Hey Irwin! How About Politics Lessons for Liberals?
In the New York Daily News, liberal warhorse and law school dean Irwin Chemerinksy teams with Howard Gillman to plead with fellow liberals in “First Amendment lessons for liberals” not to fall for the right-wing’s cunning plan to trick them. What with all the marchin’ and protestin’ on campus these days there is, writes Irwin:
a widespread perception that liberals are keeping conservatives from being able to speak on campus and that conservatives are the champions of free speech.
That’s false. Liberals we know -- at least, most of them -- are forceful advocates for the free exchange of ideas.
So we’ve noticed, Irwin. Not.
In reality, conservatives such as Yiannopoulos and Coulter are thrilled when they are kept from speaking. It lets them portray themselves as victims, vilify the left as intolerant, and accuse campuses of being more concerned about indoctrination than the robust exchange of ideas.
Oh no! The worst thing in the world would be to thrill vile conservatives and allow them to successfully “portray themselves as victims!” Only liberals are allowed to play the victim game in America. It’s in some penumbra of the Constitution.
The real point of the First Amendment, we all know from college freshman indoctrination, is to let liberals protest and advocate for their little darlings, the folk that have been established, by act of liberals, to be genuine marginalized and oppressed victims needing the firm hand of government to bend the arc of history towards justice.
Which just gets us back to where we first started, Irwin, about liberals needing a lesson.
Really, what this country needs is a good five-cent Politics course, to explain to liberals why the limited government shtick of the American Founders is the last best hope for mankind -- and for liberals.
Because this is the great age of dumbing things down to fit in a 140-character tweet, I have done the same thing for politics, in catchphrases that even liberals can understand.
First, Government is Force. By that I mean that every act of government is backed by men with guns. So the most benign act of government, such as Medicare’s free hospice care, is backed by force. You are forced to pay for it, and when grandma is at end-of-life she is forcibly subject to its protocols. And then there is the tax-collecting side of things, with the noble and virtuous IRS collecting $3.5 trillion from Americans in FY 2017 by force.
And when government uses force, there is a real danger that some people may experience it as injustice.
Second, Politics is Division, and the art of the politician and the activist is the art of dividing people. You know, like “taking the knee” at NFL games on the one hand and tweeting about firing the sons-of-bitches on the other. That is why the architects of modern politics proposed periodic elections. The idea was to confine the art and practice of division to an election season, and then have the running dogs in the media declare, once the election was over, that we are all Americans with one flag and one people.
But when you end up on the losing side of the political division game, it is easy to think that you are the victim of injustice, just like liberals in 2016.
Third, System is Domination. Every government program is some kind of bureaucratic system that defines and enforces, with a bureaucratic hierarchy just like an army, how certain government revenues are to be spent in support of the government’s political objectives. I need hardly remind you, Irwin, that the purpose of an army hierarchy is to put young men in a position where they are forced to risk their young lives under the command of some politician ordering an officer ordering a sergeant to force the them to advance into a maelstrom of shot and shell. Whether they like it or not.
When government is dominating you and forcing you to do things that may get you killed, it is easy to think that you are the victim of injustice, just like the liberal kids in the Sixties.
Now, one of the things I have noticed over my life is that nothing equals the outrage of a liberal being forced to pay for a government program he doesn’t like, or being accused of being unpatriotic, or dominated by some gap-toothed conservative “legislating morality.”
So my question, Irwin, is this. Given that you liberal chaps are so very sensitive when on the receiving end of government force, political division, and systemic domination, how come you chaps are so eager to inflict it all on others?
And why, Irwin, is your concern about the present “perception” of liberals being opposed to free speech read more about putting liberals in a bad light than just saying that free speech is in the Constitution, Period?