The state of reasonable political discourse in this country appears to be a hot topic these days. Anonymous Liberal draws a few eerie parallels between the tact of our current executive play-callers, and CBS's Kid Nation:
Digressing, Anonymous Liberal's post touches upon the sensitive subject of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intended visit to the World Trade Center site. Choosing to take the high ground in the debate, they (he? she? who knows?) point out that such recognition of our loss represents — at the very least — the recognitition of our tragedy by the leader of a purportedly unfriendly nation. And AL refuses to lose sight of the condition that separates our war on terror from a war without end: "Remember, the primary goal in the war on terror is to reduce the appeal of al Qaeda's ideology among the world's Muslim population."
AL reserves words toward the end of the piece for the hatred that those across the aisle have targeted toward Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. Bollinger, of course, had the gall to invite Ahmadinejad to a hostile forum, so he can be made to answer questions about his political rhetoric. Iran's governement does not afford such rights to its own people, and I've become increasingly inquisitive as to why many in our midst insist that we follow their example.
In closing, Bollinger had these eloquent words for his critics:
Tonight I saw an ad for CBS's new reality show Kid Nation--"40 children, 40 days, no adults — eager to prove they can build a better world for tomorrow. . ."--and it occurred to me that we've pretty much been living that show for the last seven years.Michael Kinsley of Time Magazine, and Paul Krugman both chime in with their own reflections on specific facets of this phenomenon. Kinsley addresses the latest MoveOn ad controversy (always sure to get the right-wingers upset), and points out Rudy Giuliani's disingenuous (at best) efforts to peg the controversy on Hillary Clinton, who he makes out to be responsible for the ad. Krugman addresses the media's lack of interest in the substance of policy initiatives, and their propensity for focusing strictly upon matters of politics.
Our government, and particularly our foreign policy, have been run by a bunch of children. Every issue, no matter how complex, has been reduced to a simple Good vs. Evil narrative. Naive utopian fantasies, instead of sober analysis and planning, have guided our actions. Domestic politics has come to be dominated by playground style name-calling. Perceived enemies at home and abroad have been reduced to cartoonish caricatures. And much of our discourse has consisted of a mindless pack-style swarming behavior in which everyone gangs up on whoever or whatever happens to have rubbed the cool kids the wrong way that particular day.
Digressing, Anonymous Liberal's post touches upon the sensitive subject of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intended visit to the World Trade Center site. Choosing to take the high ground in the debate, they (he? she? who knows?) point out that such recognition of our loss represents — at the very least — the recognitition of our tragedy by the leader of a purportedly unfriendly nation. And AL refuses to lose sight of the condition that separates our war on terror from a war without end: "Remember, the primary goal in the war on terror is to reduce the appeal of al Qaeda's ideology among the world's Muslim population."
AL reserves words toward the end of the piece for the hatred that those across the aisle have targeted toward Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. Bollinger, of course, had the gall to invite Ahmadinejad to a hostile forum, so he can be made to answer questions about his political rhetoric. Iran's governement does not afford such rights to its own people, and I've become increasingly inquisitive as to why many in our midst insist that we follow their example.
In closing, Bollinger had these eloquent words for his critics:
I would also like to invoke a major theme in the development of freedom of speech as a central value in our society. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.
That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here. To commit oneself to a life — and a civil society — prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world. This is America at its best.
