President Trump: End Leftist School Tyranny!

Generation Z's Right-Wing Revolution

Recently, there has been much discussion of how "Generation Z," defined as those born since 2000, is politically to the right of Millennials and most previous generations as well. This is corroborated by a a recent survey showing that members of Generation Z favored Trump by 14 points, and that 86% of white Generation Z males supported President Trump, while only 14% were pro-Clinton.

Young Trump supporters gather outside of a Trump rally during the 2016 campaign.


We have seen numerous reports from across the nation of pro-Trump students aggressively pushing back against the liberal establishment. 

As a case in point, in Michigan, middle school students chanted "build the wall" the day after Trump's victory. 

This relatively small group of young Trump supporters literally triggered the world. The video of their chant was national news for days after the incident, and was viewed millions of times. 

CNN was not happy, and since they are fake news, they slandered the students, labeling their comments "an example of the post-election harassment toward children of color observed in schools across the country following the election."

Superintendent Shawn Lewis-Laken, of the Michigan school district where this chant took place, was horrified, stating that he had "identified the students who did the chanting, notified their parents, talked with them and held them accountable." He warned, in true Orwellian leftist fashion, that "we're going to respond, investigate, follow through, have accountability and make sure the students involved in those situations do not repeat them." The principal of the school stated to students that the chanting "made people feel unsafe." 

While the district claimed that privacy laws prohibited them from revealing "what disciplinary action" the students received, it is more likely than not that the students were punished for their speech at school. 

This would have been a perfect chance for the Trump administration to show liberal school administrators across America that they could not violate young Trump supporters' rights with impunity. 

However, it isn't too late. Depending on the outcome of the 2020 election, President Trump has either 3 or 7 years left in office. 

As an aside, Generation Z will decide the 2020 election, which will determine the future of Trumpism. In order to overcome the massive margins that Democrats are expected to win from non-white voters, Trump will need a supermajority among white voters, and especially young white voters. By the way, unless immigration, both legal and illegal, is halted and reversed, Republicans have absolutely no political future past the 2024 or, at best, the 2028 election. But in 2020, President Trump has a very good chance at winning if, and only if, he fulfills his campaign promises on immigration, trade, and noninterventionism; cracks down on illegal voting in a meaningful way; and mobilizes first-time Generation Z voters. I strongly believe that there is a fundamental difference between sycophancy and support; it is not helpful to baselessly claim that Trump will win in a landslide in 2020, when based on the demographic data alone, that will not happen. Period. 

Generation Z is already sympathetic to President Trump's right-wing populist message. But most voters will feel much more inclined to turn out if a politician is perceived as fighting for them, and making a positive impact in their daily lives. 

In this article, which is the beginning of a series on what President Trump can do to win the 2020 election and truly Make America Great Again, I will outline how President Trump can work to help defend the rights of Generation Z right-wingers against liberal "school tyranny."

Redefining Tinker v. Des Moines

The main court decision controlling the limits of free speech of students in public school is from 1969, and in this decision, the Supreme Court held that speech which occurred within the metaphorical "schoolhouse gates" could only be a cause for school discipline if it causes a "substantial disruption" to the "daily operation of the school." This has further been defined to mean "commotion and boisterous conduct" rather than simply offense and discomfort. 

The anti-war armbands worn to school by the plaintiffs in Tinker.
While previous free speech crusades helped leftists, now that they have seized control of the institutions, the only ones being censored are right-wingers.

While this case is on balance good for conservative, nationalist, and broadly right-wing students seeking to express their ideology at their public schools, through a few legal briefs, the Trump administration could advocate for, or even de facto institute, a more restrictive standard. The text of Tinker seems to allow for a "hecklers' veto" at public schools; therefore, leftists could create a "disruption" and then use it to shut down speech that they are offended by. 

Additionally, the Education and Justice Departments could send a "Dear Colleague" letter to local school districts directing them to uphold free speech by narrowly defining "substantial disruption." The Obama administration, in 2015, sent a letter to school districts which demanded that they open up private facilities based on "gender identity," based on an absurd interpretation of a federal law against "sex discrimination." Trump's administration can certainly explain that they will not look kindly on violations of students' free speech rights, and inform districts that the administration takes a hard-line, restrictive interpretation of Tinker and other related cases. 

The Trump administration should also invest more resources into investigating and bringing lawsuits against public schools which violate the free speech rights of students, especially Trump supporters. Any time there is a federal court case where student free speech is an issue, the Solicitor General should take the student's side unless there is compelling evidence that the student was in the wrong. A few high-profile legal victories would significantly bolster the Trump administration's reputation with Generation Z voters and some Millennials, including more libertarian-minded young people.

Protecting Trump Supporters From Censorship

I realize that this impact of this issue is minuscule compared to issues such as immigration, which is undeniably the most important political issue. (Due to the fact that levels and sources of immigration affect the resolution of every other political question, whether economic or social.) However, this would be a very popular move, even among voters who are generally politically apathetic. In order to solve mass immigration and other important issues, a nationalist or similar government must first be elected. 

It would be also part of a larger effort to win over a supermajority of Generation Z and make inroads with Millennials by mixing hard-line nationalism on immigration with non-interventionist foreign policy, support of certain libertarian social viewpoints such as a broad view of free speech, aggressive counterattacks against Trump's enemies, and economic policies which benefit Trump's middle class base rather than liberal corporations. Not to mention that it would take minimal effort and political capital, and most importantly, that it is the right thing to do.

Young Trump supporters often face bullying and harassment at schools and are sometimes treated with hostility from school administration. These people, many of whom were not even eligible to vote, worked across the country to elect President Trump. By boldly defending their rights from the overreach of school administrators, Trump can fulfill his end of the bargain. 

