"It's a great honor to be an American—you should not forget it."
—Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, April 12, 2006.
Jeremy Rabkin, in His Own Words
On April 12th, Jonathan Bautista, Copy Editor of The Cornell American, had the privilege of sitting down and talking with the departing Professor Jeremy Rabkin, one of the government department’s most brilliant minds. Professor Rabkin has the distinction of being one of the few currently active professors that have, to some degree, contributed their time and support to one of Cornell University’s conservative organizations, be it the Cornell College Republicans, The Cornell American, or The Cornell Review. In this interview, Professor Rabkin talks about his experiences at Cornell and the current political landscape in the country as a whole.
What attracted you to Cornell University?
I had a good time here as an undergraduate. I had some great teachers; I met my wife here. There are a lot of attractive things about this place. It’s a beautiful setting, an affordable place to live. It has mostly good students. It’s nice that it’s the focus of people’s effort and attention. At a lot of places, the city overshadows the environment, but that’s not true here. If you come to Cornell, you come to Cornell.
Has your political affiliation ever become an issue at Cornell?
It probably matters in more ways than I am aware of. Most people are polite. I am not subject to direct pressure to change what I say or how I teach. I think it’s human nature for people to trust those whom they agree with. A lot of my colleagues are focused on their own wok and do engage in other political discussions. I have not spoken too much about politics with my colleagues.
How has Cornell’s political landscape changed since you began teaching?
The faculty is less balanced than it used to be. There used to be a greater mix of political views. This is not unique to Cornell. In the 80s, students were more engaged in political argument. A lot of people agreed with Reagan. A lot of people disagreed with Reagan. Politics and the country as a whole were changing in important ways. There was more interest in political debate, and there is less of that now. Republicans and Democrats were more hopeful, and now they’re less hopeful. Debate was more fun, and you got more out of it. Now, people expect it to be uglier after it gets started. This especially makes a difference in your experience as a teacher.
You’ve had the distinction of being one of Anne Coulter’s most beloved professors. What was it like teaching her, and what do you think of her success?
She was not yet Anne Coulter when I was teaching her. She worked on a senior thesis under me. It was a Cornell senior thesis, not yet an Anne Coulter book. I don’t think she was necessarily absorbed in her studies. She was in a sorority, she had a lot of friends; she had a lot of fun. She was a Cornell student, not some zealot barricaded by more conservative zealots. It was a more open world, less polarized. She is a very talented writer and she does her homework. Whoever doesn’t admit that doesn’t read her. Every time I read one of her columns, I laugh out loud, and I’m one of those people who have heard every joke. Sometimes she presses too far with her jokes, but…she genuinely likes to laugh. She is having fun. You can say what you want about her jokes not being suitable, but they are jokes. Once again, she likes to laugh. I think it’s unfair to say she’s successful because she’s so shrill. She’s witty and funny. I’ve met people who like her books who are not extreme partisans.
Why is the faculty predominantly liberal, especially now as compared to then?
The faculty thing is a national trend—it depends on who goes to graduate school, who thinks he or she can get a job teaching. It’s unfortunate. It’s not a conspiracy or anything. I think the Left suffers more than the Right. It’s bad to be a monopolist. Monopolists become fat and lazy. It’s a big advantage as a teacher to say things unexpected and unfamiliar. It’s a burden to my colleagues that they don’t get to do that as often as I do.
Why are people less enthusiastic about politics?
I’m not sure. I have two speculations. We went from the Clinton impeachment drama to the debate about terrorism. Both of those had the effect of stirring everyone up and not leading them anywhere. They preempted a lot of other debates. Also, cable television and the internet make politics a spectacle, kind of like professional wrestling; people are encouraged to say, “I don’t like that sport.” There is obviously a good and bad side to the internet: it makes a huge amount of information immediately accessible. There are awkward consequences: there is no personal communicative experience. It connects you to people who are out there in thin air. Cyber communities are to real communities as cyber sex is to real sex. It’s not real flesh and blood. And those people out there in cyber communities are just insane because they hear those echo voices that they mistake for the real world. As such, people’s orientations are different. People start to live in this mental world of “me and my believers.” Something about that is just unwholesome. Most religious groups understand that you need a gathering of the flesh to live together; you can’t just read the pages from the holy book on your own. Cornell has somewhat coped with this better than other places. Students are thrown more together here. When you’re at Cornell, you’re really at Cornell.
Some would say that there is a deep divide in the conservative movement, with Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives. Do you think that’s true and problematic?
I do not think that is right. I think all this talk about Neocons is kind of silly. This meant something in the early 1970s. I don’t think it’s meant anything since then. There is no real difference between The National Review and The Daily Standard. There is some debate on foreign policy, with some people like Pat Buchanan and some of his Libertarian friends. But even Pat Buchanan knows we can’t walk away from Iraq. People on the Right understand that there are real conflicts. And that’s what’s important. If you think there are real conflicts, it’s crazy to think that, say, France, let alone China or Russia, can veto something at the United Nations and make everything all right. There is no deep conservative divide—there are differences, and that’s how it should be. It’s a gathering of the largely like-minded. If you look at some domestic issues, it’s a coalition, and people have different priorities. I’ll give you one example: the view of religion. The Left tends to be hostile and suspicious, while the Right tends to be protective. To speak of religion is to speak of abstractions. People are Catholic or Evangelical or Muslim or Jewish. Catholics are Protestants have some real differences, as do Christians and Jews. With Conservatives, it’s a similar thing. We’re talking about politics, not articles of faith. People need to see this in perspective. Disagreements need to be seen in perspective. But we should not make every difference of opinion a difference of principle. Disagreements keep people alert. They show that people are thinking. In some ways, conservative students are better informed now, thanks to internet, ironically. In some ways, that’s very good. But I worry that their political culture is too narrowly political. You should feel inadequate as a conservative if you haven’t read Aristotle. To do that, you need to have a teacher who conveys Aristotle and his importance effectively. Cornell does not have as many people who love the old books today. It’s also a problem with the students: that’s not what they’re looking for. The net encourages just pulling facts out instead of finding them by reading a book. A chatroom is no a friend. A book is a friend. Colleges should do more to promote books, the right kind of books. Cornell should introduce [its students] to worthier books and worthier people. We don’t do enough to encourage that kind of engagement.
Professor Strauss said the same thing at a College Republicans meeting once.
Barry Strauss and I went to Cornell at the same time. We’ve talked about this and we do agree with each other about this.
You know, I think this is…I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. Students don’t go on dates anymore; they go in packs. The internet is like a pack. You can’t choose when you’re always in a pack. When you’re on a date, you have to choose the right date. So you should choose the right book. If it’s good, have a steady engagement with the book, with a serious author.
What do you say to a student who does not want to be politically active?
Your paper is called The Cornell American. I think it’s one of the glories of the American way of life that not everybody has to be involved in politics. They should give themselves and politics a chance, but if they don’t like it, that’s their choice. They don’t even have to go to party meetings or anything. For people who like that sort of thing, they have to remember that life is not scored by op-ed. pieces. In the end, politics is doing what’s right for your country. Whether you like it or not, you’re sharing the country with people you disagree with.
It’s a great honor to be an American—you should not forget it.