OPINION & EDITORIAL
Political discourse lacking respect
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Hahn:
- Recent polls reveal... absolutely nothing (December 4, 2007)
- 'Right to bear arms' stands up to scrutiny (November 27, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- The pitfalls of holistic admissions (November 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Editorial: .... Or the free exercise thereof (February 21, 2006)
- Welcome back, Mr. Horowitz (October 22, 2007)
- Shameful behavior should not be accepted (April 20, 2004)
- Another token (November 3, 2003)
- Baker-Hamilton report offers ideas, but only Bush can act (December 12, 2006)
by Mike Hahn
Thursday, March 1, 2007
It has been called the marketplace of ideas. Our own university calls it "sifting and winnowing," but whatever term you prefer, political discourse on the war in Iraq in the United States — and indeed here on campus — has turned ugly.
I witnessed this firsthand in the reaction to my column last week on the Iraq war. Rather than debating the strength or weakness of my argument, many chose to lash out with personal attacks, most of which cannot be printed. One person questioned whether I was the anti-Christ and another questioned, among other things, how many Iraqi girls I had raped or how many children I had killed.
Sadly, this type of response is not an isolated incident. At the most recent anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C., there were reports of some antiwar activists spitting at a wounded Iraq veteran who was speaking out in favor of the war. ROTC buildings and recruiting stations across the country — and even here in Madison — have been vandalized by protestors advocating an end to the war. The very same individuals who profess a desire for peace and understanding nevertheless resort to reprehensible and divisive tactics to make their "voices" heard.
Just a few days ago, Vice President Dick Cheney was the target of a suicide attack while visiting Afghanistan. The response on many liberal blogs was shocking. Many of those who left comments voiced their disappointment that the attack failed — openly wishing that the vice president of the United States had been killed. Others were glad that he survived because they believe Mr. Cheney deserved a fate much, much worse.
What I cannot understand is what would cause this kind of hateful rhetoric. It seems as though there is one extreme side of the political spectrum in America that is so blinded by hate that they are willing to say or believe anything that may discredit their enemies. For some unknown reason, there is a segment of the political left that hates President Bush and Vice President Cheney so much that they are willing to take out that hatred on anyone who appears to represent their policies.
Now, I realize there are intolerant and offensive voices on the conservative side as well, and I certainly do not wish to indict everyone who is opposed to this war, but I honestly cannot remember a time when hateful rhetoric has reached such a level as that which currently exists on the far left.
If we are to have an open and honest debate about the war in Iraq, we absolutely must move beyond simplistic — and oftentimes ignorant — slogans. It is apparent from the reaction to last week's column that many on this campus have strong feelings and ideas about the war, but this is no way to have that debate. We, as educated young men and women, have a responsibility to debate the issues of war in a respectful and honest manner.
Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe those on the left don't want an open debate and would prefer to sit back and simply yell in opposition to this nation's policies. It certainly is easier to wave a sign or post anonymously on a website than to look your opponent in the eye and challenge him in a direct and candid manner.
We all claim to hold the Wisconsin ideal of thoughtful debate in high regard. I think it is high time that we start putting it into practice once again. During Vietnam, our university was one of the first to hold a "teach in" on the war. In 2003, there was a rather well-attended debate on whether we should even begin the war in Iraq. With the stakes as high as they are, isn't it about time we came together to discuss the situation respectfully, as a campus and a community again?
Mike Hahn (mhahn@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and political science.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 7:34am):
You're right, we should listen to the "uniter," George W, and come together to fight terra'rists.
We should also go to random wars, waste billions of dollars, and cause the death of thousands.
Mike Hahn, you act like Republicans never slandered Bill Clinton or Democrats in a similar fashion. Paybacks are a bitch!
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 9:25am):
Maybe you would not have received the negative comments if you hadn't called the Democrats that are against the war cowards and unpatriotic.
As far as the attack on Dick Cheney, many people believe that he has caused the death of many innocent civilians and the facts show that he has. He may not have pulled the trigger (except when he shot his friend in the face, that sounds pornographic) he was the one that directed a lot of the misinformation leading us into the war.
