Do States Have a Right to Secede?

Upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution, did the several states merge (part of) their sovereignty into a nation? Or, did they form a federation of independently sovereign states, joined together for convenience, but free to withdraw at will? Although the American Civil War put an end to the debate for some time, the issue is not dead nor is it irrelevant. Twenty-two percent of Americans, according to one poll, believe that states have a legal right to secession. However, it seems that none of these believers in secession taught my classes in primary and secondary school. My lessons about the Civil War left me with an impression that the Confederates were a senseless, if not evil people, who rebelled against the Constitution. After studying the issue more closely, I have concluded that, indeed, states have neither a moral, nor a legal right to secession. But, the all too common straw man representations of the Confederate views on secession, I think, are erroneous. The argument for secession deserves a proper rebuttal.

            My understanding of the argument in favor of a right to secession can be summed up in the following syllogism:

All sovereign states have the moral and legal right to secede from the Union at will. All of the states of the United States are sovereign states. Therefore, states have a moral and legal right to secede from the Union at will.

            Secessionists claim an extra-legal, moral right to secession as well as a legal right of secession implicit in the Constitution. They argue that the federal government is an agent of the states and that the states can withdraw their delegated support at any time. My main quarrel is with the second, minor premise of secessionists, which holds that the states are independent sovereigns.

            As a threshold matter, it is important to recognize a difference between a right of revolution and a right of secession. The right of revolution, as I view it, has important preconditions to its exercise and, revolution almost inevitably implies a war in which both sides are justified. The right to secession, on the other hand, is without significant preconditions and implies that the larger government has no right to use military power to force unity upon the seceded state. In my opinion, advocates of a right to secession sometimes conflate a right to revolution with the right to secession. Concerning the Civil War, the comportment of Congress and of President Lincoln did not come anywhere close to satisfying the preconditions of a right to revolution.[1] The South didn’t have a problem with the text of the Constitution nor was their quarrel about the political process (their constitution copies both substantially); the South disagreed with the policies ,which were properly enacted according to the Constitution. Using the terms of the Declaration of Independence, the “Form of government” was not oppressive or detrimental to the interests of the South, only the policies of the People playing by the rules of the Form of government. Regardless, in this essay, I focus on rebutting the argument that the states were independent sovereigns with a right to secede from the nation, not that they hadn’t the Lockean right to revolution.

The secession argument hinges on the claim that states were independent sovereigns after the ratification of the Constitution. The arguments for and against secession as taken from the text and history of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution seem to me, in their aggregate, ambiguous or slightly in favor of finding the states consolidated into one nation. Some of the documents and records speak of the states as independent while others take the view that the states “were independent not individually, but unitedly.” Some of the states ratifications seemed to side with the right to secession while others explicitly rejected it. Though none of the historical accounts are unambiguous. James Madison, known as “the Father of the Constitution” during his life, wrote to the New York Convention, “The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.” Three states reserve the right to claim independence if the federal government “perverted” the Constitution to oppress the people. But, this looks more like a Lockean right to revolution than an Antebellum right to secession as it is pre-conditioned on perversion of the form of government and oppression. Regardless, the Declaration of Independence is not binding by itself because it does not describe the feelings and beliefs of the people in forming a Constitution to correct the problems of the Articles, it justifies revolution by proving that the preconditions to the right of revolution were satisfied.

My survey of the history and text of the Constitution also gives no clear response. But, Patrick Henry and others favored the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution largely because they envisioned that the Constitution would bind the states together and subject them to too powerful a federal government. Furthermore, Amendments to the Constitution are binding on states even if the state voted against it—isn’t that somewhat contrary to an implied right to secession? How could an agent of the states force new and unconsented policy upon the supposedly independently sovereign states?

The Constitution does not mention state sovereignty outright. Advocates of both sides, in my opinion, get too caught up in words and phrases like “perpetuity,” “People,” “States,” “compact,” “union,” and “United States.” Both sides seem to attribute more clarity to the words than their usage actually merits. That something is a compact between states does not imply that there is a right to secession any more than there is a right to secession from a contract or international treaty. A union need not be at-will. Indeed, contracts and compacts, in law, are assumed perpetual unless the text makes it clear that a more limited time frame was intended. And, in contracts, you can’t pull out because things don’t go how you had hoped.

