I'll freely admit that it was my own stupid fault that I couldn't get in to see Karl Rove at the IMU last night. I should have realized that the place would be packed to the rafters and turned up early. One hefty older guy hectored and bullied his way in, but I'm neither that imposing nor that tenacious.
So I waited around for about half an hour, listening to the "conversation" on the speakers in the East lobby and watching the protesters and cops mill around.
I think it was a lousy idea to bring Rove here in the first place. As the most consistently partisan of President Bush's inner circle, he was unlikely to ever shed much light on the administration's undoubted misdeeds. But to call him a war criminal, as many do, cheapens both the argument against Rove and the definition of the term. Karl Rove is indisputably a sleazy, Machiavellian political operator who thinks morals are a kind of mushroom, but that is all he is.
The sound from within the hall -- and the atmosphere outside of it -- was ugly. I could hear a mixture of feverish cheering and furious, screaming opprobrium; so loud that the speakers were almost superfluous. Neither the smug contingent of college Republicans nor the shrill, angry protesters was interested in anything like a free exchange of ideas. And while I'm well aware that Karl Rove lies more or less all the time, we as a university owe a fair hearing to all invited guests. How much more telling to simply and calmly expose the man for what he is instead of screeching mindless invective at him from the cheap seats?
Beyond being disrespectful and childish, behavior like that on display at the Rove lecture makes liberalism look deranged, silly, and out-of-touch. Every time some well-meaning but clueless bunch disrupts a public forum featuring a jerk like Rove, they keep him and his ideas in the news for one more cycle. He thrives on this kind of abuse, ladies and gentlemen; he bathes and luxuriates in your steaming hatred. If you did go to the Rove event last night just to yell at him, you didn't change anybody's mind on anything, least of all his.
The justification for the Iraq war was one based on fear, lies and hatred. And it is sweet reason that will heal our country's wounds, not crude sloganeering.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
notice how the vast majority of the 336 comments on the cnn story are anti-rove and pro-protesters.
i personally chose to walk out rather than disrupt, but hey, freedom of speech cuts both ways. Rove got his $40,000 paycheck, it seems only fair that students can express themselves however they deem fit. damn right he better earn it.
can't wait to see the DI editorial this week lambasting the protesters. get some new material guys.
And we can't pretend that there would have somehow been an open and honest exchange of ideas if everyone had stayed quiet. Most of the questions were really good, well thought out questions, and Rove either ducked them, or retreated to an ideological framework that allowed him to say whatever. i mean he responded to a very reasonable and well-phrased question about iraqi civilian casualties by accusing the questionaire of libeling the troops. he deflected Durham's criticism of the disastrous hurricane katrina response by saying Durham was libeling the coast guard and national guard. give me an effin' break!
If the Lecture Committee is going to spend $40 grand on a clown, they should expect a circus.
Will the DI Editorial Board step up to the plate and issue a fair and balanced editorial that takes in the perspectives from both sides, or engage in a hypocritical namecalling session against the antiwar movement, essentially doing to us what you claim we did to Rove? Except we aren't war criminals getting paid. And Rove ducked every answer anyway, he deserved to get heckled.
In fact, Jon, you routinely write columns ripping on people and going off on them. How is that any different than what some people did to Rove?
What is it about him and his actions that make people so angry? Most likely people have a legitimate reason for feeling that way.
@David --
I think that the equivalent to noisy, intrusive protests at a public forum would be my writing a column in sloppy, red-inked handwriting over another piece of writing that people were trying to read.
Since the pages are blank before I and the rest of the opinions staff get at them, I fail to see any sort of similarity between my work and the sort of disruptive protest that we're discussing.
While I've got you here, let me say first that we're pleased that you're reading our blog and we encourage commentary on it. That said, please try not to post two comments in a row. Say what you have to say, and after someone else responds, feel free to reply.
are you going to discuss the fact that rove avoided and ducked every legitimate, reasonable question thrown at him? that would be a real contribution and worth your ink. otherwise going after people you claim to share a movement with is counter-productive, especially using the reactionary name-calling style the DI has consistenly employed against the local peace movement for years.
(settling down with popcorn)
Sorry David, but I have to say that Jon's red crayon comparison is dead on. I absolutely embrace free speech, and I would've been disappointed if the UIAC hadn't been there. But the heckling wasn't cool. Karl Rove probably deserves a lot of things, but I don't think I deserved to listen to shouting and interruptions when I go to watch a lecture. I was totally cool with what was going on outside and before the event, but I would've liked to hear what he had to say.
As for your challenge for the editorial board to step up w/a fair & balanced editorial, didn't they already do a point/counterpoint about the lecture? Is that not balanced?
"but I don't think I deserved to listen to shouting and interruptions when I go to watch a lecture."
rights are a tradeoff kathleen. your right to listen to a war criminal obfuscate the truth doesn't trump the rights of hundreds of other people to voice their opinions in the manner they deem fit.
