To anti-Trump protesters out there (and you have my sympathy):
Stop talking about how everyone else is “hateful” and an “idiot” except for you and your elite “smart” friends who are apparently the only decent human beings in the universe. It was your condescension and arrogance and bullying for the last ten years that has got us into this mess in the first place.
Stop throwing American flags on the ground and burning them, and making glam instagram-style pics of the event. Trust me, you are just alienating yourself further. For the rest of us Americans, that is for us the emotional equivalent of throwing Qur’ans in the toilet — y’know, rumors of that caused riots & stuff among Muslims a few years back, and people died. And while your fellow Americans might not riot when they see you doing that, we do feel like we want to
Sometimes (trust me) telling people “I believe in you and you are better than this” might actually be the best way forward. It also helps if you mean it.
Part one is here. Now, back to politics, I was so sure Hillary would win in a landslide. Every die-hard social conservative I knew couldn’t vote for Trump, and yes, it was very painful. We are the ones who never give up on a struggle, who stand outside of abortion clinics trying to talk people out of it up to the last minute, who try to fight to the last man, who backed Bush to the bitter end, who madly campaigned for Santorum, who complained but went out and voted for McCain and Romney, and here we couldn’t. Some of us cast a purely protest vote for Gary Johnson (despite his social liberalness). Most of us wrote in random candidates–McMullin, Ted Cruz, or sadly wrote-in “Nobody” for the top of the ticket. Some of us were so demoralized that we didn’t even vote at all. No, we did not want Hillary to be president. No, we were in deep mourning for our country. But, as my 90 year old Calvinist grandmother wrote on her ballot, “I refuse to vote for anyone who has made his money in gambling and prostitution.”
We had to draw the line at kinda-pimps. We have a God in heaven, and this was a fight over the soul of the Republican Party. Because how could we save America’s soul if we could not even keep our own?
Yes, it was quite painful, I hated myself for giving America to Hillary and the progressives. We didn’t want to at all. But we thought we had no choice.
So of course I thought Hillary would win. I was bracing myself for a progressive regime and persecution without, while bitter recriminations would fly within. I was preparing for the civil war within the Republican party. I was praying the Trumpists would forgive us NeverTrumpers and calm down, and then we’d repent, regroup, and come back to fight again in 2020.
And now, Trump won. I’ve been laughing alot, in a hysterical way. Note:
1. The Republican Party, as we knew it, is dead. If Trump sticks with Bannon, then the alt-right have seized control of the party. (If you don’t know who the “alt-right” are, google “Milo Yiannopoulos”)
. 2. Social Conservatives are no longer at the helm of the Republican Party, as they were under Reagan and especially George W Bush. And apparently they can win without us.
In 2012, the liberals trashed the soft-spoken Romney as a misogynist — nevermind he was a family man, a decent man, and a political moderate (in fact, more moderate than I wanted). They trashed him and spun this false narrative of “the war on women” just because he wasn’t going to force some people to buy other people abortifacient pills.
And now we have a “locker room” talking President.
In 2008, the liberals trashed Palin. They hired strippers to impersonate her, and (in the New York Times no less!) ran a photograph of a stripper dressed in an American Flag bikini, pretending to be Palin. They called her all kinds of sexual things on my Ivy League enlightened campus. Oh, and the women didn’t mind at all, because (like me) she was a conservative, and so (like me) they could call her sexual slurs.
And now they have a pornographer in the white house. Who employed desperate foreign women. Who bragged about “grabbing pussy”.
And so I laugh hysterically and bitterly. Because you liberals did this.
Who glamorized the sex-trade, removing “stigma” in the name of human rights, to minimize the enormity of sexual exploitation and make pimps respectable men? Who trashed old-school heroism and wholesome patriotism as ‘paternalism’ and ‘fascism’, so that the only acceptable cultural constructs left are a twisted-victimhood-revelling and naked-self-interest…with nothing left in between? (And you really thought, that backed against a wall, bashed and bashed again by your high and mighty rhetoric, they wouldn’t resort to the latter?) And most of all, who made a laughing stock out of feminism, so that the ordinary bloke on the street smells the hypocrisy and loathes it all — trashing the good with the bad?
You did this.
You did this.
You’ve won your sexual revolution. Congratulations.
I was praying for an electoral vote tie, so that the House could pick the candidate and we could get Evan McMullin. Yes, I don’t know much about him (nobody does). And it was a one-in-a-million chance….
But I was so sure Hillary would win. I thought Trump was just a con-artist — a liberal plant who was aping a caricature of a conservative, in order to give Hillary the presidency on a silver platter.
