From Derek Hunter at Townhall:
If you had told me five years ago that, in 2017, we’d be debating the nature of free speech and whether American citizens could be blocked from speaking on the campus of a public university because of their politics, I would’ve laughed in your face. But then, I would have had the same reaction if you had told me Donald Trump would be president in 2017, so clearly nothing is impossible.
History has shown a small group of people, especially when they’re willing to oppress others and commit violence against their fellow countrymen, can attain power. This dance is made easier when both sides sit silently – one out of fear, the other of impotence.
And that’s the problem – Democrats won’t speak out forcefully against their violent fringe because they’re convinced they need them and are busy trying to co-opt and appease them. Republicans won’t for reasons I simply can’t explain. More.
Reality check: I can explain.
Republicans in the United States, just like Conservatives in Canada, want to demonstrate that they are helpless against campus thugs. They are helpless both before and after the thugs graduate and become (one fears) tax-funded employees of some “social justice” concern. A society is easier to batten off governing if the civil service is full of thugs.
It’s called learned helplessness. = Wring hands, let reforms fail, collect pension … and then lamely offer that one’s own conservative thugs would stomp less heavily on the citizen/voter/taxpayer’s face than the sincere progressive thugs would. (That sneer is optional, by the way.)
Is it illegal start a thug-free U? Or a political party aimed at a thug-absent voting block? Not yet, anyway. So let’s assume, until proven otherwise, that conservative governments benefit from the care and training of anti-free-speech thugs too but just don’t like admitting it. Unless they start doing things that matter.
See also: How did “populism” become such a dirty word? A left-wing journalist offers some thoughts