Them's Fightin' (Illini) Words

George Will wrote a syndicated column* that appeared in many newspapers throughout the country today, concerning the NCAA edict against Native American mascots. While I agree with his underlying theme that the NCAA is being overbearing, unreasonable and inconsistent, I was very disturbed by some of the other things he wrote in the column. He linked this NCAA action to a larger movement within what he called "academic liberalism" toward censorship of offensive material. Just so I'm being fair, here's a larger quote:

"Censorship -- e.g., campus speech codes -- often are academic liberalism's preferred instrument of social improvement, and now NCA censors say: The Chief must go..."

Again, I don't disagree with his beef with the NCAA. I do have a big problem with the rest of the statement. The assumption that censorship, in any form, is exclusively or even primarily coming from the liberal side of our society is laughable to me to say the least. Clearly, Mr. Will hasn't been paying much attention to the goings-on at the FCC since the Bush administration took control. Anyone who doesn't recognize that social conservatives are trying to change the course of society in this country, using censorship as their primary tool, isn't paying attention to current events.
These (Will's article) are the kind of half-truths, which are perpetuated by well-meaning conservatives who aren't seeing the current American political landscape accurately. Many conservatives fail to see that there are actually two major conservative camps in America today. The traditional conservatives (of whom Mr. Will is a member), value fiscal responsibly (tax less, and spend less), individual liberty (the government shouldn't tell me what to do unless absolutely necessary), small government (why would we need a big gov't if we are doing the previous 2), and local control (my local gov't knows me and my needs and should make most of the laws for my area).
There is a new conservatism, though. It is actually moderates masquerading as conservatives. This group (of whom the President and many republican leaders are members), thinks the gov't should have whatever power it wants. After all, how could the gov't ever do something wrong? The only thing conservative about them is their values. They are very socially conservative. This group, who have risen fast to power, value big government, federal control, stronger checks on individual liberties, and social conservatism.
One is forced to look at the implications of a ruling party that values federal control, big government, unchecked government spending and social conservatism. What are the future implications of this kind of governing philosophy for individual liberty and tolerance in our country?
While Mr. Will is concerned about academic liberals not letting schools have the mascots they want, I am concerned about the people who actually control our government and have a record of almost unprecedented expansion of censorship telling us what information we can and can't receive through forms of major media.
It is my personal belief that the greatest threat of censorship currently comes from the right, not the left. And I take strong issue with his statement that censorship is the left's preferred instrument of social improvement. Once you remove the option of killing people who disagree with you, censorship is everyone's preferred method of social improvement. That's why our political system was created with protections against it. There's no reason to try to pigeonhole it as exclusively a problem with academic liberals, and, therefore, another reason anyone who considers themselves conservative should hate liberals. I don't think Mr. Will was right to frame his arguement the way he did, but he can say all the stupid things he wants. Its his right, and I don't know any "liberals" who want to take that away from him.


*(It ran under different titles in different papers, but I think it was first published as The Chief Must Go, in the Washington Post on Jan 5)