The Supremacy Clause provides, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Secessionists read the Supremacy Clause as if it has an exception for secession that is not in the text. The Constitution provides legitimate methods for altering the Constitution, the law, and judicial actions: by the vote and by advocacy in the marketplace of ideas. Implicitly then, other methods of changing federal policy—like secession—should be illegitimate.

The Ninth Amendment provides, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, the Tenth Amendment provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” The Ninth Amendment clarifies that the Bill of Rights is not an exclusive list of rights. The Tenth Amendment’s meaning is more enigmatic. Some members of Congress wanted the word “expressly” to appear in the Tenth Amendment. Ultimately, it was rejected because the Representatives thought that such a restriction would cripple the federal governments productivity.  The Tenth Amendment does not reject powers implied by the Constitutional provisions and by the Necessary and Proper Clause. James Madison seemed to view the Tenth Amendment as not guaranteeing any particular rights to the States, but as a truism or simple residuary clause. He said that the Tenth Amendment was “superfluous” except for emphatic effect. Furthermore, explicit powers of the federal government preclude state independence. How can you be an independent sovereign if you cannot make treaties, coin money, control naturalization, command armies, or lay taxes? You can’t. Thus, the arguments that appeal to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in favor of a legal right to secession strike me as insufficient.

 Turning to policy considerations, it seems most reasonable to assume the Framers, as a whole, did not contemplate a right to secede from the constitutional compact without the consent of the other states. The reasons the Constitution was adopted to replace the weak Articles of Confederation was to ensure peace, facilitate commerce, and protect against collective-action problems and systematic races to the bottom. An alliance of states with a right to secede fails to accomplish any of these basic objectives, to the detriment of American wellbeing. Independent sovereign states that share a border have almost never maintained peace over the centuries. A right to secede gives rise to conflicts of interest antithetical to good policy and overcoming collective-action problems. It would increases the risks of factional struggle, reduces the prospects for compromise, raises the stakes of properly-made political decisions, introduces irrelevant considerations into the decisions (e.g. we can’t do what is right because South Carolina is getting uppity again), creates dangers of blackmail and other forms of exploitation, and generally endanger the prospects for long-term rule of law and self-governance. Lastly, free trade is compromised by a right to secession. It seems to me most plausible that there is therefore no right to secede from the constitutional compact.

The Antebellum supporters of a right to secession were not unreasonable; the case is a rather close call—but, in the end I believe the North was justified in enforcing the rule of law through warfare and that the South was not justified in seceding from the nation without meeting the preconditions to the right of revolution.

---

[1] President Lincoln apparently had substantial respect for the Constitution. He consistently and often persuasively squared his positions with the Constitution, he cooperated with an intrusive congressional oversight committee. He sought congressional approval, at times, even when he probably did not need it. He stood for election when he was least popular and during a time of war and set up policies for an orderly transition should he be defeated. Dictators and tyrants simply don’t do these kinds of things. I am not convinced that the South was under the foot of any tyranny or oppression and therefore had no right to act extra-constitutionally to secede. John Locke and the Declaration of Independence affirm a right to revolution only where the “Form of government” leaves the people with not legitimate or plausible recourse and is tyrannical or oppressive. I sometimes see favorable arguments for secession quote supporters of a right to revolution to support a right to secession (e.g. James Madison); but the two things are quite separate.

On Big Stores and Advertising

Earnest Hemmingway wrote in his memoir, “If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.” I agree completely. Not a day goes by that I do not think back fondly on my years walking the historic and fashionable streets of Paris. France left me with the indelible conviction that life is better when society is not so obnoxiously full of huge chain stores and pervasive advertising. Although the United States should avoid many Western European policies like the plague, we should follow their example by helping small shops and regulating manipulative, in-your-face advertising. Corporate stores and rampant advertising contribute to a materialistic culture and an undesirable physical environment, both of which are enemies of American spiritual, emotional, and physical wellbeing. Our American Dream should be about the contributions we will make to our families and to society, not about the stuff we buy.

