Michael Novak, April 16th, 7pm

Come see "War and the Church" by Michael Novak.

Monday, April 16th, 2007 in the Student Center, room 120 at 7pm. Part of Catholic Week.

Dr. Thomas Woods, April 18th, 7pm

Come see "Western Civilization
and the Church" by Dr. Thomas
Woods.

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007 in
the Student Center, room 314 at
7pm. Part of Catholic Week.

Dr. Paul Kengor, April 20th, 7pm

Come see "Ronald Reagan and the Church" by Dr. Paul Kengor.

Friday, April 20th, 2007 in the Student Center, room 314 at 7pm. Part of Catholic Week.

Am I Writing a Blog or Oppressing Minorities?

Right now, I need to take a break from my reading about Black Feminism. Here is a brief summary of my reading tonight... One day, the authorbasically unpacks the invisible "knapsack of white male privilege," and I realized: she is oppressed. And suddenly, just like that, she becomes conscious of the phenomenon of her own oppression. Wow. Deep. Likewise, I have become aware of the phenomenon of two overarching themes in my education: George Bush sucking and white males deliberately subjugating everyone else.

According to these theories, a white civil rights activist is still oppressive to blacks. Period. I do not deny the presence of white privilege, and I think there is some truth to it, but it has its limits. It cannot account for everything on earth that is bad. When a person is unconsciously oppressive by bearing skin whose color is consistent with that of Band-aids, they do not deserve to be attacked. Further, it is irrational to hold an individual accountable for the actions of a many. Of course, other, darker shades of Band-aids need to be produced or whatever. Regardless, I did not produce this Band-aid, and I did not label it "flesh," so I see no vehement need to feel guilty. Here's the point: change is necessary; that doesn't mean I am assuming the role of active oppressor simply by being a member of the dominant culture. That would be to hold someone accountable for the skin they were born into, and holding me accountable for being an affluent white girl is equivalent to holding a poor black girl accountable for her position in society, and both are wrong.

While I value these theories, I absolutely despise the spiteful, extremist rhetoric used to express them and their tendency to place the weight of an ethnic group's faults throughout all of history on the generations who just so happen to be alive. I also dislike that they evade a practical solution, claiming to be conscious-raising, which is in practical terms the everlasting right to rant, and that they pit one group directly but nonsensically against another. Women's and Gender Studies sets women and men against each other, just as Black Diaspora Studies pits blacks and whites against each other. Annoyingly, the only people concerned with this problematic dialog are extremists speaking only for the interests of one side. One group refuses to admit that it's possible that white males have even a slight advantage over other demographic groups, while their opposition can't quit whining about their socio-economic position.

I do not feel oppressed to the degree that theorists say I am. Nor do I see how reducing certain groups to victims or being allowed to conceive of oneself as such is productive in any way, other than by justifying an empty future before it even unfolds.

Now I must return to my reading about how I oppress people with my whiteness. I am not oppressing anyone. I am writing a blog.

Lauren Ream

Editorial on the Fox News Democratic Debate Boycott

Here's an editorial on the recent Fox News Democratic Debate boycott in Nevada from ReviewJournal.com.

"[F]ar-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire."

The Rise of American Conservatism

The 1964 presidential election between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson put a new conservative philosophy in the limelight of public discourse. The Republican candidate Goldwater was running on a revolutionary ‘new’ conservative platform that sought to rollback many of the ongoing liberal policies of the last thirty years in government. At the time of the 1964 election, Goldwater’s views were seen by many as rather extreme and he was handed a crushing loss to Johnson in ‘64. However, Goldwater proved to be the pioneer that led the charge for a new conservative shift in the American populace which reached its zenith with election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

The principles of conservatism were articulated brilliantly in Goldwater’s essay entitled The Conscience of a Conservative. He argued that conservatism is based upon the principle that freedom is the ultimate maxim of human existence. Personal responsibility for one’s actions and the protection of individual freedom are the essential components of conservatism. Conservatism also argues that government should be as limited as possible, intervening only to keep maintenance and order of the society. Goldwater also believed that conservatives are not only economic beings but also spiritual beings. These beliefs laid the foundation for conservatism to gain its prominence by the late 1970s.

