Dr. Al M. Iosue said that, as far as IQ is concerned, “many people don’t have much to work with.”

By JOHN NORTH

HENDERSONVILLE — Following his 30-minute speech that prompted five people to walk out, guest speaker Richard L Kranker fielded questions for 20 minutes during the Nov. 11 program  co-sponsored by the Institute of Applied Philosophy and the UNC Asheville Philosophy Department at UNCA’s Kellogg Center.

Kranker, who addressed “Liberalism vs. Conservativism: One Conservative’s View of the Good, the Bad and the Differences” in his lecture, was asked by an unidentified man “to speak about the efficiency of markets” in a reference to the global financial meltdown and liquidity crisis.

“The markets do very well if left alone by the government,” Kranker replied. He blamed the crisis on the Community Investment Act of 1977,” which, Kranker said, “made it a crime” for lending institutions to reject loan applications by a segment of the population would not qualify under normal conditions.

Next, Brian Butler, chairman of the UNCA Philosophy Department where he is a professor, asked Kranker about his knowledge of economist Ronald Coase and transactional economics.

When Kranker said he did not understand the question, Butler abandoned his inquiry.

(Coase, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, is best known for introducing the concept of transaction costs to explain the limits of business firms and suggesting that well-defined property rights could overcome the problems of social costs. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991.)

A woman asked Kranker to address the conservative stance on crime and proverty.

“Criminals are to be punished,” Kranker answered, succinctly. “The poor should be helped, but they should be made to work for it.”
In his view, Kranker said the government should help “everyone until they’re 18 — and then they get nothing from the government.”
A man asked if Kranker believes education has a role in addressing poverty.

“Absolutely,” Kranker replied. “When I went to school, schools had different tracks for smarter and less-smart people ... The better-educated people are clearly making the most money.”

A woman asked how Kranker feels about taxpayer dollars being distributed to religious organizations to help people.

“You can’t give anybody money for those things,” Kranker answered.

A man, who noted that he has a schizophrenic son, asked what should happen if his son were to commit a crime.

“I’m brutal, I really am,” Kranker replied. He said that the arrest and incarceration of a schizophrenic person “can take him out of society,” as, he said, it should.

In accusing Kranker of polarizing the sides, a woman asserted, “When you talk about liberals and conservatives, you set up lifelong enemies. I think government was set up to bring them together.”

“No, you are wrong,” Kranker said. “That’s not what government is set up for. For politicians, it’s me first, party second and you third. It’s never going to happen” that the harmony in American politics exists that the woman envisioned.

Another woman asked, “How would conservatives handle the problems and crimes of racism — if there had been no government intervention?”

“I’m of the opinion that it eventually would have worked itself out — look at South Africa today,” Kranker said.

A man said, “I agree with some of what you said. But the way you portrayed it — conservatives are always right and liberals always wrong” — struck him as unfair.

In refence to the aforementioned schizophrenic youngster’s hypothetical criminal activity, the man added, “We’re all society — and that’s what we’re all about.” He said that in his view, society is responsible to help the youngster’s family financially.

“Who owns the problem?” Kranker asked. “Why do people feel it’s other people’s responsibility to help you?”

Following a break, IAP moderator Don Emon led a group discussion that included comments pro and con about Kraner’s talk during which the speaker, by tradition, is not allowed to comment. Emon asked the attendees to consider what advice they would give to their children or grandchildren

At that point, Emon’s wife Diane, an IAP organizer, noted, “I’ve been coming to these meetings for many years” and this constituted the most heated in the group’s history.

“So Dick, how brave of you to lay yourself out to this group,” even though she noted that she did not agree with his conservative viewpoint.

“I agree with you to listen to both sides of the story ... I’m embarrassed that the people walked out. We’re supposed to be the intelligent group. That said, I hope they never use IQ tests to determine intelligence. They are skewed.”

A woman said, “I tell my children not to get involved in party politics ... I’d like them to be smart enough to work things out without being ugly.”

A man said that government functions best when it is pushed to the lowest level possible.

Al M. Iosue, M.D., president and founder of the IAP, said, “The most influential book I read as a boy was ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’ by Sigmund Freud. The question is: Why do we need civilization?”

