"The Conservative Gene" by Robin A. Dembroff
The writer is aggrieved. She is regularly engaged in good conversations that turn sour. Take a friendly dialogue she was having about the appropriate sex education curriculum in public schools. Everyone was behaving admirably, she says, until her interlocutors became privy to her secret: she never attended public school. “If I was home-schooled,” she writes, “I probably had conservative parents, so surely I grew up indoctrinated with Republican propaganda. Upon that logic, my opinion was flagged as the incurably biased but inevitable result of my upbringing.”
She goes on to acknowledge that her opinions were shaped by what she was taught growing up and closely resemble the opinions of her parents. “But if a belief were true, a discriminating person would maintain it,” she argues. In principle, she is absolutely right: It’s problematic to stereotype people based on the circumstances of their upbringing. And being raised with a belief or conviction doesn’t itself make it any less valid.
This is, however, a ten page essay, and certain of its assumptions kept raising my eyebrows. The author writes as if being prejudged, stereotyped, and treated dismissively in political sparring matches are unpleasant experiences that afflict conservatives alone, whereas actually they’re known to every American who ventures outside his or her own subculture. As a reader, I kept wanting to tell her, “Take heart, you aren’t nearly as put upon as you imagine!” Perhaps post-collegiate life will better expose her to this lesson. I am not sure whether she’ll feel better or worse when she discovers that whoever you are, political discourse in the United States is largely an endeavor where people with whom you disagree try to discredit your opinion by flagging it as incurably biased.
Innocence on that point is a great scourge of young conservative writers. Never in human history has a group so advantaged gone so far to cast itself as victim. Ms. Dembroff has a minor and entirely curable case of this affliction, or so it seems from the stories we’re offered — in personal essays, there is always the possibility that a false note is a problem of style rather than substance. Let us begin with her description of the environment where she was home-schooled.
It is said that some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth; I was born with Rush Limbaugh in my ear. I have conservative Christian parents, grew up in a conservative Christian town, and now attend a conservative Christian university.
My sister, Ellen, and I were home-schooled for almost the entirety of K-12. During that time, we followed curriculum that included Bible and—oh, the scandal!—creation science. To my retrospective amusement, we studied these subjects in a room where a framed photograph of Ronald Reagan hung on the wall… when Reagan wasn’t in office. Pro-life literature, World magazine, and Limbaugh’s bestsellers stood prominently on the shelves, and I even recall enjoying a children’s book titled Ump’s Fwat, which I now realize was an allegorical lesson in the values of free-market capitalism.
I have memories of my mother crying when Clinton was elected (both times)… Both of them seriously considered stocking up on canned goods and toilet paper when Obama clinched the presidency in 2008.
On reading that, I thought, If that’s how she describes home-schooling to people, no wonder they suspect that she’s been indoctrinated by the political beliefs of her parents! Isn’t it rational to mistrust an educational environment if all the information you’re given about it is ideological? And that its teacher cried over a presidential election? I’d ask the author to imagine meeting a 22 year old who described his home-schooling experience in Berkeley, California. If told only that his family’s bookshelves held The Communist Manifesto, The People’s History of the United States, pro-choice literature, The Nation magazine, an allegorical children’s book that taught socialism, and a framed Trotsky portrait — and that the teacher cried the day Ralph Nader lost in 2000 — would she wonder if the student emerged with an incomplete perspective?
Other times I wondered whether the author’s peers were even as antagonistic to home schooling as she believed them to be. Consider another scene. Dembroff is at a local community college, where she gets into a conversation about whether marijuana should be legalized. “You wouldn’t want the cops crashing your parties,” a fellow student said.
She replied that she didn’t care much, never having thrown or attended those kinds of parties.
“But you’ve smoked pot, right?” he demanded. “There’s no way you got through high school without trying pot.”
“I’m still in high school,” she said. “I’m home schooled — I’m taking community college classes for high school credit.”