The evolution of conservatism from this era allowed for presidential candidate Ronald Reagan to win the presidency in 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter. By the 1980s, conservatism was seen as more mainstream, as opposed to the radical nature of the philosophy in the 1960s. The principles of conservatism for Reagan rest in the calls for new economic policies which combated the Great Society of the 1960s. Reagan advocated a smaller federal government, de-regulation in the business sector, lower taxes, and a strong national defense against communism. For Reagan, Carter’s policies favored too much governmental control which he believed was the cause of the economic crisis in America at that time. Reagan proclaims, “We don’t need Carter’s eight-or 10-point programs to “fix” or fine tune the economy.”

One of the new methods of conservative activism in 1980 was direct mail. One conservative activist stated in 1980, “Without the mail, most conservative activity would wither and die.” Direct mail enabled mobilization and allowed for funding, volunteering, and petitions to surface at the local levels. As Richard Viguerie stated, “Without direct mail, we might have no National Review, no Human Events, no Conservative Digest, no Conservative PACs…” Conservatism was essentially born from the usage of this mechanism which promulgated conservative information and support that allowed for the movement to sustain itself.

Another facet of conservatism in the late 1970s early 1980s was the creation of single issue groups on a national level. After Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, many religious advocates came forth and began speaking out for the ‘right to life’ of an unborn child. Groups like the Right to Life, the National Rifles Association, and the Right to Work Movements all sprung up and mobilized conservatives to vote and elect candidates who adhered to their positions. The religious “awakening” that occurred within some movements of conservatism was mostly a reaction of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. One of the major religious opponents of this decision was Reverend Jerry Falwell. Falwell rallied fellow Christians to speak out against abortion as he stated about an abortion, “It didn’t matter if her human parents wanted her to live or die. God wanted her to live.” Goldwater’s libertarian ideas somewhat conflicted with that of the religious right and the issue of abortion. Many of these libertarian paleo-conservatives felt that abortion was a matter of personal choice.

The New Right was breaking on the scene in the mid 1970s and it was a seemingly conscious reaction of the politics of the liberal 1960s. With the massive division within the Democratic Party in 1968, the Republicans were able to seize control of the White House with Richard Nixon, who had run on similar policies that Goldwater had advocated. Conservative think tanks began sprouting up as the battle for ideas became an all out war in the public discourse. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation, Young Americans for Freedom, the Leadership Institute all led the New Right movement with policy positions that influenced US domestic and foreign policy for the next decade.

With the advent of this new conservative movement, tensions within the movement itself were very prevalent. For example, the traditionalists and supply-siders within the conservative movement were at odds at each others over the correct role of governmental economic policy. The supply-siders favored permanent tax cuts with a rising deficit while the traditionalists favored some tax increases to alleviate the burden of the rising deficit.

The conservative movement solidified a break from New Deal/Great Society politics of liberalism and big government, to a more strict limited government. The conservative philosophy was brought to the center stage with Goldwater’s campaign in 1964 and it was finally achieved and realized with Reagan ascending to the presidency in 1980 (although some would argue Nixon followed Goldwater’s ideals as well). The conservatism of the 60s, 70s, and 80s was indeed a reactionary phenomenon from the liberal politics of the day; yet, it made its way to organization and structure with the coming of direct mail and single issue groups.

Mike O'Shea

Op/Ed in DePaulia Lies

A recent Op/Ed in the DePaulia claims this about the DePaul Conservative Alliance (DCA):

"The DCA constantly speaks out against Gays and Lesbians, Women who feel opressed, Immigrants and basically all other classes of people included in any discourse of social critique because they do not feel certain groups deserve equal treatment."

And here's the kicker:

"Instead of creating debate under the false pretense of "discourse" (something that requires both an actual dialogue and relevance to realistic logic), [the DCA] really should just reveal their motives as being ones born of supremacy and demanding subjugation of all others."

