{shortcode-541a3e8c81459f8e1a200cf8e64f24efde152192}

I am a conservative Republican plucked out of retirement (where I belong) to help Crimson readers discover how much diversity they can stomach. Somehow, the more DEI we have, the less there is diversity of opinion.

A rare bird at Harvard, I have plenty of my type in the country we inhabit. Recent events have made it harder for this fact to be ignored, especially the Supreme Court’s decision against affirmative action in a case involving Harvard and the disastrous encounter of Former Harvard President Claudine Gay with Rep. Elise Stefanik ’06 (R-N.Y.). And this is to say nothing of threatening gestures from Congress and the Trump administration. Should Harvard do battle with the Republicans or change course and make peace?

Though a normal partisan, I am also a teacher, offering arguments on the character of the two-party system. I will not pitch a tent in the Yard and chant slogans. Instead of going on the attack, I shall begin from a competition between the favorite virtues of each of our parties — an approach seldom taken at homogeneous Harvard, where party discourse is scarce. What do parties in the rest of the country say to put their best foot forward? Since Republicans are almost unknown at Harvard, whether among students, faculty, or administration, I shall begin from the Democrats we know here as an unchallenged majority.

Readers can judge which party is better — or truer. It will seem strange to look to our parties for truth, for parties seek victory more than truth. They are biased; they exaggerate and even lie. Yet when they speak, they do not merely express opinions. They address one another; they argue. Most observers of parties overlook or greatly underestimate the fact that parties argue with one another.

We can get to what Republicans believe by asking what they object to. They object to the thinking of Democrats that typically denies the value and importance of differences. Democrats stand for inclusiveness. They want to include everybody in a whole community of equal individuals, equal because this is the only, or the best, way to include everybody.

Equality is best shown in the body that everyone has as needy and mortal, whereas soul or mind is the source of inequality. Equality of body keeps Democrats focused on material well-being, as in “the economy, stupid.”

Concern for inclusiveness turns Democrats’ attention mainly to those who are excluded from the whole, whether by design or neglect: the poor and the oppressed. If not excluded, these people are marginalized. They are vulnerable. Democrats care for them, a word they like. For them, the appropriate virtue is compassion or empathy, which they praise and claim for themselves.

Caring can include coercion, typically in the form of taxation, which Democrats prefer to voluntary charity. The unequal rich must “pay their fair share.” Fairness is unequal contribution to equalize individuals who deserve help because they are needy, or less than equal. Fairness aims to eliminate or reduce inequalities arising from differences.

The Democratic ideal is a whole with differences but without inequalities. They maintain the equality of differences by not passing judgment on anyone — except those damn Republicans. Democrats keep a soft face to the world, but they can be very hard to those they consider hard. At Harvard, progressive Democrats support Palestinians, who mostly support Hamas, which practices savage rape and murder of Israeli citizens.

Then what do Republicans say in reply? It’s not a secret, but at Harvard, it’s unheard. Republicans for their part want a whole of variegated individuals, in which some are held more valuable than others. These folks are thought more valuable because they contribute more. The wealthy contribute their investments and their taxes, making the country prosperous and thriving rather than equal in mediocrity. The military serve: “Thank you for your service!” and others excel in some useful way.

Republicans praise those taking risks as opposed to living in security, though they like security after success in risk-taking. They prefer looking up with admiration to looking down with compassion.

Of course, the virtues they admire have to be accommodated to the opinions of a democratic republic in a democratic age. They themselves feel vulnerable not because they are excluded but because they are open to attack as rich and privileged. They have to be sensitive to the charge of “oligarchy” that is always available to their opponents.

Republicans think of themselves as givers rather than takers — to use the private formula of Mitt Romney in 2012 — but they present themselves as ordinary and normal folk who earn their living rather than living off the government and the taxpayers. They are just as materialistic as Democrats, but they cover their desire by praising ambition or entrepreneurial spirit. They are generally competitive rather than greedy, and they disdain all but the “truly needy.”

Here is a sketch of the parties of equality and inequality that comes down to compassion versus admiration. Of course there are admiring Democrats and compassionate Republicans, because it is not possible to be fully human and not both admire and feel pity. But there seems to be division as to which should be emphasized, and there is no easy way to choose both. The argument is over how a democracy should treat its inequalities: should we equalize them or value them? The wish to do both should soften your anger against the party you don’t choose.

Harvard students and faculty should use their vaunted skepticism on themselves and check out the other side — and that starts by taking a look upward.

This is the first of a series to come.

Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 is the Kenan Research Professor of Government at Harvard.