His response: “Oh.”She writes, “His tone had been tight and defensive, nearing an exasperated squeak. It instantly relaxed. ‘Oh.’ In that one sound echoed a lengthy verdict: Well it all makes sense now. You’re homeschooled. You don’t know how things are, and you probably parrot anything your parents tell you.”
I wasn’t there. Maybe I’m wrong. But I can’t help but wonder if just maybe the ‘oh’ had a different subtext, maybe something like, “Oh, you’re in high school! You’re younger than I thought. And I’m in college. Though I was in high school just a couple years ago myself, ever since I arrived here, I’ve felt so much older and more experienced than those high school kids. Funny how quickly we college kids feel superior, isn’t it? No wonder you don’t worry about your parties getting busted for weed. You still live with your parents!”
Of course, this example is also faulty on the merits. Much as home-schooled high school students from conservative religious families are entitled to their opinion of marijuana legalization, having smoked the substance oneself — or even being around a lot of other people doing so — is arguably relevant to the debate. Put on the show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, I’d definitely call a home-schooler for help on a question about Greek philosophy.
But a question about the social effects of smoking marijuana? I’ll take an audience full of secular public high school graduates, thanks!
The next example of anti-conservative animus occurs as the author attends an anti-abortion rally on a college campus. “Have you ever had sex?” a counter-protester asks. “After you’ve been a single mother on the street you can come back with your right wing religious trash.” On substance, I agree with the author: this is an unkind, wrongheaded thing to say. But come on. Abortion is the most fraught issue in American life. Few people on either side of the debate are cool-headed and rational when it’s being discussed. The sort of guy who picks abortion arguments with people protesting on the street is still less likely to engage in rational conversation. This doesn’t say something larger about prejudice against conservatives or religious people or pro-lifers or home schoolers. The lesson to take away here is about the contentious nature of the abortion debate.
In some circles, being a conservative has a stigma, as does being religious. I’ve heard people scoff at home-schooling too. It’s a shame. I’m against this sort of prejudging.
The author says that in her hometown, Visalia, California, there are more churches than cars (this is not literally true) and there are residents “who think that any Californian south of Bakersfield is a Los Angeles liberal, and anyone north of Fresno is a Bay Area hippie.” She attends a college whose Web site affirms that “all faculty, staff and students are professing Christians.” I happen to have visited Visalia, and I know several people whose alma mater is Biola. Like every other subculture in America, the people within them — many are conservative and Christian — prejudge people unlike them, and too easily dismiss political arguments contrary to their own.
I’d be very sympathetic to an essay complaining about these pathologies generally. I do not understand why such an essay should instead focus on the plight of home-schoolers from the right side of the ideological spectrum, especially if Dembroff’s victimhood is nothing more than what is described in the essay’s anecdotes.
Was this in the Proud to be a Conservative book?
Anyway, it seems like she has been pretty well indoctrinated into her parent’s ideology/religion. It’s not just a case of the environment rubbing off. This is one thing I really object to. I’m all with the anabaptists. They believe that a person has to come to god of their own free will and that a child is too young and easily influenced to do this.
To look at it secuarly, one of the main things a kid has to do to become an adult (in this culture) is to establish an identity separate form their parents. Having to fight through years of indoctrination to discover who you are doesn’t seem fair. The task is hard enough as it is.
So beyond the whole aggrievment thing, I think this girl has been done a real disservice by her parents.
— cw · Nov 25, 03:09 AM · #
Conor,
You should give some context to explain what you are talking about here.
— Steve Sailer · Nov 25, 07:32 AM · #
It’s the next essay in the Proud To Be A Conservative Book
— Conor Friedersdorf · Nov 25, 08:32 AM · #
Well, Robin A. Dembroff has left the insular confines of her parent’s home – physically and intellectually – for the wider world and discovered there is a variety of beliefs and opinions among the people there, and that some are prejudicial and, perhaps, not so nice. This is not a bad thing.
I would say the indictment, if there is one, is of her parents failure to include in her upbringing and teaching the reality that there is great variety in the world, variety of people, ideas, and personalities. Sad that she had to wait until 18 or 19 to learn this, but good that she’s learning it at all.
