Excellent Article - "Hear, Hear"

[BlackShanglan]

I don't always agree with Ms. Noonan, but Lord, she's right as rain on this one. I loved her sly dig at Ahmadinejad, but above all I love her point.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
(This is the Friday, Sept. 28 article - the link looks like it just leads to what article is currently up, so I'm pasting below.)

Hear, Hear
Americans should not fear talking--and listening--to those whose views we loathe.

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

You don't want to judge Christ by Christians, someone once said. He is perfect, they are not.

In a similar way you don't want to judge capitalism by capitalists, or the legitimacy of democracy by the Democrats, or the vitality of our republic by the Republicans. You have to take the thing pure and in itself, while allowing for the flaws and waywardness of its practitioners.

I say this because here in America we have reached a funny pass. People are doing and saying odd things as if they don't know the meaning of the thing they say they stand for. In particular I mean we used to be proud of whom we allowed to speak, and now are leaning toward defining ourselves by whom we don't speak to and will not allow to speak. This is not progress.

Conservatives on campus are shouted down. A crusader against illegal immigration is rushed off the stage at Columbia University. Great newspapers give ad breaks to groups with which they feel an ideological affinity, but turn away ads from those they do not, such as antiabortion groups. And they call this a business.

So much silencing. It seems so weak, so out of keeping with who we are. We love the tradition of free speech in America, but you don't want to judge its health by what we've done with it lately, or to it.

In 1960 the premier of the Soviet Union came and spoke in the United States. Nikita Khrushchev was our sworn enemy, and a vulgarian--sweaty faced, ill educated, dressed in a suit just off the racks from the Gulag Kresge's. I was a child, but I remember the impression he made. He took off his shoe and banged it, literally, on the soft beige wood of a desk at the U.N., as he fulminated. His nation had nuclear weapons. They were aimed at us.

The new Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, was there too. He was young and bearded and dressed in camouflage; he too, soon, would have missiles pointed at us. He not only went to the U.N. and spoke to the world, he refused to stay at the Waldorf and sweetly chose instead a hotel in Harlem to show his solidarity with America's oppressed. The Americans there seemed to get the joke, and welcomed him with laughter. They knew he was playing them. But then they'd been played before.

Khrushchev's trip and Castro's were all about propaganda, all about sticking it to Uncle Sam. And here's what happened: Nothing. Their presence hurt our country exactly zero percent. In fact it raised us high, reminding the world we are the confident nation that lets its foes speak uncensored. As an adult nation would.

You know where I'm going. Is it necessary to say when one speaks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that you disapprove of him, disagree with him, believe him a wicked fellow and are not amused that he means to have missiles aimed at us and our friends? If it is, I am happy to say it. Who, really, isn't?
But this has been our history: to let all speak and to fear no one. That's a good history to continue. The Council on Foreign Relations was right to invite him to speak last year--that is the council's job, to hear, listen and parse--and Columbia University was well within its rights to let him speak this year. Though, in what is now apparently Columbia tradition, the stage was once again stormed, but this time verbally, and by a university president whose aggression seemed sharpened by fear.

There were two revealing moments in Ahmadinejad's appearance. The first is that in his litany of complaint against the United States he seemed not to remember the taking and abuse of American diplomatic hostages in 1979. An odd thing to forget since he is said to have been part of that operation. The second was the moment when he seemed to assert that his nation does not have homosexuals. This won derisive laughter, and might have been a learning moment for him; dictators don't face derisive from crowds back home.

It was like the moment in 1960 when Khrushchev's motorcade stalled on Third Avenue and a commuter walked by and gave him the finger. Actually I don't know there was such a moment, but knowing Americans I'm sure there was. Talking and listening to the wicked is the way we always operated in the long freak show that was 20th-century world leadership. And I'm sure before.

If Jefferson had dined only with those who'd been a force for good in the world, Jefferson would often have dined alone. If we insist only good and moral leaders talk to us, we'll wind up surrounded by silence. In fact, if we insist we talk only to those whose good deeds have matched their high aspirations, we won't always be on speaking terms with ourselves.

Domestically, the Democratic presidential candidates appear only before supportive groups. They don't speak to antitax groups and talk about their own assumptions regarding tax policy. They don't go to traditional values groups.

It's all very controlled. And it's unworthy of a great nation. When people say the campaign feels artificial, that's what they mean. It's not John Edwards's hairspray or Hillary Clinton's makeup. It's that they give every sign of being afraid to speak and listen to those who haven't been patted down by thought-cops for unacceptable views.

The Republicans are the same. An invitation to debate on Univision, the Spanish-language network? They have scheduling conflicts. What about the Log Cabin Republicans? No time right now.

How unserious.

If you, candidate A, have clear and serious reasons for desiring the wave of millions a year illegally over the border to stop, you should be able to talk to Hispanic groups and audiences about it. You go straight to them and appeal to their patriotism, fairness and common sense. Why? Because they're patriotic and fair and have common sense. It is a compliment to show you know this.

