It Just Ain't Cool To Be A Liberal No More (It Never Was, But No One Called Them To Account Before)
Top: Fired CBS News anchorman Dan Rather (former Liberal MSM Bullhorn)
Bottom: About-To-Be-De-Tenured University of Colorado Ethnic Studies Professor Ward Churchill (a liberal educationalist)
Dan Rather slavishly grabbed his ankles for liberal Prom King Bill Clinton and never harassed him for skipping out on his University of Arkansas ROTC assignments and his definitive dodging of the Vietnam War draft.
Against the prudent caution of colleagues, however, he saw fit to headline alleged delinquencies in President Bush's National Guard Service--based on forged documents--in the midst of the 2004 Presidential Campaign-- which Bush won, anyway.
Rather was then served his walking papers for a story that was obviously driven by partisanship and personal peevishness towards the Bush family.
Tenured liberals with Ph.D.'s (in subjects like "The Mating Habits of Sub-Saharan Aboriginals Pre-&-Post English Colonialism" and "The Words Of Jesus And The Homoerotic Code Of 'Brotherhood'") have been entrenched in institutions of higher learning across the nation for decades, spouting Leftist political propaganda in the guise of objective scholarship to entire generations of "the best and brightest" of American youth with impunity.
For his part, "Professor" Ward Churchill had written an essay calling 9/11 victims "little Eichmans" (i.e. anyone working in the WTC or Pentagon were--wittingly or unwittingly--morally equivalent to SS underlings of the United Nazi States of America), without a peep from the liberal "9/11 Widows/Jersey Girls" but got Bill O'Reilly's bloviating attention and put him in the crosshairs of the No-Spin Zone.
Mirabile dictu!
The university wants to fire the tenured, liberal, "antiwar," Bush-hating professor.
(Of course, he warns that he'll sue when that happens)
This is why the Left accuse Bush as being "The Very Worst President In The History of the Country."
But they should speak for themselves.
He is indeed very bad-- for liberals.
Rather's dismissal and Churchill's P.R. troubles represent positive seachanges in the currents of the Culture War.
The former was at the vanguard of the once-monolithic news media and controlled--and manipulated--information for millions of viewers, and the latter is a poster-boy for tenured liberals in the education system who serve cups of Kool Aid to generations of young Americans thirsting for knowledge.
The rejection of them by the American mainstream was unimaginable less than a decade ago.
posted by John | 2:06 AM
16 Comments:
I came from a rarified atmosphere in college. Going to the University of Dallas made me think that the majority of professors out there were basically conservative. Consevative to the point that we would debate endlessly about the finer points of conservative politics and philosophy. The height of hilarity was to bring a red book to our American Civ. class on May1 because we could get a great reaction for our professor there. (Yea, we were a bit geeky there.)
THEN.......
I went to a large state school for my MA.......
That is where I learned what was truly meant by "liberal." My one source of comfort was that the professor that I spent the most time with is a Cistercian Order priest. He helped me to navigate through the miasma of political correctness. As he told me once, he was not interested in a history of politically correct thought, he was interested in 'real history.' My old-dead-white-man thesis encountered a bit of resisitance from the other profs, but he was my main reader and so we got by.
The point of this is that I was simply astounded at what some profs could teach and say and not be questioned in any meaningful way. I got into more than a few scraps because I figured that I was paying to be there and therefore had a right to question (UD again). I was wrong. They did not take kindly to me not bowing before the alter of superior wisdom with my conservative points of view. I still made it with a combination of regurgitation and relying on Fr. Bede to keep them off my back.
This particular Prof. Churchill is the type that made my blood boil. The thing about it is that we still have to be careful about the meaning and uses of tenured positions. Even when some of those profs made me fight them in class, I still would hesitate before saying that they should be fired because I disagreed with them. His case is a bit special, I agree, because he is advocating what I believe to be outright treason, but I have seen conservative professors under fire for political reasons as well.
