Centerfield

Hmmm... College Kids acting immature? Wow. Who would've thought. I expect more from a culture of binge drinking, cheating on final exams, and 1 in 3 date rape stats.

It's a common tactic for people to find the most discredible representatives of an ideology and try to use them as the poster child for why that ideology lacks merit.

That's what you're doing when you call college kids "The Most Reasonable Progressives."

Posted by: Ryan Somma at May 20, 2006 07:47 AM

And yet, Ryan, I didn't hear of the students at Liberty U. (great name!) acting so rudely, did you?

I didn't even hear of them protesting, however mildly, when they learned McCain would be addressing the New School (great name!).

Can it be that there are some Reasonable Progressives in the Class of '06?

Posted by: Literally Retarded at May 20, 2006 08:02 AM

I've gotta say that, for dissent, it was apparently fairly polite. Unlike some protsters, the New School protesters did not try to shout down McCain, throw things at him, etc. It was civilized dissent.

"Our commencement is not your platform."

Well, it was used as a platform by one of their own. And apparently "1,200 students and faculty" on campus don't want to hear things with which they disagree, because they "were not in keeping with the prevailing views on campus." For the students who signed I say, "Welcome to the real world. Get used to it. You should have had your prevailing views challenged for the last four years." The faculty should know better, and have IMHO quite obviously failed their charges.

Posted by: Tully at May 20, 2006 10:17 AM

I chuckled at the article. And I assumed the appearence "worked for McCain". If getting the nomination means appealing to the base, then this certainly helped: "Look at him defending conservative ideals in front of those ingrateful, spoiled liberal students".

And I've seen enough of McCain to bet he rather enjoyed it.

Final question, knowing some of his past politics, how did Bob Keery "create" students like this?

Posted by: c3 at May 20, 2006 12:30 PM

No one's doubting that the dissent was peaceful and ordered, but I just think the whole thing seems knee-jerk and immature. It's certainly true that McCain will get even more support from the base now, along with his Liberty University appearance.

At the end of the day, it's no big deal, though.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 20, 2006 05:17 PM

How is calling progressives reactionary a centrist position?

Posted by: JP at May 20, 2006 09:16 PM

I'm not calling them reactionary, I'm saying that they're acting like reactionaries, as far as their knee-jerk response to McCain.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 21, 2006 04:18 AM

You know, I think many of you have missed my point. I wasn't being snide when I called reasonable progressives. I was simpl;y pointing out that oftentimes many progressives, who are otherwise reasonable people, can become knee-jerk when it comes to the war.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 21, 2006 04:24 AM

I wonder what kind of reception a liberal like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi would get if they where invited to speak at Liberty U.?

The fact that anyone to the left of John McCain would even get an invite to speak at LU is a knee slapper.

But ghee this is pretty tame stuff when I clicked on the link I expected to read about students throwing things and shouting him down. Rafique has a point about the students "acting" like reactionaries, but if the inference is that protests like this would not ever happen if the tables were reversed is naive at best.

Face it both sides have thire issues where they become irrational, so what? and frankly if you ahd to become irrational about an issue, the war is a pretty good one to be irrational about. I mean the cost in blood and treasure is not going down.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at May 22, 2006 08:11 AM

The text of McCain's speech can be found here, and a related editorial here.

frankly if you ahd to become irrational about an issue, the war is a pretty good one to be irrational about

Uh huh. Being gibberingly irrational and throwing mindless tantrums is always so helpful and so persuasive.

Posted by: Tully at May 22, 2006 09:16 AM

OK Rick I was game. From Wikipedia:

Students who live on campus are required to attend convocation three times per week where they hear from speakers in all walks of professional life. Past speakers have included Leonard Davidson, Sam Donaldson, George H. W. Bush, John R. Rice, Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, Jesse Jackson, Skip Erickson, Freddie Gage, Adrian Rogers, Billy Graham and Sean Hannity

. OK, no Nancy Pelosi but Jesse Jackson. Does that make Liberty University liberal minded. No. And?...

Posted by: c3 at May 22, 2006 10:12 AM

Well, this was a commencement address. This wasn't a campus speech where people could choose to attend or not. While I don't countenance what they did, how would conservatives feel if a university invited, say, Hugo Chavez, to speak at commencement. And, let's face it, McCain is using it as a campaign platform. It doesn't justify what the students did--they obviously believe in, to quote Nat Hentoff, "Free Speak for Me, but not for Thee", but under the circumstances, it's a bit disingenous for McCain to claim shock.