As Vice-President of the DCA I can assure you that these claims are nothing more than falsities mirrored by an ideological agenda which seeks to turn this campus more and more against conservative philosophy. I implore Mr. Abbas to find one statement the DCA ever made which calls for superior treatment of one group over another. We have never spoken out against gays, we have never spoken out against women, and we have never spoken out against legal immigrants. These distortions of the truth are indicative of the ignorance people like Abbas have about our strain of college conservatism.

The amount of absurdity in the latter statement renders me to abstain from even responding to it. Again, I beg you Mr. Abbas to find any evidence which supports your claim that we truly wish to force submission and control others on campus. Abbas' article is nothing more than romanticized vernacular which seeks to distort, defame, and blatantly lie about the DCA movement on campus.

Mike O'Shea

The DePaul Conservative Movement: A Call for Change

Over two weeks ago, conservative author David Horowitz came to DePaul to speak about the blatant disregard professors have in indoctrinating their students to subscribe to their political agenda. He came under the auspices of the DePaul Conservative Alliance (DCA), and as members of this organization, I can tell you that Horowitz was not just invited to stir things up at DePaul. Contrary to popular belief, the endgame for the DCA is not drumming up controversy by inviting speakers or hosting bake sales. Rather, we are calling for action to reform this educational institution into a bastion of high intellectual standards while tolerating and informing students of the many conservative ideologies that exist in the world.

This call for change will often seem as though we are devoted to conflict and quarrel, but rest assured, the goals of our operation and existence are not to, in the words of Frederick Douglass, “agitate, agitate, agitate.” Our movement is in essence a reaction to the prevailing tenets and structures in place at DePaul. Like Newton’s Third Law of motion, for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction; only in this case, we hope to go beyond an ‘equal’ reaction. In any event, we are seeking change. The path to reform is never easy, and the DCA fully recognizes this fact. Our progress so far, at least in the last two and a half years, has made considerable headway.

Two and a half years ago there was no DCA. Two and a half years ago the College Republicans were a group of about five people that maybe met once a month to discuss how Clinton should have been impeached and that the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ are still in Syria somewhere. Two and a half years ago, there was no conservative literature or newspaper distributed around campus. Two and a half years ago, conservatism was all but dead at DePaul.

But then, the fraudulent Ward Churchill was invited by the Cultural Center to speak at DePaul on his ‘little Eichman’ college campus tour, and the closet-conservatives at DePaul had finally had enough. Students mobilized and came out in droves to protest the man who said, “Innocent? Gimme a break.” in reference to the Americans who perished on 9/11. After Student Life banned us from protesting the event with posters, then-College Republican President Joseph Blewitt found himself on ‘Hannity and Colmes’ discussing DePaul’s ridiculous “anti-propaganda” policy. The name ‘Ward Churchill’ quickly became the conservative rallying cry and catalyst for our movement.

To be fair, the conservative movement had started much sooner than the beginning of 2005. In terms of planning and preparation, some of the conservative students at DePaul, including myself, were mobilizing at the end of 2004 in hopes of creating a conservative newspaper at DePaul. After several months of hard work, our mission was successful and in November of 2005 the Lincoln Park Statesman was born.

The affirmative action bake sale is what put the DCA on the map. As a satirical attempt to protest the policy of affirmative action, the bake sale proved to open up discussion about the once taboo topic, and it also served as a recruiting tool for many conservatives to join our cause. Many called the bake sale ‘racist’ (the ‘McCarthyism’ of today) and in the face of adversity from the administration, the DCA fired back by gaining the media’s attention and threatening legal action with the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Since its inception, the DCA has increased membership from roughly five to twenty-five active members. After hearing Horowitz speak, the conservative movement is remided of why we need to exist and why we must fight the academic status quo. The indoctrination from Lefist professors still permeates the college classroom. As Horowitz pointed out, a college student will go four years in the LA&S dept without ever reading Friedrich Hayek, a conservative and Nobel Prize winner.

The ideological struggle is a difficult one indeed, but success is never achieved unless this struggle exists. The administration has somewhat accomodated our presence on campus, but more needs to be done in the classrooms. The conservative movement continues to grow at DePaul and we are still calling for change.

Mike O'Shea