Okay, I've read several comments throughout the blogosphere expressing David Goodner's point of view about the Rove lecture, and I'm going to write this before I lose my cool. (You don't want me to lose my cool!) I'm going to start out - though I'm sure it will fall upon deaf ears on either side of Goodner's brain - by saying that I respect the opinions of the anti-war protesters, and their right to express it. Freedom of speech does not exist on a scale; there are no weights and measures involved. It is neither a punishment nor a reward, it's a constitutional right. I understand how the hecklers feel about Karl Rove, but the argument (directed toward me) "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" perplexes me. "In the manner they deem fit"? Who is setting the rules here? I, along with several hundred people, attended a lecture for its intended purposes. Others saw fit to set their own agenda, much to the displeasure of those of us who thought we were coming to a lecture. I suppose I could sit in my classroom and scream insults at my professors and claim I had the right to do it. I've paid thousands of dollars to this University, should I have the right to impede the education of others if I deem fit? [okay, technically I haven't paid thousands of dollars but I will be for the next twenty years or so.]
Better yet, can I go to the upcoming UIAC/IVAW event and scream insults at the Veterans as they speak out against the war? Perhaps the Lecture Committee should show up just to yell "Liar!" and "killer" to the veterans. Surely the UIAC wouldn't object if that's how they want to express themselves. Right?
Some people feel that Rove deserves their treatment toward him b/c of things he's done. This is where you're wrong. It is not for you to decide if Karl Rove is a war criminal or a murderer. Karl Rove may very well deserve any number of things; but you know what? Bull Connor and the Birmingham police deserved to have hoses and attack dogs turned on them, too. Look at any image from the Civil Rights movement and it is quite clear who is in the right and who is wrong. What is so amazing about Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement is that acts of civil disobedience exude such dignity and strength of character that the protesters never lowered themselves to the level of those they protest. A movement was built on raising awareness and rising above the situation. The minute the protesters act belligerent, aggressive or violent, it becomes difficult to tell who's who. David made the argument that Rove would've just lied and smeared the truth if they had allowed him to speak out. There's truth in that statement. But instead of allowing Rove to act in an undignified manner, the hecklers took it upon themselves to do so. I have no problem with the protests outside or before or after the event. (The Karl Rove with the giant check was entertaining & got everyone's attention.) My real complaint here is the interruptions throughout the lecture. And now I'm getting annoyed at these exaggerated comments being thrown around to defend them.
Another point I'd like to weigh in on is the supposed well thought out questions by the audience. A quote from David Goodner: "...he responded to a very reasonable and well-phrased question about iraqi civilian casualties by accusing the questionaire of libeling the troops. " Surely you're not referring to the question, "How many civilians do you estimate have died, and how many of those deaths are you responsible for?" The "questionaire" accused Rove of murder! You're upset b/c Rove accused him of libel? Please do not argue the point that it's okay b/c Rove IS guilty of murder. They are both accusations, and until you can prove it in a court of law, they are equally unwarranted.
Lastly, and this is the part that frustrates me the most, I can't believe I am defending Karl Rove. I understand that the UIAC always feels like they're on the defensive with the DI, but at the heart of this whole stupid, senseless argument about this unfathomable war - we actually all agree. We're arguing about methods of protest, what constitutes free speech, and what level of discourse is warranted. While we get upset and split hairs; there's a f-ing war going on. A war that - to the best of my knowledge - everyone on the DI opinions staff would like to be over tomorrow. We all hate this war. We disagree on when or how to leave, and we definitely disagree on how that sentiment is best expressed. Dammit. UIAC, I would love for there to be resolution the war in Iraq. I just can't get my head around your tactics. I attended the lecture not only to listen to Rove, but to observe. Sure, I didn't expect him to reveal any new information, but I would simply like a better understanding of the situation. Why is it more important to insult the guy than to let people watch him & make up their own minds if he's a liar or a killer?
Okay, Goodner - your turn. I have another question for you, too: What did you do before the War?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"though I'm sure it will fall upon deaf ears on either side of Goodner's brain"
that's a good start. civil discourse at its finest.
"Who is setting the rules here? I, along with several hundred people, attended a lecture for its intended purposes. Others saw fit to set their own agenda, much to the displeasure of those of us who thought we were coming to a lecture"
I think its incorrect lay the blame squarely on the protest organizers. For example, I walked out rather than heckled. I also stood outside the line and encouraged people to turn their backs to Rove in silent protest. Some organizers heckled, some didn't. I argued against it, but people are going to do what they are going to do. There's no sense in trying to stop that. This is America where we prize individual autonomy so let people express themselves if they want. And dozens of people with no direct or indirect ties to UIAC heckled Rove. Whether you or I liked it or not, people were going to do what they were going to do, that's their right as free citizens, and if that many people were that upset, then maybe there is a reason for it. That should be taken into account. Democracy cuts alot of ways. If it was only 1-2 people, the rest of the crowd would have shut them up. Instead it was about half the crowd. They had people power to do what they did, and that's democracy in action.