— steve walsh · Nov 25, 12:39 PM · #
So beyond the whole aggrievment thing, I think this girl has been done a real disservice by her parents.
Not unlike the disservice that has been done to children by public schools. It’s not easy to overcome this indoctrination, though I like to think I am one who did it, even though I had to overcome opposition at every turn. And that was in public schools in rural, midwest America of the 50s and 60s. But having to go against the grain every step of the way has, I think, made me a better conservative.
— The Reticulator · Nov 25, 06:20 PM · #
Oy. Try living in a conservative area of the country and see what happens if you even imply that Rush Limbaugh might be wrong. I had a discussion with some conservatives in which they told me that Obama lies all of the time, but Bush never lied.
Steve
— steve · Nov 26, 05:53 AM · #
“So beyond the whole aggrievment thing, I think this girl has been done a real disservice by her parents.”
Eh. The charge of “indoctrination” is a bit weak. All parents (and societies) raise their children to not only know certain things but look at the world a certain way. The idea that you just let 4 year olds, 10 year olds or hormonally crazed 16 year olds just figure stuff out for themselves seems clearly silly.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 26, 04:42 PM · #
Eh. Perhaps there are degrees? Eh.
— cw · Nov 26, 05:36 PM · #
CF, you’d lifeline a home-schooled student on Greek philosophy? That would be like asking the Reticulator how to find a woman’s G-spot.
— patrick bateman · Nov 27, 02:54 AM · #
Try living in a conservative area of the country and see what happens if you even imply that Rush Limbaugh might be wrong.
Been there. Tried it. No big deal. I’ve run into lots of people who like to listen to Rush, but never ran into anyone who thinks he’s right all the time.
Next challenge: Go into academia and suggest, in front of a room full of people, that Sarah Palin may have a point about [insert subject here].
— The Reticulator · Nov 29, 02:00 AM · #
This book has been out for like what, 5 weeks now, and only one 1-star review? Liberal Fascism has more than 500 reviews, mostly positive. This is probably more telling about the trajectory of American Conservatism than any of the essays, or essays about the essays, ese?
— Tony Comstock · Nov 29, 03:32 PM · #
IMHO, whether or not the author feels personally aggrieved is not that interesting.
The bigger issue is that Bulverism is maddening, and somewhat destructive, no matter where it occurs. Conor is certainly correct that it’s not a malady that solely occurs on the left, but it’s a disturbing malady wherever it occurs.
— J Mann · Nov 29, 03:33 PM · #
J Mann, you’re way too western in your complaint about Bulverism. If you had been brought up in a sufficiently multi-cultural environment, you would have learned not to privilege left-brained, linear thought over other forms of valuation.
— The Reticulator · Nov 30, 04:13 AM · #
I grew up homeschooled in a right-wing Christian social conservative/Limbaugh family myself, much like Dembroff describes. I grew out of it my last year in high school, when I first met peers who were intelligent and interesting, insightful and witty, and atheist and liberal, and this showed me that conservative Christians don’t corner the market on human values. How important those interactions are to shaping our opinions of others and ourselves. All too easily, when we’re young and inexperienced, we can fall into the trap of stereotyping from our first encounter with someone different. The shame is just that Goldberg exploited these misunderstood formative experiences as more stereotype-reinforcing fodder for – presumably – grown-ups to read, who should know better by now, but have kept themselves in a corner where they are never wrong, and therefore never have anything new to learn.
— DavidG · Nov 30, 09:05 AM · #
My library doesn’t have a copy of this book – is it possible to get a review copy from Netgalley or something?
— J Mann · Nov 30, 05:17 PM · #
Conservatives are treated to a torrent of unremitting hostility. They are always the underdog. People who aren’t conservative just wouldn’t understand.
Also, black people should just get over it. Racism ended like 30 years ago!
— Elvis Elvisberg · Dec 1, 11:32 PM · #
I was also homeschooled by religious right parents. My schooling included young earth creationism, the supposed biblical roots of the American founding, and watching The 700 Club for at least an hour every morning. In 1988, I was a 13 year-old “volunteer” for Pat Robertson’s presidential campaign.