/Me cites conflict of interest, avoids furthering shit storm.
Nobody's attacking the protesters' behavior on First Amendment grounds, just those of civilized discourse.
And Nate, make sure you don't just toss your popcorn on the floor when you're done. Nobody likes a messy blog.
The words Karl Rove and civilized discourse don't belong in the same sentence together. And it was Rove that chose to have it that way.
He's the one that smears his opponents, runs hit jobs on anyone who gets in his way, plants false stories in the media, bugs his own office then blames the Democrats, digs through the trash of his opponents, sends innocent people to jail, knowingly reproduces lies and false evidence, i could go on and on and on. we all know this is true. we were all there when he responded to Durham and other questionaaires by accusing them of being "stupid" and of libeling the troops. We were all there when he ducked several other questions or just refused to answer them.
if the room was completely still and quiet it still would have never came anywhere close to "civil discourse" because that's not what Rove is about. You saw the way he treated Durham. And even with the heckling he talked (and sprouted his predictable bs) for far longer than anyone else in the room.
I see where you guys are coming from, I just disagree. I think the protest did accomplish something. We handed out hundreds of leaflets of factual information on the war. We got dozens of contacts and new recruits. The story was picked up all over the country and hopefully now Rove will receive the exact same treatment at the next university he stops at.
nobody was ever going to learn a damn thing no matter what had happened, because Rove isn't about real conversation, he's about lying and smearing the truth. if it were david brooks we would have listened attentively and i'd be honored to have a glass of wine with the guy. but karl rove? how can anyone sit down and break bread with that man and live with themselves? Rove would literally send anyone on the lecture committee to guantanamo bay at a moments notice without a seconds hesitation if it served his purposes. just ask don siegelman or valerie plame.
If Rove's going to get paid $40,000 to lie and spin the truth, he at least needs to know that he's literally not safe appearing in public. that yes people will harrass him and confront him when he's trying to eat, and they will try to perform citizens arrests. if the congress and the courts are going to bend over backwards and let the bush gang rape them and the rest of the country, then the people have to pick up the slack.
thats where i'm coming from anyway.
This is precisely what I'm talking about. This is the genius of the Rove method of politics. He gets well-meaning folks like you to sink to his rhetorical level, then claims that your positions are equivalent.
That Rove's statements and deeds are so noisome and cruel only enhances the need for those who oppose him to remain rational and measured.
again, i hear where you are coming from, but the antiwar movement was making objective rational arguments before the war started and bush and cheney and rove and them went to war anyway.
i'm a pacifist, and believe in nonviolence, but power only steps back when confronted with power. this is just me personally, but i dont think social change can come with polite civil discourse alone. we have to balance serious political disruption with polite civil discourse. because the facts are out there but the corporations and the neocons, even most of the democratic party, won't listen to just facts.
we have to jam up the prison systems and the court systems, and we have to stop business as usual, we have to put a clog in the machine. the word sabotage comes from the french word sabo, which means shoe, factory workers literally put their shoes in the factory machines to grind them to a halt. and yes that is a star trek 6 the undiscovered country quote for all my trekkies out there.
but thats how social change has happened in this country, from womens rights to civil rights to the 40 hour workweek, to the end of child labor, to weekends off to minimum wage and on and on. and i see making a specatcle of rove as following in those footsteps. i see where you guys are coming from, definitly, i'm just advocating another point of view. and lastly, i personally advocated for not disrupting or heckling, thats why i walked out, but if hundreds of people were that angry at rove, then i can only assume they have a legitimate reason for it and have every right to act in that manner.
and i still think confronting rove at 126 while he was trying to eat was pretty awesome. i mean, some of us believe from the bottom of our hearts that rove is a war criminal and should be locked up, and if the police wont do it, and if we are nonviolent so its not like we would try to assassinate him or something, then a little creative, theatrical direct action is the best we can do.
OK, I'll bite: Goodner, do you honestly think Rove would send anyone on the Lecture Committee to G'Bay on a moment's notice?
I mean, seriously. Do you honestly believe that? I'm not talking about rhetoric to stir up the faithful - I'm asking you if you honestly believe that statement. Because The Podium isn't the UI Anti-War Committee, and we're a lot more nuanced than that, so we don't buy that kind of bullshit.
And Jon, I know you're going to get mad at me for double posting, but whatever.
KARL ROVE IS A POLITICAL STRATEGIST/CONSULTANT. He did not decide to send American troops to Iraq. Yes, he lied about it in public, numerous times. Politicians lie in public EVERY DAY. But he had nothing to do with authorizing the US invasion of Iraq - you have problems with those that did that, then you need to talk to the U.S. Congress.
(slowly picking up the popcorn, kernel by kernel, as not to disturb the volume level)
Okay everyone. I started a new post so we could all argue some more. I made it extra long so I wouldn't annoy Jon with more miniposts.
You're welcome!
Post a Comment