Thanks, James. That sounds like a well-reasoned argument. And "studies" certainly tell us what's going on. After all, figures don't lie. (Which ignores the fact that liars figure.)
But let me go on to the crux. Why do I restrict my definition of "violence" to campuses where what you consider to be "right-leaning" speakers are harassed?
I'll be 88 on Friday, and I've watched the whole thing unfold. I think the main problem with our society nowadays is our universities. They were taken over in the sixties by left-leaning -- I'm tempted to call them "crazies," but I don't want to argue about that. Many of them were hippies, and a few were people who'd not only disrupted our society, but were criminals who'd been let off the hook.
When I was in high school we had rifle teams. Many people owned firearms, but shootings -- especially mass shootings -- were so rare they almost were nonexistent. Near the end of the century I watched the "deinstitutionalization" of mental misfits. I've told the story of the poor woman in Colorado Springs who used to spend her days wandering around town pulling her wheeled suitcase, sitting most of the day slouched on a bench, depending on a couple local restaurants' largess for food. There were plenty of others in the town, like the poor gap-toothed drifter who saw my camera, came up to me and said, "Take my picture," and when I gave him a print of it about a week later broke into tears and said, "That's the first time somebody's taken my picture in twenty years."
Now, these people were -- at least at the moment -- harmless, but needed to be out of society and in a place where they could be cared for and watched, not only for their own good but for the safety of society at large. But it isn't going to happen, and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a direct result of our unwillingness to deal with the problem.
What happened? The people who went to war in WW II grew up in a world scarred by the Great Depression. When the war was over and they settled down again, they swore their kids never would have to face the kinds of hardships they'd faced, so they supported those kids well beyond the time when they should have been out of the house, and they made sure gathering places like schools were "gun free zones." They did their best to remove any irritants or obstacles the kids might face. The result was what we called the "boomers." The boomers carried the idea that kids shouldn't have to face life head-on far beyond where their parents had carried it.
So now we have a couple generations that aren't willing or able to face the world as it is. Roughly half of the group we call millennials believe socialism is better than capitalism, though even a simple, quick examination of history refutes that idea. Sure, capitalism has its problems. but to paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the rest.
The bottom line? Our universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem.
I have no idea how old you are James. N/A doesn't tell me much. Same thing with your location. If I knew whether "Local Time" means local for you or local for me I might be able to guess. But why should I have to do that. In the end, all I have is your collection of assertions and references to "studies." That doesn't cut it.
Hi there Russ - Happy Thursday to you! Sorry for the delay in reply, but, well, I've had to work. Despite being somewhat to the left of center, I do have businesses to run
Anyway, a lot to unpack here, but you made two fundamental points that I agree with. First, I think your concern about the decline in the identification and treatment of mental illness is spot on. In fact, the
New York Times noted the factors that have exacerbated this problem a few years back. Their conclusion: by forcing mental health funding out of the federal government and onto the states without adequate funding, Kennedy started the problem in 1963. The Reagan-era move toward
block grants removed oversight about how and where those funds were used, so states were basically given a chunk of money that was "supposed" to be used on public mental health. The result, especially when combined with the recession in the late 2000s was predictable. Notably, this is one "strategy" that some folks are advocating as an alternative to the ACA. Let's hope they can learn from what happened last time it was tried...
As for your contention that the boomers screwed things up, it's
not an uncommon argument. You would probably agree with this criticism of that generation, I think, from the link above:
I'll give you something abstract and something concrete. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve [the boomers] done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is.
Here's another analysis that we probably both find some truth in.
But, alas, here is where we part ways. Your assertion that,
"...universities have become indoctrination engines for doctrines that eventually will destroy the West. The fact that a bunch of kids and their "professors" can't listen to a point of view different from the thrust of their indoctrination will, eventually, be catastrophic for our society. If you want to see how that plays out, check the history of the Inquisition. See any parallels? If you don't, you're part of the problem." just doesn't hold water.
