BY BILL GREENER

 Something that frustrates me most as a conservative and a Republican is my inability to ever, and I mean ever, “win” an argument with a liberal.  Just when I think they are ready to cry “Uncle,” the rules always seem to change.

 Want some examples?  Go to a recent “dateline” in the Sunday Washington Post magazine.  Two young Capitol Hill staffers are put together.  Both happen to be Jewish.  They each say their faith is important to them and that they want to focus their dating among only Jews inasmuch as they have already decided whoever they eventually marry will be of their faith.  The young man also says he is a liberal so it would be difficult for him to marry a “right winger.”  As a person of faith myself, I actually very much respect them making this as important as they seemingly have.  However, I ask you what sort of reaction we might anticipate if all that changed was that the youngsters were Evangelical Christians and that the man indicated only a person of a conservative political ideology would be a candidate for marriage?  Do we think these two might be portrayed as and/or perceived to be “intolerant and close minded?”  How can it be just fine for those of one faith to be “exclusive” and wrong for another faith?

How about the new candidate for the Supreme Court?  In a country that self-describes itself to be 53 percent Protestant, if the nominee is confirmed, we will have a court that includes three Jews and six Catholics.  Truth be known, and I am a Protestant, this does not cause me a problem.  However, I do seem to recall an instance or two where the lack of proportionate representation was in and of itself proof something was terribly wrong.  If what is disproportionate is that white males are over-represented, it would seem as though there are only two possible explanations.  Either white males have engaged in active discrimination to rig the game unfairly, or white males have made an insufficient attempt to reach out and find “qualified” individuals who should be more represented (which is unfair, but more innocent).  Either proportionate representation is important, or it is not.  I find it a contrivance to highlight it when it is good for your position and to ignore it when it is not.  What is most bothersome is when somebody argues it is absolutely essential we have important institutions “look like America” and then accept it as reasonable that a total of two institutions of higher learning (Harvard and Yale) are capable of producing individuals worthy of serving on the Supreme Court.

 For a third example, look at the recent debate about textbooks in the Texas School System.  If you did nothing but read the mainstream media, you would conclude the debate was between continuing to utilize neutral, fact-based books with ones that present only a conservative point of view.  However, for those of who have had children in the public school system, we know this not to be the case.  My kids used a textbook (United States History—In the Course of Human Events by Downey, Giese, and Metcalf).  In it, Rachel Carson and her campaign to ban DDT is portrayed in an entirely positive light.  No mention that her science was flawed and her assertions largely disproven.  No mention that banning DDT, according to a whole host of reasonable scientists, has resulted in millions of deaths in the third world (DDT would have killed the mosquitoes connected to malaria).  In this textbook, Jimmy Carter’s presidency is described as a “mixed success presidency.”  Ronald Reagan perfected the “ceremonial presidency.”  Call me crazy, but this stuff sure seems to have a point of view.  Personally, as someone with a college degree in American history, it would please me if students were informed from the outset that there is no such thing as the “real” history to be taught.  Instead, different schools of thought  emphasize some things over others which leads them to different sorts of conclusions as to what the “truth” of history is.

 Finally, and this is my favorite, there is the issue of intelligent design.  To be sure, creationism is one version of intelligent design.  However, it surely is not the only one.  Leaving aside, for the moment, the irony of people going to court to prevent the teaching of a theory of the history of the universe that is different from their own (wasn’t that what Inherit the Wind was all about?), why is everyone so afraid to simply have the discussion?  If I had my way, there would be a robust discussion as to what sorts of hypotheses should be used to investigate different theories that argue in favor of intelligent design.  Then, we would have another robust discussion as to what sorts of tests and measurements should be utilized to examine various hypotheses.  Then, we would have another robust discussion about what sorts of results from this investigation would tend to argue in favor of and what sort of results argue against confirmation of intelligent design.  Then, let the investigation begin.  Assuming in every instance the outcome was that intelligent design tended to be a theory that met mustard, we could then have another discussion as to what it all means.  Nobody has ever seen one specie become another.  However, using the scientific method, current thinking is that evolution best accounts for the results we can observe.  This causes nary a problem for me.  Here is a thought for you.  What if evolution was intelligent design?  Liberals scream and yell about academic freedom about the need to have an open mind.  Yet, in the next breath, they demand a single approach be taught.  Why?  What scares them so much?

 You get the main point.  In the morning, it is fine to think about marriage in ways where religion is central.  In the afternoon, that would be intolerant and divisive.  In the morning, proportionate representation is central to deciding if something is right and fair.  In the afternoon, it is not.  In the morning, it is fine to have textbooks with a liberal point of view as the source document for teaching a subject and should be seen as merely conveying impartial truth.  In the afternoon, arguing for books with a conservative bent represents replacing knowledge with ideology.  In the morning, teachers should be allowed to teach whatever they want.  In the afternoon, it would be wrong to even discuss intelligent design, much less argue for it.  How about one set of rules?  I will simply never be smart enough or quick enough to keep up with the intellectual gymnastics that need to be performed to be a liberal. 

 Editor’s Note: Bill Greener is a founding partner of Greener and Hook, a communications firm specializing in work for Republican candidates and private organizations facing public policy challenges.  Formerly, he headed the political and communications divisions of the Republican National Committee, as well as serving as Convention Manager for the 1996 National Convention.  Greener also has been an executive at International Paper and Wheelabrator Technologies.