“Con”-servative agitators hurt good conservatives
They should just stop talking. Now.
The GOP, both at USC and nationwide has been blindsided by media personalities and candidates that have more of an interest in making outrageous, unnecessarily offensive statements than in changing politics.
Quite a controversy brewed on campus when Milo Yiannopoulos, an associate editor at conservative news site Breitbart, came to speak on our campus primarily about rape, attacks on free speech, and “trigger warnings” — advisories on course materials that may cause an emotional disturbance in individuals who have experienced trauma. He was invited and interviewed by Jacob Ellenhorn, president of the USC College Republicans, who notably had some controversy of his own earlier this semester for speaking out against the university’s efforts to provide “safe spaces” and other programs for students subjected to discrimination. He argued that such programs are unnecessary as they address problems that do not exist. Thus, the effect of these efforts would be to give an advantage to racial and other minorities while placing whites on the defensive.
It is important to note that Ellenhorn’s initial hypothesis was quickly disproven as our Undergraduate Student Government President Rini Sampath, an Indian-American had a cup and a racial slur thrown at her on fraternity row. Additionally, I have heard the stories of multiple students who have experienced or had friends who experienced racial discrimination on campus. My reaction to their stories was neither dismissive nor aggressive, but sympathetic — and I identify with the same party Ellenhorn purport to represent.
Ellenhorn’s disdain for minority inclusion and Yiannopoulos’ claims that the increase in campus rapes is false and that trigger warnings are unnecessary follow the same pattern that I have seen repeated by the new “con”-servatives — conservatives who claim to be addressing an incursion upon personal freedom but are really just saying controversial things to serve their own desire for media attention. It goes like this: a marginalized minority brings its problems to light, the left does what it does and rushes to their support, proclaims superiority and uses the crisis to support of victims and those who sympathize with them while conservatives hang their heads about why they lost those voters then say something ridiculous to counter the concerns and shove their way into the headlines.
This approach works for a little bit around people who share your frustration, and whose natural instinct to vent that type of discourse indulges. But it backfires sooner or later. Typically it’s visible when the electorate turns out for a general election and rebukes the ignorant, insensitive, out of touch and generally ugly persona of the GOP they see in the media. The cycle just repeats itself every time the GOP plays along; see Donald Trump’s potentially irreparable damage to the GOP’s reputation with minorities. Let’s wait for the general election loss to cause conservatives to feel upset again and create more of their own problems.
Yes, I am aware that sometimes groups do cause a mess due to poor planning and execution mixed with a heavy dose of emotion (see the Ferguson riots) but the solution is not to create one of our own over the airwaves. The root problems, or some aspects of them at the very least are real or else these movements would cease to exist. Conservatives must take survivors of sexual violence, minorities and people experiencing emotional crisis seriously, even if the advocates they team up with mess up their credibility. There are real women and men who have experienced rape and sexual assault on college campuses, there are minorities who have suffered discrimination and there are people who experience flashbacks and other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of crime, abuse or the aftermath of war.
I think that the hypocrisy of the “con”-servatives is particularly apparent in the last case. They claim to support our troops ‘till the end but don’t seem to bat an eye when telling a soldier who is traumatized from seeing fellow soldiers maimed by bombs in Afghanistan but still fighting to reintegrate into civilian life to go into a classroom where they are going to discuss these types of events without a necessary warning, reopening mental battle wounds.
Or does their anti-trigger warning stance only apply to survivors of sexual trauma?
It should also be known that one of the primary principles of conservatism is not violating one’s person or property. Rape is an extremely clear violation of a victim’s natural rights to his or her own person and thus is an issue that conservatives should take on. Delivering justice, supporting victims and helping them through their hardship need not involve government largesse. Community organizations and faith-based groups can and do play an active role in the recovery of rape victims. Private educational institutions, like USC have an interest in ensuring that qualified students from a wide variety of backgrounds are able to successfully complete degrees at their schools. Part of that is offering support and resources that serve the needs of these students.
I agree with Ellenhorn and Yiannopoulos that minorities and others with special circumstances should not be given an unfair advantage. I also agree that we should not issue blanket judgments of white people. All that is desired is that they be given the support that puts them in a place where they have the same opportunity to succeed that people like Ellenhorn enjoy without being unnecessarily impeded by stereotypes and systems designed to push them out without regard for actual qualification. No, that does not mean waiving course requirements; that was never on the table. Perhaps a student would delay taking a trauma-inducing course until they had gone through more therapy or choose a different course to fulfill their requirements. In any event, students with these serious mental health concerns need to be allowed to make an informed decision. A rape victim deserves to have his or her case investigated thoroughly investigated by authorities and it is in the best interest of society to create programs that prevent violations of the rights of citizens instead of a reactionary approach. The treatment of minorities should also be re-examined so that they too can contribute to society to their best ability and even if you dispute the aforementioned, if you purport to be the more Christian political option you are practically obligated to do so.
True conservatives have two choices: pretend that these actions which do little good beyond creating momentary catharsis are acceptable or actually address real issues present in public discourse and that we improve economy, tax policies and education as well as confront racial and cultural issues. And if you think that these actions are contrary to the principle of limited government, the Left has you right where they want you. Once we realize that promoting non-governmental and non-invasive government solutions helps us more than shoving problems away, then we will know that we have escaped the trap we have been stuck in for way too long.
Reach Contributor Greyson Peltier here.