Big Corporate Chain Stores

There are fewer and fewer small consumer-oriented businesses left in America. We buy our Chinese-manufactured clothing from chain stores. We buy our genetically modified groceries at chain stores. We buy our furniture from chain stores. Same goes with our electronics, hardware, beauty supplies, and sports equipment. Although there are a few Ma & Pa restaurants and shops around, we buy almost everything from big corporations. I dislike shopping at big chain shops because the quality of products and service is poor. There is a plausible argument that big chain stores are cheaper and more convenient than shopping at small shops. I generally disagree; but the argument is intelligent. However, that big corporations put out better quality products and services than small shops, nobody has even begun to prove. Owners of small shops take greater pride in their services and products. Products are higher quality when they are made by a particular craftsman for a particular customer. Unfortunately, many Americans have become habituated to poor quality products—plastics, wax, and cheap construction are everywhere. Similarly, small service providers tend to outdo their corporate counterparts.

I’d like to briefly address the arguments that big chain stores are better because they are cheaper and more convenient. Products are generally cheaper at big stores, but their duration is shorter, which costs more. For example, a tailored suit will be more comfortable, look better, and last longer than a mass-produced, cheap suit. It is very possible that the a man would have to buy two or three cheap suits to dress himself for the same amount of time that the tailor-made suit will last him. Big stores are probably cheaper than small stores to some extent, but much less than many Americans seem to think. If there were much fewer big shops around, shopping at little shops would be more convenient than shopping at the big places. It isn’t much more convenient to walk the length of a street in the same store; you might as well walk the same distance from little shop to little shop. Since all of our stores are huge nowadays, we have to travel longer distances to get what we need. If shops were smaller, we would be better able to walk to buy our food and supplies rather than have to drive—healthier, more sociable, and generally more pleasant.

I have found that many people do not know that public corporations are required by law to put the pecuniary interests of shareholders before all interests of consumers. Frequently, pleasing customers translates into increased profits, but not always. Big corporations wield their influence over government and society to make their job easier and more lucrative. They use their power to make things more convenient to make money, not more convenient for the consumer. They get customers addicted to a product or service and then decrease the quality with time. As a result, frivolous consumerism is way too much a part of American culture. The companies convince people that they need more stuff, not better stuff. The corporations convince people that they need things, they don’t really need. The corporations use advertising to teach people to envy others for their things and to feel like they are inadequate if they don’t keep up with the Joneses. It is even rather rare for critiques of corporate stores to show up in reputable publications because they are hesitant about publishing anything that will offend their sponsors.

In my opinion, this consumerism is exemplified by smartphone buying. I know a few people who spend exorbitant amounts to constantly upgrade from the iPhone 3GS, to the iPhone 4, to the iPhone 4S, and for what? Finicky voice-recognition software? A slightly improved camera? More likely, it is to keep up with the Joneses because they have fallen prey to the corporation’s message that your phone is a status symbol. Or, they have convinced them, through sly psychological trickery that stuff makes them happier than it actually does; that things are better than time. Despite all of the freedom and money we have in America, we are not the happiest people because we are too stressed about things that don’t matter. We need to stop spending our resources on stuff and status and start spending them on enjoying our family, nature, and culture—for that is where real happiness lies.

Additionally, the growth of big corporate stores concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer citizens. Some of my friends who disagree with my sentiment here argue that I am going against the free market. I am not so sure that I am—but, perhaps I am to a degree. I measure the value of the free market first by its ability to bring about a good society and secondarily by its ability to maximize wealth and American political power. Regardless, I think that these big chain stores are engaging in anticompetitive activity by elbowing out their competitors with an onslaught of manipulative advertising, political influence (e.g. procuring favorable changes in the tax structure, business regulation, etc.), and even pushing urban designs that favor big stores over little ones, even to the detriment of city beauty and the health of the environment.

Some businesses perhaps provide more public good to us as Americans if they are big. I do not doubt it. This essay is not against all big natural resources, pharmaceutical, manufacturing companies, etc. What I am convinced of is that quality of life is better when there are more SMALL SHOPS than there are corporate mega-chains. Having a few big stores is fine. But, the proliferation of corporate chain stores has weakened local economies, stripped communities of their beauty and character, and impoverished civic and cultural life in American towns and cities. 

