‘Stand for liberty!’ presidential candidate demands of captive audience.
The choice of venue was all I needed to know. Liberty University is famously run by Jerry Falwell whose notion of ‘liberty’ has never been similar to mine. He stands for the liberty to attend mandatory convocations and mouth worship-words exactly as he prescribes. The ‘or else’ part would only have come had he succeeded in winning political power*. That Ted Cruz is snuggling up to the Christian Ayatollah is not as attractive as Cruz might believe.
Of course mine is – as usual – not a universally-held opinion. I was doing a lot of back-and-forth in the Jeep yesterday afternoon when Mark Levin was on the radio, and he waxed so orgasmic over Cruz’s speech I feared my instrument panel might become sticky. He pointed out the huge, enthusiastic audience but oddly failed to mention one important aspect of its presence…
Ted Cruz announced his presidential campaign at Liberty University this morning in front of a captive audience of nearly 10,000 students—none of whom had any choice in whether to attend.
From another source, it seems a few members of the captive audience didn’t take it lying down.
“Of course, you want it to appear as if you have a large audience,” said Eli McGowan, who organized the not-so-subtle protest. “We felt like if we didn’t wear shirts showing our true political preference then the media might think we all supported Cruz.”
“They make you come. If you don’t come, you get punished,” said Ana Delgado, a sophomore, who said students face a $10 fine for not showing up at convocation. Delgado wasn’t among those wearing Paul gear. She is undecided about who she’ll support in 2016, but she didn’t like being forced to be part of Cruz’s announcement.
Freedom, it seems, is just another word for what slogan’s on your t-shirt. In that regard things haven’t changed much from when I was that age. 🙂
—
*Claire points out that all this would be more accurate and relevant if Falwell were still alive. Oops. But I still hate him.
This political thing is always “sticky.” I posted a comment yesterday at another blog I often visit, saying that my “vote” will be the same next year as it has been for more than 20 years… None of the above.
I was jumped on from every direction with all the usual… non-voters enable the “enemy,” whoever they don’t like. My “vote” is essential or we’ll “lose our gun rights.” And you can probably imagine all the rest of them. I quit trying to answer that nonesense a long time ago.
“None of the above” expresses my position perfectly. I don’t want ANY of them to have the least control of my life, so it doesn’t matter in the least to me who “wins.” The only one that actually “wins” an election is government, and the names attached are more or less irrelevant.
Would Cruz or Rand be better or worse than Hillary? Who knows? Depends on what you think “better” or “worse” might be and in what context. A pox on all of them, I say.
Just FYI, LU isn’t being run by Falwell any more unless Heaven or Hell has a management department. Old Jerry is dead. But in everything else, you’re right on. And I’m sure the university is still in “good” Christian fascist hands.
I tried to grasp Cruz’s idea of “liberty” and had to drop it because my hands were shaking too hard from dread of the kind of “liberty” he’d like to impose.
🙂
Y’know, the “he’s dead” part completely slipped my mind. Which shows how much real estate he occupies up there, I suppose…
A quote from “The Road to Serfdom” (emphasis is mine):
“The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they… have always held… The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most effective way to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.
Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed….
If one has not one’s self experienced this process, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this change of the meaning of words, the confusion it causes, and the barriers to any rational discussion which it creates… And the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of words describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people. Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, *as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite* and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.”
My understanding is that this school considers all speakers to the school as part of the required curriculum. If any speaker is scheduled than every student is supposed to attend. I’m not sure I would disagree with this policy for any school.
This entire matter brings me closer and closer to ML’s position, which in reality would work out to not voting at all. I’ve always been a supporter of the “if’n ya don’t vote ya can’t complain” position, believing that “one of ’em’s gonna be elected, pick the lesser, etc”. Realizing that, like it or not, my vote really makes zero difference in the end result allows me to justify abstaining.
The usual response to that is “but what if everybody felt that way and nobody voted?” Yes, yes indeed. What if? Suppose the Electoral College would still elect a president? I don’t see why not. They really aren’t bound by our votes anyway. Would make for an interesting situation, though.
Think about it… the “lesser of two evils” is still evil. Why would one give their consent to evil? Anyway, that was the bottom line for me, once I gave up the idea that there would ever be any “right people” to vote for. The very fact that someone wants a position in which they can control the lives and property of others – and who is willing to accept all the theft and force inseparable from non-voluntary government. What more reason could one need to reject the whole thing?
I shall not vote. It took decades, but I finally realized there was no need to. All three parties are proponents of big government and forcing people to do things with threats of violence. D-R-L behind the name does not matter. But, who would want to miss the chance to vote for the first Canadian to run for President of the U.S?
GWTW wrote: “My understanding is that this school considers all speakers to the school as part of the required curriculum. If any speaker is scheduled than every student is supposed to attend.”
That’s a typical circular bureaucratic rationalization if I have ever seen one. It could be rephrased as, “It is required because we always require it. Therefore it is required.”
