Well, its election time and that means that it is also finger pointing season. Every election season Democrats and their supporters harrumph about which Republicans attended what forum. One editorial in the Spirit pointed out that local Republican candidates for the West Virginia House of Delegates were no shows for the NAACP forum; in the State Senate race neither candidate showed. All true enough. However, in another NAACP forum, this one for candidates running for Sheriff of Jefferson County, it was the Republican that showed up while his opponent the Democrat was a no show. The League of Women voters canceled their forum. Scheduling difficulties were cited as the reason. Round and round we go.

In the last election cycle the Family Policy Council of West Virginia held a candidate forum at a local church here in Jefferson County. Not one single Democrat running for office accepted their invitation to attend. There wasn’t one peep about this in the local media, and incidentally, it was the largest audience for a local forum that I had ever seen. As I’ve mentioned before, none of the Democrats running for the legislature showed up for the Eastern Panhandle Business Association forum earlier this year either. Again, not a word from the local media on that one either, except in this space.

It’s the old double standard. Democrats know that if they attend forums hosted by organizations that promote family values or economic freedom they are going to be asked questions they feel uncomfortable answering. So they don’t show up. And that’s their prerogative. However, when Republicans don’t show up for organizations that promote extreme positions the fingers start wagging.

However, the Spirit does ask an important question: Why such trouble getting candidates and the public together?

This gets at the crux of the broader issue of what is ailing us as a society. For one thing, it depends on how you define “public forum”, kind of akin to what the definition of “is” is. The public is not homogeneous, and not all forums are created equal. But in any case, it would appear that Democrats only attend forums where they feel “comfortable” - where the hosting organization is at least to a certain extent, ideologically compatible. However, by pointing fingers at Republicans, the finger pointers are tacitly admitting that the forums in question are biased. This is where the finger needs to be pointed.

The truth is that liberals are not interested in engaging in open debate. This is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of none other than Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York City and relentless attacker of our Second Amendment rights. Back in May of this year, Bloomberg was invited to speak at the commencement ceremonies at Harvard. According to a report by CNN, in his address, Bloomberg sharply criticized what he called “liberal intolerance” branding it a new form of “McCarthyism” and deeming it to be “censorship”. Those are his words, not mine. To quote Bloomberg, “today on many college campuses it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species”.

According to the CNN report, Bloomberg accused the Harvard campus of being “politically homogenous”. In other words, there is no diversity. He observed that 96% of the contributions from Harvard faculty and employees in the last presidential election went to Obama. Said Bloomberg, “there was more disagreement among the old Soviet Politburo than there is among Ivy League donors”. He went on to say, “in politics as it is on far too many college campuses, people don’t listen to facts that run counter to their ideologies”.

This is a strong admonition to liberals and progressives from one of their own. What he is saying is that liberals simply aren’t interested in engaging in public debate on issues. As a matter of fact, according to the CNN report, Condoleezza Rice felt compelled to cancel out of a speaking engagement at Rutgers because of student demonstrations. Racism anyone? If not racism, censorship surely; diversity of opinion will not be tolerated. If you don’t agree with our views we will silence you.

Why would Michael Bloomberg be so concerned about this trend? Perhaps he has come to grips with what those of us that aren’t extremists already know. Liberals or progressives or Democrats or whatever label you attach to these ideologues are, as he acknowledges, intolerant, and this intolerance is a danger. Maybe this might jar him into realizing why our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It’s at least as important as the First Amendment, if not more.

To left wing ideologues, constructive public debate on the issues doesn’t serve their purpose. It’s all about power and the money to wield it. Democracy becomes mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution becomes an inconvenience, an impediment or obstacle (than goodness for that). Individual rights are trampled under the banner of “social justice”. However, “social justice” is a double edged sword. If we look at history, “social justice” has served as the rationale for atrocities committed against minorities or dissident groups; and these atrocities include genocide. That’s why I believe that justice is best served when it applies to the individual and not to groups.

Ironically, at Harvard, where Bloomberg spoke, an article appeared in the Harvard Crimson magazine three months earlier called “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom - let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice”. Clearly, the author, Sandra Y. L. Korn is advocating for the suppression of academic freedom. This is exactly what has Bloomberg, of all people, so concerned.

So, if you’re wondering why it’s so hard to bring candidates together for public debates, you need look no further than the observations of Michael Bloomberg. In order to have a public debate there needs to be respect for diversity with regard to one’s outlook on life. What Bloomberg finds so alarming at Harvard isn’t confined to Harvard. Not only has Bloomberg put his finger on it, he’s pointing it in the right direction.