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 ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and political science.