It's a nice statement of your *feelings* (ironic, given the original subject of this thread), but there's no meat to the assertion beyond the idea that you don't like the way some kids are acting. You dismiss my data - surveys, research, professional analysis - because it doesn't mesh with your preconceived notion, but you offer nothing in return except that you think you know it to be true. I'm open to the alternatives - truly - but your belief that this is the general state of the left stands in direct contrast to aggregated data compiled and analyzed by professionals. There simply no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that, despite some scary anecdotes (and I'm 100% with you again here - I find the behavior at Berkeley, for example, both repulsive and frightening for what it could portend if this was in fact the new normal), this is what we are likely to get from the vast majority of youth, either conservative OR liberal, ergo I have no fear that it portends anything approaching the Inquisition, so perhaps in your mind I AM part if the problem...
But let's talk about the Inquisition for a moment... Torquemada was a conservative, and the Inquisition was a violently conservative movement, so I'm frankly surprised you used that as an example (I would have used the the Reign of Terror, but I digress). As I'm sure you know, the Inquisition was a means by which the Spanish crown desired to root out diversity of religion and enforce social and cultural homogeneity. The Inquisition had the full backing of the crown and the Roman Catholic church. Muslims were denied freedom of religion, and Jews were expelled or forced to convert to Catholicism (ironic, because as I recall, one of the precursors to the inquisition was that there was an issue with "fake" conversions amongst non-catholics, but I'm a bit fuzzy on that). Now I get your point - you see ANTIFA types using violence to enforce a certain thought structure, and you fear what it could become. Let's be crystal clear - I do too, but these "students" *are NOT* indicative of the general state of left-of center politics, as I've showed you with aggregated data earlier in the thread.
Let me bring up one more point, and that's of students in general. By and large, they're emotional idiots. They say and do stupid things. We all know this. It doesn't mean they can't come up with some brilliant ideas (Einstein published special relativity at what, 25?) but they are, as a group, emotionally immature and prone to goofy outbursts. It's been like that from time eternal, and always will be.
(There's an actual biolgical reason for that!) This is NOT a new complaint, by the way... So when kids shout down, harass or otherwise plug their tender ears, I think they're wrong and I don't like that they're indulged one little bit, but it's hardly the end of civilization because they will grow up, and they literally will not operate in the same way, mentally.
Finally, you asked about me. If you think it will help you understand me, I'm happy to oblige. I'm 45 - neither boomer nor millennial. I live in Austin, which is the liberal part of Texas, but I live in a more conservative part of town (in Austin you would read that as a genuine mix of political viewpoints). I'm an entrepreneur who's done well enough to buy a Phase One kit, so I have some minor aptitude, and I have a degree from one of Texas' best private universities that's not Rice. My degree is in history (American, colonial concentration) and communications/media, so I'm somewhat qualified to discuss both the origins, meanings and implications of our shared history as well as the modern day methodologies of the way the media presents (and sometimes distorts) the public discussion (the latter both by education and profession). I believe in an implied Constitutional right to privacy, and I believe the greatest threat today is not to the 1st (or 2nd) Amendments, but to the 4th and, because of strict constructionism, the 9th. I can tell you that one of the first (and worst) real threats to our Bill of Rights didn't come in the 1960s,
but rather in 1798, from John Adams of all people, and that his opponents used the power of the free press to fight him, resulting in the imprisonment of a writer and all that that implies, both then and now.
Etc. Etc.
You may reply to this, and you may not, since you've said you won't be responding any more. If not, again, I appreciate your willingness to move to a more interactive discussion, and I appreciate you sharing your point of view. I respect your experience, I acknowledge your obvious love of our shared country and way of life. I thank you for your part in making that possible for me to enjoy. We disagree, pointedly, on the reasons for current and near-future danger and I've showed you why. Perhaps in the future you will find some data, studies or peer-reviewed work that supports your concerns. When you do, I'd love it if you would share them. As I said before, I am truly always willing to learn.
