In crafting our nation's Constitution, James Madison wrote, "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." While a number of our Founding Fathers were hesitant to fully embrace language upholding the right of freedom of the press and speech in our country's revered Bill of Rights, Madison was adamant in its inclusion.
Hoping to instill in our nation the idea that robust, lively and engaged political debate was our God-given right, Madison insisted on the installation of the First Amendment in the Constitution. Though it faced continued adversity in the country's formative years (See Sedition Act), it has managed to thwart its most cynical opponents and become an enduring testament of our nation's success. Yet, after a series of national and local events, its legacy now faces tarnish by those too often willing to sabotage informative and intelligent discussion forums. Hijacked by pie-catapulters, political hacks and ad-hominem radicals, our freedom to engage in debate that illuminates ideas rather than defecates on them is in danger.
Oct. 22, 2004, conservative pundit Ann Coulter was involved in a Q & A session at the University of Arizona, when two college students ran on stage and threw pies directly at her. Though they were unsuccessful in hitting the emaciated Coulter, their endeavor spurred a chain-reaction throughout college campuses. March 29, 2005, neoconservative author William Kristol enjoyed a pie in the face at Earlham College. Two days later, conservative pundit Pat Buchanan was literally doused with salad dressing at Western Michigan University. One week later, liberal radical turned conservative, David Horowitz, faced another pie onslaught at Butler University.
While I am pressed to find something that I can agree on with the aforementioned figures, I am also pressed to comprehend how a pie or salad dressing presents an enlightened point or counter-point. What happened to articulating a principled viewpoint and standing your ground, rather than clumsily tossing a pie for a few fleeting laughs? I wonder if the Thousand Island salad dressing will be able to change minds, rather than a passionate plea for change.
Last semester, I wrote an editorial in these pages highlighting a prominent Democratic strategist's decision to embark on ad-hominem attacks in a political science class. Hoping to hear his thoughts on the presidential nomination system and its evolution since our nation's inception, the class was riddled with a number of choice remarks regarding our current president's competence. So much for discussion of a national primary system, huh?
Though angered by the speaker's lack of sensitivity and perception, a number of my friends tried to explain that this display of hackery was just a sign of the political times. In a rabidly polarized time in our nation's history, some otherwise decent and intelligent people resorted to immature tactics. I railed against the mindset, believing that behavior like this led to a lemming effect where other intelligent individuals would be less inclined to argue their principles intelligently and resort to baseless, personal attacks. But maybe I'm wrong.
Last week, the College Republicans hosted a panel of Iraqi War Veterans to discuss the upcoming anti-war referendum in Madison. While it expressed an oppositionist stance towards the referendum, I don't think it's a reach to say that most in the audience knew this prior to their arrival. What they didn't expect was members of Stop the War! abrasively interrupting and calling them "cowards." While I, for one, love to listen to a debate between those who do and do not support the referendum, this occasion did not call for that. And though this organization may have indeed declined an invitation for debate, perhaps their reasoning goes beyond a simple refusal. Perhaps they realized whom they would be engaging and the tactics traditionally employed by the group's leaders. If so, I can hardly disagree with their decision.
Perhaps resembling a national trend, during my four years in Madison, I have seen purported civil discourse and discussion maligned by those eager to rabidly attack, condemn or vilify their political opponents. Using less than desirable tactics, they manage to alienate and ostracize those who are willing to engage in mature discussion and debate, effectively turning away those needed most in leading our country in the future.
Josh Moskowitz ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
