The conservative manifesto

By James O’Keefe

Published: Thursday, October 16, 2003

Updated: Sunday, February 22, 2009

There is a spectre haunting Rutgers - the spectre of liberalism.

At 19, I am a conservative Republican and an ideological minority. This country has gotten to a point where tolerant, "diverse" colleges and universities that advocate fairness and equality are beginning to ostracize those who don't hold one universal belief - that of liberalism. My social views have been bashed and underrepresented by the liberal majority at Rutgers and around the collegiate United States.

Registration records indicate the ratio of voting professors at top schools is ten democrats to every one republican, a documented fact and a pitiful, self-perpetuating tragedy, according to studentsforacademicfreedom.org. The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right is even worse - a deplorable 15:1, according to www.frontpagemag.com. This is completely out of balance. On campuses there is more support for the Green Party than there is for the Republican Party! There is a hatred and loathing of conservatives, a trend that continues to flourish because colleges obsess with superficial diversity rather than intellectual diversity. I am intimidated and unable to express myself because there are overwhelming prejudices against what I believe in.

Witnessing 60 professors last week inappropriately label Rutgers Hillel and its Israel Inspires event as being "right-wing," and expecting that characterization in itself to be an accusation, has led me to believe conservatism has apparently become a crime. When was the last time there were 60 professors protesting all of the "left-wing" things that permeate campus? Never. Remember that these are the professors that teach us. Are there any significant forums for conservatives to express themselves in college? None. Can they say or do anything without being targeted or protested? Of course not. Rutgers promotes an intellectual imbalance, and in the process it distances conservative students. The majority doesn't care because the majority isn't conservative.

As a citizen of this country, it is my right to have a balanced education. Attention is not focused on the imbalance, but rather that it's stubborn for people like me to still remain conservative. Conservative reason is viewed as intrinsically wrong. This logic is beyond flawed - it's pathetic. Students can't defend its reason because their fundamental way of being taught is skewed!
 
"How so?" the skeptic wonders. In philosophy it is the professor's preference of theories of the self over theories of utilitarianism, of the libertarian over the communitarian. In sociology it is the preference of social conflict theories over functionalist theories - blame-society approaches rather than blame-individual approaches. In economics it is the questioning of capitalism, the bashing of "laissez faire" or "hands-off" (although many professors humorously teach void of ideological regulation). I'm not even going to mention subjects like history or political science. It is this fundamental favoritism in departments, the subtle imbalances that trusting student must embrace to get a good grade and the biased administration promoting it that enrages me. While everybody else happily jots down their daily notes, satisfied and gullible, writing in their blue books every liberal theory their beacon of academic insight taught them, I wonder what happened to the support for my beliefs. Where's my beacon?

In the first class I ever took at Rutgers, the professor begged the question, "Why is 'Communism' such a dirty word?" All the students in the class nodded and there was a chorus of "I knows." Then another student stood up and said, "If our country was socialist it would be a much better place to live." The entire class erupted in agreement.

Finally a student exclaimed, "Those conservatives are nazi bastards!"

Lovely.

The poor drones of Cuba could kindly explain to my professor, if they weren't being tortured by Fidel Castro, why "Communism is such a dirty word." So could the poor souls of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. But I encourage gratuitous statements praising extremist left-wing tyrants, as long as there are statements praising extremist right-wing tyrants as well. Extremes are dangerous, but if presented, must be taught in a balanced format.

However, Marxism is taught freely at colleges throughout America, while it is regarded as perfectly normal for the theories of Friedrich Hayek or Leo Strauss to be ignored. (They were conservative fundamentalists, and it figures you have never heard of them). Sadly, many of the professors who embrace the "Communist Manifesto" have never had a chance to live in a Communist regime and experience its harsh realities. Perhaps only then would they we able to understand why so many of their descendants fled to Capitalist America.

I'm tired of President George W. Bush being used as a scapegoat for every social problem. I'm tired of people questioning the need for a military defense after madmen bomb and threaten us. I'm tired of frivolous lawsuits and obese children suing fast food restaurants and patients driving up insurance costs by suing the doctors that protect their health. I'm tired of the incessant protesting for the sake of protesting, and the constant belligerence against America without the acknowledgement of how much opportunity and freedom we have.

I realize right now I'm appealing to a collegiate audience that hates everything I stand for. I know there are those who will deny this imbalance, or who will tell me my views are wrong. (Did I say your views are wrong?) Politics aside, I implore you to desire an objective and balanced education. There is no conspiracy I speak of, just a sad truth. I am concerned for your welfare. One day when you graduate from this liberal oasis and enter the real world, you will find that half the country will be just like me. An unlikely state like California just ousted their governor because they were getting fed up with liberal politics. Perhaps you will work some day for a boss that is conservative, no doubt for a company. This is your wake-up call.

So go ahead. Criticize my conservative column. Continue to nurture the lack of political balance at universities everywhere. Do it to conform. Do it because you love ignorance. Do it because you're young, gullible, and you're manipulated into thinking it is your collegiate duty to hate the status quo. Do it because 60 brilliant Ph.D.s at Rutgers actually think conservative propaganda is beginning to become a problem, when at one of the only conservative rallies last year (supporting the troops - not the war), there were more protestors than there were supporters. Do it because people like me are evil and shouldn't have the right to express themselves on campuses where extremists have the right to spit on my American flag and slander my American character.

Call me names, and frown at me because of my beliefs. It happens in my classes every day and I'm used to it. Maybe you liberals will realize I'm the one who's the underdog, and you'll start rooting for me.

