This past Thursday, conservative blogger and commentator Michelle Malkin visited Syracuse University’s Maxwell Auditorium. She gave her speech, titled ‘Repressive Civility and the Criminalization of Conservatism.’ Her stance on the World War II Japanese internment was what caused 20 or 30 people to protest outside before the speech and also chant ‘go home’ midway through her speech directly behind the auditorium. These protestors missed the opportunity to engage with Malkin and challenge her mainly flawed arguments: Her position that conservatives are somehow criminalized is far too generalized and inaccurate.

The main point in her speech was that the current political atmosphere unfairly attacks conservatives. In her view, ‘It’s the right that’s always accused of the most barbaric and violence-inciting incivility and hatred in America.’ There is a ‘double standard’ when we compare the left and the right, she said.

Of the evidence Malkin used in her speech, very little ended up proving conservatives have been criminalized nationwide. She points to the fact that she and her conservative colleagues have been attacked physically and verbally when trying to speak on college campuses. She also used examples of several clearly mentally disturbed individuals who went on shooting sprees. These individuals were then blamed by the left for being the product of the right’s rhetoric. She said she ‘could write whole encyclopedia series’ on ways conservatives have been wrongly accused.

In truth, the left has unfairly criticized conservatives as being the source of shooting sprees and other crimes. There is indeed a troublesome liberal bias on some college campuses. Liberals should not stifle conservatives just because they are conservatives and perhaps hold more extreme points of view. Malkin argues for more open discussion and less stifling of conservative views on college campuses; this is a fine idea.

Malkin went on to say the left is trying to use regulatory powers to repress conservatives’ free speech. She said ‘the threat of reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine lives on.’ The use of the Fairness Doctrine ended in 1987 because it was unenforceable and did little to promote a diversity of views. Though there have been few liberals who want to reinstate it, the tangible threat it poses to conservatism is insignificant. The likelihood that it will be reinstated is almost nonexistent because of the significant opposition to the policy on both ends of the political spectrum. The government should not and will not have a role in ‘evening out’ political dialogue.

Somehow with this supposed climate of criminalized conservatism, the Republicans have gained control of the House of Representatives. According to a 2009 Gallup poll asking ‘how would you describe your political views,’ 40 percent of the country identifies as conservative, 35 percent as moderate and 21 percent as liberal. According to the poll, a majority of the country has consistently self-identified itself as conservative for at least 20 years. If conservative speech has really been crushed, there has been little measurable effect.

Malkin’s message of embracing thoughtful dialogue whereby people are exposed to different, and sometimes uncomfortable, viewpoints should be embraced. Yet conservatism has not been criminalized in the sense that there is uniform anticonservative sentiment. Hateful anticonservative rhetoric and hateful antiliberal rhetoric exist, though neither deserves a place in our political discourse.

Harmen Rockler is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. His column appears online biweekly, and he can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on March 7, 2011 at 12:00 pm