Posted by: Marc at May 22, 2006 11:05 AM

For contrast. (Condi Rice's speech at Boston College.)

this was a commencement address...This wasn't a campus speech where people could choose to attend or not.

Sure you can! There's no law you ust attend. I've given all my own commencements a miss, even failing to show for my perfect attendance award in middle school. They bore me silly. :-D

In any case, I have no problem at all with the "silent protesters" who stand and face away from the speaker. It's the shouters-down and noisy hecklers I find completely childish and inappropriate. Yeah, it's a bit disingenuous for anyone to be shocked--but McCain didn't do that, anywwhere that I've seen. Same speech as he gave at Liberty, same as at Columbia.

I got a good laugh out of the protest letter for Rice's speech.

As a matter of moral principle, Rice maintains that U.S. foreign policy should be based on U.S. national interest and not on what she calls the interests of an "illusory international community." This stands in disturbing contrast with the Catholic and humanistic conviction that all people are linked together in a single human family and that all nations in our interdependent world have a duty to protect "the common good of the entire human family."

I note that the Boston Globe chose not to use that bolded sentence in their article. One would think it was relevant, that the protest against Rice was that she should not be allowed to speak because as Secretary of State she believes that US foreign policy should actually be based on the best interests of (gasp!) the United States....

Posted by: Tully at May 22, 2006 01:23 PM

All I'm saying Tully is that it's not crazy for students that want to attend their commencement address to want someone they are comfortable with. There are other forums on campus for controversial speakers. I'm not saying I agree with them and I certainly think that, like much of the left, this is childish petulence. However, commencement should be for the students and I can understand not wanting to hear someone that you are uncomfortable with. Moreover, given the fairly obvious political purpose of the speech, I can also understand not wanting to use commencement to provide a forum. Of course, the fact that the faculty is equally unwilling to listen to contrary views says a lot about the academy.

Posted by: Marc at May 22, 2006 01:43 PM

All I'm saying Tully is that it's not crazy for students that want to attend their commencement address to want someone they are comfortable with.

It's not crazy to want it. It's snobbish and self-centered to demand it. The students are not robots with unanimous views--at least, they shouldn't be. How many were actually uncomfortable with McCain? Does the school follow a "unanimous consent" rule for speakers? Could ANY speaker have managed to not offend anyone, without putting the entire audience to sleep? Mr. Rogers is, after all, deceased.

Had the school bowed down to the protesters and scheduled in someone else, which group would then have been offended by the replacement?

I can also understand not wanting to use commencement to provide a forum.

Yet their own senior speaker used the podium for an anti-McCain platform. No? In fact she's quite clear about it.

I checked the schedule for the ceremony and realized that I would be speaking just before the senator got his award. And that's when the idea for a preemptive strike began to brew in my little stressed-out brain. What if I tore McCain's speech apart before he even opened his mouth?

Of course, it was the New School, as clannish a refuge for the "progressive" elite from reality as can be. McCain challenges the "conventional wisdom" of the NS simply by existing--as does most of the rest of the world, including anyone much to the right of Ted Kennedy. My question: if someone such as Teddy Kennedy had given the commencement address at Liberty U., what kind of reception would he have received there?

And I really wish I knew the answer to that. I suspect it would not have been any better.

Posted by: Tully at May 22, 2006 02:49 PM

Actually, Tully, I think the reception might have been better--at least more civil--simply because southerners are more polite. I really didn't mean to disagree with you; it's reprehensible, but not surprising. My only point was that McCain certainly knew what he was getting into. If not, he should have. The sad part is these kids will probably never leave their cocoon. And they have no desire to. Most will stay in NY or other parts of the Northeast and live and socialize with others that agree with them. My wife's cousin lives in San Francisco (she is much older than college age) and told us that they had one set of friends that were Republican--she seemed sort of ashamed about it--but they never talked about politics with them. And, of course, the same goes for many conservatives, although, to the extent that they end up in professional positions, they are more likely to have to face opposing views.

Still, I wonder how many of the students at NS were happy with this. It's easy to read about incidents like this and assume that everyone at the school is like that. Anybody can disrupt anything if they so choose. The interesting thing to me is that students like this have so little consideration of their fellow students; ie, I don't like this so you can't hear it. They seem to be afraid of contamination, as if, hearing an opposing view somehow validates it.