Side note: We give our politicians way too much respect for just holding office. All politicians need to be taking to the wood shed on what they do, whether they are a Democrat or Republican. Some how it's out of line for a reporter to as Dick Cheney about comments that a religious group that he supports has made about his lesbian daughter.
That's no more out of line then if a candidate is asked about racist comments that a group that has given their campaign donations has made.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 10:53am):
They're not really anti-war, they're just on the other side.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 11:05am):
Identifying those who don't support American victory in time of war as "cowards" and "unpatriotic" is merely observation.
It is more often grounded in Christian pity for those wretched souls who prefer wallowing in self-loathing to steadfastly supporting their brothers and sisters at arms.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 11:12am):
Personally, I thought last week's comments were hi-larious!
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 11:20am):
Those last two comments are ridiculous. First off, think about it...who is the person throwing scathing remarks around? George Bush has been doing his job the best he can. He's had less Al-Queda attacks on U.S. soil than Clinton did anyways... Plus you give yourself away when you say "payback is a bitch," way to be a UNITER!
Agreed, going to war against Saddam, despite the 14 year run-up that cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, in which the U.N. was affording him the luxury of slaughtereing his own people, he funded Hezbollah terrorists ($25,000 per martyrdom) while he seemingly build WMD was totally "random." Well put. It was roughly the same as going to war against Switzerland.
Waste billions of dollars? Tell that to the Iraqis who's country, for the most part, is in better shape today...and if you REALLY want to stop the waste of money, talk to Congress. Remember, our federal budget is measured in the TRILLIONS.
So, Dick Cheney led the information campaing...? You're saying that Dick Cheney was in charge of Britain's, Germany's, France's, Canada's, etc. intelligence agencies throughout the 90's when most of the intelligence was gathered? True, we should never underestimate the ALL POWERFUL DICK CHENEY! He knows when you are sleeping...
Also, I'm sick of liberals and democrats saying that everyone is calling them "unpatriotic." Name the people who have actually said that. Also, being patriotic is not an all-inclusive term. Is a terrorist who attacks this country patriotic? How about those who undermine our armed forces? Patriotism is a love of your country above others, and lots of people on the left seem to think just about every other country is better than ours (Ex: Iran's leader certainly gets more positive press than OURS!). Defeatism and embracing the embarassment of our country does not strike me as patriotic...but then again I generally go by the definition of words. Silly me.
Finally, Dick Cheney has a daughter, that daughter is a lesbian...so what? He loves her and he's addressed that COUNTLESS times, and the only reason that people return to it is to rub dirt in his face.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 12:48pm):
9:25, he never called Democrats against the war cowards and unpatriotic, he said the Dems in congress (the opposite of progress by the way) were cowards (nothing about patritotism), not because they did not want to fight, but because they would not take a vote on something substantial. If they had any real conviction, they would vote for something more than non-binding. They are cowardly because they will not take action to support what they claim is their opinion.
I have no problem with people speaking out against the war, that is the right defended on daily basis, since 1776, by the men and women of the armed forces. I find it despicable that anyone treat them like they have been treated by so many here at home (who should be thanking them, not spitting at them).
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 12:57pm):
Hello Mike, I tried to email you this but it got returned.
Good column today, with a sentiment that I generally agree with. However, I'd like to point out something in your column that weakens your basic argument. Your description of the reaction you received would have been far more damning of the ill-informed on the "left" if you hadn't then made the casual, offhand statement that "Now I realize there are intolerant and offensive voices on the conservative side as well...I honestly cannot remember a time when hateful rhetoric has reached such a level as that which currently exists on the far left."
I think it's fair to say that today, on the issue of Iraq, many people of all political persuasions do not think critically, engage in informed and respectful political discourse, and generally act and speak from a crib-sheet. Some, particularly those with a platform in the media, go further and make inflammatory and at times downright outrageous comments about the "other" side of the spectrum. I think one way to begin improving the quality of political discourse is to acknowledge that these types are in every party in more or less equal doses, and that we need to intelligently discuss issues without crib-sheets to actually make progress. Left or right.
This sentiment, which is unfortunately all too common, gives the reader the impression that there are more 'haters' on one side of the political spectrum than the other. I don't think that you really mean to say that, since the evidence is to the contrary.
