While condemning racism and discrimination ought to be the steadfast position of any university administration, the phrasing used by University administrators suggests administrative approval for removal of posters and other signs that students dislike or find offensive. Even such tacit approval of censorship is contrary to the very idea of freedom of speech. On Monday, […]
I am a culturally conservative libertarian who believes in American global leadership. I am disillusioned by this election as are many across political beliefs and interests for so many reasons other than mine.
The history of our world is no longer told the way that Traditionalist Conservatives will tell it. It is no longer told the way I did, as a rivalry between the Anglo-American and French traditions. The history of America is now told, as it ought to be, in fairness, as a history of a multitude of narratives. We are all immigrants, we learn, and no one narrative has a claim to the land. The charge is no longer to find inspiration for the Bill of Rights in the Philadelphia Constitution, as Willmoore Kendall seeks to do, but to find inspiration for the Bill of Rights in the Iroquois Constitution.
All too often I encounter conservatives, Republicans, or libertarians making the fatal conceit of the left: assuming the individual as a given and forgetting the antecedent institutions that develop us to become free for excellence.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states would not be allowed to make gay marriage illegal.
Over the years, I noticed that the political right had been deserted by Muslims and thus had to resort to its own, often times – but not always – misinformed, voices about who Muslims and Islam are. More importantly, I noticed an incursion upon the principles and values of the Muslim community in America.
Which brings us to marriage, which, at the most fundamental level, is simply a contract between two individuals. No two people, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, should be prohibited from voluntarily agreeing to a contract. The government’s interference in this case manifests itself in the form of the tax benefits married couples receive that two people in a non-marital relationship do not receive.