When I went to a local CC, I was prepared for the leftist onslaught I had been reading about all these years. I didn’t happen, despite my keen eye for it. Fortunately, I knew I’d get to indulge in plenty of victimization when I transferred to UC Santa Cruz to study Literature.
Except every time I looked for an example of a professor grading me down for being a conservative, I found an example of me repeating unsupportable opinions and getting called on it. I eventually realized that it was I who was being unfair about others’ ideological blinders, not the bogeyman leftist elites in their ivory tower. I’ve often wondered how many of the anecdotes so breathlessly repeated by ISI, YAF and people like Dembroff are examples of what I had seen, or what Conor plausibly suggests, rather than “further proof of leftist authoritarianism.”
— Sean · Dec 2, 09:09 AM · #
Sean, how about an example of one of those times you were being unfair about others’ ideological blinders? Not that we don’t believe you, of course. But there are a lot of fairy tales told on the left and skepticism is a virtue.
— The Reticulator · Dec 3, 02:01 AM · #
I’d just say that she’s an idiot. “Oh, people disagree and don’t consider my opinions as if their God’s gift to man”. Who cares.
— Marshall · Dec 3, 03:56 AM · #
Reticulator,
As a general rule, I had been raised to believe that liberals were unfamiliar with free market arguments, actively hostile toward religious believers (well, mostly just Christians), haters of the military and its members, ignorant of American history (especially the God-fearing founding era), and either the witting or unwitting dupes of communists bent on destroying America. None of these things turned out to be true about anyone I met, but pretty much every liberal is aware they (we, now) are seen this way by some.
For a specific example: long before Jonah Goldberg made it cool, I tried to make the “Fascism = Socialism = Communism” argument in a Logic 1 course. My evidence was based entirely on the commonality of central planning among the three systems, as I had read in some right wing source or another (best guess: The Freeman). In the ensuing back-and-forth with my Professor, I learned a lot about how definitions could be used to warp arguments and ignoring inconvenient evidence could lead one to conclude just about anything, and I was able to see first-hand a number of both formal and informal fallacies; from my own pen, nonetheless. At no point was I accosted for my assertions (although they stirred a pretty lively conversation at first), the prof himself shot down the “everyone knows fascists are right-wing” argument (which I had believed to be the limit of most liberals’ thinking on the subject), and whatever bad marks I received were tied to legitimate errors. This was true of all my professors, although not all of them took the time to work with me so closely as the above prof did.
— Sean · Dec 3, 08:17 AM · #
To come at this from another angle, I went to public schools from the third grade on. ultimately attending a state university. If a fairy tale is being pushed, it’s Reticulator’s idea of public school indoctrination.
In primary school, I rarely had glimpses into my teachers’ politics. Looking back, I can imagine the likely leanings of a few specific cases— on the left, an eleventh grade psychology teacher who valued dream therapy, and on the right a fifth grade science/phys. ed. teacher who loved to bring a yard stick with great force down on his desk to silence the class and who wore his gym shorts outside throughout the winter— but these teachers did not push their politics. You might argue that certain cultural cues were subtly, unintentionally embedded during classroom exposure, but ultimately there was simply no ideological agenda. That’s a far different thing than Dembroff’s home school environment in which she was taught Biblical creationism and whose teachers openly grieved the election of a Democratic president.
In college, I pursued an English degree, so it’s safe to say the majority of my professors were liberal. However, there was only one guy who radiated the old Beatnik vibe. He would have argued against any right-leaning, corporatist view, as he saw it. But this was exceptional. Most teachers just wanted us to read deeply and write clearly.
Ironically, the King James Bible made the syllabus for one course. It was a class devoted to the classical underpinnings of modern poetry. We read stories from Ovid and Homer as well as the Bible, then poems that incorporated/interpreted them. Contrary to what Reticulator would claim, nobody raised a stink about it. In fact, discussions of the Biblical stories tended to be as open and penetrating as those of Ovid. The secular setting actually took a lot of heat off the Christian scripture, allowing us a serious appreciation of its prose that most of us would have avoided, otherwise.
