Over the last couple of months, we have seen rather brutal displays of intolerance coming from left on college campuses. While this thuggish and fascistic (despite a label to the contrary) treatment of political opponents is alarming, it is not something that just happened overnight. The fact is that conservative (and Republican) thought has been expunged from campuses for over 40 years. Even 20 years ago, conservative speakers needed extra security because of the potential for violent protests. Although some are lamenting the fact that universities are supposed to be a place for free speech and the free exchange of ideas, the universities were not even close to that ideal 20 years ago when this author was in college. And the situation has only become worse.

Perhaps what is even more alarming than the protests is the fact that the college administration and law enforcement are simply unwilling (not unable, unwilling) to take the necessary action to uphold the rights of conservative students. Does anyone seriously think that if a bunch of skinheads were planning to disrupt and shut down a gay rights speaker that the university wouldn’t have mobilized all resources (including requesting the governor to call out the National Guard if necessary) to ensure that the speaker was able to speak? The university would be right to take these measures in the latter case and would have been right to take it in the former case as well. However, by not taking this action, the university is making a statement that they don’t feel conservatives deserve the same right to speak as other groups. In other words, conservative are second class citizens.

If this was confined to college campuses, perhaps it would not be so bad for the country as a whole. Conservatives have been second class citizens on most college campuses probably at least since the 1970’s. But like a cancer that metastasizes and kills the body, it would appear that these ideas are metastasizing and spreading beyond the confines of the ivory tower. The New York Times ran an editorial arguing that what is calls “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment. What is problematic isn’t that the author invents a category of speech that is not really legally recognized, but that he appropriates for himself (and presumably those that think like him) the power to define what is and is not “hate speech”. It would appear that “hate speech” is little more than “speech I don’t like and that makes me angry”. As this author hails from the left-wing side of the political spectrum, we can be pretty sure that conservative speech will somehow, and through tortured logic, always be the speech that ends up getting banned, or undeserving of police protection.

While some might cheer this relegation of conservatives to second class status and honestly believe that the country will be a better place because of it, the truth is that this simply cannot go on. The left (even those calling themselves moderates) have been willing to use the IRS and the courts to persecute people whose ideas they don’t like. And now the New York Times is all but implying that the center-right has, at best, a stripped down, watered down, sort of second class First Amendment protections.

Political systems of whatever stripe can either function, or not function. Monarchies can function. Fascistic states can function. Democratic republics can function. Communist states can function. But what all of these states need to remain stable as states over the long term is the buy-in from a large fraction of the population. These states can discriminate or persecute a minority, but that minority needs to be a very small percentage of the overall population. Either that, or the state needs a powerful suppression apparatus to keep the population in check (Think South Africa under Apartheid).

But what can’t happen is that you basically declare 40% to 50% of your population to be second class citizens and still have a stable, open society. That would require a large population to peacefully accept its status as second class. It seems that some on the left think that is exactly what will happen.

It won’t. So, we can expect either a break-up of the U.S. or an expansion of the security state-as-suppression mechanism to hold it together. Either way, it would appear that the golden age of the U.S. as a politically (and hence economically) stable entity may be coming to an end.