If Bush is a warmonger and Kerry is a flip-flopper, what is an LDS voter to do? Bo Gritz is nowhere to be found, and Cody Judy is out of the question. Alas, it is probably too late for Gordon B. Hinckley to mount a Joseph-Smith style LDS-prophet-for-president campaign. Thus, it’s clear that the only principled thing to do is . . .
vote for Jim Faulconer as President!
But for those who think that they must remain within the traditional Republican – Democrat dichotomy, there are some interesting goings-on in the political quarters of the bloggernacle. To wit, two political blogs (which have very different politics) have recently posted on the question of how LDS church members should evaluate Republican politics.
The first post, at Political Juice, is here, and the blog will be running follow-up posts. A counterpost at LDS 4 Bush is located here. Enjoy!
I wouldn’t vote for Jim F. for president, but I might consider him for “Philosopher-King.”
Aaron B
well…I don’t know about a counter-post…
I thought of it more in the way of providing PJ with some ‘easy’ grist to grind through. :)
Wow, lyle, the comments at Eschaton you link to are pretty nasty. Felt just like my high school on the day after the anti-cult lesson in the Baptist Sunday School.
Then again, there are *plenty* of Republican Evangelicals who hate Mormons with a venom that makes Eschaton’s commenters look like, well, like schoolkids. If having Mormon haters in the party is enough to change your voting preferences, then I suspect you’ll need to support Kaimi’s write-in campaign for Jim!
I came up Eschaton by accident from Talking Points. I was about to send it to someone here for comment. I agree it was nasty. Especially the big about “single childless Sheri Dew.” Was that supposed to be an insinuation about sexuality of some kind?
Kristine: Your sarcasm continues to amaze…but then again, I’m sure mine does too. If you’d read my post, you also read that I recognize that many evangelical’s are less than complimentary to LDS folks. However, at least you can have a rationale conversation with such and cooperate politically…instead of being insulted continually.
I support Jim F. for president. Good thing that there aren’t confirmation hearings for that position though, because the Borkers would have tons of ammo with all of his ruminations on T&S!
Lyle, although I often feel the condescention of the left and get my feathers ruffled by it [Fowles, feathers, haha], I don’t think I agree with you that at least you can have a rationale conversation with [evangelicals] and cooperate politically…instead of being insulted continually. If LDS do cooperate with evangelicals, it is a dangerous alliance (dangerous for the LDS, not the evangelicals, who will use the Church’s power and good will and then drop us as non-Christians the moment the political issue at hand has been dealt with). My own relatively conservative views have nothing to do with similarities in worldview with evangelical Christians, I like to think anyway. Rather, they come from my own comparison of the principles of the restored Gospel as I understand them with the social issues that are preoccupying our society at the present.
Oh, Kristine, re: Eschaton.
I’m glad that since you want greater female involvement in LDS leadership circles that you are so quick to spring to Sheri Dew’s defense. Oh wait…you didn’t. How did I ever make that mistake? I guess I thought you would try to defend her from being slandered by a bunch of liberals…guess not? :)
For what it is worth, certainly no more than Kaimi’s nomination, I decline, though I’m flattered. Don’t vote for me either for president or for philosopher king. I do not think it is a coincidence that the combination of politics and philosophy seems always to be disastrous. Witness Plato, Heidegger, and recently the neocon, Straussian advisors to President Bush. We philosophers seem singularly unable to do politics well.
Kristine
I have meet many Democrats who are hostile to any religion, including ours. I am reminded of one class on diversity in my department where the students (they were all grad students and seemed to have liberal opinions on other issues) said the religious should not go to state schools, but schools “of their own,” that people who believed in Christ were stupid, etc. All this on the day the class was talking about diversity in the classroom.
The difference between evangelicals and these people, as far as our religion goes, is that the Evangelicals (with whom I have had plenty of experence, growing up in TX) are open with their opposition, while these people hide behind words like “diversity” and “acceptance,” wanting to be your “friend,” all the while thinking you are a fool for your beliefs.
Lyle,
That’s really rather sloppy to use those two blogs to make the categorical claim, as you do, that “Democrats hate Mormons.” Yes, some democrats hate Mormons. Some republicans hate jews. Some whites hate blacks. But regardless of the tastelessness of any individual case I could find of any of the foregoing, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to casually omit that qualifier “some.”
many evangelical’s are less than complimentary to LDS folks. However, at least you can have a rationale conversation with such and cooperate politically…instead of being insulted continually.
