The Bullied and the Rescuer–Why Trump Gets so Much Support

2 Comments

Suppose you are in third grade and a much bigger kid beats you up regularly, steals your lunch money, and otherwise makes your life miserable. This happens every school day and gets to the point that you dread going to school. One day another kid comes to you and says, “I’m tired of that big kid beating up on you. Next time I see him I’m going to beat him up.” You find that hard to believe; the boy has never helped you before and never seemed to care for anybody but himself. But the next time the bully attacks you, the other boy jumps in and beats the bully up. You trust the boy who helped you, and now you will do anything to help him. A year later, when he runs for homeroom president, you are his biggest supporter.

Today many people in the United States feel bullied. Some feel bullied by the bankers and investment firm CEOs that helped create the 2008 crash that left millions of people without jobs. Others are Evangelical Christians who feel beaten down and silenced by politically correct bullying by both the Left and Right. Others who may not be Evangelical Christians are still tired of so many people getting offended at anything a person says and using that offense to bully someone out of a job, often ruining the person’s career. It seems that speaking itself will become a crime one day.

Then Donald Trump walks into the room. He is crude, he is crass, and he has no regard for what he says nor how much he offends others. He is definitely not politically correct, something protesters at his rallies understand, which is one reason they hate him. For the non-elites, the common people who feel bullied, Trump comes across as a savior. “If Trump were in, he wouldn’t let any of these jerks intimidate him. He’d just tell political correctness to go to hell.” Trump comes across to many people as the rescuer, just like the rescuer of the bullied boy in the story. Thus Trump’s supporters will be loyal to him and are willing to do anything they can to help him get elected.

I voted for Ted Cruz because I am not sure Mr. Trump is stating his true convictions–he seems to be saying what people want to hear in order to get elected. However, “I’m mad as hell” with political correctness myself, and understand the appeal of Mr. Trump. If he gets the Republican nomination, I will probably vote for him in the general election. It is risky, and I would vote with trepidation, but like many people, I am sick and tired of being intimidated by elites who try to silence speech with which they disagree. If Mr. Trump can put a dent in that trend, that, at least, would be a good thing.

 

Taking Offense and the Adolescent Whine

Leave a comment

So many Americans are so easily offended these days, especially by positions opposed to their own. Some such Americans call those who disagree with them “haters.” I have been called worse things online–a “f..ing a..hole,” “a worthless piece of s..t,” and other colorful terms. Many colleges and universities have “free speech zones,” so that students who might be offended by a speaker can stay clear. At least one local college (not the university where I teach) has a policy that classrooms are “stress free zones.” Some sexual harassment policies assert that asking someone on a date can be sexual harassment because it might offend someone. I wonder about people offended that no one asks them on dates. Too many people believe they have a “right not to be offended.” Being offended means, to such individuals, that the person doing the offending is guilty of a serious moral–and even legal–action that warrants actions ranging from reprimands to termination from a job to fines to prison time.

Parents of teenagers are familiar with the “adolescent whine,” the denial of personal responsibility, the demands that parents go along with whatever the teen wants to do. Denial of desires means the parents are full of hate. Anything parents say that offends them is a sign of serious moral failure by the parents–or at least some teens want their parents to think that way. The phenomena of people thinking they have a right not to be offended reveals a fundamental lack of maturity on their part. It is a denial of the responsibility we have to take account of our own emotions. Too many Americans (and Europeans) believe that other people are responsible for their emotions. This is like the teenager who is angry and tells his parents, “You made me feel this way.”

We see evidence of the adolescent whine in political correctness in colleges and universities, businesses, and other societal institutions. We see it when well-known people are demonized because they say something that offends some approved minority (make no mistake–the Left, which is control of most American cultural institutions, has its list of approved minorities–they are not concerned, for example, whether a Fundamentalist Christian is offended by someone’s speech or writing). Too many generally decent people have had their lives and careers ruined because of spoiled Leftists who may have adult bodies but whose minds are often pre-adolescent in their maturity level–sometimes they have the emotional maturity of a two-year old throwing a temper tantrum. In a society run by children, offense must be avoided at all costs. That viewpoint is especially destructive of education, in which one’s views, right or left, will be challenged (or should be). The idea of a “no stress zone” for classrooms is madness; students will stress about finishing assignments, being called on to answer a question in class, and so forth. They will stress when their pet positions are challenged. That is the way it should be. The professor should not be censored because students are offended by the content of the class. Nor should professors be censored if they are politically, morally, and/or socially conservative and speak their minds on controversial issues. Too many Leftists have become like the teen who says, “I’m going to talk about that anymore, and neither are you and then holds his hands to his ears when his parents try to talk to him.

If this post offends some Leftists, I’m pleased. Grow up. Stop being spoiled children who have to get your way or else. That road only leads to “might makes right”–and God forbid–perhaps worse.

