is it a 'grade envy' issue? Surely this isn't a case of "If you show me yours, I'll show you mine" is it?

Was the paper that is causing this angst well written? Were the arguments well presented? Were there cites that supported those arguments?

With an average of more than 20 posts per day in the last two months, and if one were to figure about 5 minutes to read a post and type a response, there is more than an hour a day that could be used to prepare a paper, and submit it early yourself.

[Enthusiast]

18. If we followed conservative ideology

there would have been no American Revolution. How can anyone deny this?

[kentuck]

21. What a confused question?

It is about what kind of society we want to live in. The ideas can be debated but history is the best professor and classroom you will find. Maybe start with the founding of this nation and go forward. Study pre-Civil War society. Read about the inequities leading up to the Great Depression. Read about why the Great Society was needed. Read about the poverty of old folks before Social Security. Is it worth the percentage of GDP that we pay for it? That is the debate.

[JackRiddler]

23. Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

[Paradoxical]

24. 21.

[JackRiddler]

34. Excellent. That is a relief.

Schematic thinking of the kind implied in your question is the usual stage toward achieving more nuanced categories and thinking.

[MadHound]

25. Teach the facts instead of ideology,

Then let the student develop their own ideology. If they can back up their ideology with the facts, grade them on that.

Oh, and a liberal democracy embraces a fairly wide range of views, ranging from tea party conservatism to, as you so weirdly put it, "welfare-state liberalism", also better known as democratic socialism.

In politics there is no "correct ideology", and to go down that path leads to totalitarianism. There are only positions which can be well defended. If you're up on your Marx, then you should be able to get the same grade espousing socialism:shrug:

[Paradoxical]

26. Welfare state liberalism is not democratic socialism.

[MadHound]

32. You're right, it's not

"Welfare-state liberalism" is a catch-all phrase that was concocted by the radical right. However the term does have it's closet analogy to social liberalism, a large component of traditional democratic socialism, ie the welfare state.

[Paradoxical]

43. The welfare-state was first conceived by a conservative.

It was structured in such a way so as to outshine the socialist movements at the time.

So, no, welfare-state liberalism is not the same as democratic socialism.

[MadHound]

47. "The welfare-state was first conceived by a conservative."? Really?

If you are referring to Bismark, you are sadly mistaken, and showing your lack of historical knowledge. Bismark simply took what was already going on in Prussia and elsewhere and, well, evolved it for a national stage.

The modern welfare state does indeed walk hand in hand with Democratic Socialism in many countries, including Norway, Denmark, England, etc. It has been an evolving process spanning centuries. I suggest that you do some further reading on the issue.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. Other, we need to teach facts and let people decide for themselves

but because the facts support liberalism you end up teaching liberalism by being factual.

[JHB]

29. Define your terms

For instance, what exactly do you mean by "welfare-state liberalism".

In fact, I'd say that should be the basis for teaching liberalism (and politics in general). You and I may be thinking of different things when we use a particular term, and I can pretty much guarantee a teabagger won't be thinking of the same things as either of us for a particular term.

So more important than the labels is the question What do you mean by that?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. I vote "yes" in the context of social justice and Christian principles. I believe with all my heart

that Jesus Christ was a liberal. And even when confronted by conservatives who castigate me for those beliefs, they themselves cannot refute any evidence that I bring forth to prove my claims.

So, yes, if creationism is going to be taught in our schools, and we want to teach children true Christian principles, then liberalism is the way to go as far as moral precepts go.

In any other context, I would vote no.

[MatthewStLouis]

33. The grade rubric should not be biased towards a particular political philosophy.

I would hope your instructor would give an equally well constructed paper, espousing liberal values, the same grade. If not, your teacher is an a__hole.

It's not healthy to 'teach' one ideology over another. Students need to know the facts and circumstances of history and should be taught to understand both sides of an issue. If at the end of the day your conservative student still wants to believe in fantasy fairy tales; that's his/her business. The thing about political ideologies is: they usually benefit one group at the expense of the other. That's why I personally loathe conservatism, because under the guise of supposed 'free markets' (actually rigged in favor of the wealthy and large corporations) it benefits the rich and powerful over the rest of us who actually work for a living.

[Erose999]

35. What class was this for? Perhaps your prof was grading more on the writing than on the ideology.

I had a debate once with a dumbass rightwing acquaintence of mine who used to talk up this paper he had written and "gotten an A on". He really thought that getting an A on a paper about his rightwing politics was confirmation that he was right.

It turns out he wrote that paper for a college freshman English comp class where they grade on grammar, mechanics, and proper use of bibliography. Once I explained to him that his paper wasn't graded on its actual argument he never mentioned it again, lol.

[mmonk]

36. Reality has a liberal bias.

[The2ndWheel]

37. This was a paper, not a test?

In terms of A, B, or C, pick the right answer? So he got a 99% on a paper for school. What skin is that off of your nose?

"There comes a point when one must accept reality."

Which is different for different people.

[slackmaster]

38. Strong bias toward any particular ideology goes against fundamental principles of teaching

Especially bias so extreme as to single out one particular way of thinking as the one and only correct way.

I'm flabbergasted that anyone, even on this forum, could ask such a question.

[Common Sense Party]

41. So are you saying that conservatives should get lower grades, regardless of

the quality of their work?

And the only way they can improve their grade is to adopt progressive ideals?

What school do you attend?

[readmoreoften]

44. Liberalism, in economic terms, is capitalism.

So yes, it's the incorrect ideology. In the US, liberals are more correctly "liberal liberals" and conservatives are "conservative liberals". At least the candidates fall into those categories.

[alarimer]

45. Teach them how to think, not what to think.

If they have decent critical thinking skills, that will lead them there anyway, eventually.

[Bucky]

46. Liberalism is an intellectual orientation, but I'm not sure it's an ideology

Maybe in 1800 it was, but after 2 centuries of facing & dealing with practical questions of governance, it's far from a consistant school of thought. Modern conservatism is ideologically driven and consistant. Since FDR, liberalism is more like a cluster of open minded ideas about what works and what doesn't work.

[haele]

48. The grade should be based on how well the argument was made -

Soundness of research, and well-planned logic with no "leaps of faith" or ad-hominums to make his or her point.
A good student should be able to argue several different and opposing sides of any position well. Both Laz and I can drive our classmates crazy arguing one position one day and the opposing position the next, and being persuasively "right" both times.
What made a position most "right" or most logical was using an air-tight argument to reach the stated conclusion.

It's even more fun in the social sciences or in economics, where there's not a single, quantifiable perfect goal (other than perhaps avoiding an catastrophic breakdown of society outcome); one can argue pro or con any position, conservative or liberal, if the goal is clearly defined and concluded.

Now, if your professor is grading all conservative positions, no matter how weak, with high grades, and giving any liberal position, no matter how well stated poor grades - then you have a problem and a reason to go up to him and tell him to his face that he's not teaching anything, he's just reinforcing the stereotype of professors being lazy bastards sucking off the University's teat and playing with their ideological willies on government time.

His job is to teach, not to proselytize. And teaching means grading the research, the logic, and the ability to craft a logical process that comes to the conclusion that makes the case the paper or exercise is supposed to be proving.
If he can't teach, there's plenty of storefront mini-churches just dying to get preachers that can act impressive and at least pretend to know or believe in something. He could make a pretty good living fleecing a flock of desperate people for Mammon.

Haele