You exaggerate greatly both in the cuddly picture of mormon-evangelical cooperation you describe as well as the “continual” insults that you claim run in a steady stream from my party’s masses.
Nate T.:
A class full of fiery grad student liberals hardly represents a fair cross-section of democratic attitudes towards religion. The cars with Kerry/Edwards bumperstickers that line my suburban street are driven my methodists, catholics, lutherans, hindus…. and we all seem to get along. They might express their dismay at Sheri Dew’s giving the invocation (and, frankly, I’ll agree with them), but that doesn’t mean they hate me. Or even the republican mormon down the street.
Jim, most of the recent neo-cons downplay Strauss a great deal. When I first heard of the neocon movement I became rather alarmed. If only because one needn’t read much Strauss to become worried (IMO).
I blogged about it all a few months back. Having since tried reading the Weekly Standard I’ve found a lot of the fear mongering seems a bit misleading. I must confess I’ve found myself agreeing with the neo-cons more than most groups. Indeed they’ve been some of Bush’s harshest critics at times.
Jeremy
I never said they were representative. Only that both sides have a noticeable, or *plentiful* to steal a term, contingent that would hate us.
Yet we all must deal with the people around us. It is hard for me to find liberals as peaceable people when cars with Bush bumper stickers get keyed here (I live in Seattle). It is hard for me to agree that liberals want freedom of speech when, on a campus that is decidedly liberal, the College Republicans are censured by our administration for trying to hold a peaceful protest against affirmative action wile anti-war activists who block off a lane of traffic during rush hour to “raise awareness” get off without a peep. Perhaps if I lived in your neighborhood I would have a different view, but I don’t. While I know all liberals are not like this, I can not help but to think the liberal vision of what America should be is my campus, because they have been in control of it for so long, and that scares me.
I could easily say Kristine’s statements about Evangelicals with an all-out hate Mormons attitude are far from representitive. I had many evangelical friends growing up. Yet Kristine seems to imply that a significant number of evangelicals would revisit the Missouri mob on us, when it is simply not so. Perhaps there are some, but they are few and far between. I get along with evangelicals as long as we do not talk about religion. Perhaps she had as many bad experiences with Evangelicals as I have with liberals.
I even had encounters with evangelicals in Taiwan on my mission that were not argumentative, but productive (admittedly, they are rare over there).
On the matter of the neocons and related matters (e.g. The Project for the New American Century), I have tried about everything to get the Deseret News to editorialize about them, nor will they publish any letter to the editor which contains the word neocon or neoconservative. Why I wonder? Is it because the relationship between the neocons and Israel is just too theological to be handled comfortably, or do they just think it isn’t important to current foreign policy decision making. With the whole Israeli espionage link to Feith’s office coming out, it is going to be hard for the D-News to ignore it.
I’m going to have to agree that there is a high level of hypocrisy within liberal circles when we claim to be open-minded but our minds slam shut as soon as a conservative idea is expressed. It happens a lot. We are guilty. Conservatives have their own brands of hypocrisy, of course.
However, that said, most liberals will feel a healthy sense of shame for their small-minded behavior if you point it out to them as such, whereas many Evangelicals take great delight in being anti-Mormon.
Nathan, there’s backstory you wouldn’t know if you haven’t been reading here a while: I went to high school in Nashville, about a mile from the headquarters of the Baptist Sunday School Board headquarters. I have lots of evangelical friends, and also plenty of experience with evangelical anti-Mormonism. I don’t think I said or implied that all evangelicals hate Mormons or would revisit the Missouri mob on us (there’s no need to put hyperbole in my mouth; I’ll come up with my own if you wait a little while :)), only that there are many in the Republican party who really hate Mormons.
And I’m with you on the sneering disdain for the religious among liberals. It’s ugly (not to mention stupid).
lyle, the fact of Sheri Dew’s femaleness does not make that speech defensible.
Since Jim F. has declined his nominations for president and philosopher king, I’ll simply promise to sustain him in his church calling (if we’re ever in the same ward). :)
The one thing I dislike about the arch-conservatives and the arch-liberals is their tendency to descend into utter hatred and contempt for one another. This is a generalization I’m making and I’m fully aware that not all arch-conservatives or arch-liberals are guilty of this.
