Politics
Where’s the Outrage?
by Clay Staggs
I’ve written before about the disturbing inability of our culture - especially our supposed elites - to make even the most basic moral judgments. That inability is on display again for the world to see at Columbia University.
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be in NYC this week to address the United Nations General Assembly (who, I suppose, must tolerate his appearance). Yet, inexplicably, Columbia University has extended an invitation to him to speak at a forum.
This probably isn’t necessary, but for the benefit of the morally dense at Columbia, this man is evil, and represents an evil regime that is bent on the destruction of the US and our allies. He’s not even shy about it. He has repeatedly denied the holocaust, threatened the annihilation of Israel, is working feverishly for nuclear weapons, and holds to a very radical, apocalyptic view of his role in ushering in the return of the “hidden imam,” (their equivalent of the final judgment) by starting war with us infidels in the West. These statements are made in public, and frequently in English (though our press just as frequently ignores them). Ahmadinejad is also accused of having been one of the student captors of the US hostages in Tehran in 1980. The Iranian regime he represents is listed by the US State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, is widely credited with the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon in the 80s, and, just last week, US commanders in Iraq testified to Congress that Iranian munitions are being supplied to insurgents by Iranian special forces and are used frequently in attacks that kill and wound US soldiers. Finally, the litany of executions, floggings, torture, political repression, and enforcement of barbaric sharia law is too gruesome to detail here. Google it if you can stomach it.
Now, sadly predictably, the powers that be at Columbia, all the way up to its president, Lee Bollinger, when confronted with this outrage hide behind the canard of freely exchanging ideas. The whole concept of a university as a platform for the exchange and debate of ideas is centered around the pursuit of truth. This man represents everything that is antithetical to truth, and every other Western and, especially, Christian value. When one of the most prestigious universities in the US says that it is participating in constructive dialogue, but in fact are allowing a sworn enemy of this country to use them as a platform for his obvious propaganda, what is one to conclude about that university? As if exhibiting pride in their moral obtuseness, one of the deans at Columbia has said that they would have invited Hitler to speak, given the opportunity.
How about adding this to the mix: this same university, Columbia, that warmly welcomes a murderous tyrant, bans the US military’s ROTC programs from its campus. So, the military is banned, but the leader of a nation who is actively working to kill our soldiers is welcomed. We should, then, be very clear. This is NOT about simple relativism, or else the ROTC would be allowed just like Mahmoud. This is what Jeanne Kirkpatrick so accurately referred to as the “blame America first” mentality.
Lest anyone think that this is just another of my GOP-slanted rants, none less than the speaker of the NYC city council has condemned Columbia for this outrage.
These people have no discernment, no wisdom, no moral compass, and no shame.
UPDATE: The folks at the Daily Kos, the leading liberal blog and virtual mouthpiece of the Democrat party, are really jazzed up about Mahmoud’s visit. Check out this post, by a Jewish lesbian who confesses to having a crush on Ahmadinejad, because he’s so right about how evil George Bush is. Money quote:
Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I’ll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he’d probably have me killed, I’ll try to listen for some truth.
For about the first time in my life, I have literally no idea what to say.
Posted by Clay Staggs at September 24, 2007 09:16 AM
Clay, Have you ever seen Jay Leno’s bit where he goes and asks people on the street super-obvious questions? (Example: Who is the president right now?) Hilarity ensues as he exposes the American public for their satisfied ignorance. In order for there to be broad outrage, you are supposing that there is wide working-knowledge of global events. I would love to see a poll asking Americans if they could identify Ahmadinejad. Ask JoeSchmoeWorkingMan, and he will inevitably say, “Ahma-who?” But I think that is where you landed your attack— on the elite. And then you were mad that the elite had no moral compass. When have the elite ever had a moral compass? It has always been, ultimately: self-serving, utilitarian, and situational. Am I surprised? Not really.
I think many of them do not quite realize the difference between abstract belief and practical belief. I believe that posted speed limits are a good idea, but often my practical belief is somewhere 5-10 mph over those limits. What do I really believe? The Jewish lesbian enjoys belief in the abstract. It’s easy to think Ahmadinejad is Don Juan when she is sipping wine while Manilow croons in the background. However, practical belief would snap promptly to the forefront if she happened to find herself in a cattle car with 120 others. The pursuit of “truth-seekers” is to gradually pull all of their abstract beliefs into the corral of practical belief. However, elite academia prizes and advances creative abstract belief. It is so disconnected from reality, it is permissible. It is so distant from truth, they are in the middle of nowhere— and without that compass you were talking about.
Tim,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. The only bone I’d pick is that it seems that, in years gone by, even the elites had better moral judgment. Take, for instance, the dean’s suggestion about inviting Hitler to speak. Could you ever conceive of that actually having happened in, say, 1940?
The answer, I think, is no, becuase no one at Columbia or any other university would have invited a dictator who was at war with our allies and preparing for war with us to speak. I think they would have understood that doing so would have been morally contemptible.
The only explanation I have for the difference between then and now is the political twisting of the definition of an enemy. In WWII, everyone seemed pretty clear that, whether you voted for FDR or not, Hitler was the enemy. Now, it seems that if you politically disagree with Bush, that makes it OK for you to seek the defeat of the US, since Bush is the enemy, not the Islamofascists.
I think your point about practical versus abstract is applicable here. In their pointy headed world, it feels so good to hate Bush, and there are no immediate consequences for siding with the enemy. The key word in that last sentence is “immediate” though. The abstract has a way of changing to practical pretty quickly sometimes, like on 9/11/01.
Schizophrenia: (definition 2. in the Webster’s 9th Collegiate): The presence of mutually contradictory or antagonistic qualities or ideas.
I think it was Francis Shaeffer from whom I first heard this understanding of schizophrenia applied to the collective mind of modern culture. When I considered the invitation extended to Ahmadinejad, then later witnessed Mr. Bollinger’s unanticipated “attack” on his guest (probably to save his own hide…) in his introduction…this terminology came to mind as fitting…schizophrenic. Not to mention the Jewish lesbian so attracted to this male and her comments about his cuddly nature…well, it seemed to me one couldn’t have crafted a more schizo, zany, and comedic skit if one tried. Kind of like a Monty Python production. If only it weren’t so painfully real!
Peggy,
I’ll add a couple of observations and follow-ups. First, about the Bollinger tirdade, what was the point? You can’t debate a madman. It all just underscores the wrongness of having him there in the first place. OK, so he got hit about Iran’s persecution of gays. He replies that there are no gays in Iran. What was accomplished? Nothing but giving him a propaganda platform to use back home and Jon Stewart and Jay Leno some material for that night’s show. Again, no wisdom, no discernment.
About your schizophrenia point, I wholeheartedly concur, but would then raise the following question. If this is the way they behave when the whole world is watching, what are they teaching their students - being one of the more prestigious universities in the nation - while no one is paying any attention?