Thank God for "intellectuals" like the 37 signers of last week's letter to the editor concerning the Bush administration's post-9/11 policies and political direction ("Continue dissent and questioning"). What a dull place this country would be without their periodic whining about American foreign policy.
Thank God also for the wiser and more mature minds that guide the American response to what can be described accurately only as the unequivocal evil of terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction by despots like Saddam Hussein. One of the great features of our country is that intellectuals can whine without restriction, sniffling, "You don't act on our behalf or for our welfare," while the government protects not only their right to do so but also their very existence.
Without the episodic squeaks of these wonderful intellectuals perched high in their ivory towers, this country would be a lot more like those nations whose policies and actions they believe we ought not to resist with vigor.
Tim Belevetz '89
A disservice to public debate
The current debate about U.S. military action in Iraq is one of tremendous importance and one that warrants debate with the lives of so many Americans potentially at risk. Inherent in this debate is the dissent of many Americans who disagree with the actions being taken by those in power. The "dissent and questioning" referred to in the letter last week by members of the faculty ("Continue dissent and questioning") is a fundamental American right. However, if this dissent is to enter the national debate and ultimately affect national policy, it should be based on reliable and factual information. The letter, instead of lodging an effective critique of government policy, simply used distortions and half-truths to support a political agenda.
For instance, it states, "The Bush administration now prepares to wage all-out war against Iraq."
The Bush administration has taken no action so far except put pressure on Saddam to let weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Bush has waited for Congressional approval before taking any action against Iraq. The majority of the members of Congress agree with President Bush in supporting action against Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. Congress is using its check on the presidency by debating the authorization of war. Just because you don't agree with the decisions of Congress doesn't mean they aren't fulfilling their congressional duty.
Additionally, the signers claimed, "The Bush administration has arrogated to itself ... the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime."
Bush has been working with U.N. inspectors to create a resolution that would promise tough action if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions. Chief Inspector Blix has agreed with Bush that "constant pressure" on Saddam is needed to ensure compliance, as he hadn't let inspectors in until Bush began threatening action. Rather than trying to rain down military force at his whim, Bush has been trying to build international support, including the support of Great Britain, before any action is taken in Iraq.
Another assertion struck me as flawed: "The government has brought down a pall of repression over civil society."
The Bush administration has taken no repressive measures against dissenters. Any talk of a repressive Bush regime is simply baseless. Bush has responded to dissenters, by stating on CNN his belief that, "It's a healthy debate for people to express their opinion." Comparisons made at the rally on Valentine Quad last week of the Bush administration to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia not only show the ignorance of those who make such comparisons, but disgrace the memory of the millions of real victims of repression under those oppressive regimes. And as to claims that terrorism is simply an excuse for a trigger-happy Bush to bomb his enemies at will, I would like anyone who believes this nonsense to tell the families of the victims of 9/11 and hundreds of Israeli victims of terrorism in the last two years that terrorism isn't real. Make no mistake about it, terrorism is real and the government will and should do everything in its power to root it out wherever it exists.
A dictator such as Saddam Hussein, with links to terrorist organizations, left to his own devices poses a significant threat to all Americans, regardless of their political orientation. Men like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11 don't pick out conservatives when they decide to murder and terrorize a civilian population. All Americans are equally at risk to a terrorist attack. And to those of us who use history and facts to inform our political views, a policy of appeasement and isolationism has never deterred violence and will not deter the aims of terrorists around the world who will stop at nothing until America is destroyed.
In 1938, the nations of Europe took Hitler's word that the Sudetenland was the last piece of land he would invade, only to have him plunge Europe into war one year later. Acknowledging the folly of placating a dictator to avoid war, Winston Churchill commented that, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Let us hope that with a policy informed by facts and reason, we can decide on an appropriate course of action in Iraq, before we receive a blow we can't recover from.
