The Conservative Manifesto - Part III

A spectre is haunting Rutgers — the spectre of conservatism. All of the powers of the ivory tower (Rutgers) have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: “diversity” proponents, speech-code advocates, multiculturalists, feminist radicals, and your professors.

Where is the student that has not been decried as “conservative” by the liberals in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of conservatism, against the more advanced liberal ideology at Rutgers, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Conservatism is already acknowledged by Rutgers to be itself a power.
II. It is time that Conservatives should openly, in the face of all their professors, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of conservatism with a manifesto of the ideology itself.

To this end, I have assembled the following manifesto, to be published in THE CENTURION:

A conservative believes in natural rights. A conservative believes in natural rights; those rights endowed to human beings by their creator. They believe in a system of government ordained around truths that are self-evident. Furthermore, he does not believe “No culture’s way of life is better than another,” as anthropologist Theodosious Dobzhansky has argued. Allan Bloom claims in his book The Closing of the American Mind that America promises, “the untrammeled freedom to reason,” and
therefore the highest achievement of truth and self-actualization. Conservatives are guilty of the sin of pride. We are proud of our nation and its values. We would rather study the political philosophies of freedom, justice, and liberty by John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Hobbes which have inspired generations of prosperity. We choose not to buy into the political philosophies of conflict theory and revolution by Marx or Mao which have inspired only genocide. A conservative is not afraid to tell the multiculturalists and western intellectuals that ridding the world of genital mutilation, infanticide, religious discrimination, patriarchy, cannibalism, forced abortions and corrupt dictators is not “culturally imperialistic,” or “ethnocentric.” It is rather our civic duty to our fellow man.

A conservative believes in objective truth. A conservative professes external order. He is firmly opposed to relativism's claims that truth is relative to the eye of the beholder, or claims that it is contextually constructed. He defends his view that there exists an outside truth by pointing out that disagreement doesn’t entail interminability, that there are undeniable facts like “the world is round,” and if there was no ethical or moral truth, then there would be no distinction in virtue between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. A conservative believes strongly in virtue: pursuing the good life for man for its own sake. He also beliefs in family and the traditions ordained in the family. Discipline, faith, self-confidence, personal responsibility and conviction are essential in all of man’s pursuits.

A conservative believes in limited government. “Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem” (Ronald Reagan). While law enforcement, basic education and maintenance of infrastructure are all necessary, the government does not have a good track record in succeeding at what it sets out to do. He knows this for two reasons. One, government is not some distinct, almighty, independent moral entity; rather it is comprised of human beings with all the innate characteristics and corrupt susceptibilities that affect those “evil” corporations and masses of ignorant citizens it attempts to govern. Second, government operated programs fail economically, because unlike profit, there is no measurable end to determine the level of achievement. The conservative prefers the alternative of privatization; private ownership of the means of production. Privatization is more successful that its government counterpart because it is vastly more efficient, self-regulating, and cost-effective. Examples of successful areas of privatization the conservative points to include health care, social security, mail delivery, prison operation, etc. While Norwegian president accused the United States government of being “stingy” with the tsunami relief effort and other charitable contributions, private United States companies had already donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the effort as well as to other charities worldwide.

Prosperity, incentive, free market, growth, human fulfillment and the pursuit of happiness are created from the bottom up, not the government down. He believes that a free-market will lead towards human prosperity and happiness. While doomsdayers and naysayers warn that overpopulation is due to prosperity, the exact opposite is true. The most industrialized places on earth have a birth rate far below what is needed to maintain their population.

Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success — only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free, and only then can human beings achieve happiness. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.

A conservative is Politically Incorrect. A conservative reveals the facts regardless of whose feelings get hurt. He acknowledges there are differences between the sexes. He knows what a statistical bell curve is, and understands that an outlier or exception cannot disprove a rule, sin qua non. He is against language reform and other futile and aesthetic attempts to soften reality by calling toilet paper “bathroom tissue,” freshmen “first-year-students,” and more recently Christmas trees “trees of giving.” A conservative does his best to act rather than talk and does his best not to get caught up in names, labels, and terminologies. Buzzwords like “inclusion,” “tolerance,” and “diversity” are racist, hypocritical, and exclusive to, as Leo Strauss said, “those who have stated clearly and forcefully there are unchangeable standards founded in the nature of man and the nature of things.”

A conservative believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That being said, he is strongly opposed to racism. He recognizes there are many human beings who lack opportunities. But current programs that institutionalize racial consciousness, like affirmative action, must be reformed on the ground that they encourage racial identity, promote suspicion of minority success, and violate civil rights by putting skin color before character. Racism is most prevalent in college admissions where skin color alone determines how one acts and thinks. In some cases, race is all that matters. “Diversity” becomes nothing but skin tone. One’s desires, intellect and even background become irrelevant. The postmodernists, whose philosophy is founded upon fragmentation, assume skin color alone can determine how one acts and thinks, therefore bringing a range of perspectives. Conservatives suggest an alternative program based solely on socioeconomic need. Such an alternative would bring diversity of economic backgroun and benefit minorities because, as the left itself confesses, a disproportionate amount are “socioeconomically disadvantaged.” A conservative is against “identity politics” and racial pride movements on the grounds that they too identify and polarize skin color. The conservative recognizes that since the 1960’s, activists have shifted their cause from civil rights to racial identity, a cause which will serve as an impediment to racial equality.

- James O'Keefe

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum in 2004 and later printed in Issue 3 of The Centurion in February 2005.

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.