He cited British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who stated that without government, life would decline to a condition that he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This, Hobbes said, inevitably leads to conflict, a “war of all against all” and thus lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In his view, Iosue said, “Civilization is based on intellect.” To that end, he added, “The average IQ is 100. That means many people don’t have much to work with ... The politican’s problem is the distribution of wealth problem ... If you don’t keep the rabble satisfied, there’s rioting and destruction.”

Iosue asserted that the problem is compounded by the reality that 10 percent of people are alcoholics and 10 percent are mentally ill.
The issue comes down to “either let nature play things out or let men — socialists, fascists and capitalists” — try to direct the outcome.

A woman noted that “each of my children are different ... I think that’s where a lot of the conservative philosophy kind of falls down ... Not every person has the same ability. I believe we need a safety net.”

In answer to a question moderator Don Emon earlier had asked regarding a message to one’s children or grandchildren, a man said he would tell them that “the place where it starts is with your own individual behavior” and “Thou shalt not initiate force against another human being.”

When does he believe force can be initiated? Emon asked.

“I’d say never,” the man replied. However, he noted that retaliation is “another matter that we’d have to discuss.” He added that “I think, generally, liberals tend not to like things in black and white.”

Another man said he learned while serving in the U.S. armed forces in Vietnam that “wars are always about power and resources.” His strongest suggestion, he said, was to “get them (children) away from TV and computers” and, instead, encourage them to read and interact with their families.

In linking the walkouts during Kranker’s talk to political polarization trends in American society at large, he wondered, “How do we get back to where there’s civil discourse again?” He concluded by stating that “we’re in a waste land.”

In a criticism of Kranker’s contention that those who are most educated get the best jobs and salaries, a woman noted that she always has been told that she is “overeducated.” And despite earning advanced degrees, she earns $12 per hour as a substitute teacher in the area.

“As a teacher, what I’d tell the next generation is nothing. Instead, I’d ask what I could learn from a younger generation.”

 At that point, Kranker’s wife, Dinorah, observed that “liberals walk out when they disagree,” as most recently evidenced by the walkout during her husband’s talk.

However, another IAP member disagreed, stating that those who left were upset because of Kranker’s crusty presentation style.

In changing subjects, a woman said she would tell her grandchildren to “be conservative with money — and liberal with compassion.”

A man stated, “I think Dick’s taking an unfair hit” from those IAP members who took issue with his stance that individuals should take responsibility for their own problems and not look to government for help.

“He said it (poverty) was a problem, but not a government problem,” the man said. “I lived in Singapore, where there’s almost no safety net. When a problem happens, the government opens a bank account” for that person — and the citizenry are generous in the private donations to the account.

“I don’t think Dick was advocating a callousness, just where the source of the help comes from.”

Based on earlier comments by IAP members, a man said “the complexity of the fiscal conservative/socially liberal is, if you are a fiscal conservative, then you can ill afford to be a social liberal.” Further, he added, “We have to be careful with ‘needs.’”

As a point of clarity, he stressed that “social liberalism costs,” so “you have to balance what social liberalism costs” in aspiring to remain fiscally conservative, which presents a dilemma.

In his closing comments, following the Q&A and group discussion, Kranker said, “First, I’ll say my talk tonight is Don’s fault,” in taking a light-hearted verbal jab at Emon. “I told him I had trouble discussing politics” with liberals.

“I should say I know what it’s like to be poor. At the same time,” Kranker said he would prefer to see the problems of poverty solved without government interference. “Before government intervened, churches and civic groups did the job of helping the poor. When the government” took over the task, it did a poor job by creating an entitlement mentality and cycle of poverty — and its action caused churches and civic groups to cut back in their more successful efforts.

As for the people who walked out on his lecture, Kranker said, “Clearly very liberal people can’t tolerate” dissenting viewpoints.
Regarding IQ testing, “We’re going to disagree,” he noted. “Plenty of people think it (a standardized test) works.”

In a reference to Butler’s criticism that Kranker presented just one stream of conservative thought, Kranker said, “There just wasn’t the time” to give an overview of differing conservative ideas.

While one asserted during the group discussion that he would always oppose the use of force, Kranker asked, “How many people could have been saved if Hitler had been stopped” early before the advent of World War II?

Finally, Kranker said, “I guess I have to apologize if I sound like the word of God. I apologize. I enjoyed your comments.”

To those who remained for the duration of his talk, he said, “Thank you for listening to me.”