Will some of them boo? Yes, of course. So what? Too bad. That's the price you pay for being truthful at a tough time. And in America it's always a tough time.

The staffs, gurus and handlers of all the candidates are always afraid their guy will get booed. But do they realize how tired we are of hearing the tepid applause that follows the predictable pander?

I know they're all always eager to laud Ronald Reagan. But Reagan began his fall 1980 campaign in the South Bronx, and argued his case with people on the street. After he was elected, he pleaded for peace in letters to Leonid Brezhnev. Too bad he wasn't tough enough. Oh wait.

I think the problem is not coming from normal Americans but from our leadership class, our academics and political leaders. The new fearfulness has resulted in new foreign policy: "Let's not speak to Buffy." Great. How's that working for ya?

 

[neonlyte]

Yeh... good stuff. In the UK we are in possible election mode, could be in 4 - 6 weeks (different system from USA) and the political rhetoric is ratcheting up with each interview. It will come down to three things, tax immigration and everything else.

 

[3113]

Conservatives on campus are shouted down. A crusader against illegal immigration is rushed off the stage at Columbia University. Great newspapers give ad breaks to groups with which they feel an ideological affinity, but turn away ads from those they do not, such as antiabortion groups. And they call this a business.

I'm afraid this stopped me dead. If she's being "even handed" why are ALL the examples she offers ones where "Liberals" are being bias toward conservatives? Why not examples of Fox New bias? Why were those who opposed the Iraq war in the early years drowned out, called unpatriotic? Why not discuss how antiabortionists try to shout down the pro-choice folk?

Domestically, the Democratic presidential candidates appear only before supportive groups. They don't speak to antitax groups and talk about their own assumptions regarding tax policy. They don't go to traditional values groups.

And President Bush allowed no one who disagreed with him to be at his question and answer sessions during his campaign. Only worshipers were allowed. Do you see what's happening here? I do agree with what she's saying on the whole; how can I not? I'm a free speech LIBERAL...but her argument is suspicious given that the vast majority of a her examples are bias, and only a token few take a jab at her own party. It looks to me as if you've been well and properly bamboozled, here.

See, she's using the argument to present her side as open-minded and the "good guys," (i.e., "We're NOT to blame for the U.S. seeming to be against free speech! Oh, no! It's those liberals who shout down conservatives!") rather than really arguing what she SEEMS to be arguing (i.e. that we should listen to those we don't agree with and hear them out). If she REALLY means to say that both sides have been restricting free speech and avoiding listening to sides they don't agree with, and both sides need to stop that, then for every example of "liberals" doing this, she should have presented an equal and just as brutal example of conservatives doing this. She didn't. She had one small sentence near the end--a "token" gesture to make her seem even handed even though she hadn't been...and what did she target as the Republicans to rebuke? The Log-Cabin guys! The Gays! The one tiny fraction which, ironically, she could take to task and not fear offending conservatives

This is the worst sort of argumentation, one that uses truths to appear to be entirely true (and get "Bravos!" from honest folk like you), and offers "token" gestures as if they were real, all in order to condemn a certain side and make her own side look like the good guys: Conservatives are being booed and not listened to, and only Clinton and Edwards are "thought police" folk, not Bush. Ergo, conservatives listen to the enemy, but liberals do not. Shouldn't we all listen? Shouldn't we just...give peace a chance?

Not buying, Shang. This woman hasn't changed her spots. She's just using something you're likely to cheer in order to make herself and her side look like the "good guys" and the other side look like the bad guys. Those damn liberals and democrats who have been non-free-speech and have made America look bad. Damn them (and, to be fair, damn those gay Republicans!). When will they ever learn?

 

[rgraham666]

I'm with 3 on this one, Shang. There was a very distinct odour of blame about the whole piece.

She also overlooks that the nasty flavour of American politics was first introduced over thirty years ago by what was then characterized as "The New Right".

Anyway, who says I have to listen to people I disagree with. My ignore list here is fairly large. But since a semiotic analysis of their posts breaks them down to "Death to all who don't agree with me!" I'll see no reason why I should listen to them. They have nothing useful to offer me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RGRAHAM

Youre so full of shit.

In the 19th Century your politics and your religion often got you hurt or killed in America. The danger was often at par with what happens in the Middle East today. Old newspapers and memoirs are full of the strife that existed then.

I'm a real conservative. Noonan isnt conservative. She's American Vanilla. Right square in the middle. Bush isnt conservative, either. He's American Perfumed Prince. Like Kerry. Like Kennedy. Like most of them. I mean, what do any of them know about how you live?

 

[Equinoxe]

... She had one small sentence near the end--a "token" gesture to make her seem even handed even though she hadn't been...and what did she target as the Republicans to rebuke? The Log-Cabin guys! The Gays! The one tiny fraction which, ironically, she could take to task and not fear offending conservatives

While I agree that there does seem to be a slant, on this you're misreading what she wrote. She's not rebuking the Log Cabin Republicans, she's saying that the Republican Party in general refuses to talk to the Log Cabin Republicans because they aren't the base.