To the school’s credit, they did apparently allow the silent protest of the T-shirt wearers.
You circular logic is faulty. The school considers the public speakers it invites as a requirement for the social education. Simple as that. It is actually a good thing not some nefarious left wing conspiracy.
At this point I will probably vote for Cruz but perhaps would change and vote for Walker if he runs. I would much rather have a pro-constitution president than our current pro-Marxism president.
If all students are required to attend all speakers, there isn’t any scandal here.
If that university only likes conservatives, well, that’s a nice change, isn’t it?
There is no institution, club, or whatever, that didn’t have scummy leadership at some point. ‘Scummy’ being defined as ‘I strongly disagree with’.
Being against Christians on principle is the same kind of bigotry you’re accusing them of practicing.
Rand Paul isn’t a libertarian. A libertarian wouldn’t condone legalizing illegal aliens. The Paul family is looney on many issues, though (‘strongly disagree with’).
For you non-voters: you’re voting for democrats and you know it. Democrats vote for ideals, and one candidate is as good as the other. You elected Obama. Saying ‘they’re all crooks’ is just a way of saying ‘I don’t care’, which is your right, but we who vote don’t have an obligation to take your views into account, because they, by definition, don’t count. It’s my dream that everyone adopts the ‘don’t vote’ attitude expressed here, so I can finally clean up the mess as Dictator-for-life.
They aren’t all crooks. My favorite President, George Washington, wasn’t. Nor was my second, Calvin Coolidge. Yes, I know about the Whiskey Rebellion (‘strongly disagree with’). (Perfection doesn’t exist? OMG!!1! NEWS FLASH!!11!11!)
There is nothing in Ted Cruz’s past to suggest he’d be a totalitarian of any sort; just the opposite. He may not be the next Washington, but he also won’t be Fauxcahontas or the third term of Obama.
BK says: “Being against Christians on principle is the same kind of bigotry”
But who is against Christians on principal? Many of us, likely most of us, here in the USA identify ourselves as Christians on some level. So to be bigoted against Christians is to be bigoted against a likely majority.
I believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. So if I become concerned that a specific candidate will mix his religious ideas/ideals with his policymaking, that’s a legitimate concern, not bigotry.
BK says: ” A libertarian wouldn’t condone legalizing illegal aliens.”
Really? The following text is straight from the 2014 Libertarian party platform: “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” https://www.lp.org/platform
Yeah, nobody said anything about being ‘against Christians.’ Though not a Christian myself – I’ve studied the teachings of Jesus and just never could measure up, so I don’t call myself a Christian – I’m certainly not against them. I’ll declare from whatever rooftop you care to designate, though, that being against Falwell and his heirs is not the same as being against Christians.
I’ve no idea what the Libertarian Party is for or against. Don’t really care.
And while we’re on the subject of what BK had to say…
No. Saying ‘they’re all crooks’ is just a way of saying ‘they’re all crooks,’ which is pretty much the opposite of ‘I don’t care.’ You may not take my views into account, but if you say they don’t count at all you’ve got a pretty funny notion of citizenship.
Ben, the Christian morality was (and mostly is) the majority opinion, even if it isn’t labeled Christian. What does Cruz stand for than imposes his morality on all of us?
Liberals do that with anti-gun laws, making private companies pay for abortifacients, the list goes on and on (Operation Choke Point).
What do Christians impose on anyone? Blue Laws are the will of the local community that don’t impede rights. Mentioning God on the coins may be an issue, but it hardly compares to the above-named impositions of liberals, and has no effect on anyone except for their feelings.
One of these two idealogies will win for the foreseeable future. Libertarians won’t. Not voting casts a vote for liberals, as the last election made painfully clear. Conservatives are much more picky about only voting for the ideal candidate and crying in the corner if He doesn’t come. Liberals are more inclined to vote for the platform. They re-elected Obama even though he screwed them over.
” The following text is straight from the 2014 Libertarian party platform:”
And if I could get enough pecan pie lovers in, it would say that too.
This is why Libertarians will never win. A country without borders is not a country. The official Libertarian platform is a radical democrat platform, or even an Anarchist platform. A true Libertarian holds the Constitution as the law of the land. ‘Economic freedom’ should allow Robber Barons, because the workers are free to quit if they want and .gov shouldn’t impose laws on my private business.
Joel, I made sure to say ‘they, by definition, don’t count’ because no politician will take them into account, not that they now aren’t citizens.
Democrats are elected for life, but Eric Cantor showed that conservatives aren’t always, and they know that (yes, Bohner…but does his base really love him, or are too many of them who don’t just sitting it out and not voting?).
And they aren’t ALL crooks. Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska is spotless. The democrats went over her personal and private documents, even crowd-sourced them to the base, and came up empty. She’s dumped on because she openly calls herself religious, and people who don’t like religion in any form don’t need anything else. But she didn’t push laws to impose her deeply held religious beliefs on the public.