Embarrassingly unprepared for my first journalistic experience, I attempted to find a place to charge my computer so I could take notes on this week’s installation of the Goldfarb Center’s “In The News” event with Professor Tyler Austin Harper. I was met with kindness from the Tech Team, who have been tirelessly working to prepare for Wednesday’s event. Their attitude was largely representative of the general demeanor of the room: chaotically joyful and simply excited to be involved.
Harper, an Environmental Science Professor at Bates College [he got plenty of comments about this unfortunate fact, not to worry] and a contributing writer for The Atlantic, arrived and immediately found a secluded spot on the balcony to take a moment of meditation like an athlete might before their game. Having written his dissertation on nihilism and human extinction, he was very familiar with the grim, and I was initially nervous about how this discussion would go as my fellow students and I hunkered down in the February cold. But, this fear quickly abated as his seriousness was superseded by an obvious delight at being here, demonstrated by his warming smile and the ferocity with which he devoured every question.
The first question came from Faculty Moderator Alison Beyea, Executive Director of Colby’s Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs. She asked if democracy can exist within a society that has extreme wealth.
“The short answer is no. Democracy is not functioning well,” Harper said. He argued that one major issue with the Harris campaign was the focus on anti-elitism and populist economic rhetoric that was easily disrupted by the influence of donors, such as Tony West. The increasing necessity of money for campaign success makes politicians less responsive to the needs of everyday Americans, Harper said.
A common theme throughout the talk, both from student questions and from Harper himself, was asserting that the Democrats need a drastic change from their current figures in order to have more success in elections. “I don’t know exactly who it is, but I will certainly vote for him,” Harper remarked. (“Or her!” My Government major roommate sitting next to me snidely commented.) Other recurring themes included the need for Populist Economic policy and anti-elitism, which Harper argued have been winning topics in every election going back to 2008.
Beyea questioned the tactics of the Harris campaign—painting Trump as an existential threat to democracy without offering any real way forward—and wondered if this messaging was simply flawed or if people no longer believe in the democratic process. “People are nihilistic about the system,” Harper said, because Democrats martyr themselves as defenders of institutions, but the institutions are not responsive. He cited the White House staff’s denial of Biden’s clearly declining cognitive functioning as an example of why trust in experts is decreasing. Harper claimed this distrust really goes back to the Iraq War and has since been exacerbated by issues such as the Opioid Crisis, COVID-19, worsening literacy testing, the renomination of Biden by the Democratic party, and the “sheer incompetence of the technocratic class.”
At this point, as the room was brimming with optimism, the audience experienced a collective shiver as Harper asserted that “preventing human extinction is the greatest challenge we face in this century.” And it will not only come from climate change, as many of us think. “As someone who is an expert on global extinction, climate change is not a threat to the global species, but it will cause worldwide suffering. Instead, political figures need to take charge, particularly with an increasing complacency surrounding nuclear weapons.”
Harper was quick to note that things are not as hopeless as they seem. As we approach the eighty-year anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Harper reminded us that everyone thought we would be dead within ten years of the use of the first nuclear weapons, and we are still here. We do have the capacity to control new technologies, but it takes effort. As increasing wealth disparity sends us into a “New Gilded Age,” awareness of these issues is particularly important.
In response to questions about what individuals can do to fight these seemingly overwhelming issues, Harper asserted the biggest thing we can do is demand better politicians and prioritize civic engagement in an age in which he argues civic service is declining, particularly among the elites. He cautioned us to always remember that elite institutions like Colby are “the places that drive wealth inequality in the United States.” Increasingly, at places like “Harvard, Yale, and Princeton: 50 percent of those [graduates] go onto work in finance and big tech.” A foundational portion of Harper’s argument seemed to be fighting against an emerging complacency among wealthy elites.
After the talk, I had the chance to interview Harper to ask some lingering questions on some of his recent articles. Related to the themes of elitism and apathy, we discussed a quote in his recent article “The Emerging Bipartisan Wokeness” that says, “anti-white and anti-man sentiment that sometimes flows freely in academia in ways that would be unacceptable if directed to any other demographic group.” I questioned how he suggests we change our language to maintain the ability to critique these majority groups without being overly pessimistic or pejorative.
“We need more sophistication about how we discuss race in America … there is not enough nuance … white privilege is not distributed equally,” Harper said. Growing up in predominantly white central Pennsylvania where five percent of his high school class had died from an overdose or been to rehab, Harper argued that we must not fall into the trap of obscuring broader class issues with race, although they can be connected. Harper’s argument about the tendency to conflate the two feels deeply tied to issues surrounding increased complacency in thought processes about appealing to working-class Americans.
In the final moments of the talk, Harper advised us that one of the most important things we can do is spend time in spaces that are “politically contested” because when we only spend time with people who parrot our own ideas, “that is not thinking. That is the evacuation of thought entirely.”
In the same article as above, Harper asserted that there is an underlying belief in the woke left that “emotional security is no less important than physical security and supersedes free speech” and this view is creating some of the increasing “wokeness” we see on the right. For my final question I asked how, I wondered how, as someone who works in academia and media, he views the role or limits of free speech.
He responded that, while he used to be a “squisher” on free speech, he is now more of an absolutist and reminds us that the ACLU has taken cases defending Neo-Nazis because free speech does not only apply one way. He is appalled that many major newsrooms don’t have opinion writers who are Trump supporters. He ended by noting that “ideas can be dangerous but don’t become less dangerous when you hide them away.”
These ideas feel particularly pertinent on the College’s campus, especially with the upcoming visit of Chris Scalia for his “In The News” segment on a Conservative Perspective on the Liberal Arts.
The line of people waiting to ask questions after the talk was a testament to Harper’s breadth of knowledge. As Beyea noted on her LinkedIn, this talk was “62 minutes with the fastest talking, the most mind-expanding person I have interviewed in a long time!”
Thank you to Alison and the Goldfarb team, as well as Professor Harper, for conducting the type of event that aims to combat the same apathy that Harvey claims could be our downfall.
~ Charley DiAdamo `27
Be First to Comment