Principle: 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption. 2. An ethical code or standard. 3. A fixed policy or mode of action.

In the early 1960's, Mario Savio, a student at UC Berkeley, started the Free Speech Movement, and the modern-day campus protest scene was born. If there never seemed to be many protests coming from the Right, one might argue that this was to be expected, since in general, young people and academics tend to be liberal.

At the time, no one gave it a second thought. Presumably, Barry Goldwater could have spoken on campus without incident, but would not have wasted his time. In retrospect, somebody should have checked just how free the speech was, back then.

Fast forward to the present. Former Leftie and present-day conservative David Horowitz has garnered all sorts of attention, owing to how he is being treated by big-time academia. Horowitz has attempted to place ads in campus newspapers attacking the absurd notion of reparations for slavery. The copy is well-reasoned, calm, and informative. It could have been far more inflammatory, and David could have pushed all the buttons, if he so desired.

Many schools refused to run the ad at all, and in each case where it did run, there was a craven disclaimer printed afterwards by the editor. What can we conclude, except that there is only free speech for a politically correct, Leftist point of view. Is this a principle?

Let's take a trip back in time to the late 1940's and early 1950's. Although the number of people who were actually affected was minuscule, we will be hearing about the Hollywood Blacklist forever, and then only from a left-wing point of view. The official version goes something like this:

After WWII, the nasty Red-baiting House Committee on Un-American Activities, and other Congressional groups, were clamping down on Communists in various aspects of American life. (That the Atomic secrets were stolen, so the threat was quite real, is ignored in this version.)

Since there were plenty of left-leaning individuals in Hollywood, and since motion pictures were highly influential, it was only natural that "the industry" would be investigated.

During the proceedings, certain writers and actors were asked if they were affiliated with the Communist Party, and if they would name others. Some of those questioned took the fifth amendment, and were prevented from working in the film business. From that day forward, these individuals were worshipped as martyrs to the cause. Exactly what "cause" is never specified. It surely can't be free speech or free assembly, because this was the same group that blacklisted German director Leni Riefenstahl some years earlier.

Allow me to inject a long-needed reality check.

Unlike the former Soviet Union, the United States is not a police state, so there was nothing illegal about being a Party member. Still, given the times, Congress had every right to investigate.

Moreover, Communists were highly unpopular, and the movie industry itself was all in favor of cleaning up its act--especially if it were to be done by an outside agency. Certainly, the agency could not fire anyone. The studios had to do that, but now they had the perfect excuse. To act otherwise would have been completely irresponsible, and would have hurt sales and profits.

I suppose that grips, gaffers, carpenters, and other crew members could have been laid off in response to lower sales, to keep the "talent" on board. In fact, this is precisely what those people blacklisted were advocating, when they accused the studios of giving in to pressure.

But, I thought these Commie types were all in favor of the working man. Maybe not. Maybe they were really just a group of spoiled elitists, living the Capitalist dream, while spouting Marxist drivel.

And, while we're at it, where was the principle here? How many of them proudly stated that they WERE Communists, and why they were? None that I can recall. No. They took the fifth, and never admitted a thing. What were they ashamed of? If the cause were important enough for crew members to be laid off, and the company to lose money, why not be proud of it?

Using a convenient contemporary vehicle as a masquerade--worker's rights, civil rights, gay rights, universal health care, Social Security, and dozens more--there is instead an ugly PREJUDICE. We, the privileged few, know better, and we are going to force our ideas on you, the unwashed masses, and you are going to like it. We are going to tolerate conflicting ideas as much as did Josef Stalin.

At last! We have discovered the principle (such as it is)--and the role model, as well.

Send Mike e-mail