Has this great experiment in democracy become a massive demonstration of the laws of sociological entropy? Compare the conservative roots from which we sprang to the political landscape of today, virtually split down the middle, and that argument might hold some merit. It is possible, that the name of our great country, the United States of America, has now become an oxymoron.
Like rusty steel girders, holding up an old yet vital bridge, the conservative framework of our society has corroded slowly for years. Constructive debate in politics has devolved into stalemate, largely because anti-establishment, anti-morality, anti-religious elements have infiltrated the liberal community. The platform of the Democratic Party is stained, perhaps irreparably.
Sometimes, a quick flip through the dictionary can reveal startling truisms. For instance, the term entropy describes the measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system (the steady dissolution of the moral compass in our country). It is the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity (which describes our evenly split electorate). Entropy is the inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society (which could describe our ultimate destination).
The revelation of Ward Churchill and his loony belief system has illuminated our institutions of higher learning. Many have become stagnant pools of extreme, ultraliberal thinking. The concept of tenure has artificially locked these attitudes in place, removing them from the arena of free debate.
In a battle for the minds of our youth, this situation has forced common sense moderate and conservative voices to fight with shackled ankles and a single unbound arm. Gestapo tactics from the politically correct, often backed by school administrators, are systematically moving them into full body casts. Soon, if people do not wake up, there will be no conservative voice at all. Only silent statues covered and obscured by liberal graffiti.
Women’s groups have gone berserk over comments from University President, Lawrence Summers, of Harvard. Summers talked about research, showing that girls are not as likely to score the highest marks, compared to boys in standardized math and science tests. He said this was so, even though the median scores of both sexes are comparable.
Many female scientists and mathematicians said that nothing was wrong with Mr. Summer’s discussion. What this uproar clearly shows is an absurdly hypocritical attitude. Possible justifications for flying passenger-filled jetliners into buildings should be open to intellectual debate, while discussions about possible physiological differences between males and females can never be allowed under any circumstances. Before long, it will be illegal to state that women have breasts, while most men do not.
This bias has infiltrated everywhere to such an extent, that it may not be possible to bring constructive debate back into balance. If there is someone to blame for our predicament, I might be persuaded to lay it at the feet of our higher education system.
For example, look again at the common dictionary, a product of those institutions. Even here, bias has entered its ugly head.
Definition of (political) Liberalism:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Definition of (political) Conservatism:
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
The conspiracy theorist in me cannot help but point out that the effort given to describe liberalism is much greater than the effort given to the description of conservatism. Also, note that only liberalism can understand that humans are good, individuals desire civil and political freedom, and laws should be instituted by those who will live under them.
In contrast, conservatism must despise people, hate civil and political freedom, and long for the return of empirical rule. This is so patently false, so condescendingly repulsive, that I hesitate to write further on the subject, for fear that my language could turn ugly and combative.
I am a conservative fellow; however, my brain allows me to pick and poke through various piles of theory and insight. When I bump my common-sense bone on an idea that does not fit established thinking, but also does not cause severe discomfort, I am going to give that idea some room to sprout. Sometimes you water an idea for a while, only to find that it was a weed all along. It is never too late to pluck it out.
I hope that Americans can get in touch with their own common-sense bones. I am confident that if enough common-sense bones are banged on the liberal platform, the collective discomfort will cause our naturally good people to sit up and take action. We need to get rid of some of that rust that is eating at our country’s steel girders.
Copyright ©2005, Phil Harris - All Rights Reserved