James O'Keefe is a Rutgers College sophomore majoring in philosophy. His column, "Feathers of Steel," appears on alternating Fridays. 

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum.

Politically Correct B.S.

Politically correct language and its inane euphemisms are a menace to society. They are threatening your right to free speech and your ability to express yourself the way you want. Form is now becoming more important than substance. Prevalent social inequalities and oppressions look to language for remedy. What results is a thick, cunning manipulation of English - a lackluster solution to a problem that cannot be solved by words alone. A constant desire for some to be in power has turned those in our society into attackers - not physically, or even intellectually, but rather by cowardly accusation. Political correctness is shying away from simply being common courtesy and is turning into an epidemic. We accuse each other of being sexist if we say "mailman" instead of "mailperson." We accuse each other as being racist if we say "Indian" instead of "Native American." Your opinion of either entity does not change regardless of the term. Our attention is being focused not on the issues that matter, but rather on our defense. Why must we lower ourselves to such abysmal depths of linguistic nonsense? Because if we don't, our social doom will be swift, certain and inevitable. The worst thing to be labeled is a sexist or a racist. We must resort to learning how to communicate in this pathetic dialect that accentuates the appeasement of everyone and the offense of no one. We must sacrifice what was given to us in the constitution so we can succeed in a society with a politically correct social disease.

What used to be called the "Department of War" is now the Department of Defense. Bank tellers are supposed to refer to a disabled person as "a person with a disability," emphasizing his personhood first and not his disability. In business, "greed" has become the more positive sounding "profit motives." Special interest groups have transformed and, likewise, "anti-abortion" morphed into "pro-choice" and likewise "pro-life" into "anti-choice." "Used" becomes "Pre-Owned." "Liberals" have become "Progressives." Changes that were once somewhat necessary have become tiresome and pretentious. "Loser" becomes "second place." "Garbage men" become "Garbage people," and then become "sanitation workers" - which totally disassociates and dehumanizes the act of collecting smelly trash but at least gives those numerous female sanitation workers all the respect they've always wanted. (Notice my sarcasm.) Stealing one from George Carlin, "Shell shock" has become the verbose "Post traumatic stress disorder." This change disrespects the military veterans who actually experienced the horrors of battle - the mustard gas, the trenches, the death and destruction - just in sacrifice for all of today's super-sensitive. These euphemisms have been created by a manipulative, elitist few.

The term "politically correct" derives itself from Communism. Karl Marx coined the term P.C. as a cute reversal of C.P. (The Communist Party), and used it as propaganda. Even Hitler mastered the art of speaking in such a way that controlled the minds of others. Presently, The New York Times will give you more than a whiff of politically correct language. Much of the colorful, adjective- packed, progressive prose in The Times is on the threshold of up-to-date politically correctness. It has been used in various forms all over the spectrum, liberal to conservative, to brainwash others by manipulating the way of speaking.

The social and political implications of an artificial, politically correct language are destructive. The only things coming out of politicians' mouths are perfectly orchestrated pieces of well-planned sentimental glop. We have candidates being elected due to their (or their speechwriter's) magical talent of spitting out happy dribble, not due to character or morality or anything else that defines greatness. This new breed of language is a force to be reckoned with, putting more emphasis on one sentence that than a whole life of achievement. Any public figure that makes a politically incorrect statement is immediately attacked by the American media. David Howard, a Washington mayoral aide, used the word "niggardly" as a synonym for "stingy." Howard did not intend the racial epithet, it was a legitimate definition that a dictionary would confirm. However, the public and media were quick to accuse him of being racist, and he turned into a victim of political correctness run amok. Rush Limbaugh is the new target, although his statements were probably more racially directed, and therefore unacceptable. But there is a danger in letting one statement alone have such a huge impact on careers. Political Correctness can even cause controversy with those like John Lennon, who once said, "Only those with no hope take drugs." Bill Maher's show was canceled from ABC because he made a perfectly viable comment about the misuse of the word "cowardly" to describe the acts of terror on 9/11. This man's show was actually called "Politically Incorrect," and it was cancelled due to a controversial statement. There is a danger in encouraging those in the public sector to speak flawlessly. It will subliminally sway our attention from meaningful substance and force us to concentrate our attention on controversy and form. We will find it is impossible to satisfy the ears of everyone - we will just be fighting a futile battle we will never win. Every Targum column has its naysayers. Every speaker has protesters. Every optimist has skeptics. Don't live by them.

George Orwell once said, "All language is political." Perhaps we should address the actual issues themselves, not just sugarcoat them with an artificial and dangerous sense of false security. Understanding the world around us is contingent upon language. When that language is manipulated by the powerful, elitist source that seeks to use it as propaganda for a cause, language becomes a force to be reckoned with. When that force only appeals to the aesthetic and the superficial, we solve nothing; we achieve nothing. We cover up our problems with a fake blanket. This is America. We have the freedom to say whatever we want. Let's come together, stop accusing each other of things for our own political reasons and advancements, and talk the way we want. Let's have the courage to say what we feel. Because when it comes down to it, euphemisms suck! Well perhaps "suck" is much too vulgar a word; so I "dislike" them. Maybe I shouldn't judge a word based on its shallow qualities; so I suppose I find euphemisms "disagreeable with my preferences, per se."

James O'Keefe is a Rutgers College sophomore majoring in philosophy. His column "Feathers of Steel," appears on alternating Fridays.

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum.