Skip to main content

Professor Seldman's Low Brow Argument Advocates the Over Throw of the US Constitution

As I am setting out to write Part Three of my Madison VS Marx series, I had in mind to make it be about education. This is an article published in the New york Times calling for  Americans to give up on our constitution.  written by a member of the US academic class, an "esteemed" educator sharing Obama's alleged Alma mater, Harvard - only Louis Michael Seidman. actually is a constitutional professor at Goergetown University

The article by professor Louis Michael Seidman echoes the call by our current president when, as an educator, in 2001, Obama called for the Supreme Court to  break with the constraints of our constitution.

Professor Seidman identifies himself as a progressive in the paper he authored , Left Out. The term "progressive" simply means progressing towards socialism which then "progresses" toward Communism, and so is just the current popular language signifying Marxism. The term "conservatism" in the  USA means conserving the political philosophy of our founding fathers as preserved in the Federalist Papers and realized in our founding documents- including the United States Constitution which professor Seidman, is now so emboldened as to openly call for the over throw there of.

In Professor Seidmans' paper Left Out he makes this statement:

Second, crime is not only an academic preoccupation; it is also a subject of
political debate. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between what might
loosely be labeled highbrow positions and low- or middlebrow positions on
criminal justice. In much of this essay, I will be discussing highbrow positions;
at the end, I will turn briefly to low- and middlebrow views.

While in the New York times article Professor Seidman clearly is making a lowbrow argument with statements such as this:

 Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.

Professor Seidman is using his bully pulpit to perpetuate the Marxian class warfare rhetoric and to frame the US Constitution as a constitution written by and for "rich white men" - not our professors exact terms but close enough. The professor moves toward the high or middle brow when he uses the term "propertied men"- which in Marxian rhetoric is the same as "the bourgeoisie" and then our Marxian professor disingenuously occludes from that picture that the founders of his progressive philosophy also came from the propertied classes- although Marx lived his life among radical academics and never participated in the responsibilities of property ownership- only in accepting handouts from the same to finance their political activism aimed at abolishing private property ownership- which is clearly also the agenda of the Obama presidency.

Furthermore The Professor chooses to occlude from his representation of history the fact that slavery was an issue of great contention during the founding of this country but it was clear that trying to resolve the issue of slavery at the same time as trying to sell the Union would just mean that there would be no Union formed between the North and the South. The professor is not ethically challenged to acknowledge that Madison spoke out many times against slavery. The professor is using our Pravda media as a bully pulpit for a "low brow" argument, which as he makes clear by the positioning of "The Romantic Model" as last in his paper, that our professor is well aware that the lowbrow argument is based in emotionalism and disinformation and not reason. The left is adapt at milking that while posing as a educator in and of America's ivy leagues institutions.
F. The Romantic Model: This model is not much discussed any more, but it animates some left reaction to the criminal justice system. At least, it animates my own reaction. The image plays off the left's historic hatred of authority and attraction to unmediated freedom. This model suggests that the criminal is a romantic outlaw, unconstrained by bourgeois inhibition and fighting against an unjust social order.
So here we have the progressive professor- the proponents of ever expanding government making a "romantic" argument against authority- and for what - to over throw the authority of the US Constitution- which is founded on a belief that the smallest size of government possible - without descending into anarchy is the best size. This is the typical hypocrisy of the progressive's political rhetoric.

If there is a silver lining to every dark cloud, in the case of America's current economic crisis it may well be that fewer young people will be attending "institutions of higher learning" where they will be the target of this anti-American indoctrination that has long ago infiltrated our University systems and through the University has spread the indoctrinated into positions of power throughout our once free land.


Popular posts from this blog

Communism and State Ownership of Intellectual Property

Tweet This: Government As a Secret Society The response to my informal suggestion that public accessibility to government could be improved by making information available in a searchable data base ( see previous post) subjectively confirmed that the  functioning power elite of Maine's economic development programs and policies are both intentional in instituting a political ideology that supersedes the will of the people, as expressed in the Maine State Constitution, and deceptive towards the general public. 1.Information made available on an agency website but not in a searchable database format may not provide the research and investigative tool needed by the public. The Freedom of Access Act does not require that public information be posted online in any particular format, just that public records be made available. While there is a strong argument for increasing the accessibility and usefulness of information, there is no current requ

An Incomplete Theory of Inflation Made to Order for Mass Consumption.

M oney is not what it used to be, so must our ways of thinking about it adapt. jaakko-kemppainen-unsplash The message treads across the media terrain, beating louder and louder as if to drown out the beat of the distant drummer. W arning! The only thing the stimulus will stimulate is inflation. The people will pay as the wealthy elite invests their windfalls in financial assets. Doom and gloom set to march across the land to the beat of the distribution of stimulus funds. In recent years as past predictions of fiscal disaster following stimulus spending failed to materialize and so the thinking about national debt and deficits has evolved, most noticeably with the development of  Modern Monetary Theory . In the   fall of 2020,  National Affairs  published a story,  Does the Debt Matter ? by Peter Wehner & Ian Tufts. Peter Wehner is vice president and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and served in the last three Republican administrations. Ian Tufts is a recent g

Its Not the Economy, Its the Culture!

Trump has brought into focus a long brewing social crisis SELECTED FOR THE BEST OF TREMR darren-deloach-unsplash I was a Republican, until the 2016 convention when a petition gathered enough signatures to let delegates vote their conscience, and was promptly dismissed by a voice vote.  That was when I first became aware that the Republican party was afraid, intimidated and dominated by the Trump base. I felt the party took the traditional base of the party, which included myself, for granted, as if we were party players, guaranteed to support the party, unquestionably, no matter where it went. Deeply ro o ted party obedience has been established. Many whom I once respected and are no longer recognizable. Those of us who did not follow the leaders no longer have a place in the Republican party and have largely become Independents. I voted straight blue in the last election, but consider myself Independent. There is no reason to believe that either one party or the other will continue to