My apologies Kristine, I thought it might have something to do with her former calling in the Church. Well…so much for unity in the Church on this one. I give up…
Lyle,
It takes two to create a disunion. Have you thought of adopting Kris’s position, rather than suggesting that she adopt yours? Viola, unity.
Kaimi,
If there’s disunion, it’s between Kristine and Sheri Dew. Lyle can’t do much about that except take sides.
That said, I thought Sister Dew’s comments were ill-advised. While the quote she used makes a good point, the reference to Hitler distracts people from that good point. She should have expressed the same idea in her own words, omitting Hitler.
I think there’s a law of the universe that says if Matt Evans and I agree on something, it is beyond dispute :)
“Viola. Unity.” (Is there anyway for a computer semi-literate to figure out how to quote a previous comment?)
The League of French Violinists protests strenuously the notion that violas have anything to do with unity.
Violas are the altos of the orchestra and would hardly be missed if they disappeared. (Draw whatever implications you want from that about altos in a choir. :) ) They’re just wannabe violins, who are still looking for their own Scarsdale diet.
If you’re looking for a musical instrument to engender unity, what about the accordion? Its very name suggests unity, and we can all agree that the sound it produces makes us want to get up and do something together–like leave the room.
Sorry to spoil the universe’s momentary equilibrium, but I thought Dew’s comments were defensible. (I assume Kristine was using “defensible” as a normative term.) Accepting gay marriage would irrevocably change marriage, family and sexuality for the worse.
My complaints with Dew’s comment are pragmatic, not normative. She made a good point. You can’t be neutral on a moving train; doing nothing is still doing something. But rhetorically, she made a mistake by using a quote with Hitler in it.
To return the universe to equilibrium, Kristine and I can agree that violas sound better than accordians. (Think twice before disagreeing here, Kristine. If we can’t agree to that, the planets’ orbits are in jeopardy.)
Matt, I know we disagreed about the larger point; it was just the Hitler reference that we could agree was unfortunate.
But don’t worry, I think real equilibrium of the universe actually requires the two of us to inhabit opposite poles. (What? y’all thought that joke about Harvard people changing a lightbulb by waiting for the universe to revolve around them was a *joke*?!)
So does Case’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law (scroll down) apply to real-life discussions?
Thanks for the link, Bryce I, that was a great. As for the merits of Case’s Corollary, many threads at Times & Season show it to be false.
Kristine
I welcome your comments, but I have reason to doubt the sincerity of anti-religious liberals feelings of shame and apology. They (at least the ones I know) most often engage in it when they do not think any religious people are around. This shows they know it is wrong on some level. When statements are made in public of an anti-religious nature, they (with the same caveat I stated above) agree with it. I remember a Blanton anti-Catholic article was published in my school paper. In the next “letters to the editors” there was one letter calling the article such and two or three praising it. There was no apology from the paper or notes of apology by non-Catholic students. Moreover, taking my classroom example from above, is how can one, having affirmed the need for diversity, in less than an hour, turn around and start bashing the religious?
Oh well, You must have more charity than me.
Kristine
I welcome your comments, but I have reason to doubt the sincerity of anti-religious liberals feelings of shame and apology. They (at least the ones I know) most often engage in it when they do not think any religious people are around. This shows they know it is wrong on some level. When statements are made in public of an anti-religious nature, they (with the same caveat I stated above) agree with it. I remember a Blanton anti-Catholic article was published in my school paper. In the next “letters to the editors” there was one letter calling the article such and two or three praising it. There was no apology from the paper or notes of apology by non-Catholic students. Moreover, taking my classroom example from above, is how can one, having affirmed the need for diversity, in less than an hour, turn around and start bashing the religious?
Oh well, You must have more charity than me.
Nathan, I think that last was addressed to Ashleigh’s comments, not mine. I agreed with you!
Nathan wrote Yet Kristine seems to imply that a significant number of evangelicals would revisit the Missouri mob on us, when it is simply not so. Perhaps there are some, but they are few and far between.