Daniel Gross '05
Argument flawed, partisan
I was amused to read Dan Geldon's column, "AAS must remain nonpartisan," in last week's issue of The Student. Geldon's piece was the verbatim text of his opening statement from our WAMH debate the week before. By all accounts, I burned Geldon terribly-for his argument is unabashedly partisan and terminally silly-but always the idealist, he seems to believe that "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
Before readdressing Geldon's argument directly, I should first make clear my overall disdain for the principle behind diversity seats. Last April, I objected to the provisions regarding diversity senators and urged students to reject the AAS Constitution. People deserve to be treated as individuals, not as members of different sexual, racial, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, political and religious groups. And the AAS should not have the authority to decide which favored groups deserve positions of prominence. However, in their wisdom, a majority of students who voted on the draft disagreed with my position, and Article V was approved. But unlike neo-hippy protesters of the variety that have been spotted in Seattle, Wash. and in front of our own Campus Center, I am resolved to work from the inside out to change odious systems. Accordingly, I successfully petitioned for recognition of a conservative diversity senate seat, which will be used as a base to push for the repeal of Article V.
Alternatively, Geldon's argument is not one of principle, but one of pettiness. His concern is not that some groups will be treated differently than others under the AAS Constitution, but that groups for which he doesn't particularly care will be treated better than he thinks they may deserve.
Most of Geldon's argument is utter nonsense. Amherst is not, as he claims, the "college of Calvin Coolidge" any more than Stanford is the college of Herbert Hoover. Amherst is certainly not the bastion of conservatism that Geldon described in his column. And it truly matters not what Amherst was. Perhaps it ought to be, but this is not Coolidge's Amherst.
Geldon again ignored reality by claiming that conservatives are not silenced because "conservative faculty members [are] spread across a wide range of disciplines" and "they have received thousands of dollars in alumni funding for their 'Committee on the American Founding.'" The very purpose behind the Committee on the Founding is to preserve the teachings that have been most threatened by liberal dominance and domineering in academia. The Committee's necessary existence demonstrates the obverse of his point.
Attempting to sugarcoat the many offenses perpetrated against conservative students, Geldon suggested that Republicans call the cops whenever a flyer is ripped from a wall. Hardly. Indeed, that's about as true as Al Gore's claim to have invented the internet. Conservative students have been the subject of harassing phone calls, assaults, vandalisms and thefts for no other apparent reason than their political orientation. It wasn't all that long ago that the editor of The Spectator found a pile of burning magazines in front of his dorm room. These experiences are not shared across the political spectrum.
As for threats directed at leftists, Geldon has called upon his operatives to dig through Republican club emails. He criticizes me for encouraging campus Republicans to defend their country and speak their mind in the face of violent anti-Americanism. I stand by what I said. Indeed, conservative students at this college are too often pressured by their closed-minded liberal peers to back down from their positions. The marketplace of ideas cannot exist without a variety of perspectives. Geldon seeks to silence the voices that ought to be encouraged.
Geldon has implicated the AAS executive board in plotting with Lynne Cheney, Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh to "rail on 'repressive liberal elites.'" But there really isn't a vast right wing conspiracy going on here. The AAS has done nothing more than recognize that Amherst is a liberal liberal arts college; and, as I said in my proposal, the College prides itself on being so. Geldon is among the few who pretend otherwise in order to exert even greater control over the political climate of the campus.
Indeed, the liberals seem so threatened by the conservatives' apparent success that they are going to extreme lengths to fight the e-branch's ruling. In a sorry display of partisanship, Amherst College Democrats co-president Ben Baum '03 has used his position in the senate to argue that the student senate must confirm diversity seats, thereby enabling the legislative branch to block a conservative appointment. If the purpose of diversity seats is to include the excluded, the question of who should serve ought not to be left up to a presumably exclusionary senate. Baum has twisted the the constitution in an attempt to maintain the liberal status quo.
Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science Austin Sarat has even written an amicus brief on Baum's behalf. The involvement of a faculty member in this matter, together with his probing emails to AAS President David Bugge '04E after the e-branch's decision was announced, is an invidious intrusion into a student issue and threatens the very principles of student self-governance.
I am thankful for the opportunity to again make my case for a conservative diversity seat, but then again, I said most of this a week and a half ago when Dan first whined about the AAS' brave decision. The liberal stranglehold on Amherst is getting weaker and, although it might betray his idealism and political zealotry, Geldon would be wise to take a lesson from W.C. Fields: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again. Then give up. There's no use being a damned fool about it."
Theodore Hertzberg '04
Chairman, Amherst College Republicans