Before the diatribe, let’s begin with a simple--relatively simple, thought experiment… what do you think of when you hear the word “totalitarianism”? As my ear is obviously not party to your inner thoughts, I am remanded to the custody of speculation. I imagine you conjure up, quite readily and with little trouble, images of bootheels, synchronized marches of uniform as well as various flags and banners exalting the visage of a dear leader (or great leader, perhaps?) for all to see. In other words, an aggressive light, yes? I did, as well. Imagine then, the unpleasant surprise that stole over me as I watched almost-certain virgin and beta-male, Sean Taylor of the University of Utah say in one of the more ineloquent and clumsily-prepared burps I have heard, the following line: “I don’t care… that’s not a relevant document” when asked by an ABC news reporter about the first amendment’s role in allowing conservative commentator Ben Shapiro to speak on campus. You can find his disgraceful and uninspired performance in the annals of YouTube if you look hard enough (just kidding, here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5JXrpwsZs; Taylor begins, rather ironically, at 4:20) Is there not rather more than the fundamental totalitarian element endemic in Mr.Taylor’s words? What serious person could have guessed (and indeed, what person would have been taken seriously?) for postulating the idea that this would be the shape in which the modern totalitarian ideal takes?Perhaps you’re reading this and wondering why we shouldn’t simply laugh off the hapless Mr. Taylor? Or do I, with my (somewhat noticeable) conservative bent, have another motive entirely? On the proposal of mirth as the answer, I am unpersuaded. And I am unpersuaded for the following reason: Last year, Federal Judge Richard Posner (can we call him Dick?), said the following in a piece for Slate Magazine:I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21stcentury. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living. Does the ideal still seem worthy of nothing more than a laugh and a shrug? I would invite you to say if it does. Now to truly dig into the gravamen of the discussion, my feeling is summed up rather eloquently and concisely by Adelaide Stevens who said the following in a 1952 address to the American Legion Convention: “The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-communism.” Sadly, that cloak is still worn with gusto. However, in our current climate, this cloak is sewn with two manners of thread: political correctness and victimhood. Both seem to be wholly liberal values (in answer to any lingering suspicions regarding my political fealty). Regardless of what you feel of Milo Yannopoulis, is not the central thrust of the argument for banning him from speaking on campus (which was so eloquently expressed with flipping cars and threats of violence towards any dissidents) done in the name of PC-flavored delusions of persecution?While we’re at it, let’s pick up the insufferable (and insidious) ideal of the “safe space” and examine it. The insipid suggestion that we