I was so sure that was what was going on, and that the Republicans were just so panicked and despairing and angry, that they were getting majorly conned. That due to their own panicked self-preservation and bitterness against liberals, they were playing right into their hands. It was painful to watch.
So yeah, I was a NeverTrumper. And no, I did not want Hillary to be president.
But I didn’t want Trump either.
And yes, I was terrified of President Hillary Clinton — because she is a progressive who truly believes in radical progressivism, and not only that, but she is incredibly intelligent and quite charming in her own way — an immensely capable ideologue.
It is the progressive ideologues who’ve been destroying traditional faith and traditional family in this world. They do it with the best of intentions — but neither they or I want to see (when they finally win) the world they will leave behind. And it will certainly not be the egalitarian paradise that they think. Unlike us traditional Christians, they do not know the darkness that our faith keeps at bay.
They think that if they take our faith from us, by neutering and spaying it into some pliant postmodern mold, we will be happier and the world will be better. It won’t. At all. They mistake traditional religion as a cancer that must be operated on within us, when our faith is really the only thing holding back the darkness within. Our faith is the only thing holding us near the light, the only thing that keeps us from slipping into the abyss. If they don’t know what I am talking about, then fine. But leave us alone. You don’t want to know.
Why, academic historians ask, do undergrads love WWII so much? Aren’t there more interesting classes and more nuanced paper topics?
The answer is simple: moral clarity
Between all the HBO bodice rippers and the cynical histories with their complex grunge antiheroes… the undergrads are craving for a simple story with moral clarity.
You see, young people are willing to put up with hell, to suffer, to live when every day feels like a fight, if there is a point to it all. If there are forces of light and darkness, and the darkness does not prevail.
And they want stories that tell them that. Preferably true stories, that can promise them their life is part of the same.
Yes, the evolutionary psychologists can tell us that we humans just want impose order on chaos, it’s all contrived, our brains forcing patterns where there was none. Apparently we just desire it, to construct from the random facts of reality a “story” with a beginning, a middle, an end. Thus “history” is made.
But if that is all it is, then why do we want it so bad? Like the deep/universal grammar already in the newborn infant’s brain — doesn’t the desire alone indicate something?
“The “losers” in this particular ideological war now have their own choice to make. Do we bend our principles to match our short-term ambition and work to claw our way back into the good graces of the strongman, justifying our moral flexibility with the allure of a “seat at the table?” Or do we double down on serving principle, making the arguments for the ideas that we believe represent the best hope for national recovery and cultural renewal? Choosing to serve doesn’t make you a “loser,” it makes you wise. Yes, there will be those who choose to reign. Let them reign over the ruin they’ve created. The servants will wait to rebuild.”
OK, so this morning I read an article that made me think a bit. I feel a tad responsible for the Trump thing because I’m one of those conservatives that was trying the let’s-slightly-cater-to-liberal-elite-ideology-while-gently-explaining-our-views approach to the leftist establishment, when the working class just up and quit, and are rooting for the reactionary candidate, Trump. This isn’t about conservative principles (1. limited government, 2. traditional social values, 3. save-the-world interventionist foreign policy ) any more. This is about just being anti-liberal.
Why be anti-liberal? Well, people are scared, and frustrated, and now angry. We’ve shut them up for too long. I know Political Correctness means well, but I am starting to think it creates Nazism. By silencing any expressions of genuine racial tension, (and also genuine gender tension) for a specific group of people, it creates a repressed backlash. And the decades of built-up frustration, when finally released, are not pretty. Because resentment makes otherwise-decent-people ugly.
Look, we can’t dismiss their fears and their wrongs too. Politically-correct censorship has just led to greater problems.
I’m guilty of this too. I’ve self-censored SO MUCH myself. There are things I won’t even think, hypotheses I won’t consider, black holes in my brain where I’ll say to myself “but that can’t be true because it could be fascist” or “racially insensitive” or “sounds mean” or “will make me look bad.” But then….O God…what if this is the beginning of the backlash? What if, after all the nation-shaming and political-correctness, we get another wave of strident fascism, as defensive as it is insecure? If decades of automatic-intellectual-censorship has created this backlash, we need to stem the tide now. We need to start speaking the un-allowed thoughts, before the next Mussolini or Hitler is “the only option”.
Normally, when I’m clicking randomly links through the blogosphere, I automatically click off of “dangerous” links that might brand me a Nazi or get me on some NSA watchlist. Today I actually read them. And what is more, I’m going to link them here so you can read them too. [So, yeah, trigger warning and all.]
