It’s been interesting, to say the least, watching David Brooks attempt to singlehandedly bring idea-driven discourse to the (ahem) not-terribly-idea-driven opinion pages of the New York Times. I’m not always sure that the 700-word column is the best venue for this project, and his “Hookie” nominees (named for Sidney Hook, of course) for best political essay exemplify the difficulties the format presents, since it will require at least another column for him to summarize the top candidates and their arguments. Still, it’s a valiant effort, and a reminder, after a year in which he’s taken his share of slings and arrows, of how much better the Times‘ page is with Brooks than it was without him. (Hands up, everyone who misses Gail Collins’ column. Anyone? Hello?)
My only quibble with his pick of essays so far would be the choice of William Stuntz’s brief for why academics and evangelical Christians would make good political bedfellows. Reihan liked it, but it seemed to me at best a nice but deeply misguided piece that reflected the author’s own wishful thinking (he’s an evangelical and a Harvard Law professor) more than any actual political reality. Here’s a typical passage:
Churches and universities are the two twenty-first century American enterprises that care most about ideas, about language, and about understanding the world we live in, with all its beauty and ugliness. Nearly all older universities were founded as schools of theology: a telling fact. Another one is this: A large part of what goes on in those church buildings that dot the countryside is education — people reading hard texts, and trying to sort out what they mean.
The fact that universities were founded as schools of theology is telling, yes — telling of how far universities have risen or fallen (depending on your point of view) from the days when they did have a lot in common with religious communities. Claiming that elite colleges’ Christian past somehow links them to today’s evangelicals is at best appealing sophistry, and it’s typical of Stuntz’s argument, which relies on superficial similarities — people reading texts and caring about ideas — that could apply equally well to any pair of mismatched intellectual groups, from Pakistani madrassas to Communist cells to suburban book clubs. The important question is not whether people read books and contemplate ideas — it’s what conclusions they come to, and what ideas they promote. And looked at in this light, the gulf between Christian conservatives and liberal academics is as wide as any in our culture, and widening apace.
For a more serious engagement with some of the issues Stuntz raises, check out this exchange, between Stanley Fish and Richard John Neuhaus. It’s nearly a decade old but (perhaps unsurprisingly) still timely.
— Ross
The Dish 