"Better yet, can I go to the upcoming UIAC/IVAW event and scream insults at the Veterans as they speak out against the war? Perhaps the Lecture Committee should show up just to yell "Liar!" and "killer" to the veterans. Surely the UIAC wouldn't object if that's how they want to express themselves. Right?"
Sure, but let's see if hundreds of people feel so strongly about it that they join you and the LC. Also, if any IVAW members committed war crimes, they are choosing to come forward with their stories truth-and-reconciliation-style, which completely sets them apart from someone like Rove. Also, if they did, they were only trying to survive a situation that Rove and the Bush Gang put them in. In a sense, any war crimes committed by troops can be ultimately blamed on the Bush Gang for putting them in a no-win situation in the first place. So I don't think that argument has much weight. its a false analogy or whatever.
"Some people feel that Rove deserves their treatment toward him b/c of things he's done. This is where you're wrong. It is not for you to decide if Karl Rove is a war criminal or a murderer."
If the Legislative and Judicial branches won't fullfill their Constitutionally-mandated roles as checks and balances to the Executive Branch, the people have the right to take extralegal measures. No one is saying Rove does not deserve a trial. All we are saying is we will help escort him to the courtroom. And again, it was a university event, and a huge faction of students decided to heckle Rove. The sheer size alone of that contingent is evidence that maybe their feelings were justified.
"...that the protesters never lowered themselves to the level of those they protest."
Let me know when the antiwar movement lies to the american people, sends thousands of people to their deaths, exposes cia operatives and fires u.s. attorneys for political purposes, runs smear campaigns and hit jobs that have absolutely no factual basis, and sends innocent people to jail with fake evidence, and then you can say we lowered ourselves to Rove's level. Otherwise most of your argument is overexxageration and hyperbole.
And when were we ever "violent"?
"My real complaint here is the interruptions throughout the lecture."
Philip Jones, Frank Durham, and the head of the UI Police didn't have any problems with the way things went down, we all expected some heckling to occur no matter what anybody did, so why get so worked up about it? Its not like we politicized, bribed, cajoled, or blackmailed the university officials like the Bush Gang has done to the other branches of gov't and the media, the so-called checks and balances on executive power.
As for "libel" Rove did not accuse the person of libeling him, after all Rove is a public figure and libel does not apply. He resorted to claiming the questionaire libeled the u.s. troops. He said the exact same thing to Prof Durham when Durham asked about Katrina. It was BS.
"Lastly, and this is the part that frustrates me the most, I can't believe I am defending Karl Rove."
then stop defending him.
"I understand that the UIAC always feels like they're on the defensive with the DI, but at the heart of this whole stupid, senseless argument about this unfathomable war - we actually all agree. We're arguing about methods of protest, what constitutes free speech, and what level of discourse is warranted."
I propose we call it a conversation, not an argument. and if we engage in a sensible, respectful, real discussion about methods, tactics, free speech, etc than that is a welcome and badly needed discussion and one that would not have occured if some people didn't push the limits a little bit. You'll never know where the edge is unless you step off of it once in a while.
Its not even the DI Editorial Boards constant criticism that bothers us. Its the tone of the criticism and the fact that there's never any praise, and also never any articulated alternatives. can we get some love for being able to organize 250 people with djs, banner drops, street theatre, giant checks, pupetters, articulate passionate speeches with verifiable facts, cool chants in rhythm that sound good, etc?
"I just can't get my head around your tactics. I attended the lecture not only to listen to Rove, but to observe. Sure, I didn't expect him to reveal any new information, but I would simply like a better understanding of the situation."
And the situation is Rove is so vehemently despised that people did not want to afford him an opportunity to speak. And you got to observe participatory democracy in action, thus gaining a better understanding of how Rove fits into the evolving contemporary youth culture. You know he gets similar treatment at every college appearance right? At American University 80 students pelted his car with eggs and tomatoes and sat down in front of it to prevent him from leaving.
You saw the protest made Democracy Now! right?
