Generation at the Crossroads: Apathy and Action on the American Campus. - book review

Not surprising, then, is Loeb's second major theme: the "myth" of political correctness. Loeb dubs critics of political correctness "P.C. Baiters." A cadre of corporate cronies, the P.C. Baiters supposedly have fooled the American public by presenting academia's attempt to become more inclusive and humane as a "false dilemma." The Baiters know who they are, Loeb assures us, and if you've recently contributed to Commentary, National Review, the New Criterion, or The Public Interest, you are a likely suspect.

The big lie of political correctness, according to Loeb, is the conservative fantasy of "tenured radicals" running the academy. In his eyes, most professors are moderates, if not genuine reactionaries. A "good" professor fulfills his moral responsibility by exhorting students to protest and organize against America's bankrupt institutions. The fact that some universities don't actively encourage professors to use their podium as a pulpit is an indicator, Loeb believes, of academia's deep-seated conservatism.

A third theme revealed in Generation at the Crossroads is a peculiar convergence between the Left and the Right. Loeb frets over the globalization of the economy and the uncertainties it engenders. Sounding a bit like Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and others who wring their hands over the "anxious class," Loeb argues for restoring local communities and forcing big businesses to eradicate the fears of the working middle class. Loeb's declaration that a "humane society needs businesspeople who respect efforts by workers and communities to organize and gain greater say in their circumstances" sounds somewhat similar to Charles Murray's call for the restoration of a "valued place" for everyone.

It is true that, in the wake of the debates over universal health care, NAFTA, and GATT, as well as the 1994 Congressional elections, an embryonic, yet startling, consensus over the need to "protect" the middle class emerged. Writers such as James Fallows and Edward Luttwak have garnered a sympathetic audience from certain quarters of the Left and the Right with their arguments for increased government efforts to cushion the chaotic effects of global capitalism. Virtually the entire debate over the 1994 crime bill, and much of the debate over health care, was framed in terms of which party could deliver greater personal "security." Indeed, the conservative emphasis on family, neighborhood, and school has always been, in large part, a call for a more ordered and secure (i.e., traditional) lifestyle.

The difference, of course, is that conservatives like Murray reasonably argue that the valued places have been eroded by too much politicization, characterized by concomitant petitions for greater government involvement in our daily lives. Obviously Loeb, and the Left in general, believe the reverse. Still, there is less sunlight between these segments of the Right and Left than one might think.

But whatever level of government interference the two political parties finally do agree upon, it will most assuredly not be high enough for Loeb. This is best demonstrated by Loeb's criticism of volunteerism. Community and religious service groups do good things, Loeb concedes, and they are helpful in motivating young people toward political action, which is even better. But, he worries that volunteer projects