Why I Avoid Standard Academic Terminology for Dates in History

1 Comment

In my latest book, Aerobics for the Mind: Practical Exercises in Philosophy that Anybody Can Do, I chose to use the old-fashioned B.C./A.D. system of dating rather than the usual academic B.C.E./C.E. system. Why go against the vast majority of academia who prefers “Before the Common Era” and “Common Era” to “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini”? It’s simple–I’ve had it with the oversensitivity of many academics. Even using the newer terminology, dates in the West are measured from the birth of Christ (miscalculated by about four years, give or take two). If I were in a Moslem country that used dates from an event in Mohammad’s life, I would not be offended. If a Buddhist country were to measure dates from an event in The Buddha’s life, I would not be offended, even if I had to use that system in an academic paper. Others should not be offended either. Many are offended, but for many academics in their sheltered little corner of the world, Christianity, at least in its traditional forms, is an offense so they want to wipe out any trace of its doctrines from the calendar and from academic speech in general.

The culture of offense in academia becomes worse year by year with some Evangelical Christians and some fairly traditional Roman Catholics caving in to the insanity of the crowd.  Most academic journals require the newer dating system, and I will use it if I have to–but when I do not have to use it, I refuse to so so. If a scholar doesn’t believe that Jesus is Lord, he is free to understand the “Domini” of A.D. as a fiction. So far scholars have continued to use “Jesus Christ” to refer to Jesus even though “Christ” means “Messiah.” I continue to use “The Buddha” for Siddhartha Gautama, though “The Buddha” means “The Enlightened One.” If academics were consistent, they would force other academics to say “Jesus of Nazareth” instead of “Jesus Christ” and “Siddhartha Gautauma” instead of “The Buddha.” If they do something along those lines, my prediction is that they would only make the change for Jesus Christ and not for The Buddha. If people are offended by my use of the old system, that is something with which they need to deal.

The Moral and Political Divide in Academia

2 Comments

Today I was researching the ethics of embryonic stem cell research for articles from the last five years–and I could not find a single article in a “mainstream” bioethics journal opposing the practice. I am sure there may be some I missed, but the point remains that the vast majority of articles in such journals as The Hastings Center Report, The American Journal of Bioethics, and the Journal of Medical Ethics support the ethical acceptability of stem cell research. To find articles in opposition to the practice, I had to find Roman Catholic and Evangelical journals. On issues such as abortion, the divide is there, though slightly less sharp.

On political issues, there was a sharp division. It is no secret that the New England Journal of Medicine almost (though not quite) exclusively has articles supporting either the Affordable Health Care Act or more socialistic alternatives. This journal has been one of the academic driving forces for a socialistic direction in health care reform. Whether socialism would be better or not, surely there could be more balance in such a widely respected journal. Classical liberals and traditional conservatives must look elsewhere to find articles supporting their position, and sometimes the best places for them to look are the conservative “think tanks.”

Regarding postmodern relativism and the various “isms” of identity politics, literary journals are filled with such bunk. Literary traditionalists are forced to the conservative or traditional Catholic journals to publish their material. Academic Questions, published by the National Association of Scholars, itself a reaction against the radicalism of post-1960s academia, publishes fine articles from a traditional perspective (and not only by conservatives–many liberals are also frustrated with multicultural ideology).

It is not only the liberal/conservative or traditionalist/”progressive” split that divides scholarly journals; in philosophy, journals are divided between those who publish almost exclusively analytic philosophy, those emphasizing phenomenology and existentialism (as well as postmodernism), and pluralistic journals that publish articles from a variety of perspectives. Philosophers, at least, have enough variety so they can find good pluralistic journals such as the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly or the International Philosophical Quarterly. Politics, and not only quality, plays a role in which articles are accepted to which journal.

What we see in contemporary academia is a hodge-podge. Yeats’ “the center cannot hold” is true of contemporary higher education. After the decline of the Catholic consensus with the Reformation and later, the Enlightenment, the Christian view of reality was replaced by Enlightenment universalism. This has broken down, so now, even in the same field (at least in the Humanities), scholars hunker down in their small groups, go to particular conferences of mainly like-minded people, read journals of like-minded people–it is as if academic is divided into denominations like religious groups. Political correctness has stifled debate between those with different points of view, so academics from one perspective keep to themselves and do not often interact with those from another perspective. Although it is difficult to have dialogue between different traditions, it is possible, as Alasdair MacIntyre points out in his book, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

However, it is unlikely that such dialogue will take place on a large scale. Academia is just as divided as our society, and is not as much engaged in a cultural war as it reflects the cultural divide in the wider world. Without a central vision, society falls apart as does academic, and all the bureaucratic “solutions” by accrediting agencies and others will not put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Richard Land and the Censoring of Discourse about Race in America

3 Comments

English: Vectorized Southern Baptist Conventio...