Posted by: Marc at May 22, 2006 03:59 PM

It's not crazy to want it. It's snobbish and self-centered to demand it. The students are not robots with unanimous views--at least, they shouldn't be. How many were actually uncomfortable with McCain? Does the school follow a "unanimous consent" rule for speakers? Could ANY speaker have managed to not offend anyone, without putting the entire audience to sleep? Mr. Rogers is, after all, deceased.

IMO, students need to stand up and be heard more consistently if they want a bearable commencement. Theoretically, a commencement is a celebration of the students achievement and ceremonial marking of the commencement of adult post-graduate life. Beyond the fact that students don't deserve to be subjected to a wretched snore, they should at least have some input about the length, nature, and character of their celebration.

Both of my graduations (undergrad and grad school) were wretched, stunningly lengthy, pompous, self-congratulatory (on the part of the admin and speakers, not the students) bores that I'd skip in a hearbeat with the benefit of hindsight. The main problems are that the admin feels they actually have some sort of responsibility to duplicate this even though the vast majority find it unbearable, and that some of the most pompous and self-important members of the admin and faculty think they have the right and or duty to morally lecture and to provide ticket-punching opportunities to their politically and academically like-minded colleagues. Frankly, it's generally a huge waste of time and resources.

Here's a format that makes sense...no more than 3 or 4 speeches, 3 of which must be 5 minutes or less, and one of which should be no more than 10 or 15 minutes. All of them must should geared towards advice that is timelessly appropriate for the situations the graduating students face, and steer clear of pet issue advocacy. Then read the names quickly, pop the champagne, and clear the area.

Posted by: bk at May 22, 2006 04:05 PM

Rick,

and frankly if you ahd to become irrational about an issue, the war is a pretty good one to be irrational about. I mean the cost in blood and treasure is not going down.

See, I would probably say that national security issues and defense of the Republic is probably the one arena where citizens shouldn't get irrational. The cost for being irrational about, say, tax cuts or gay marriage won't even approach the damage done by a radical Islamist Europe, when the Muslims have outpopulated the Europeans in their own countries (which is, by all accounts, just a matter of time given the demographics).

If the Bush Administration fails or (as is more likely) is replaced by political leaders who reject this struggle, our grandchildren will be cursing us for failing to address the radical jihadist threat when it was possible. But by then it will be too late for them to do anything about it. America will probably have to accept that a third of the world will be living under an "irreversible" tyranny.

Marc,

While I don't countenance what they did, how would conservatives feel if a university invited, say, Hugo Chavez, to speak at commencement. And, let's face it, McCain is using it as a campaign platform.

I can't agree with this analogy. Whatever differences the students (whether liberal or conservative) might have with someone like Senator McCain-- and those differences are many-- they're really just arguing over the details of what's best for America. Both sides, more or less, believe they have the best interests of the US in mind and are fighting (however, feverishly) to shape a better America. The same cannot be said of Hugo Chavez, who is downright anti-American and actively seeks to undermine and weaken America wherever possible. Here, then, the difference is not over competing visions of what will best improve America-- here the debate would be between a vision that supports working for America and a vision that supports working against America.

That difference, in my mind, is tremendous, and it isn't appropriate to pretend that liberal students should have a resistance to Senator McCain equivalent to what conservative students should have against a Hugo Chavez. Edit+Replace "Hugo Chavez" with, say, "Al Gore," and I can see your point. In my opinion, of course...

Posted by: Bobby at May 22, 2006 05:48 PM

Bobby,

I think you are wrong on this one. I attended a fairly liberal college (albiet 20 years ago) and the New School makes even that look like Liberty U.

My experience tells me that the basic premise that the student protesters are motivated by whats best for America and simply disagree on the details isn't actualy accurate. I think you fail to grasp just how radical some of these student protesters really are. Some are outright Anarchists opposed to ANY form of goverment. Others are opposed to the idea of national governments and want the UN (or some substitute body) to function as some sort of one world government. Others aren't opposed to national governments but are opposed to the American Government (whether led by liberals or conservatives) and want to institute (what they imagine is) a Castro like Communist Regieme in the U.S.

I would be willing to go out on a limb and venture that many of these folks would give Hugo Chavez a warmer welcome then even a Bill Clinton or John Kerry.