She's also not, I would add, saying that Clinton and Edwards are "thought police" folk, although she did throw some unnecessary cheap shots in their direction. What she said is that the campaign seems artificial because no one is talking to anyone who disagrees with them and the candidates are afraid of being shouted down by the thought police.

 

[Recidiva]

It's interesting to see how many sets of manners come into play and then are abused in their absence or execution.

Ahmadinejad is a guest in my country. My sense of personal hospitality is offended.

However, he's a political guest who is here essentially on a PR tour. Well...

He's really an asshole. True.

With all the layers of helplessness of those expressing themselves, him being allowed to have good manners and stick to his talking points...

I suppose I see more in what people do and don't do. The different standards of proper behavior applied that result in personal insult and expression of political indifference to abuses while trying to push only the positive. It's all very polite.

I'm not all for constant smiling and polite discourse while people are dying and you KNOW that guy right there...is the cause.

I feel the same way about my own president.

My experience on Lit has shown me the genuine value to listening to shouting and abuse and anger and fear and pain. Very unpleasant. It still however, has very many true things to say.

 

[impressive]

It's that they give every sign of being afraid to speak and listen to those who haven't been patted down by thought-cops for unacceptable views.

Slant in the examples, perhaps. The message itself, though, is truth.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm afraid this stopped me dead. If she's being "even handed" why are ALL the examples she offers ones where "Liberals" are being bias toward conservatives? Why not examples of Fox New bias? Why were those who opposed the Iraq war in the early years drowned out, called unpatriotic? Why not discuss how antiabortionists try to shout down the pro-choice folk?

Yes, I felt the same way on those lines, but she at least attempts to be even-handed over all. As Equinoxe pointed out, her point on the Log Cabin Republicans is that it's wrong for the Republicans to ignore them.

 

[gauchecritic]

There seems to be something of the messenger rather than the message, form over content if you see what I mean.

It's like the excuse of wife-beaters - "It's not me, it's because I'm a man."

The whole thing (I didn't do the link) reeks of being more sinned against or even "I didn't do it".

The press have always been a source of 'public opinion' and pride themselves on representing such but when it comes down to it they will deny with vigour any claims of leading or even rousing public opinion and stand staunchly behind the badge of reportage.

This article seeks absolution of itself.

 

[Pure]

the point of the article is good. i agree with imp that the examples are pretty biased.

consider:

Domestically, the Democratic presidential candidates appear only before supportive groups. They don't speak to antitax groups and talk about their own assumptions regarding tax policy. They don't go to traditional values groups.

It's all very controlled. And it's unworthy of a great nation. When people say the campaign feels artificial, that's what they mean. It's not John Edwards's hairspray or Hillary Clinton's makeup. It's that they give every sign of being afraid to speak and listen to those who haven't been patted down by thought-cops for unacceptable views.

The Republicans are the same. An invitation to debate on Univision, the Spanish-language network? They have scheduling conflicts. What about the Log Cabin Republicans? No time right now.

Democrats receive the bulk of the criticism, and indeed get gibes about hairspray and make up.

She leaves out the most blatant example of not talking with those who differ, namely Bush, who doesn't even want to 'see' a protester at a speech of his.

--
That said, it's arguable that she's using a good strategy; the right are very thin skinned and ready to turn on anyone who breaks ranks. Hence she has to *seem* to mainly be talking about lefty hypocrisy and gently slip in a few criticisms of Republicans in a much milder way... so they don't freak. Maybe some Republican readers will open their minds just a little.

Catholic Republicans have a tough time these days, e.g. my esteemed columnist George Wills.

 

[angelicminx]

Hmm, interesting. I didn't get the same 'flavor', so to speak, about the piece as some did. I don't get into politics much, don't know much about any 'wing'. What I got from the piece is, "Hey, y'all, we're all fucking this up and we need to stop it." To which I agree.

I'd love to see politicians, of every party, talk to and LISTEN to the 'little people'. ALL of the 'little people', not just the ones who support their particular party. Seems to me, and I may be wrong, that someone who holds office is supposed to represent the country as a whole, not just individual groups of people who agree with everything they say. While I know it's impossible to please everyone, allowing everyone to have a voice, and actually listening to that voice, may offer an equitable solution. No?

 

[rgraham666]

Hi minx. So nice to see you here again.

 

[cantdog]

Well, okay, so it's not

Well, okay. So it really isn't an excellent article. But its point is a very good one. I make it when I ask people why they don't support ACLU, and they complain that they defended the Nazi party's right to be heard.

 

[trysail]

The Republicans are the same.

It amazes me that some people 'round heah have the most astonishing ability to see whatever it is that they want to see and process English in a manner that fits their particular weltanschauung.

Q: "How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
A: "Four. Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it so."

(I don't know who the author of this anecdote was; it was attributed to Lincoln by Warren Buffett in one of his Annual Letters To Shareholders). I am inclined to trust "Uncle" Warren, but he is not (by his own admission) infallible.