When Little People Step Out Of Line

Has anyone else noticed that the great bastions of liberalism are all for the little guy, until the little guy steps out of line or otherwise threatens their authority? In the last week or so, two of the most powerful leftwing institutions in the state of Washington have turned the full force of their authority upon the little people with whom they profess to stand. Union members who dare to dissent from their leaders’ political orthodoxy will find less take home money in their paychecks as their earnings are funneled into Democratic Party war chests. And a female student at Washington State University who stood up to a prominent faculty member will soon learn the consequences of challenging WSU’s power structure.
Our liberal Democrat dominated legislature, clearly anticipating an unfavorable United State Supreme Court, recently passed a law that will facilitate labor unions dipping into their members’ pockets for money to underwrite Democratic political campaigns. Fifteen years ago, an overwhelming majority of Washington voters passed an initiative that banned the union practice of forcibly taking the earnings of its membership and using it for partisan politics. Ever since, Washington’s Democrats and the labor unions have made every effort to violate the clear intent of the law.
In the early days after the initiative’s passage, our current governor, who was then the Attorney General, did her level best to avoid enforcing the law. Her motivation was pretty obvious. She is one of the most ruthlessly ambitious politicians this state has ever produced and she had her sights set higher than the Attorney General’s office. The Paycheck Protection Act reduced union political collections by 85% and an upwardly mobile politician in a position to determine the state’s law enforcement priorities could accumulate political IOU’s and keep the cash flowing into her own campaign coffers by undermining the law. So, she did exactly that until a lawsuit by a dissenting teacher forced her to do her job.
Not only did the Democrats legislate the Paycheck Protection Act into oblivion, they also attached an “emergency” provision that will prevent the voters from restoring the law they passed with a 72% majority in 1992. The little people spoke, were ignored and are now banned from speaking up again. Meanwhile Democrats, through the unions, will continue to dip into the pockets of the little people. And if the little people know what’s good for them, they’ll learn to like it.
Closer to home here at Washington State University, a student is about to experience the full force of the WSU legal juggernaut for accusing a treasured and apparently very powerful faculty member of sexual harassment. Long after the original complaint was filed, the WSU Board of Regents approved a settlement with Bernardo Gallegos, a lavishly well-paid professor in the College of Education that will essentially guarantee that the lawsuit that the student filed against him will be crushed under the nearly inexhaustible weight of the university’s legal resources.
In exchange for his resignation, the university will defend Dr. Gallegos against a lawsuit filed against him by his accuser. In effect, this will likely mean that pursuing the lawsuit will exhaust the plaintiff’s financial resources and ensure that any victory will be pyrrhic at best. In all probability, the case will have to be dropped.
The University's Center for Human Rights found merit in her complaint against Bernardo Gallegos. Certainly the agreement reached between Gallegos and the university is not the sort that gives confidence in the innocence of the accused or the benevolence of the university. In exchange for resigning his $133,000 per year job, Gallego gets $87,000 and the university’s legal representation in court.
The smell test invokes my gag reflex.
Back in the early 1990’s Florynce Kennedy, who had helped found the Feminist Party and was prominent in the National Organization for Women, gave the game away regarding the politics of sexual harassment. She said that women should never pursue sexual harassment charges against politically left-leaning men. If a powerful liberal sought sexual favors in the workplace, the proper course of action was submission.
Bill Clinton certainly knew how to exploit this principle, as it was his accusers who were ultimately ostracized. And now, it will be the accuser here who will suffer.
The message here is that liberalism requires obedience. Don’t step out of line.