Further, the assertion that this level of hate exceeds any other time in US history, which I think is your implication, is downright innacurate. The civil rights era in the South, Rodney King LA, the Civil War, the yellow peril in the 1880s West, need I go on? In any case, as someone with little patience for the lemming like nature of our political life, I appreciated your column today.
Thanks,
Matt
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 1:08pm):
Wow, 11:20, you're an idiot. You actually beleive what you wrote? Time to peel the W stickers off your eyes. Iraq is better off today... right. Bush is doing the best job he can do... right, like taking MONTHS of vacation before and after 9/11 AND finding Osama bin Laden. I never said I was going to be a uniter, but Bush did: just another lie.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 2:29pm):
I read last week's comment's on Mr. Hahn's article on this website. It was quite revolting what some of the people responding to him were saying and implying.
That said, Mr. Hahn, what did you expect was going to happen? You wrote a reactionary piece, one that was calling names and throwing around personal insult. Granted they were nowhere near as personal and insulting in nature as the ones you received.
However, throwing around blanket statements such as "The Democrats in Congress are cowards" removes the conversation from a debate purely on issues and moves it into the realm of the personal.
I regret that there is such vitriolic and largely uninformed hate coming from radicals on the left. However, when you frame the debate in terms of personal terms like 'coward', you would have to be very naiive to expect that a piece written primarily as a bash against Democrats would be met by anything other than anonymous hate.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 3:14pm):
The Democrats in CONGRESS are cowards! Those who voted for them on the premise they were going to get us out of the war should be screaming the loudest!! They, for the most part, won because of their claimed opposition to the war. Fine, if they had more on their mind than their political well being, they would have already put forth a vote that would force the President to reconsider the effort. A non-binding resolution is the coward's way out. Stand up, vote to de-fund the effort (as much as it would hurt the security of the country). If I were a Democrat (thankfully, I am not), I would be screaming at my representation in Washington to put up or get out of office (much as I have been telling my representation in Washington).
I want to see a vote, I want to see who the weasels are, and those who stand by their convictions. I have much more respect for someone who votes their conscience (no matter how wrong they are) than one who votes to get votes. Go Herb Kohl and Go Joe Lieberman!! (my favorite Dem and former Dem).
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 3:58pm):
Hahn has yet to re-enlist. Way to go, hero.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 4:28pm):
Thats right bush doesn't know what he is doing anymore because people don't know whether or not they should stay with him or start to impeech his ass and we all know that he is running scared for his life gagag
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 6:33pm):
Mike Hahn wrote today:
"If we are to have an open and honest debate about the war in Iraq, we absolutely must move beyond simplistic -- and oftentimes ignorant -- slogans."
Slogans Mike Hahn used in his February 22nd article:
"a free and stable Iraq."
"the new way forward."
and my personal favorite, the one EVERY SINGLE pro-war person recites like a mantra:
"our terrorist enemies would only be emboldened to strike."
Embolden. I don't think anyone but terrorists can be emboldened. I've never heard it in any other context.
I'm amazed at how Bush's words so often appear in the mouths of Republicans. The sycophantic nature is extremely troubling.
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 7:04pm):
6:33, I hope you have a better arguement than that, it is pretty weak (vitually non-existant). I say the Earth is round, as do all Republicans, does that mean the statement is wrong?
The true sign one has lost the war is when all they can counter is, "oh yeah, you sound just like the side I disagree with so you must be wrong."
Anonymous (March 1, 2007 @ 11:37pm):
Mike, you're not exactly tolerant of other people's politically views yourself! Why should we care if you were called names and accused of raping Iraqi girls? The things you've said in the recent past weren't any nicer. If you think the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the possible war with Iran are so necessary, then you are free to go and fight. Just don't expect any tears or sympathy when you get back.
BTW, the biggest insult you'll get when you get back is the one where the US Government turns its back on you. Hey, you trusted the government, just like all those wounded homeless veterans. And don't resort to calling the anti-war crowd cowards and traitors. We have names we can call you and it won't bother us a bit.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 2:35am):
As a long time observer of the UW-Madison scene (years) I must take exception to one point in the article. It has been DECADES since there was anything remotely approaching respectful political discourse at UW-Madison. The vitriol spewed by the anti-bush crowd is nothing new. A better motto would be "UW-Madison, if the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of"
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
