Saint Vincent College forum to explore ‘politics of rage’ |

Saint Vincent College forum to explore ‘politics of rage’

Stephen Huba
Stephen Huba | Tribune-Review
The entrance to Saint Vincent Basilica on the campus of Saint Vincent College near Latrobe.

Tired of incivility in national politics? Dreading the 2020 presidential election?

Saint Vincent College’s Center for Political and Economic Thought may have the antidote.

The college’s 2019 Civitas Forum will explore the theme “Raging Against The Machine: Politics In An Angry Age.”

The schedule for the Oct. 16 event is as follows:

  • 8:30 a.m. — “Moderation: A Virtue Only for Courageous and Noble Minds” by Aurelian Crăiuțu, Indiana University-Bloomington
  • 9:30 a.m. — “Voting in a Polarized Era: How Negative Partisanship Is Shaping the 2020 Presidential Campaign” by Alan Abramowitz, Emory University
  • 10:30 a.m. — “Why ‘We Can’t All Just Get Along’” by Peter Skerry, Boston College
  • 11:30 a.m. — “The Heated Rhetoric of our Two Constitutions: Multiculturalism vs. America” by Ryan Williams, The Claremont Institute

The 2019-2020 lecture series kicks off with a Constitution Day presentation by Nathan Coleman, associate professor of history at the University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg, Ky.

Coleman will speak on “The Constitution’s Other Missing ‘S’ Word: Sovereignty and the American Founding,” starting at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 17, in the Fred Rogers Center on campus.

Coleman is the author of “The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional Settlement, 1765-1800” (Lexington Books, 2016; paperback, 2017) and co-editor of “Debating Federalism: From the Founding to Today” (Lexington Books, 2019).

For more information or to reserve seats at an event, write to [email protected].

Stephen Huba is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Stephen at 724-850-1280, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.