Loyola University Chicago is the latest of universities to play favoritism in the name of fairness. A conservative student group sought to bring Karl Rove to Loyola to lecture on policy issues and the November elections. Loyola refused to permit the appearance in order to preserve their tax exempt status.
In 2004, Howard Dean and John Kerry – both presidential candidates – delivered speeches at Loyola. The University was not concerned about losing the exempt status by engaging in political advocacy then. A member of the Obama administration, a Mr. Eebo Patel, is allowed to speak this summer. In 2006, Anne Coulter was heckled by a coalition of liberal student groups to the point she left the podium. Perhaps the reader sees a pattern?
Anyone who fears to allow their opponent’s voice to be heard is someone to fear. The French Revolution quickly became a nightmare when the various factions began indulging in their personal vendettas. The sans-culottes became the ‘storm-troopers’ for the most violent and revolutionary of these factions. They were were the working poor, most of them uneducated and easily swayed. Today, tragically, it seems the sans-culottes of modern day America are drawn from the colleges and universities. Despite twelve years of primary and secondary education and further collegiate education, the modern day rabble is just as ignorant, just as barbaric, just as intolerant.
The Coulter appearance was opposed by a group calling itself LSCAB – Loyola Student Coalition Against Bigotry. On a website, there were photos of the protest. The Citizen is amused that one of them had a young man holding a sign that said
“Bad” things liberals have done: Woman’s rights. Civil Rights.
Just what is the history department at Loyola Chicago teaching these students?
The first national political party with a woman’s suffrage plank as part of it’s platform was Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party. Roosevelt was a member of the original – and only effective – group of reformers. All conservatives, all members of the Republican party. Jeannette Rankin, the first woman member of the United States House of Representatives, was a Republican.
Civil Rights is another sacred cow claimed by liberals. Nonsense. The Republican party was formed to marginalize and ultimately end slavery. The Democratic party would resist this and – after the Civil War ended – sought to circumvent civil rights reforms. As late as 1964, the Democratic party fought civil rights legislation tooth and nail. Howard Smith, a democrat and chair of the Senate Rules Committee, vowed to keep Johnson’s Civil Rights Act from a vote. republican senator Everett McKinley Dirksen was the great unsung hero of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without his tireless effort, this bill would certainly have died. And this is one example of conservative leadership in civil rights.
In fact, in the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. Political opportunities for women and minorities has historically been available in the Republican Party. Congresswoman Rankin was the first woman representative. The first black judge, congressman, senator, governor, Secretary of State….all were Republicans.
Liberals tend to think that they are the party of progress. Let’s look at liberal progressivism. There is a growing body of evidence that the New Deal was a disastrous policy. Social Security has turned into an entitlement system that has grown beyond the wildest imaginings of Roosevelt. Johnson’s Great Society program promised to end poverty. Four decades later, we have a growing body of the idle poor, slaves to a network of local, state, and federal entitlement programs. Where is the progress?
What liberals do possess is the ‘big tent’. When you look at organizations like LSCAB, you see it’s member groups include gay and lesbian student groups, Amnesty International, various ethnic groups, and Vegans. These groups are bound together by a common thread – hatred of people who have views contrary to their own.
When Coulter came to Loyola Chicago, they rallied -which is fine. They attended the lecture. Again, this is fine. They heckled, shouted, and disrupted Ms. Coulter’s presentation. Which is not fine She also walked off the stage in 2006 during a speech at UCONN over hecklers. The same year, David Horowitz attempted to deliver a lecture on the threat of Islamic fascism – and was shouted off the stage. When Daniel Pipes attempted to argue a defense for Israel at the University of California, Muslim and Marxist student groups allied to shut him down with disruptive behavior. Star Parker was threatened, heckled, and abused at a Penn State lecture – her crime? Sharing her personal story about how a single mother with a job has an advantage over a single mother on welfare. These are just a handful of hateful, militaristic, thuggish actions by ‘enlightened’ liberals. Why? If the message of conservatives is so flawed, why are liberal humanists so adamant about silencing dissenting voices?
A good question. Conservative perspectives are contrary to socialism. Conservatives are often – but not entirely – religious. Religion is one of the enemies of the socialist state. Conservatives believe in limited government that emphasizes opportunities – especially economic. Socialists desire a strong central state that provides a modicum of material benefits for all. Conservatives believe that individual liberty is coupled with civic responsibility. Liberals believe that freedom should come with no strings attached. Conservatives believe that it’s acceptable for them to use their faith and moral beliefs to guide their civic decisions. Liberals argue that this is judgmental.
Judgmental. Interesting word. When conservatives state that they believe something is wrong, they are vilified – even if they are in the majority. When liberals take umbrage with a dissenting voice – they will not allow it to be heard. Who is being judgmental?
A second student in that photo the Citizen mentioned earlier held a sign proclaiming Anne Coulter was xenophobic, homophobic, and anti-choice. So what? Let her speak. Take her arguments and expose their weaknesses. Use the power of the school newspaper, social networks, and other avenues to counter her argument and make her irrelevant. Instead, they use the tactics of the mob, the brown-shirt, the sans-culotte. Why?
Two reasons. It’s easier to make signs and scream and shout. And – more important – maybe they don’t have a good argument to counter the voices of Conservatives.