The reason for my hesitant posture there is that if a person does not like a professor, they are paying for it and can either change courses, drop the course or change schools altogether. Does your average freshman have that kind of wherewithal? Probably not, but they still have the power to "turn him off" and leave the class at the very least.
Phelonius,
It is good that you had someone who could be a bit of a guide post in keeping your conservative sanity.
I attended the University of Utah. It is a very liberal establishment compared with the rest of what this state has to offer. Luckly, we had an off campus religion center that provided that anchor.
Also, I have a sister-in-law who is becoming more and more liberal (grew up in Boston) every time we see her. I used to enjoy political discussions with her, but lately, she has become fanatical with it. She won't hear it if you don't agree with her. She can't imagine that anyone would, but the rest of the family just turns it off and changes the subject.
OH, and just recently, BYU fired adjunct professor...News Article
The university committee isn't even bothering to make this into a Free speech issue," but are justifying termination on "alleged repeated research misconduct."
Having perused some of Churchill's own statements on the matter, it does appear he is taken out of context of what is a legitimate--albeit subjectively argued through a liberal prism--argument, and I can see why the commitee opted to exploit incidentals for the grounds of dismissal (of which he also defends).
He may indeed end up winning and keeping his tenured status.
But what is noteworthy here is that Americans have had enough of offensive, liberal philosophies and outlooks per se and have put once-entrenched subversive demagogues on the defensive--if not knocked cleanly off of their pedestals because of their essential liberalism.
Think about it: A media-icon like Dan Rather given the boot from a station that practically had his name on it after several decades of employment there.
And a university commitee compromising traditional tenured invulnerability in their desire to remove one of their tenured own from their ranks.
Both CBS and the university were reacting to public pressure.
Because, again, it just ain't cool to be liberal no more.
The only way liberals can win national elections is to pretend they're conservative.
Kelly, I think Romney has a shot.
i don't think so.
John and nanc,
Please elaborate on why you have the opinion of Romney's chances.
He's very clean-cut, wholesome and all-American, for starters.
He also seems solid, steady, and reasonable.
I really haven't researched him, though.
He might be too whitebread, though. too much of a boyscout.
Look what happened to Ashcroft (i.e. the caricaturing).
"I really haven't researched him, though."
Start with Wikipedia.
I think you will find several sources and a LOT of info on him.
Yes, he is very much the "Boy Scout"...perhaps too much for some people to swallow...and the fact that he is Mormon is a huge stumbling block for many folks.
...but then, hey, he got elected to be the Governor of Kennedy country.
as for me, i don't believe another man of faith who wears their religion on their sleeve should occupy the w.h.
i am a christian and love our president, but i disagree with his "religion". and mormonism is just another "religion".
wikipedia is not to be entirely trusted - ask bargholz of the problems he's had with them.
john - did you see that one of the writers at thavage juthice has called for the most vile of trolls to become a martyr? funny stuff.
have a great and safe fourth everybody. it is above most other things good to be an american.
But even the conservatives can't have their religion showing.
Must keep God out.
"i don't believe another man of faith who wears their religion on their sleeve should occupy the w.h."
If our current president were the only one who wore his religion on his sleave as did GWB, I would likely go along with what you say, Nanc.
But nanc does have a point. Though it may not be cool to be a liberal...its still aint cool to be outwardly religious...a liberal ideal.
And with such an idea the liberals have won. I concede defeat.
Thank you, Jeff. Yes, we win. I was being very sarcastic.
The problem is when our own conservatives don't want someone who is religious. My question is 'why shouldn't we have a President who is religious...especially someone who is sincerely religious?'
If the right can't handle it who can?
Here is a President who's faith was quite evident...though his exact religious affiliation was not.
George Washington
I'd say whoever has enough money to hire a PR firm decides whats 'cool'.
This isn't about 'cool'.
The leftists are empirically wrong and they know it:
http://allywork.solidaritydesign.net/2006/unlearning-racism-pt-2-getting-to-know-ourselves/#comments
Post a Comment
<< Home