Posted by: cengel at May 23, 2006 11:47 AM

Well, if that's the case, then I certainly stand corrected.

Posted by: Bobby at May 23, 2006 01:24 PM

Honestly cengel, I really wasn't planning on going that far.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 24, 2006 02:18 AM

My experience tells me that the basic premise that the student protesters are motivated by whats best for America and simply disagree on the details isn't actualy accurate. I think you fail to grasp just how radical some of these student protesters really are.

Cengel, that's an interesting assertion, and indeed a tempting one. Le's notice first that the vast majority of groups of student protesters are a small subset of the entire student population. Indeed, they are usually the most radical, which is what you are saying, but this begs the question of how well protestors represent the student body as whole. The expected audience for a commencement or other campus speech in this case is the WHOLE student body. And on re-reading Bobby's post, my impression is that he was speaking of the entire audience, not just the radical loudmouths.

Then let's go on and speculate about the ongoing development of political disposition that occurs among Americans after they graduate from college. My experience tells me that Bobby is basically correct that the main body of college students from even very liberal colleges is indeed concerned about what is best for America. Life experience tends to make one more realistic about that, and also more understanding of facets of life that are underappreciated by college students for very solid and obvious reasons.

That said, I don't dispute the notion that Hugo Chavez might get an especially warm American welcome on some college campuses. I don't have much of a problem with that. I think figures such as Chavez should come, and that they should receive whatever welcome the audience honestly feels. Chavez's ideas should be challenged just as vociferously as he challenges ours. The only thing that I have a problem with is hero-worshipping that leads to giving would-be political gurus an uncritical free pass to wander the marketplace of ideas. The exchange in this market is supposed to be that if you wish to be heard, you must be both willing and able to accept and directly address challenges to your ideas. [IMO, there is no better way for Chavez to be shown as topped to the brim with excrement than to have him come here and face strong challenges from our wisest and most stalwart thinkers and defenders of American democracy. Instead, all we every get are victory tours. "Please come preach to our choir!" It's a problem.

Let's face it. College graduates are graduating to a new school where many of the most important, yet-to-be-truly-absorbed lessons will finally be acquired. The real world has a wonderful way of focusing the mind, no? Isn't it basically a fact that regardless of the era, the vast majority of 40 year olds always thinks very differently about politics than the vast majority of 20 year olds? Doesn't the endurance of this chasm suggest that most college students do indeed have America's best interests at heart? What else would guide today's 20 year olds to become 2026's 40 year olds?

Isn't it simply the case that impending college graduates still have much to learn of the ways of the world at large? I'm 42 now, and my college was rife with what South Park would call "college know-it-all hippies" of various stripes. I'm sure there are a few hold outs...stubborn aging true believers haunting the aisles of the remaining radical bookstores. Most of us know one or two, I'd venture. But I'm nearly certain that most of the rest have moved on.

Like churchill (I think) said, if you are not liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you are not conservative at 40, you have no head. I think this reflects a basic truth about honest inquiring intellectual development via critical thinking. YMMV.

Posted by: bk at May 24, 2006 12:38 PM

BK,

I can only comment on what I've seen in my own experience. I do think that MOST American liberals ARE genuinely motivated by what they they think is best for the country (even if I might not agree with just what that perception is). I also agree that the perspective that people hold in college tends to change after they graduate and get more experience of the real world.

However, there is a significant subset on the Left who ARE reflexively anti-american. Furthermore, even among those that aren't.... I get the impression that the Left in general kinda views nationalism as a sin rather then a virtue. They always seem to address issues from the viewpoint of humanity as whole... rather then the interests of the country.

But that's a digression. There is a big distinction between "liberal" and "radical". I fully recognize it. All I'm saying is that most people who hadn't seen it first hand would be surprised at the numbers of genuine radicals on college campuses...particulary on those of the most liberal colleges....and the New School is pretty damn close to as liberal as you can get in this nation. Bobby, being a graduate of West Point, wouldn't I imagine...have much direct experience of that.... nor would alot of folks who attended more mainstream folks. That's not even taking into consideration that many of those colleges have a significant portion of thier graduating class who are international students.
Mine was about 25%..... interestingly enough the international students tended to be far more appreciative of America and less radical then about 50% of the brats I went to school with..... I guess it's a case of not being able to appreciate what you've got...until you don't have it anymore.

Posted by: cengel at May 24, 2006 05:08 PM