I don’t think that this is what Kristine was saying (it is a large expansion of her point), but I am willing to say it. In a situation where they could have their preference and where normal social conventions would be dropped (i.e. in an evangelical caliphate, so to say, such as nineteenth-century Missouri), I believe that they would treat us the same as we were treated in Missouri and that they would think it was being done in the interest of righteousness, perhaps even for the benefit of our own souls. At the very least, they would marginalize us and group us into little ghettos in run-down parts of the city and prevent us from holding any political or other influential office.
Ashleigh wrote most liberals will feel a healthy sense of shame for their small-minded behavior if you point it out to them as such.
In my experience, most liberals will adamantly deny any such small-minded behavior that is alleged against them by a conservative, accuse the conservative of being small-minded or even stupid, duped, or more frequently naive (because of religious belief or traditional values), and then dismiss the conservative as being extreme and not worth conversing with, without ever addressing the substance of the original criticism. But maybe you have had a different experience because maybe liberals will react in the way you noted if it is a liberal that is bringing the allegations.
At any rate, I fully agree with your observations about the typical evangelical reaction.
For a thoughtful discussion of religion and politics from a Democratic perspective, listen to Bill Clinton’s talk given at the Riverside Church in NY yesterday (On CSPAN online here)
“I have reason to doubt the sincerity of anti-religious liberals feelings of shame and apology.”
I have reason to doubt the “sincerity” too, but we all have a tendency to think we’re right, don’t we? I know I find myself having a tendency to dismiss those that don’t agree with me as misinformed, unintelligent, or misguided. It’s a false assumption, but one I think we’re all guilty of to some degree.
If you take both extremes, the hard-line anti-Mormon evangelical and the hard-line opiate-of-the-masses type liberal, and I don’t see much advantage in either. But if you move toward the center a little, to your run-of-the-mill vaguely anti-Mormon evangelical, and your vaguely a-religious liberal, I do see a difference.
The evangelical’s belief system does not espouse open-mindedness, so there is no hypocrisy in dismissing Mormons as misguided and unintelligent. They feel perfectly comfortable telling us we’re not Christians and believing (if not saying outright) we’re headed to hell.
However, the liberal’s belief system does espouse open-mindedness, so there is serious hypocrisy in dismissing Mormons, and all other religions, as misguided and unintelligent.
This hypocrisy is sometimes blatant and sometimes subtle, but I know there are a lot of a-religious liberals who are aware of it and uncomfortable with it. And John, I think you’re right the way this hypocrisy is noted and “by whom” makes a huge difference.
And there are a lot of anti-religious liberals who refuse to see the hypocrisy or to be swayed by it. And it is a problem. And stupid :-)
But let me also note that there is also a huge religious left out there. Me included.
“Moreover, is how can one, having affirmed the need for diversity, in less than an hour, turn around and start bashing the religious?”
You’re absolutely right, it’s a big problem. The problem comes I think where values clash. It is sometimes difficult to resolve a deep belief in human rights with a deep respect for diverse belief systems. If those belief systems result in widows being encouraged to throw themselves on their husband’s burning funeral pyre, the two values are in direct conflict, and your average liberal is going to pick human rights over respect for diversity in this case. I would.
But most times the conflicts are less black and white, and often, as may have been the case with your newspaper example, liberals will go too far in defending what they see as a “rights” or “dignity” issue without enough emphasis on respecting diversity. And while liberals (like everyone) are often wrong, most are sincerely trying the best they can to be good people and live true to their value systems.
Ashleigh
You make a valiant defense, but are misguided in your interpretation of my statements.
First and foremost, I doubt these people’s sincerity because of their actions, not because of a preconceived notion of what a (campus) liberal is or is not. In fact, when I came here for grad school from BYU I resolved in myself to give the new place a chance, see what they are all about, and perhaps reach some understanding and mutual respect. I have been disappointed, for the most part, in what I have seen.
You did not take on my central contention that, they tend to avoid doing this in the presence of people they know are religious. That indicates they know there is something wrong with it. The article I cited was an exception to this rule because it grew out of the Catholic handing of the Priest abuse scandal, going beyond “They should do something about these Priests,” to criticizing the Catholic religion as a whole. Perhaps your human rights contention could apply in this case, but it does not seem generalizable.