Reading the Bible like this— on level with other classical Western myths— is only perceived as “indoctrination” by those who privilege the Bible as literal truth. In other words, by those who believe public institutions should allow religious training.
I wouldn’t doubt there’s liberal arts departments at certain public universities who would get queasy about the Good Book appearing on a syllabus, but I suspect that most are/would be as tolerant as the English department was in my case. Using a religious book as a foundational, historical document need not be controversial. On average, liberals are not nearly as spooked by gray areas in church-state separation as Reticulator presumes.
When you consider the radicalized, often riotous atmosphere of many college campuses during the 60’s and 70’s, the charge that public schools today are Leftist agenda factories is entirely off-the-mark. The environment today is downright bland, perhaps meek, in contrast to what it was forty years ago. Yet, critics from the right continue with the same lame charges of media and university indoctrination. They have no real sense of the changes to the landscape, so braced are they by assumptions that enemies are everywhere.
— Morly Grey · Dec 3, 04:44 PM · #
I second Morly Grey’s commentary. I too took a course in college that used the Bible – in fact, it was a whole course called “the Biblical Tradition.” It was great. It was not a theology course – the stipulated premise is that we weren’t there to debate whether it was real or not, but to examine it as literature. Nobody had any problems with it. In my four years of college, I had exactly two professors whose politics came out: one liberal, one conservative. One of them got up in my face about me “not caring about human suffering” after self-identifying as Republican. I can’t recall the course she taught… English lit? The other was fairly openly conservative, and he was teaching a Political Philosophy course. I liked him, he was fun, and I really don’t care that I knew which way he leaned politically. My best friend, someone who tends to fall somewhere in the “anarcho-socialist” category, got an A so I don’t think he was biased vs. other views.
I cannot for the life of me recall any of my public school teachers getting political, nor do I recall a particular politican narrative being pursued via the curriculum. You can, of course, argue that this is in fact evidence of skillful indoctrination. I find that laughable.
— Rob in CT · Dec 3, 09:35 PM · #
I third Morley Grey’s commentary. I read parts of the Bible in several courses at UCSC, and we always treated it with the same respect/critical eye as we treated any other book.
One anecdote comes to mind. In a course on Existentialism and Literary Theory, the prof assigned Tolstoy’s “Confession” alongside passages from Augustine, Kierkegaard, and Sartre. At the outset, the prof explained that he was a lifelong atheist, which left him incapable of feeling the power of Tolstoy’s conversion narrative the way someone of faith would. He then invited students of faith to discuss the readings in light of their personal experience, for the benefit of those who lacked that element in their lives.
Sure, some profs got political, but that stuff never turned into bad grades in my case, and there was never any pressure to conform to anyone’s “agenda”—except for the pressure I presumed to be there in the first couple of terms, before I realized that I was doing it to myself.
“They have no real sense of the changes to the landscape, so braced are they by assumptions that enemies are everywhere.”
— Sean · Dec 4, 01:00 AM · #
A small dissent – I think there is plenty of indoctrination going on in elementary school and high school, much less so in college. It isn’t liberal or conservative per se.* It’s more establishment/nationalistic. It’s been become a little less “traditional” as the establishment POV has changed – and this outrages certain conservatives, who think that, say, a few mentions of environmentalism amount to socialist propaganda or worse – but it’s hardly liberal. Though certainly more liberal than, say, a very religiously conservative home.
College, by design, does much, much less of this.
*Small anecdote – the most explicitly “liberal” indoctrination I recall in High School was a teacher who got mad at me when I argued against her teaching opposing the dropping of the atomic bombs in WWII (I now think she was right on the merits, and I was being an ignorant little shit, but she didn’t handle it very well). But forget about the stereotype of a secular, progressive teacher – she was a nun in a Catholic High School.
— Larry Maggitti · Dec 4, 10:57 PM · #