"Why is it more important to insult the guy than to let people watch him & make up their own minds if he's a liar or a killer?"
people have a better understanding of who Rove is now that they've seen the kind of legitimate reaction he provokes in people. I mean, imagine that many people being that angry, most people i've talked to who did heckle said they literally could not contain themselves, that their outbursts were spontaneous. There's no reason to criticize that, instead lets talk about the root issues that cause such emotions to boil up in people. you can make a rationality argument if you want, but detached rationality is not all that its cracked up to be. we are all human, and we should act like humans with real feelings. there's no reason to bottle that stuff up when you are talking about a guy like Karl Rove who deserves absolutely no respect, no legitimacy, nothing but bars and stripes.
I mean you say we stooped to his level but c'mon, did we put a black bag over his head, whisk him off to a secret blacksite, torture him for years with no access to a lawyer or jury, or just execute him? absolutely not. but rove was senior aide to bush for 7 years, and he only resigned because he got busted for politicizing the u.s. department of justice which is unfreaking constitutational (seperation of powers). So he is very much responsible for all the high crimes and misdemeanors and crimes against humanity that the entire Bush Gang is responsible for.
I think its like this. From some peoples perspective, the event was all about Rove. He had the spotlight, the stage, the attention, because he is an important conservative figure and bla bla bla bla. But truthfully, that perspective minimizes the students and other local citizens who naturally have to be part of the whole scenario. a speaker has to have an audience. in this case his audience was comprised of ALOT of people who did not want to hear anything he had to say. As for the people who did, they got a chance too. Rove talked and talked and talked, he talked for an hour and a freaking half, so the idea that your rights were somehow stepped on is kind of ridiculous. you got to hear him speak plenty. his voice and his words dominated the hour and a half event. this isn't the theatre or the ballet we are talking about either. we weren't at hancher watching the nutcracker and drinking wine and eating cheesecake. An extremely evil and reprehensible person was in our community, making a profit off of his infamy. Don't tell us that the people who heckled him were wrong. Rove is the one who is wrong. If people wanted to see what the man was like up close and personal, they got exactly what they wanted. Someone who is so hated and despised that he literally cannot step foot on a college campus without students picketing him. That's reality. I know it isn't the reality some wanted, but its reality. And there's more lessons in that than some want to admit.
"Okay, Goodner - your turn. I have another question for you, too: What did you do before the War?"
Flunked out of Luther College when I was 18, worked full-time 40 hours a week 9-5, M-F for the next six years, took a couple of night classes here and there, joined a local greek fraternity, got drunk, partied, and why is any of this relevant? Am I going to be accused of lying if I forget to mention some obscure detail about where I was on the night of mm/dd/yyyy or is the basics a clear enough of a picture for people?
In closing, this is something i tell the cops when i do civil disobedience, or even what i told the waitress at 126 and a UI official the day after we blockaded that alley. We are not coming at you, our beef is with Rove, not with you. We are sorry for the inconvenience, but feel it was necessary. The Iraqis have been slightly more inconvenienced so I dont think its a bad thing for Americans to have their personal lives disrupted a tiny little bit when a war criminal comes to town.
I really bet a UIAC/Lecture Committee/Editorial Board meeting over drinks at Quintons or something would end up with everybody laughing and having a good time and realizing we indeed were on the same side. If there's anything I or we could do to show you guys more respect, please let us know and we'll do everything in our power to take it into consideration.
Okay. Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin.
#1: You don't really have any room to zing Kathleen over any percieved incivility.
#2: Laying responsibility for the juvenile behavior of people who ought to know better at the door of Rove and the "Bush Gang" (why you capitalized this, I'll never know) is, frankly, insulting. At least, I know I'd be insulted.
#3: This is not about rights. This is about civility. One of the many reasons that I tend towards the left of the political spectrum is that one of their core values is the primacy of science and reason over zealous emotion and the chanting of doggerel. Is it really dignified or meaningful to chant one's most deeply held beliefs in bad poetry at the top of one's lungs? Ask yourself, all other things being equal, who looks like the bad guy; the one getting his car egged, or the ones doing the egging?
The screeching, the heckling and all the rest; this is EXACTLY what Karl Rove and his ilk hope that their opponents will do, because it makes them look extremely silly. Undecided people who don't know any better get driven away in droves because of anti-war "awareness" events that, to my mind, are simply a combination of primal scream therapy and kindegarten arts and crafts.
As Kathleen says, I hate the war. I think most people do. That's why I think it should be countered in the most effective possible ways.
The anti-war movement in this country has been repeating Sunday's tactics ad nauseum since the very beginning of this war, so let's recap their actual accomplishments: Nil. Did chanters and sign-wavers stop us from going in the first place? No. Did they prevent Bush from getting a second term? No. Even with a massive shift in public opinion, have they gotten the troops out yet? No. Nobody's saying your hearts aren't in the right place, but don't you think a change of strategy is in order?
