The Left Continues Its March Toward The Dark Ages

I continually find it amazing that so many on the left want to refer to conservatives as Nazis. It is amazing, and ironic.

Leaving aside the fact that “Nazi” was an abbreviated term that referred to Germany’s National Socialist party, it is worthwhile to note that one of the tactics of choice regarding dissenters utilized by the Nazis was strikingly similar to tactics used today – by the very leftists who are quick to label others with what has come to be a derogatory term in the eyes of people of all political stripes.

I refer to the simple silencing of opposing voices in government and society. From book-burnings to the imprisonment, or murder, of anyone who would offer public resistance to their goals or means, the Nazis of 1930s Germany simply could not tolerate the possibility of someone offering a viewpoint that might carry any weight with the populace, if it differed from their own.

In today’s America, such an attitude is usually the companion of someone whose position is continually losing credibility while the individual, or group, steadfastly refuses to allow for the fact that they might need to alter their opinions to come more in line with inconvenient facts. Rather than acknowledge truth when undeniable truth is presented, their preference is to resort to emotionalism, often rage, in an attempt to shut up those who have offered said undeniable truth.

It’s bad enough when this attitude is displayed by a simple liberal-off-the-street. It is sinister when it is displayed by those in positions of influence who, ideally, should be cultivating the development of thoughts and ideas in the dynamic atmosphere of rational debate. Yet that is often where the most egregious cases can be found.

The latest such incident involves a, now former, professor at the Northern Kentucky University. Language and Literature Professor Sally Jacobson was dismissed from her post after admitting that she incited students to destroy an administration-approved pro-life display on campus.

In financial terms, the damage done by Ms. Jacobson and her minions was relatively minor – estimated at $600 by campus police. The damage done to the reputation of the academy, as well as the most rabid leftists in the eyes of impartial Americans, is far greater.

I wrote some time ago about the need for rational debate in our republic, a need that is not being met due to the blinding rage of those on the left, who, more and more, seem to speak for all committed liberals in the country. Ms. Jacobson’s comments on the incident only add further weight to that premise. Speaking of her very un-scholarly approach to the display that was at odds with her belief, she stated, “Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged.” And, yes, she did go on to make the overused Nazi analogy to which this piece has already referred.

This is why so many Americans, be they staunch conservative Republicans, or merely among the “undecideds” in the runup to any election, have a real fear over the prospect of leftists or their sympathizers in the Democrat party coming to power in the current political climate. When destruction and violence is justified on the basis of uncontrollable rage at the presentation of opposing viewpoints, it is then that people start to have visions of the oppressive tactics of a Hitler. And it is not conservatives who are making such attempts at justification.

To try to rationalize such irrational behavior in what is supposed to be a civilized society is offensive under any circumstance. But Ms. Jacobson only further marginalizes herself, and her ilk, by going on to try to couch such misbehavior in constitutionally-protected terms. In admitting to her crime, she stated, “I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to.”

This latest iteration of the misuse of the “Free Speech” defense is not the only recent, or prominent, instance in which it has been cited. Some may recall the recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the rule that universities that receive federal funds allow military recruiters on campus. A group of law professors from a highly-regarded institution had opposed the policy on the grounds that the presence of the recruiters on campus somehow violated their First Amendment right to Free Speech, because they are opponents of the war in Iraq.

I can’t help but note that, in both the present case in Kentucky as well as the case before the Supreme Court, it is college professors, who, ideally, should be cultivating a free and open exchange of ideas, who are now making the claim that Freedom of Speech includes the right to silence your opponents. There is no “right” protected by the constitution that gives an individual or group license to deny the same right to another individual or group. Or, in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

If the speech of some, whatever manifestation it takes, is offensive to someone, that person has a couple of options available to them. They can offer a rational rebuttal in an exercise of their own, legitimate, First Amendment rights. Or they can simply ignore the offensive speech, as the First Amendment makes no guarantee that anyone has to listen to what anyone else has to say. Indeed, these are the options exercised by mature adults. Unfortunately, it often appears that this is a class of people that is difficult to be found among the moonbat left.