Answering The"True Conservatives"

Aggressive action from the Trump administration against local school districts may be met with opposition from those who dogmatically believe in a limited federal government which stays out of local issues. These people include certain "constitutional conservatives" as well as some libertarians.

To these individuals, liberal localities should be the final word on whether citizens have a right to privacy in public restrooms and shower facilities, the right to run their business in accordance with their religious values, and in this case, the right to free speech in public schools. These people will surrender their conservative comrades living in liberal cities and counties to the whims of the leftist local government, all based on their "principles." I fundamentally reject this view, for several reasons.

First, as soon as liberals take power, they will use the federal government to force their ideological views on conservative states and localities. We have seen this during the Obama administration as well as in previous Democrat administrations. If conservatives are arguing for local autonomy, and liberals demand uniform adherence to their ideology, liberals will win. Every single time. This, among other reasons, has given credence to the proposition that conservatives don't want to win, they want to lose gradually. Fundamentally, most conservatives are bound by a paradigm which adequately responded to previous generations of liberals, who, although their ideas were destructive, were not as radical as modern Cultural Marxist leftists. 

Fundamentally, politics is not a civil debate as it was decades ago. It is an ideological and cultural war. Anyone who denies this fact should simply look at the massive riots on Inauguration Day, or the hundreds of instances of violence against ordinary Trump supporters, or the fact that leftists now believe that it is unacceptable and "hateful" to say "it's okay to be white." Leftists openly state that drastic demographic change is America's "destiny" and the basis of their political future. Conservative ignorance of this issue is telling, in that they hold to a liberal principle, that countries have no right to halt immigration to preserve their demographic makeup, even when the future of conservative economic and social views depends on a majority-White America. As conservative host Mark Levin would say, there, I said it. 

This is somewhat of a tangent from the original issue, but it further supports the fact that conservatives fundamentally do not understand the nature of modern leftism. Modern leftists want to shut down all dissent, and seeing as current immigration policies result in the replacement of the only demographic group which even narrowly opposes "hate speech" laws, they may be only a generation away from doing so. If conservatives want any chance at winning in the end, they must use the federal government to aggressively fight leftists, even those who operate at the state and local levels. 

Second, the First Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to the states and by extension their local divisions. This is not even up for debate. Unless conservatives want to take the view that states are sovereign entities which are above constitutional limitations (by doing so, they would concede a state's right to secede from the Union), they must realize that federal government action to protect free speech from unlawful restriction by leftist local governments is completely legitimate. 

Third, there is broad consensus from all sides of the political spectrum on laws such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which represent an intrusion into the rights of local and state governments, as well as private businesses. While the predominant opinion is that these intrusions were justified to eradicate "racism," that still doesn't prove that these laws were constitutional. But while these laws were, according to an originalist and textualist interpretation of the Constitution, not legal, enforcement of First Amendment constitutional protection against the states is obviously not. The point is, there are already wide-ranging restrictions on what states, localities, and businesses can do. Unless one wants to eliminate all of these restrictions, one cannot argue that certain restrictions are constitutional and others are not. Either the federal government is sovereign over the states, or it is not. Apparently, conservatives only care about their "constitutional principles" when they aren't going to be called "racist" for actually supporting these principles, for example in the case of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

And finally, on a fundamental level, I don't care about these principles. The only principles which I truly think should be sacrosanct are moral principles, not political principles. Conservatives need to stop surrendering on principle rather than fighting to Make America Great Again. The federal government in contemporary American political life does have significant authority, and although this is not necessarily a good thing, it is a tool in the toolbox of tactics which can be used in reversing liberal hegemony and protecting right-wingers from tyrannical local governments who have no respect for constitutional rights or principles. 

Making Speech Free Again

Expanding freedom of speech, in a situation where leftists have cultural and institutional dominance despite the fact that Republicans control all three branches of government, is always helpful for the advancement of nationalist political opinions. The First Amendment is one of the most important gifts bequeathed from the Founders to future generations of Americans - as written in the Preamble, "to ourselves and our posterity." Young Trump supporters have been targeted with hostility from leftist school administrators, and their rights must be protected. As I previously wrote, the Trump administration would expend minimal effort by expanding the role of the federal government in protecting students' right to free speech at school. This would also help President Trump gain more support with Generation Z, which could make a crucial difference in the 2020 presidential election.


Below is a summary of my proposals to help Make America Great Again by making speech free again. 

In order to preserve the free speech of young Trump supporters, President Trump's administration should:

  • Direct the Justice Department to advocate for a more restrictive interpretation of Tinker v. Des Moines and, through Department of Education regulations, implement that interpretation. 
  • Send a "Dear Colleague" Letter to local school districts, informing them that the Trump Justice and Education Departments will not allow districts to run roughshod over free speech rights, and will hold districts accountable if they violate established law. This letter should also inform them that Tinker will be interpreted in a much more restrictive way going forward, and that the era of school districts having considerable discretion to decide what speech is acceptable is over.
  • Increase resource allocation towards investigating and filing lawsuits against school divisions which violate students' free speech rights. 
  • Deny federal funds to school districts which habitually violate the free speech of Trump supporters. 
To Make America Great Again and fight back against liberal institutional hegemony, free speech is essential. Protecting young Trump supporters' free speech should be a paramount priority of the Trump Administration in the future. Please share this article with your congressmen, senators, school board representatives, and everyone else who can help make a difference towards making speech free again!

(This article is part 1 of a series of articles which explain how President Trump can win the 2020 election by galvanizing the support of Generation Z and inspiring a new nationalist movement which will make America great again! Stay tuned)

Comments