English: Vectorized Southern Baptist Convention logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Richard Land‘s radio show has been canceled by the Southern Baptist Convention. Although Mr. Land was cited for plagiarism, which he apparently did commit, this was not the focus of the SBC’s statement. The SBC was concerned about Mr. Land’s allegedly inflammatory remarks concerning the Trayvon Martin case.

What did Mr. Land say that was so horrible? He said that Mr. Obama was taking political advantage of the situation. One can make a good case for this claim–Mr. Obama said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin–this could be construed as an attempt to shore up support among his base. Political charges similar to Mr. Land’s claims have been made quite frequently in conservative circles, though perhaps with more tact than Mr. Land used. Mr. Land also referred to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as race baiters. An even more solid case can be made for that claim–are Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton beyond criticism? Should they escape the inevitable criticism that those in the public eye routinely face? Surely not except in a liberal fantasy world. Does anyone remember the Tawana Brawley case or the Duke Lacrosse case and how Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton stirred emotions to a dangerous level in cases that turned out to be other than Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton claimed?

Discourse about race has become so emotionally charged that the range of politically correct things to say has narrowed to the point that one cannot say anything outside the liberal party line without being labeled a racist. Now I don’t know if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter or not–I will wait until the facts of the case come out. Pointing out the fact that some individuals are using the case to agitate others and to stir up dangerous emotions is not irresponsible or wrong. The more the left and the pseudo-right shut off discourse, the more frustrated those silenced become. If those silenced already had wrong attitudes, they will only be hardened in them. If they did not have wrong attitudes, they are far more likely to gain them after being silenced. Cutting off discussion of race will most likely lead to an increase, not to a decrease, in racism.

I have noticed a leftward trend in conservative Evangelical churches over the last few years, fueled by liberals in their academic institutions. These colleges, universities, and seminaries train ministers and other church officials. They may be technically “conservative,” but they buy into much of the left’s beliefs, including supporting politically correct speech on race. If Mr. Land had used an obscenity to refer to another race, he should have been fired and disciplined by the church. If he had claimed that one race was intrinsically superior to another, then he should have been disciplined. He said neither of those things. Yet he lost his radio show and was forced to apologize–I do not doubt the sincerity of his apology. What I doubt (without defending everything Mr. Land said and not justifying his plagiarism)  is the apparent belief of Southern Baptist officials that any criticism of Mr. Obama, Mr. Jackson, or Mr. Sharpton is tantamount to racism, which is an absurd position.

Political Correctness and the Stifling of Debate over World Views

10 Comments

No political correctness

One of the negative results of the tenured leftist radicals’ influence in academia has been political correctness–the aggressive advocacy of leftist ideology and the personal demeaning of those who disagree. Sometimes faculty members and students find that being demeaned by leftist professors and administrators is the least of their problem. I personally know two professors who were fired for attacking politically correct ideology. Both found other positions, one won a lawsuit against the school that fired him, but both are more hesitant to speak up against leftist positions, which is precisely what the radicals in academia want. At Vanderbilt University, Christian student groups are banned that do not allow those who disagree with the theological and moral teachings of traditional Christianity. This communicates the idea that traditional Christian views are not welcome in the public square of academia. When traditionalists are attacked, no rational arguments are given; rather, there are a plethora of personal attacks on those who oppose the leftist agenda, often vicious and using foul language. Such attacks are intentional and are an attempt to intimidate.

The most divisive moral issues in American society–the morality of procured abortion, active euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, the ethics of sexuality, including homosexuality, etc., are closely tied to specific world views. For example, the battle over the moral rightness of homosexuality is, to a significant extent, a battle between those who accept the malleability of human nature vs. those who believe in a stable human nature. This is not the only world view issue in this debate, but it is important, and a debate over different views on human nature and world views should be an important part of learning in academia. Instead, a new orthodoxy, more rigid than the most rabid of Christian fundamentalists, has invaded academia with speech codes, attacks on traditional Christians, dismissed students, fired faculty, and a shutting down of freedom of speech and free debate. Academia, the institution that should be at the heart of free debate that is essential for an educated human being, has become the New Inquisition, excommunicating all who disagree with a radical leftist agenda. Some schools have become more open since political correctness was identified, but traditionalists generally have a harder time in academia–that is bearable as long as open discussion of world view issues, including moral issues, is allowed to continue. Smaller schools that have not faced political correctness in the past, perhaps with some faculty and administrators falsely believing that they are being the wave of the future, may push for shutting down world view debates “to be like the bigger schools.” As radical faculty are hired who are loud, pushy, and intimidating, most faculty and administrators will give in to shut them up even if such cowardliness corrupts education. I have known liberal Democratic faculty who strongly oppose political correctness–hopefully the true liberals can join with conservatives in opening the university up to an open, frank discussion of world views. The faculty will learn more–and so will the students.

