Professor Jedediah Purdy Wants You Forced to Follow His Religion

Professor Jedediah Purdy of Duke University Law School feels that you are not thinking right and therefore he wants you forced through “conflict” to accept his religion.

I assure you that this wouldn’t be his interpretation of the under girding of the essay he disgorged at Politico last week, but that is exactly what he is advocating nonetheless because his entire recipe for fixing our political culture is built on a religious-like belief in shadowy crises that he feels are besetting the country.

In fact, even as he pretended to be offering a “fix” for our political gridlock, he offered no proof whatsoever that the problems he thinks we face are based in fact. His entire piece was based on bald-faced assumption, all are forces taken as a given with not a single word to actually prove that his perceptions were real problems, the sort we should engage in “real” conflict to resolve.

Sadly, the essential lie-stiffened backbone upon which he hung the skeleton of his argument is what passes for “deep thought” at our fetid universities these days.

So, what did Purdy say? Well, he said that politicians spend too much time arguing about things that don’t matter (not necessarily an absurd comment, granted). But it is what he thinks is “important”–no what he assumes is important–is what made risible everything he wrote.

The piffling prof noted that our history is filled with real political conflict. The blood feud over slavery, battles over FDR’s ultimately disastrous New Deal policies, the fights that ultimately led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the end of Jim Crow were all more virulent than the conflicts we are having today, he said.

And it is conflict like that Purdy thinks we need. Purdy essentially said that what we don’t need right now is comity in politics. We need “real conflict, not its facsimile,” he bellowed.

But why do we need that? The reasons he thinks we need conflict are telling.

Because the United States got two big doses of reality in the last six months. One was the explosive arrival of Thomas Piketty’s finding that inequality is vast and that we are headed toward a second Gilded Age, if we aren’t there already.

… The other was the new set of U.N. reports on climate change, which confirmed, yet again, that the problem is real and accelerating.

This is where we realize that Purdy is a man who believes with religious-like fervor that we need “conflict” to silence the heretics he sees in our society. He bases his self-assuredness on these two “reports” that have been proven to be spurious and these are the lies that under gird his entire essay.

In the first case, Thomas Piketty’s new socialist economics book has made him the doyen of communist-yearning professors like Purdy, sure, but his book has been shown to be filled with flaws and false data.

Still, it is true that Piketty’s claim that income inequality is destroying the world’s economies and that the only solution is big government confiscation of wealth is dearly loved by our freedom hating professoriate. We see that born out in Purdy’s assumption that truth is contained in its pages and that we need “conflict” to force everyone to heed Piketty’s big government “solutions.”

Purdy’s other false premise climate change. Worse, it’s the UN’s climate change nonsense.

Note that in his view, both of Purdy’s “problems” can only be fixed by destroying “the rich” and taking away all our individual freedoms. The only solution is autocratic government eliminating liberty and forcing us to accept Purdy’s religious views. The only end of the “conflict” he envisions will be a public blindly accepting his so-called solutions.

Now, Purdy claims he is not calling for the logical end of his policies: bloodshed. He seems naïve enough–or maybe just stupid enough–to assume that his top-down control could possibly be achieved through a bloodless coup.

In fact, with many of the past political conflicts in American history he cites, bloodshed came along with them. Neither slavery nor Jim Crow went down with bloodless solutions.

So, Purdy’s claim that he wants “real conflict, not its facsimile” but wants this conflict to be short of bloodshed is either naive or simply a lie.

Of course, it s far more likely that, like all other leftists of his ilk, he would be quite happy with the deaths of all you infidels out there who won’t toe his line.

But in the end he is a liar even if his solution and underlying problems were 100 correct because he thinks we need “conflict” to address them. I say he is a liar because he doesn’t really want political conflict. He wants political conformity to his religious positions.

After all, if “conflict” led to his socialist ideals winning the argument he would then want an end to that conflict. This shows that “conflict” in and of itself isn’t really his goal. He only wants to use “conflict” as a means to his socialist ends. And in that way he is no different than humanity’s greatest dictators who used conflict as the means to gain total control.

But, one thing might be said with a rueful grimace. If Purdy got the “conflict” he really wants, he just might find that, as happened in past dictatorships, he and his fellow professors will be some of the first to find themselves standing at the edge of open graves in front of jackbooted troops in a field somewhere.

Now Destroying Unions is the Same as Reforming Government
Open Thread: Liberals Are Succeeding in Making Young People Less Patriotic
  • Walter_Cronanty

    What climate change? The cooling the US has experienced in the last decade? Or, is it the recent infrequency of droughts, wild fires, etc.?

    “The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

    • Retired military

      Don’t forget about all those record tornado and hurricane seasons predicted by the left that didn’t happen.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        RM – note that the article specifies that the drop in temperature is demonstrated by “pristine” weather stations that need no ….wait for it… adjustments. Wow, imagine that – temperature records without an alarmist’s thumb on the scale:

        “…114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.”

  • Jwb10001

    As was pointed out how does this guy figure the result of this “conflict” will be to his liking, if not then what? Is it endless conflict until he gets his way, the guy must be loads of fun for his wife and family.

  • jim_m

    Yeah, but Picketty’s book is the least read major book release of the year. Even fewer people than are reading glasses Hillary’s book are reading his. His book has been thoroughly debunked. Only the most ideologically blinkered are still claiming that his book is meaningful.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yet somehow objective measures show income inequality is increasing, aided by the Fed printing money and giving it to rich people and wages for regular people going down in real terms.

      • ‘Income Inequality’ is one of those wonderful little talking points that can be mangled to mean whatever it’s needed to mean.

        ‘Poverty’, at least, used to have a definition attached which made it clear that ‘poverty’ was associated with homelessness, lack of food, lack of transportation, lack of entertainment.

        We’re talking ‘Grapes Of Wrath’ style poverty, living out of a cardboard shack and thinking yourself lucky to have roadkill stew every other day style poverty.

        Now? The poverty-stricken are forced to make do with TVs, used cars, and air conditioning.

        The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

        Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

        Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

        Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

        The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

        Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

        Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

        Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

        Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

        We won’t talk about cell phones.

        There’s a big difference between ‘having enough’ and ‘That guy’s got more than I do, which isn’t fair’. The Income Inequality crowd seem to be going a lot more towards pushing the latter end of the spectrum, while painting themselves as virtuous helpers of those who ‘don’t have enough’.

  • ljcarolyne

    SCREW & up yours Purdy!