As explained in a handout my son received in his college Political Science class (I have not copied it here because I'm not sure on any copyright or restrictions, and don't want my son to get in Dutch, just in case). So here they are, those five big threats to freedom as outlined for my son and his classmates:
1. The Senate.
Yep. The Senate is a threat to democracy and freedom. Why? Because it skews the wishes of the many for the radicalism of a few. Basically that's its point. Which is odd, since the entire post-Civil Rights era mantra of liberalism was that a nation has no right to exist based on the majority. But in this case, it lamented a disproportionate level of representation from states where radical ideas that threaten democracy can hold equal time with enlightened views, and thus block legalization that guarantees our freedoms and rights. No particular example was given.
2. The Electoral College
Not a shock. Not that I'm not willing to take a second look at things. An electoral system that gives me the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton can certainly do with some tweaking. The odd thing is, that both in 2000 and 2016, by the eve of the elections, leftwing pundits/journalists (but I repeat myself) were setting the stage for electoral victories by the Democrats. In the case of Al Gore, I remember specifically being told by the election night round tables that the Electoral College was the smart way, so obviously it would be how stiff as a board Gore would beat likeable but stupid hayseed Bush. In both cases they were wrong. In both cases, they screamed for the rules to be changed because they lost in horrible, stolen, illegal and fraudulent elections. Apparently, they're still screaming.
3. Misinformation
A vague word, presented vaguely in the paper. Basically a term best defined as 'anything challenging the Left.' There is plenty of misinformation to go around of course. But I get where the handout is coming from. It means things that challenge the Left's take on Climate Change, or Covid mandates, or BLM, or abortion rights, or gender, or any one of a million leftwing dogmas. The cases of Covid were the ones mentioned, but I get the feeling you could replace those examples with any non-leftwing narrative as an example of misinformation and not miss a syllable.
4. Judges
Judges? Yes, judges. Judges who succumb to ideology and radicalism to curtail our clear and obvious rights. Also judges who have an obsession with holding to antiquated ideals and concepts from periods in our past where bigotry and prejudice were rife is also a problem. That is, holding to the Constitution is the point I think it was trying to make. The contemporary example was the Texas abortion law decision by the SCOTUS (obviously a recent emergency handout). I have a feeling, like misinformation or the Electoral college, it could be summed up by saying 'any time judges don't give liberals what they want.'
5. Voter Suppression
I've heard this bad boy since I majored in political science in college. It almost always means anything that adds a regulation to voting procedures. Despite being the ones who scream fraud and fake voting results the loudest when they lose, the Democrats and liberals seem otherwise to despise any attempts to shore up the system to make sure such fraud doesn't happen. The handout references the GOP's attempts to limit voting rights and access to our Constitutionally (old bigoted document, see above) guaranteed right to take part in our democratic systems. Not much unexpected there.
That's what he's being taught in his fine institution of higher education. As of now there has been no counter point given out. That's not to say they won't present the class with an alternative set of threats from, say, a more conservative or traditional perspective. We'll see. Nonetheless I won't hold my breath, since two and a half months is a tough amount of time to go without breathing.
Tell your son to ask them if it's ok for a majority in a society to vote on a minority in it to be enslaved by said majority.
ReplyDeleteThe answers should be enlightening.
I'll bet. Though you never know today. If they think the majority is on their side, they may well support such an idea. After all, human sacrifice has turned out to be a pretty interesting option for tackling overpopulation. How beneficial could slavery of the right kind of people be?
DeleteNext thing you know, they'll be voting to have a minority of people shoved into boxcars.
DeleteHold that thought. Given the zeal with which they're willing to support anything done by the Left, I see no reason to believe they won't be happy to go there if the time comes.
DeleteI am a lapsed student of political science. It had in my era a terrible problem with methodology - clear thinking about the approaches to learning and evaluating material. For that reason, I'd have recommended people study some other discipline and only take poli sci courses for distribution credits. It was quite a smorgasbord and there's something for every interest. Still, in my time and in my place, everyone was free to offer any perspective they cared to and professors were not prescriptive. There were several in our department who were decidedly non-liberal. I cannot imagine any of them (and one of the visiting professors had been an aide to Sen. Birch Bayh) putting something so tendentious in front of their students.
ReplyDeleteMr. Griffey, there isn't one thing your contemporaries and mine (much less the cohorts succeeding them) don't do worse than the generation preceding ours.
This is true. The free and open exchange of ideas was dogma in those days. It still is, per my sons. Contrary to what we often hear, the profs themselves typically allow a range of discussions. It's the students who do the shutting down.
DeleteI think if you unpack it, behind the loosely-wired students are instigators and enablers on the institutional payroll, and a notable deficit of people discouraging them. Some of the instigators and enablers are faculty, some are salaried staff. Also, see examples where the faculty are quite openly working to suppress dissent. The campaigns agains MS Adams at UNC Wilmington and against Wm. Jacobson at Cornell are run by faculty.
DeleteThat wouldn't surprise me. And it would make sense for the professional suppression to happen behind closed doors inside the faculty establishments, while giving the impression of tolerance in the classroom - and allowing the students to be the foot soldiers in that particular battleground.
DeleteI actually never heard the term 'voter suppression' up until about four years ago. I was, btw, active in party politics for a time ca. 1987, so I'm somewhat familiar with the mechanics of election law in that era. New York does some things comparatively well, and elections administration in that era was one. Absolutely no innovations undertaken in other states in the intervening years have improve matters one iota.
ReplyDeleteI remember hearing it in both my political science and sociology classes. Perhaps things were going on in the Buckeye State then that brought the issue to the core. But that was in the mid-80s, and I can remember it being linked to the old Political Machines of bygone days.
DeleteI'm remembering now. Christine Todd Whitman's staff was accused of it in the 1993 governor's race in New Jersey. Had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of elections administration. The charge was that the campaign had paid off clergyman in the black population to refrain from mobilizing their constituents. I don't think the accusers ever identified who was bought.
Delete