Advertising

But wait, there’s more! We are practically drowning in the manipulative marketing of big shops. I have tried American-style advertising for free and I want to return it for a full refund. The trial was definitely not risk-free. It was fraught with puffery, misleading information, psychological chicanery, and false portrayals of reality. The ubiquitous nature of the loud and bright advertising is so constant that it fatigues you and pounces when you are too tired to adequately defend against its cunning attacks. You see, advertising works. It sells. But, it is annoying and bad for America on a cultural and moral level. Even the advertisements online are worse in the United States. They are more common, more in-your-face, brighter, and cheesier.

In my opinion, the only proper purpose of advertising is to inform people of their options with regard to products and services. Advertising in America is, to some degree, protected by the First Amendment and is backed by big-time support of lobbyists; but we need more truthful advertising, fewer commercials, fewer ugly billboards, and fewer product placements in the media. We need to emphasize America’s natural beauty and family values by making the places we live and the activities we engage in supportive of those things. 

Guns, Crime, and Statistics

Psychologically, humans have difficulty making sense of data. Although we are talented associative, causative, and analogous thinkers, cognitive science has abundantly demonstrated that we have trouble thinking statistically. For example, most people incorrectly believe politicians have more extra-marital affairs than doctors. Why? Because, thanks to the news, they associate politicians with scandals. Indeed, even the way statistics are framed can drastically change our perception. Doctors are more likely to operate on patients if they are told there is a 90% survival rate than if they are told there is a 10% mortality rate. In my observations of the recent gun control debate, I have noticed a lot of flawed statistical reasoning. But, with so many numbers being thrown out, it is hard to make sense of the data. I decided to spend an hour looking over gun and crime statistics to see if I could start to make any sense of them. Here are my thoughts.

Moral Assumptions about Gun Ownership

            The Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to “keep and bear arms.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase to mean, essentially, “possess and own non-military weapons.”  Although many argue that the Second Amendment only applies to militia members and others go even further to assert that a right to gun ownership is antiquated, I think both arguments are wrong. Before and after the Constitution was ratified, militias were composed of private citizens who owned and carried their own guns. Indeed, a number of states were told they were voting for individual, private ownership of guns when the Second Amendment was up for ratification. So, it doesn’t seem to make much sense to say that private citizens can’t own or carry weapons unless furnished by an official military unit. Private gun ownership was firmly entrenched in the American tradition and went unchallenged for about a century.

I believe gun ownership is beneficial today for three reasons: (1) it allows private citizens to protect their lives and property; (2) it disincentivizes against oppressive government conduct and strengthens our military; (3) it represents the value we place on freedom in America. According to the FBI, one in about every 250 Americans will be murdered (assuming current murder rates) and the likelihood of being involved in violent crime or robbery is even higher. The likelihood of dying in an accidental firearm discharge is one in 4,888 (and many of these are from hunting and target shooting accidents outside of the home). It might make some sense to require a gun safe in the home, but these numbers suggest owning a gun is more likely to protect you than to hurt you. Although I think foreign invasion or a coup d’état is extremely unlikely in the United States, I think the slow erosion of our rights in exchange for false security is likely. Gun ownership is symbolic to our freedom and discourages rash government intrusion. In addition, our military is disproportionately made up of people who grew up with guns in the home. I think it fair to say that our military, especially in case of an unexpected need for a draft, is all the stronger for it.

However, I am not one to say, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Although violent crime is much more a function of mental health, racial demographics, socio-economic factors, and family stability than it is about gun ownership, the easy availability of guns has some effect. Whether easy availability of guns is 2%, 10%, or 30% of the cause of violent crime, I don’t know. Although gun sales and ownership is up by about 5% since 2001, gun murders, gun aggravated assault, and gun robbery have all gone down during the same time frame. Clearly, other contributing factors are more an issue than gun sales and ownership. Although mass murders in upper and middle class America draw the most attention, they represent only a tiny segment of murders nationwide. The majority of murders are concentrated in less advantaged urban neighborhoods and carried out with standard handguns, blunt objects, knives, or hands and feet. Poverty, education, and race are all more predictive of violent crime than is gun ownership. Perhaps gun restrictions should be focused on urban (democratic? Just kidding, but seriously) neighborhoods. Although we lament the horrifying acts of violence at Sandy Hook Elementary, should we not also grieve for the thousands of murders that don’t make national news? Despite my support for some gun regulation measures, I am not particularly emphatic of any because I feel our time and effort could be better spent addressing family stability and socio-economic disparity.