I began writing about politics soon after the war began. I rapidly got very sick of neo-cons questioning my patriotism over my opposition to the war. Since the majority of the country woke up to the realities of the war circa 2006, I've gotten almost as sick of having the sincerity of my opposition questioned by the far left.
Makes me think I'm doing something right, at least.
What Jon said.
Also, Goodner, politicizing the Justice Department isn't unconstitutional, nor is it even illegal.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch, and the U.S. Attorneys that were fired serve at the pleasure of the President. I think it was entirely unethical, and highly offensive - but not illegal.
I'm going to say this, but your tactics - or rather, the tactics of the Anti-War crowd in general - establish you as the equivalent of Karl Rove. You know what persuadable people - those people in the middle - think of antiwar protesters? You know what people think when lectures are interrupted by random outbursts of "liar", "war criminal", or when people have to be removed from the audience because they're yelling a citizen's arrest warrant at the top of their lungs?
It's damaging to your cause. Actually, no, not damaging, but crippling.
And I still have no idea how Karl Rove classifies as a war criminal. Did he enact this administration's torture policy?
Are we having a discussion about Karl Rove, or the Bush Administration? Because to me, it seemed that everyone's - very much justifiable - pent-up anger at the Bush Administration was all thrown out at Karl Rove, who almost undoubtedly had NOTHING to do with any actual crimes committed by this administration.
I think Jon and Andrew touched on the real reason it's so bothersome to us. We really do respect that you've dedicated yourselves toward this cause, and that you've organized others. I think, in our hearts, we'd like to see a movement that inspires us and makes us say, "We want to be a part of that." I can only speak for myself, but I give people enough credit to listen to Rove and see him for what he really is. Being interrupted by people screaming at him changes the focus. I was so distracted by the shouts that I was thinking, "Just let him talk." So, I was too annoyed by the outbursts to be effectively annoyed by Rove's rhetoric.
I went to see Cindy Sheehan when she was here. I don't agree with her, but I didn't shout at her. I didn't applaud either. When everyone gave her an ovation, I sat quietly in my seat. But I listened to what she had to say, and made up my mind. I guess this is where I should just stop being frustrated and agree to disagree. I would've liked the same courtesy at the Rove lecture. But, I know... he's a war criminal, she's a brave woman... it's all subjective.
To clarify, David - the question about what you did before the war was well intended. You've put so much time and energy into protests and activisim that the thought occurred to me that I can't imagine what your life was like before the war. Did the war spark something in you and pull you out of a quiet existence, or have you always found something to fight for? There was no accusation, it was just to satisfy my own curiosity. I was pondering what you'd done before the war and where your time and energy would go if it ended tomorrow. None of my business, but also no ill will intended.
Jon, you write "The anti-war movement in this country has been repeating Sunday's tactics ad nauseum since the very beginning of this war, so let's recap their actual accomplishments: Nil. Did chanters and sign-wavers stop us from going in the first place? No. Did they prevent Bush from getting a second term? No. Even with a massive shift in public opinion, have they gotten the troops out yet? No. Nobody's saying your hearts aren't in the right place, but don't you think a change of strategy is in order?"
What change in strategy would you suggest? ALl the civil discourse and opinion writing in the world hasn't ended the war yet either. there's no proof that your method works either, because the antiwar movement debunked and refuted the bush gang's case for war before the war started, and we went anyway. now 5 years later civil discourse hasn't helped anymore than theatrical protesting.
we recruited ALOT of people from our protest, so keep that in mind when you claim that we drive people away. we also drew out a few hundred people, people who are not protest organizers, but who have the potential to become just that.
as for incivility, i've never engaged in namecalling, which both you and rove have repeatedly.
andrew - i layed out the case in my guest ed-op if you are going to claim rove is not a war criminal, rebut each point and documented fact. rove was much more than just a marketing guru.
that's funny you equate us with rove. have we dug through opponents trash, planted false stories in the media, knowlingly sent innocent people to prison, ruined anyones career for no good reason, or ran smear jobs and hit campaigns against anyone? that kind of comparison is ridiculous. its hyperbole.
on another note, check out iowa public radio on friday when myself, durham, greg baker, and benzoni discuss these issues and more. the whole framework will be the question "should there be limits on who colleges invite to speak".
ah the myth of the moderate, you guys act like you persuade people with your nuance, where is the evidence for that, exactly? and jon your writing style is ranting very similar to what you criticize us for.
Post a Comment