Not that it matters really, but this paper will be peer reviewed.
Here’s my idea. Did the Enlightenment Go Too Far? (Or choose your own title, of course).
But the basic premise would be to review what role literature has played in the moral decline of our civilization. Putting religion aside, exactly why is it that what used to be considered secular virtues, such as optimism, are now viewed as a human failing, and what used to be considered secular vices, such as pessimism, are now deemed as a sign of a deep-thinking, complex, and all around superior person?
Now, of course there are exceptions in critically acclaimed literature, in which the main character is someone who embraces a traditional virtue like optimism. However, in most cases this is only done when that character has some other human failing that can be seen as both a cause for, and a reason to excuse, that virtue. For example, the optimism of Don Quixote is excused by him being delusional, or to take an example from popular movies, the optimism of Forrest Gump is excused by his mental deficiency.
Looking back at a review of poetry, novels, and other literature from the Enlightenment to today, how else has the this served to turn other virtues into vices, and vice versa (pardon, and feel free to use, the pun).
Anyway, that would be a subject that I would find both interesting, and one that would also promote conservative principles in a way that would not be politically divisive, and perhaps may also be persuasive, to your liberal Professor.
In the 1960’s when even the Democrats would have been considered conservatives by today’s standards it was patriotic to question authority. But today, when even Republicans are liberals by 1960’s standards, it is treasonous to question authority. Recently released film footage shows that the National Guard did indeed hear shots fired so it’s possible and probable that the Kent State Shooting was provoked by the protestors. In many protests the left provoked an assault to get the proper optics of The Man beating up on them so they could gain public sympathy.
Today there are 70,000 SWAT team members. Those same provocative liberals are running the government. “We need a civilian force just as well armed and just as well trained as the Army.” (Obama) Are those same liberals intending to provoke a response from conservatives to provide the reason to use that massive force?