Stop Being So Sensitive!

12 Comments

I am utterly sick of sensitive people–not those “sensitive” in a good way, but those people who are professionals at being offended in order to get their way or get money. Those after money are only different in degree than someone who points a gun at someone and says, “Hand over your money.” Discussing certain issues is taboo at many colleges and universities due to the intimidation and (sometimes) violence of the left. Consider what has happened to conservative speakers who come to college and university campuses. While some are treated with respect, others have been shouted down or threatened physically (as Tom Tancredo was treated a few years ago at UNC-Chapel Hill, when a brick was thrown through a window by a thuggish group and

English: The Old Well and McCorkle Place at th...

Image via Wikipedia

his talk was cancelled for the sake of everyone’s safety). In other cases, academics have lost their jobs when they criticized the politically correct mainstream–I know one personally. Most of them have either gotten their jobs back or been given a settlement since, thus far, the courts have respected freedom of speech. That could change in the future as Mr. Obama‘s appointments pile up in the federal judiciary.

Stifling discussion of controversial issues or only allowing one side to express itself does not allow room for learning and discussion. Some of the most productive class discussions I have experienced are when I bring up controversial topics or express “non-politically correct” positions. For example, I am morally opposed to abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Usually I am the only person in class holding that positions, and students are free to argue with me (and they do–vehemently). I learn something from their arguments and hopefully they learn something from mine. What if some “sensitivity Fascist” had said that my position on abortion should no longer be part of the “public square” because it offends some people? Since when did college and university students gain the right not to be offended. I do not mind the Marxist professor two doors down from me expressing his views to his classes as long as students are free to disagree and are not penalized for their positions. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if Marxist positions can be presented, so can conservative positions in economics, morals, philosophy, and/or religion.

There are so many issues on which this nation is deeply divided–sexual ethics, racial issues, gender issues, issues regarding the role of government in combating poverty, issues surrounding health care. If discussion is halted just because someone is “offended,” this only serves to increase resentment on the part of those who disagree with the position of the professional sensitive person. We become even more divided and angry at one another. The best way for the culture war to become a true war rather than a war by means of language is to stifle discussion.

If “sensitivity training” really dealt with bad behavior, I suppose there would be no problem with it–men and women are wrong if they are in a supervisory position and request sexual favors from an employee before they promote that employee. That is unethical and illegal, and it should be. If someone constantly tells sexual jokes after being warned not to several times, that is bad behavior that can and should lead to termination from a job. But a man who is of equal rank in a company to a woman surely has the right to ask her out unless the company forbids inter-employee dating. Often a woman really will have plans on the day the man wanted to go out, so he will ask her again. Now if she says no then, if I am not mistaken, society generally says “two time’s the charm” and the man should not ask her out again (although there are men who married women whom they asked out many times–and they remain happily married). If some professional sensitive woman whines about sexual harassment when a man asks her out in a nice way on a date, this is oversensitive behavior from someone who either hates men, is a psychopath, enjoys hurting people, or wants easy money. Have some common sense, folks!

Racial issues have become so sensitive that many people won’t talk about them lest someone be offended. I do not deny that there are racists in our society–every society has them–and that sometimes racists will discriminate against those of a different race. When the race card is overplayed, however, in cases in which it is unwarranted, eventually any racial incident comes across as “crying wolf” and genuine incidents of racial prejudice may be unnecessarily ignored. When any criticism of Mr. Obama’s policies is labeled “racism,” that ignores the fact that many people disagree with the President’s policies–including some who voted for him. I do not hate or even dislike Mr. Obama, but I disagree with a number of his policies–and that does not make me a racist. I am a conservative, so of course I will disagree with Mr. Obama on some points. What else would you expect?

Liberals gain their power by playing on the sensitivity and resentments of people. They play up the envy the poor have for the middle classes and the wealthy. They emasculate man by calling any comment “sexist” that does not fit their radical feminist agenda of changing human nature, either by denying differences between males and females or trumping up “female virtues” as superior to “male virtues.” Those positions are self-contradictory, of course, but to the liberal, especially to the “postmodern” liberal, coherence is not a truth preserving condition.

As outspoken as I am, I keep some positions to myself, not because they are wrong, but because I know there would probably be a professional sensitive person in the audience who would misrepresent my beliefs–knowingly. On religious and moral issues I am more outspoken. Political issues are not values free, but they are contingent matters about which people even of similar world views disagree, and I must pick my battles. But I have grown more outspoken over the years because I am sick of a false, hypocritical “sensitivity” stifling discussion, especially of conservative positions, on issues important for the good of society.

Older Entries