Anyway, with that, I wanted to comment very briefly on a few of President Obama’s legislative proposals for gun regulation.

           

Ban on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

            Assault weapons are inconvenient for criminals because they are too bulky for easy concealment. In 2009, rifles were used in 349 murders. Likely only a tiny percentage of rifle murders were carried out with "assault" rifles, which happen to be some of the best selling guns in the country.  Most Americans do not know what an assault rifle is. The distinction between a "regular" rifle and an "assault" rifle isn't the lethality, but the cosmetic features. The difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault weapon is not the size of bullet, firing rate, or lethal range. Rather, the difference is whether a gun has a pistol grip, flash hider, or an adjustable shoulder stocks. Assault rifles may have menacing looks, but there is no meaningful distinction between a semi-automatic “assault weapon” and a hunting rifle. The DOJ supposes that assault rifles account for, at most, 2% of gun crimes and that the effects of a ban would be so small as to represent statistical insignificance. The burden on freedom is not de minimis. Really, the ban on assault rifles is only symbolic. It has virtually no affect on crime rates, but represents a step towards more intrusive gun control.

             Bans on high-capacity magazines are similarly symbolic. Such a ban was in place until 2004, when the law expired. Crime rates lowered at predictable rates without the magazine ban lapse even registering as a statistical blip. Indeed, a number of mass murders, including the Columbine High School Massacre and the Virginia Tech Shooting were perpetrated with low-capacity magazines without sacrificing any malicious efficiency.  This legislative proposal is more about eroding freedoms with a false lullaby of security than it is about actually saving lives; therefore I oppose this measure.

Requiring Background Checks on All Gun Sales

I support background checks on gun sales as long as they don’t cause unreasonable inconvenience on the buyer. To the extent that the purchaser does not have to fill out unnecessary paperwork, wait an undue amount of time, or wade through sticky bureaucracy—I think background checks on all gun sales will have a more beneficial affect than the minor any minor inconvenience. I would even consider a national gun registry—so long as it wasn’t being used as symbolic warfare on gun ownership generally.

Stricter Penalties for Assisting Criminals and Felons to Obtain Guns

            Tough penalties on illegal gun trafficking and crimes are a step in the right direction. However, deterrence is better accomplished by increasing the likelihood of getting caught than by increasing the severity of the punishment. We need more undercover cops and less cozy prisons.

Strong Families

President Obama is not suggesting this as a solution to violent crime. But, more than anything, we need strong families for a secure and free society. Single-parent homes, high-divorce rates, sex out of wedlock, diminished involvement in community organizations, and drugs in the home are the driving factors of poor educational outcomes, high crime, and socio-economic disparity. Crafting policies to support strong families would do more for lowering gun crime than regulating guns would lower gun crime.

The Academic Elites: Enlightened or Deluded?

           Image: Dave Cutler

 The “intellectual” class of academic elites has a powerful role in policymaking in this country. Although they have no direct responsibility for practical affairs—little or no first-hand experience, they wield ideas and words to advocate their values. Since their ideals are circulated through university teaching, the press, the media, scholarly journals, etc., their influence is disproportionately strong. Members of the class might even suppose that their disproportionate influence is deserved—after all, they did have the highest grades and test scores. Indeed, the elite class often writes abstrusely, which, perhaps paradoxically, enhances their influence through a halo effect (“I don’t understand it so it must be right”). So, is the influence of the academic elites for the better or worse?

            Success as an academic depends almost entirely upon one’s ability to publish and to be cited by other scholars. The pressure on professors to publish de-emphasizes the importance of effective teaching and leads to prolixity. The requirement to publish frequently favors overly critical and negative viewpoints and disfavors support for the status quo and tradition. Publications in the social sciences, liberal arts, and legal studies are, in effect, nihilistic. This is the case because it is easier (and more appreciated) for scholars to criticize and point out weaknesses of current policies and theories (and those of other postulating academics) than it is to publish support of tradition or to adequately promote a positive theory (this problem is most prevalent in “critical theory,” which doesn’t even try to assert any positive theory to replace what it criticizes). The tone of academic writing is decidedly negative-- which gives an impression that things are worse than they really are.

