September 1, 2006

Response to Professor Henson's comments

First, I appreciate Professor Henson's sense of humour. Here is my original article about the Professor who labeled SMU YCT the "KKK." Here is my response to his article in the SMU student newspaper: Look, we are engaged in a battle on college campuses for the hearts and souls of young people who vote, work for candidates, and eventually will make policy, influence public opinion and raise families. It is imperative that the ideas that made this nation great are defended. College campuses tend to be hotbeds of political discussions and activity, and are where the great books are not read, but should be. I fight hard to introduce students to the works of Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, Frederic Bastiat and Milton Friedman because their professors refuse to do so. I teach students how to organize an "army" to do intellectual and political battle with Leftists because it's important that our ideas reach both the leaders and the masses. As for terrorist-sympathizing professors, David Horowitz has written extensively about their support for Hezbollah, Hamas and even al Qaeda. Finally, to the question of supporting the war against Islamic fascism and secular terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Professor Henson should be glad, as a Leftist, that military decision-making and policy debates are not closed to civilians, but open to them. What about being a civilian disqualifies someone from commenting on foreign policy? We have a volunteer army, navy, coast guard and air force that operate with great skill and courage. I applaud them and support them at home precisely because I support their mission and am not overseas fighting alongside them in Iraq or Afghanistan. The war of public opinion at home is just as important as the war of bullets and bombs overseas. I think that most military commanders would agree with me on that point. I hope that my use of martial metaphors and my sense of urgency are now clearer to Professor Henson. I'd be happy to elaborate further on these and other points if he so desires.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The greatest threat to conservatism today is the simple fact that the so-called "conservative" party is in power, yet they spend like FDR liberals and meddle in foreign affairs like Wilsonian internationalists. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Left's eternal boogie man, the "Religious Right."

So why all this talk of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Just what have these men (or the President for that matter) accomplished for conservatives lately? Sure, it's nice to have the ACLJ as a legal buffer to the ACLU church/state extremism, but other than that they play a fairly minor role. The very mention of their name invokes a 20 year-old political landscape that is hardly relevant today.

But adopting Henson's definition of conservatism, let's focus on democracy. If the majority of people want their local school district to reflect the religious leanings of their community, what's wrong with that? Similarly, if people vote according to their religious belief, that's an inevitable consequence of living in a society where the majority rules.

That's democracy in action, Professor Henson. Love it or hate it, but don't rub it in our faces and then blame the system when your side loses.