One issue stands out above all others in our forthcoming election. What is it? Freedom of speech. Will Americans still possess freedom of thought and expression? Or will our country have an official state ideology where dissent lands you in prison?

If you think that can’t happen here, you’re a cousin of Rip van Winkle. Not long ago, Hillary Clinton called for making “disinformation” a crime, with disinformation being any disagreement with Hillary Clinton. John Kerry then went her one better, calling for repeal of the First Amendment. Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party, England, the home of my ancestors and the cradle of our liberties, now holds more than 1,000 political prisoners, most of them on the right. Their “crime” was defying the state’s ideology.

That ideology is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms, largely by a think-tank called the Institute for Social Research and more commonly known as the Frankfurt School. Now labeled as “wokeness” or “political correctness,” cultural Marxism is the ideology of almost all western elites; you cannot be a member of the elite if you do not bow to it. The best (critical) introduction to cultural Marxism's history and objectives is a video documentary, “History of Political Correctness,” available on Youtube (you’ll have to hunt for it but it’s there).

Key to understanding why cultural Marxism seeks to end freedom of thought and expression is a doctrine laid down by one of the Frankfurt School’s members, Herbert Marcuse, called “liberating tolerance,” defined as tolerance for all ideas and movements originating on the left and intolerance for all ideas and movements originating on the right. This is what we see in action on many American university campuses today, where faculties roster few if any conservatives and conservative students are threatened with college discipline if they dare say what they think.

If you doubt this, try a little thought experiment. Imagine that you are a professor at a typical American university. You announce that you are a Marxist. What happens? Perhaps some colleagues may offer you a friendly smile. In the course of the 20th century, Marxism killed around 100 million people.

I use colleges and universities as examples because the cultural Marxists have accomplished there what they intend for America as a whole. Any criticism or defiance of cultural Marxism, any “disinformation” or “hate speech” (defined as disagreement with cultural Marxism), will land you in jail. It can do so today in the U.K., Canada, France, and a number of other countries. If you want to speak freely, head for central and eastern Europe. Countries there had their fill of Marxism and political prisoners in the 20th century.

If the Harris-Walz ticket prevails, it will be open season, no limit on any and all dissidents from the state ideology But if President Trump is reelected, what could he do to protect and, where necessary, restore freedom of thought and expression?

As far as freedom of speech in the universities is concerned, he took action before his first term ended. He issued an order that unless a college or university adopted a strong statement in defense of freedom of thought and expression, similar to that of the University of Chicago, it would not be eligible for any federal funds including research grants. The latter provision is key, because it changes the political balance of power on campuses. The hard science faculty, who normally do not go to faculty meetings because they are dominated by the crazies, find that their research funds are in peril, turn out for the faculty meeting, and vote in the required statement defending freedom of thought and expression.

President Trump had left office before the lengthy federal rule-making process had concluded, and I am sure one of the Biden administration’s first acts was to kill it. But it could easily be resurrected in President Trump’s second term. The student conservative organizations that now exist on some college campuses would be happy to inform the government whether or not their college administrations were abiding by their own policy.

A second action would shove the cultural Marxists back in their box on a national scale. It would add “political viewpoint” to the long list of discriminations banned by federal law. We already ban discrimination on virtually every other basis: race, nationality, sex, LGTBQNUTS, congenital halitosis—the list is endless. Who could object to adding political point of view? After all, it would protect Marxists, too.

Freedom of thought and expression is the big issue in this election because, if that freedom is lost, so eventually are all the others. Keep that in mind on election day.