For myself, I don’t see any political problem with economics. I would probably tweak the discipline for some of its limitations (overreliance on theories and models which are casually seen as having real-world application, for example) but that’s not a political critique.

Why do you think that economics needs more leftists and liberals? What problem do you see; is it a cultural problem within the profession, or do you think it’s something else?

My own belief is that leftists and liberals who become economists tend towards free-market opinions, for the same reasons that religious Christians who become biologists mostly believe in evolution — the particular expertise they acquire makes them aware of a truth. However, the hypothetical characterization you offered — that economics tends to supports free-market conservatism — is only half true. Markets, sure, but not conservatism. Those two don’t have a necessary link.

My first job out of college was working for Yale’s Robert Shiller. He had a company that existed to produce the financial information needed to dramatically expand the range and scope of derivatives markets. Bob Shiller wanted to do this because he wanted people to have much better social insurance than they currently do, and he thought we needed the appropriate derivatives markets to make those protections financially sustainable. The revealing but inaccurate way of describing his worldview is that he was like a cross between a New Deal Democrat and a hedge fund manager. It’s revealing and inaccurate because it’s funny on its face — to most people, those two worldviews are obviously incompatible, and mixing the two is “clearly” going to produce nonsense. But he had a subtlety, depth and rigor to his thinking that I find astonishing even today; it was the exact opposite of incoherence. However, I think this kind of perspective fits poorly into the usual systems of language when talking about politics — the typical liberal or leftist only uses the word market with a negative connotation, so economists tend to get categorized as conservatives regardless of the actual content of their beliefs.

There’s an interesting parallel here with the observations Alan made about the relationship between professional norms and debate outside the academy, but I should stop before I go on too long.

Withywindle: Ah, sorry I didn’t quite get you on the first go-round. Yes, I actually would agree that it’s important to restrain oneself in that respect. I went to a meeting in December 2001 where one of my colleagues talked about how disturbing she found all the flags she saw on lawns when she was travelling in the South. Now the interesting thing is that I don’t think most of the people shared her distress, but also, no one was really going to start up a fight about it. More importantly, it obviously didn’t occur to her that there could even be disagreement or discomfort with her observation in the form she voiced it, e.g., where it was unimaginable that anyone could have another point of view. That’s what you’ve got to avoid, I think, is that sense that it’s impossible that anyone could dissent. I don’t think there could be any objection to having an opinion (and maybe even to a cheap crack or two) if there was a sense that the welcome mat was out for any and all points-of-view and possible other sensibilities.

I further think there’s a difference between that exhortation and going out and saying you’re “mobilizing” your classroom. An exhortation may always be declined, even if it’s to an effectively captive audience. But a mobilization, even if only rhetorical, enlists the students in the struggle against their will and defines any who decline as deserters. That I find morally objectionable.

I think you misunderstood my initial point. Our points of view are not only narrowly partisan, but also more broadly American, and still rather distinct from other views around the world; many of our internal political debates reflect shared values. It wouldn’t hurt liberal professors to conceive of their own attitudes and identities more broadly, to teach as Americans rather than as liberals; or, if teaching as liberals, to teach that conservative values are part of a shared American consensus, where one can disagree without hatred. Too damn many professors can’t seem to enter a classroom without saying Republicans and conservatives are evil, stupid, insane, scum, Nazis, etc.

I suppose what it comes down to is that a uniform liberal professoriate wouldn’t be so bad if they could manage some minimal civility and good manners, at the very least in the classroom.

(I can almost predict a reply that X Republican or conservative isn’t mannerly either. To which I say, so what? Set a good example.)

Perhaps Erin was misinformed a bit.

There’s another piece to this problem, and that’s communicating more effectively about why our histories or humanistic analyses or technological insights or scientific paradigms don’t correspond to some popular expectations about what the content of academic knowledge ought to be. I think there’s a good reason, for example, to question whether American history is best understood as a chronologically linear succession of presidential administrations, a good reason that can easily be communicated to wider publics. What I think we shouldn’t do is just come to the conclusion that “they” won’t get it and so why bother?