Perspective: Recovering persuasion in an age of argument

 

In 431 B.C., the Greek historian Thucydides recorded a funeral oration given by the great statesman Pericles. Unlike a typical eulogy, the speech memorialized Athenian democracy in what many have called its golden age. 

During this speech, Pericles offered a relatively novel idea about just how expansive participation in public life could be. “If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences,” he said.

But if someone didn’t have social standing, Pericles argued, advancing in public life relies on that person’s “reputation for capacity,” with “class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition.” 

In ancient times, the idea that class and poverty didn’t disqualify a person from enjoying certain civic freedoms was a radical belief. Over a thousand years later, a group of New England revolutionaries would begin marking the path to the same sort of ideal, convincing people to join their cause by disseminating their ideas through pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.”

These open attempts at persuasion are a hallmark of both American and Greek systems. And yet, they sometimes seem at odds with peacemaking approaches centered on listening and understanding.

Full Article

• Perspective: Americans aren’t as divided as they may think
• Perspective: Contempt culture is metastasizing in America. Blessed are the peacemakers

The Pendulum Swings Back by Tyler Curtis

 

Recent Supreme Court victories could signal a popular conservative resurgence.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. With recent conservative victories at the Supreme Court, a reaction to the Left’s stranglehold on Amnerica may be emerging.  

A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions that have conservatives cheering. Affirmative Action, government-compelled speech, and President Biden’s unilateral student loan forgiveness plan were all struck down as unconstitutional. 

Each case is interesting on its own, but perhaps what’s most intriguing about these three decisions is how popular they are with the electorate. In an era when so many institutions— academia, Hollywood, and most of the federal government—are controlled by the Left, the fact that a Supreme Court, composed of mostly Republican-appointees, issued such well-received decisions is astounding and indicates that Americans reject the Left’s more extreme policies.  

The country’s reaction to the Court’s decisions is indicative of a slow, but noticeable shift to the Right on several significant political issues.  

We know how they feel. Since the summer rulings, Progressives have ramped up their rhetoric, continuing their habit of questioning the legitimacy of the one institution not under their control. President Biden sourly suggested that this court is “not normal.” Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, always quick to jump to extremes, declared that the court was “creeping dangerously toward authoritarianism.” 

But most Americans don’t see it that way. A poll conducted by Redfield and Wilton Strategies shortly after the decisions were announced found that far more people supported the rulings than didn’t. For example, regarding 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, where the Court ruled that a Colorado web designer could not be forced to create websites for same-sex weddings, more than twice as many people supported the decision as opposed it. 

These results might be surprising for those who have followed politics for the past few years. In 2018, the Court heard a case very similar to 303 Creative. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court ruled that a Colorado baker could not be forced against his conscience to produce wedding cakes for same-sex couples. At the time, most Americans opposed the decision, and one poll found that up to 66 percent of people disagreed with the Court’s ruling.  

But in just five short years, the pendulum has clearly swung in the other direction, with more Americans now saying that business owners should not be forced to engage in speech that the owners find morally objectionable.  

Similar survey splits were found for the affirmative action case. In Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Court ruled that colleges could not give preferential treatment to student applicants based on their race, as this practice violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. An ABC News/Ipsos poll also revealed that a clear majority of Americans (by a 20 percent margin) agreed with the Court’s decision. 

None of this means that Americans are becoming more homophobic or racist. In fact, Americans are broadly more tolerant of sexual and racial minorities than at any point in history. Americans don’t disagree with Progressives about the need for anti-discrimination laws, but they do think the Left has gone too far in enforcing them. 

The last major case — Department of Education v. Brown — is an instructive example of how Americans support progressive initiatives in theory, but not always in practice. In that case, the Court ruled that the president does not have the authority to forgive federal student loan debt unilaterally.  

Student loan forgiveness enjoys broad support amongst voters — until they’re told about the costs. A survey conducted by the Cato Institute found that 64 percent of Americans support student loan forgiveness, but that number “plummets when Americans consider its trade‐​offs.” When asked if they’d still support student debt cancellation if it primarily benefited high income people, which it does, a whopping 68 percent of respondents said no.  

The Supreme Court exists to interpret the law and enforce the Constitution, not make policy. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be, beholden to public opinion. But it does say something about the country’s political trajectory when the American people largely support the Court when it strikes down the Left’s favorite policies.  

Progressives may control most major institutions, but Americans are still fiercely independent. If the Left fails to moderate their positions, they could face a backlash of Newtonian proportions.  

Article

DEI and the End of the Constitutional Order by Christopher Rufo

 

Critical race theory was never designed to reveal truth—it was designed to achieve power.

The ambition of the critical race theorists and their confederates in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is not simply to achieve cultural hegemony over the bureaucracy, but to use this power to reshape the structures of American society. But in the miasma of mystical reasoning and therapeutic language, it is sometimes easy to lose sight of the critical question: What specifically do they want?

The answer is to be found in the original literature of critical race theory which, before its transformation in the euphemisms of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” was remarkably candid about the discipline’s political objectives. They had abandoned the Marxist-Leninist vocabulary of their precursors, such as Angela Davis and the Black Panther Party, but the critical race theorists imagined a revolution that struck just as deeply. They cobbled together a strategy of revolt against the Constitution, using the mechanisms of institutional power to change the words, meanings, and interpretations that provide the foundation of the existing order.

“The Constitution is merely a piece of paper in the face of the monopoly on violence and capital possessed by those who intend to keep things just the way they are,” said legal theorist Mari Matsuda. Tearing it down was not a transgression; it was a moral obligation. When necessary, Matsuda argued, the critical race theorists could appeal to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to advance their interests, but ultimately, they believed, “rights are whatever people in power say they are.” The point was not to uphold the principles of the Constitution, but to wield them as a weapon for securing authority.

In place of the existing interpretation, the critical race theorists proposed a three-part overhaul of the American system of governance: abandoning the “colorblind” notion of equality, redistributing wealth along racial lines, and restricting speech that is deemed “hateful.”

To begin, the critical race theorists made the case that “color-blind constitutionalism” functions as a “racial ideology” that “fosters white racial domination” and advances an implicit form of “cultural genocide.” The system of individual rights and equal protection, they argued, provided an illusion of equality that failed to ad- dress the history of racial injustice. The way stations of “multiculturalism,” “tolerance,” and “diversity” were inadequate substitutions for “legitimate governmental efforts to address white racial privilege.” To rectify this deficiency, the critical race theorists proposed a new interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that moves from a system of negative rights—or, protection against state intrusion—to a system of positive rights, or an entitlement to state action.

Full Article

 

The Medlock Post Ep. 169: Ayn Rand Part 2

'Atlas Shrugged' author saw that growing influence of 'rotten ideas' would create 'rotten outcomes,' social upheaval.

Many foundational pillars of society in the United States appear to be crumbling right now before our eyes, weakened by an erosive array of social, economic, and political forces.

The deterioration of traditional cultural norms and the social upheaval that’s followed — from the living room to classroom the boardroom — is no surprise to Ayn Rand scholars. 

Listen Now!

CO2 is 'good' | Energy Live News

I Love Lucy | Lucy's Vitameatavegimen Commercial (S1, E30) | Paramount+

 

The Medlock Post Ep. 168: Ayn Rand Part 1

Ayn Rand explains her full support for the Founding Fathers and America.

Listen now!