A recent study found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among humanities professors is eight to one. Perhaps largely, this is the case because liberals self-select to become professors while elite conservatives tend to go into practice. However, the hard liberal slant certainly favors liberal academics and the propagation of liberal thought. Although the left slant of academia is doesn't seem to block conservatives from entering the career field, they have more hurdles to clear to establish themselves in the profession once they get there. Scholarly discourse unduly proceeds on a level of liberal assumptions and liberal groupthink.  Academics, in general, become more leftist through their career due to a desire (or necessity) to conform with other academics and to join the "cutting-edge" conversation, which often proceeds on egalitarian assumptions. Many professors benefit financially from liberal politics (e.g. high tuition, cheap and easy student loans, high government employee benefits, etcetera). Some scholarly journals even have, at one point or another, discriminated against conservative authors in choosing who to publish (e.g. here). As a result of all these facts, radical egalitarian thinking disproportionately and for no adequate reason influences culture and politics; especially through the most impressionable among us, e.g. college students and less-educated cable news watchers.

That said, academic thought has had many beneficial results (even in the liberal arts—the hard sciences and engineering have had tangibly good effects on life, aren’t ideologically as slanted, and are not the subject of this post). Academia has had a constructive effect, for example, in bringing about civil rights for racial minorities and women. I would argue that American professors have encouraged the improving tolerance worldwide and even to a more peaceful world. Academia also serves to counterbalance some of the excesses of a market driven economy (e.g. environmental concerns). However, the beneficial results of academic discourse in these areas during the past century, in my opinion, would have worked just as well without the scholarly disregard for tradition, religion, and moral absolutes.

It is my contention, however, that academia has contributed to increased decadence characterized by an erosion of self-restraint and moral traditions of our society. Although individual scholars profess moral codes and many indeed write for good causes, in practice and in the whole, scholarly discourse and university curriculum promotes the notion that moral truths are arbitrary and subjective unless confirmed by scientific evidence. It encourages moral relativism. In place of the pillar of Judeo-Christian morality of American history, academics build a vapid chamber that echoes “tolerance” (which is frequently conflated with “acceptance”—or else you’re a bigot) and  “do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.” As G.K. Chesterton points out, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.” Too many classes today are cynical towards American tradition and religion. For one example, I had a professor who smugly chided Christopher Columbus for not having discovered America and for instituting slavery then, that very class, cited Nietzsche and called him a "discerning" thinker. Why not mention that the Carib indians Columbus enslaved practiced cannibalism and that Nietzsche suffered severe depression throughout his life? Or that Columbus, a true underdog, overcame many obstacles to discover America? The bad should be put in perspective with the good. Today, we are supposed to applaud everyone's religious and moral beliefs (unless your Christian) and everyone's heritage (unless you have European blood). Such a view is skewed. Regardless of creed, culture, race, or socio-economic background, the good and the bad of history and our heritage should be taught on equal footing and in proper perspective.

Academia, as a whole, is failing to bring about enlightenment; it shames the only solution to the collective action problem: faith and morality. It has utterly failed to supplant Judeo-Christian ethics as a source of community good will, temperance, freedom, and wisdom in America. Abraham Lincoln observed, “The philosophy in the classroom in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next.” Academics are leaving students with a confused moral compass. They prepare students only to deconstruct (and disrespect) tradition and the current situation through Marxist, feminist, Freudian, and other critiques. Students are not taught prudence, gratitude, or morality. As the radical egalitarian and morally relativistic project of academia gains traction in politics and culture, Americans will need to trade in more liberties for safety and more collective virtue for equality and “tolerance.” If you ask me, the bargain is a poor one.

Individual academic elites are both enlightened and deluded. But, the incentives and structure of the tertiary education system are in trouble. They need to be reworked if we are to best progress towards a more virtuous society. Superior teaching is equally important as research and publication. Schools should accommodate faith and morality. The heritage and positive theories within subject matter areas (the good) should be emphasized with critiques of the past and present (the bad). Institutional diversity in schools should be encouraged by national policy. Critical thinking is good; but so is gratitude and prudence. We need to align the education incentive structure to continue reaping the benefits of critical thought without incurring the costs of academic nihilism.