Perhaps clarification of my main example of this, the classroom incident, is in order. The class was for TAs and the diversity module teaches both “theoretical” approaches to diversity, mutual respect, etc., and “piratical” skills, like what to do if you are white and want to teach African-American history. The students finished their class and had a few minuets, so they started talking. One girl said “I don’t like having Christians in my class.” Witch was met with hearty approval in the class. They then started mocking Christan belief and told “stupid Christan” stories, with the professor joining in! This is out and out bigotry, having nothing to do with clashing values.
My contention is this:
You will always know where you stand with an Evangelical. They are numbered and their political moves are, for the most part, visible and obvious. If I feel they are gaining too much power, I will gladly move to counter them, but that time is not now in my own estimation.
With liberals, like the ones I have discussed, have a kind of stealth bigotry. While some anti-Religion people are visible in the Democratic party, many are not. I have little idea of who exactly these people are or the political moves they are making that would endanger us, if any, and that, to me makes them far more dangerous than the more obvious evangelicals.
“The students finished their class and had a few minuets”
That sounds very civilized, for liberals, anyway!
(grin, wink)
D’oh! They were dancing and everything.
Mark said:
Sure:
John Doe said:<blockquote> “
“</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote> is standard HTML so it should work in blog posts as well.
I should have also mentioned that you may optionally add itallic tags ( <i></i> ) around the quote to further distinguish it from your own writing. The quote portion of your post might look like this:
John Doe said: <blockquote>”<i>This is a very quotable bit of commentary.</i>”</blockquote>
>”I resolved in myself to give the new place a chance, see what they are all about, and perhaps reach some understanding and mutual respectI have been disappointed, for the most part, in what I have seen.“
That’s too bad. I volunteer for several “liberal” organizations, and when people find out I’m Mormon, it always causes an awkward moment, “You’re Mormon?” (I must look Babtist or something?) but I have to tell you honestly that I’ve never felt attacked or disrespected, but then I have a lot of commonalities politically with these people, and you do not have that advantage.
The best way to build respect and trust between differing groups is to build on common goals/beliefs/interests, and if you truly are interested in getting to know, starting to understand those with whom you disagree, your best bet is to find those common bonds and milk them for all they’re worth. I’m sure those bonds are there if you look for them.
“You did not take on my central contention that, they tend to avoid doing this in the presence of people they know are religious.”
I thought about addressing it, but then I sorta decided my answer was too obvious. We all do this. Anytime you have an “in” group and an “out” group the language and demeanor changes once the group becomes diverse. A bunch of white people talking about race issues will change their language radically the minute a person of color walks in the room. A group of Mormons talking comfortably about Mormon stuff will change radically when a Muslim walks in the room. There’s nothing wrong with that, except that as you note, the “ins” will sometimes vent their frustrations with the “outs” in an unflattering and often unfair way when they feel comfortable doing so.
Take for example my comment above where I state that “Evangelical’s take great delight in being anti-Mormon.” I would have worded that very differently in a room full of Evangelicals. That’s just human nature.
I want to address the rest of your stuff, but I have to go take care of babies now . . . another day.
Dear Producer/Interest Assoc.:
My name is Cody Judy. I was in prison for 8 years and over the last 3 years have graduated from USU in Psychology, run for U.S. Congress 2002, opened my own Tanning & Coffee shop, wrote a book of 110 poems, and currently have spent over 50,000 running for U.S.Senate in 2004. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/alsorun.asp?CID=N00026904&cycle=2004
/or/
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/cody_robert_judy.asp
The feature of your show/news feature/concern that is linked to interest in my circumstances relates to Church involved with politics as the evidence denied to me as a defendant that is copyrighted by The LDS Church Presidency in the video tape of the Marriott Center Incident in Feb. 1993. A free speech zone violated by the State in Church, where my declaration of B.O.M., was, as evidence supported, only the abbreviation of the Book Of Mormon. The prison time has been of course a feature of the media attention on my campaign. In fact Comedy Central featured on The John Daily Show a spotlight in the 2002 Congressional race “Cody putting the Con back in Congress”. Recently the Salt Lake City Weekly cover featured a story as “Touched by an Angel- Come back kid Cody Judy plots his United States Senate Race.” http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_2004-01-29.cfm
Please consider the following invitation to attend the screening of “Unconstitutional” and my willingness to come on your show or join in your discussion in the relevant responsibility of all citizens supporting America’s Freedoms to avoid knee jerk reactions as the Patriot Act.
