Throughout the past week, I have listened to the College Democrats’
eructations and bloviating (surely a Lenten penance if there ever was one)
concerning the folderol about the Associated Students of Madison members’
proposed Conservative Political Action Conference attendance. Note the DEFCON
upgrade, from the previous threat level of “fracas.” In spite of
themselves, it seems as though our friends on the left are managing to make
three separate arguments, which I beg to address below.

First, the College Democrats object to the fact that ASM is angling to send
some of its own members to CPAC. This argument is actually straightforward and
plausible, but the rebuttal is equally plain: tough. If you do not like how the
ASM representatives conduct their business, then unseat them. There is a
process for doing just that – elections.

Or, if you can’t wait that long, why not try a recall? I’m
sure the College Democrats have some drums, bullhorns and body paint left from the last time they tried that exercise in adult citizenship (with most of
their unbiased professors signing on for the ride). But if the recall route
seems so 2012, then quit whining and start grooming your candidates for the
next regular election. This is, after all, what democracy looks like.

As a codicil to this point, let me add that if the objection
is it is bad practice for a member of a student government to use
segregated fees to attend the conference of her choice, consider the opposite
scenario – is there anything saying she must *not* do this thing, that she
must *necessarily* recuse herself from attending any sponsored conference
simply because she happens to be a member of ASM? If the rules say she must,
then so be it. But if not, then please re-read the paragraph immediately above.

Second, the College Democrats seem to say CPAC will not benefit all
students at our great university, but only the handful who plan to attend the
conference. To this I reply: Have you ever been awake in one of your classes
here? Have you done any of the reading? Perhaps I’m in the wrong discipline,
but “leftist hagiography” is hardly hyperbole when used to describe
the readings we’re assigned for most weeks.

Or, perhaps our College Democrat friends were out fishing
when the entire university was turned into a staging ground for the attempted
coup at the other end of State Street. Didn’t you good undergrads see any of
your TAs in the crowd, self-righteously beating on their mom’s Tupperware and
shouting the latest slogans from Marx and the boys?

If nothing else, CPAC attendance might inspire some brave
soul, perhaps two, to answer the shrieking left and start what could turn into
a nice, civil debate – replete with gratuitous insults about purulent skin
conditions – much like the debate in which your humble correspondent is
currently engaged. If CPAC is “blatantly partisan,” well, welcome to
Madison. It’s not as though the twelve Republicans on this campus pose much of
a threat to the tenured bully pulpit, or to the students whose administration
forced them to click “I’m in for Barack!”  to attend the
“educational” speech by our dear leader last fall.

Third, the Democrats contend that the proposed CPAC attendance would violate
Article IV, Section I of the ASM Constitution. (I heartily congratulate the
Democrats for finally respecting at least one constitution, even if it’s just
this one. Everyone must start somewhere.) It will be noted, however, that the
ASM Constitution, august though it surely is, is nevertheless not the Magna Carta.
And the people who wrote it, be they ever so prescient and wise, nevertheless
do not have quite the same cachet as Moses coming down from the mountain.

Whatever the reach of that epochal document for the ages, I
think all candid minds will agree the ASM Constitution does not have the
force of unalterable law, and likely does not extend to people who wish to
attend an off-campus conference where they will, horror of horrors, be called
upon to think for themselves. (I will leave for a later discussion the fact
that the Democratic Party’s pro-abortion policy leads to the killing of baby
girls at an overwhelmingly higher rate than the killing of baby boys, which is
“discriminat[ion] on the basis of sex” of an entirely different order
of magnitude than the one we’re considering today.)

One does not alter human nature by fiat; one does not moralize by majority rule; one does not substitute political point-scoring for the natural law. Let whatever legislative body you like scribble whatever they please on as many sheet of paper as they can fill. The sifting and winnowing will continue, and it will continue whether the dictatorial relativists say it can or not. 

Jason Morgan ([email protected]) is a Ph.D. student in the history department.