I’m not sure if I agree with these links. But I should read what they have to say. Because some men do have legitimate grievances from women, and not everything that is labelled as ‘pro-minority’ is actually helping them. When we automatically jump to the politically correct side (for the women! and minorities!) we might do violence to Truth. And without Truth, there is no solution, no healing, no dignity. Perhaps this PC-championing of “their” cause is what is really destroying them.
Unquestioning political correctness, if it ignores truth and twists statistics, will only breed reaction and hate and make it worse for everyone.
The liberals are the little boy who called wolf. For years, leftists have been calling any conservative patriotic person a fascist bully. They called George W. Bush that all the time. He wasn’t, but that didn’t help him any. The shriller the rhetoric, the more it won. And for the most part, conservative leaders rolled belly up. The regular folks get frustrated. Then Trump shows up, and he is a bully with fascist tendencies. And now—there really is a wolf—but who will listen now?
In some ways the whole thing is like a Greek Tragedy. Utopian Leftism, with its vigilant mental censorship and intellectual condescension to the lower working classes, ends up creating the very fascist reactionaries it decries. You can only silence and mock people for so long.
And if you automatically call people fascist haters 100 times, the 101st time they might believe you. I think it is the same reason Chinese businessmen are poisoning babies to make a quick buck on fake baby formula. These are three generations of Chinese kids who were raised on communist propaganda that told them that all businessmen were soul-less capitalists with categorically no morals. So then, when they finally become a businessman…guess what?
The same goes for the warrior ethos. If you say there is no morality in war, no honor in combat, that any man with a gun is as good as a baby killer….then guess what happens?
If you say all patriotism is the equivalent of Nazism and brutality and that our fathers and forebearers were all brutal jingoists, and that we have no name to be proud of and no honor to maintain…then guess what happens?
Yes, you have convinced them, and look at them now. Waging your war on religion and on patriotism and on chivalry was the biggest mistake you ever made.
Welcome to your new world of fascist reaction, void of religious scruples and starry-eyed patriotic idealism that wanted to save the world. Those things were the safeguards. And now its all falling like a house of cards and a world on fire.
Even the NYTimes itself is saying it too, so yes, everyone knows it now. I’ve spent 9 of my past 10 adult years in Academia, and it’s been like swimming upstream the whole way.
On one hand, it’s kind of nice that it’s finally out in the open and I don’t have to struggle swimming upstream and also hear smug people mocking my kind for “being paranoid”. On the other hand, it shows we’ve really really lost when they can openly talk about it. When the card game is over, the hands are shown. Only when your enemy is finally powerless is it safe to show your pity. Yes, they are king of the (Academia) mountain, and we are lying flat on our back somewhere far below the hill, wind knocked out of us.
Its not that we ever wanted to be king of the mountain for the heck of it–but we all know that who is king of the mountain in Academia does get the first pass at influencing (e.g. indoctrinating) the minds of the best and brightest, and hence shaping the next generation. I know the progressives meant well–we all think we know what is best for the young. You have your progressive paradise and now I’m just bracing myself for it to come tumbling down like a flaming house of cards. It is not going to be pretty–and no, there is no pleasure in saying “I told you so” when it will be accompanied by so much costly human suffering. (I see reactionary fascism, totalitarianism, and world wars). I’m not sad and I’m not mad. I’m just so damn tired.
WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.
Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.
O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.
“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”
I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.
“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.
“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.
“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”
To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.
The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.
Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.
Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).
In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.
George Yancey, a sociology professor, says he has faced many problems in life because he is black, “but inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”
Nancy Newberry for The New York Times
The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.
Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.
The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.
“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”
A study published in The American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.
“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.
This bias on campuses creates liberal privilege. A friend is studying for the Law School Admission Test, and the test preparation company she is using offers test-takers a tip: Reading comprehension questions will typically have a liberal slant and a liberal answer.
Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. But that doesn’t explain why there are conservative math professors but not many right-wing anthropologists.
It’s also liberal poppycock that there aren’t smart conservatives or evangelicals. Richard Posner is a more-or-less conservative who is the most cited legal scholar of all time. With her experience and intellect, Condoleezza Rice would enhance any political science department. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and famed geneticist who has led the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health. And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?
Jonathan Haidt, a centrist social psychologist at New York University, cites data suggesting that the share of conservatives in academia has plunged, and he has started a website, Heterodox Academy, to champion ideological diversity on campuses.
“Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,” he says. “If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.”
Should universities offer affirmative action for conservatives and evangelicals? I don’t think so, partly because surveys find that conservative scholars themselves oppose the idea. But it’s important to have a frank discussion on campuses about ideological diversity. To me, this seems a liberal blind spot.
Universities should be a hubbub of the full range of political perspectives from A to Z, not just from V to Z. So maybe we progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedly cherish — like diversity — in our own dominions.