“Those who give up liberty to have safety, will have neither.” –Benjamin Franklin
The separation clauses of the United States Constitution are under attack as are the free speech and rights of evidence denied a defendant in my case alone. The film entitled “Unconstitutional” is very relevant to the current administrations agenda in the new Red Scare.
Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, and with virtually no debate, Congress passed the US Patriot Act. Touted as legislation necessary to protect Americans from terrorists, the Patriot Act is in fact being used to prosecute ordinary Americans in non-terrorist situations.
This film tells the frightening stories of how this legislation has caught
innocent citizens in its predatory web. To watch the film trailer click here (or go to): http://www.grassrootsforamerica.us/projects/theatre-network.sh tml
for a link to the trailer
The Department of Justice reportedly was ready to introduce a sequel to the Patriot Act, known as Patriot II, which would strip away yet more freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. However, the opposition was so great, that
the Department is now attempting to “back door” this legislation by
introducing it as a series of separate hard-to-track pieces of legislation.
More than 300 communities in 41 states have passed resolutions in opposition to the Patriot Act. Hundreds more are joining the fight.
Join the Grassroots Theater Network and Dani Eyer of the Utah ACLU on the evening of Tuesday, September 14th for a private screening of “Unconstitutional” at The Tower Theater, 876 East 900 South in Salt Lake City
to see first hand what the Patriot Act can do to your neighbors – and to you.
Location: The Tower Theater, 876 East 900 South, Salt Lake City
Date: September 14, 2004
Time: 7:45 p.m. – Doors open at 7:00 p.m. for reception
Tickets: $20 per person
Thank you for you consideration in determining the fact and fiction of my own prosecution and United States Senate run in the Senate Looking Good Campaign.
Cody Judy
U.S. Senate 2004
Write In a candidate whose Right On!
The Senate Looking Good Campaign
2349 South Main (Hwy 89)
Suite 6
Bountiful, UT. 84010
(801)604-3239
[email protected]
Ashleigh,
Yes, that is a group dynamic, but is a little skew from what I want to say.
The whole comments of the group was like a number of people who when they gather together in private, tell jokes about Jews and Blacks, but never mention it outside the circle because they others would consider such comments racist.
And build on common beliefs?! Some of them do not even want me in this school and consider me intellectually inferior because of my faith. It is like telling a black man to build on common beliefs with the KKK.
Ashleigh,
Yes, that is a group dynamic, but is a little skew from what I want to say.
The whole comments of the group was like a number of people who when they gather together in private, tell jokes about Jews and Blacks, but never mention it outside the circle because they others would consider such comments racist.
And build on common beliefs?! Some of them do not even want me in this school and consider me intellectually inferior because of my faith. It is like telling a black man to build on common beliefs with the KKK.
*beep*
We are experiencing technical difficulties.
One more thing. Once these people find out you are Mormon, of course they will not be hostile to you, just as your model of group dynamics shows above. I just wonder what they think of you.
“I just wonder what they think of you”
They think I’m fabulous. What’s not to like?
In all seriousness I don’t sense any strain in the relationships, it just doesn’t seem to be an issue.
We’re kinda straying off topic here, but judging from your KKK comment I see three possibilities (there could be more)
1. You’ve come into contact with some very bigoted people
2. You’re exaggerating to make your point
3. You feel more persecution than is warranted
No offence, but not knowing you at all, nor these people you’re interacting with, and human nature being what it is, I would guess that all three are playing a part to some degree. I could be totally wrong, I’m just showing you how I see it.
I really would like to address this more, but I’ve got to make breakfast and then I’m going to SLC to see my mommy for a week!!!! Happy days, where life is full of whipped cream and babysitters!
While I get your point, it is hard not to get theirs when one says something to the effect of “They (people of faith) should not go to state school.” Imagine if they said that about any other group.
The KKK believes blacks are inferior ans should be separated from whites.
These people expressed beliefs that people of faith are inferior and should be separate from them.
It is a difference of a degree or two and the willingness of the two groups to use violence.
BTW I would agree with #1 of your points above. Quite a few experiences, including the classroom experience, and seeing leftist groups and the administration shut down the College Republican’s ability to speak on a campus that supposedly values “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” has really soured me on the supposed “good intentions” of certain elements of the left.