"We all know that in all matters of mere opinion that [every] man is insane — just as insane as we are . . . we know exactly where to put our finger upon his insanity: It is where his opinion differs from ours . . . All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it. None but the Republicans. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats can perceive it. The rule is perfect: In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane" — Mark Twain.
This past week politics dominated the airwaves, as candidates for the Congress and Senate took their opponents to task for each other's views. We need a tax cut. I support your right to healthcare. He voted against Iraq. He represents the wealthy. He voted against strengthening homeland security. I am more patriotic than my opponent. I am going to represent the working class. The political bantering went back and forth as could be predicted. There were accusations from the Democrats, and counter-accusations from the Republicans. However, the political discourse was symptomatic of a greater problem in dialogue; many people, whether on the left or the right, liberal or conservative, have become blindly reflexive in their opinions. The political dialogue has stagnated into a vacuum of dogma, and both patriotism and dissent have fallen victim to this disturbing trend.
This is no more apparent than in the current debate surrounding Iraq. Recently, there was an antiwar rally held in Washington that was attended by over 100,000 people from all backgrounds. Pleas were heard about "regime change" in the White House, rather than in Iraq. The dissent quickly fashioned itself into the simplistic fabric of anti-establishment ranting. The speakers shifted the talk to chants of "Free Mumia." Mumia Abu Jamal? Then there was the talk about the Cuban five in Florida. The Cuban Five? If that rally epitomized the state of dissent in this country, there needs to be a serious examination of what dissent really means. Where was the condemnation of Saddam Hussein at this rally?
Today, many of those (certainly not all) opposing war have no constructive position. They are morally opposed to aggression by the United States but what happens if there is no regime change in Iraq? Will the Iraqi people continue to suffer under the brutality and ruthlessness of Saddam? Will we continue the cruelty of sanctions against Iraq until Saddam perishes, and then until his son perishes?
In much of the country dissent has lost its credibility. For dissent to be effective, it must be constructive rather than blindly anti-American or anti-establishment. Is globalization really the enemy? Opposition must not just disagree with the status quo, but must also provide a credible alternative. Instead of rallying against any global meeting or summit, perhaps it should be recognized that it is through the global institutions that we can effect global change. The World Bank has as its goal to fight global poverty. The literature and awareness that the World Bank raises about poverty and development needs are immeasurable. It is true that many of the practices used by the World Bank are too parochial. However, the World Bank did commit $100 million in development projects in Afghanistan for the first six to eight months of 2002, not in loans but in the form of grants. For the next two years, both the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank have committed $1 billion in lending for Afghanistan, at concessional interest rates. The projects are fundamental to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
It is not only dissent, however, that suffers from a lack of constructive dialogue. Dogmatic positions are equal opportunity, as demonstrated by our very own Princeton Committee Against Terrorism, which "stands [proudly] with America." There is no questioning the nation for this group. Everything is OK. What happened at that Afghan wedding? It does not matter because we support it. This blind patriotism does a disservice to a nation.
With the recent election of a Republican-controlled everything, what do the ideologues propose to do? They propose cementing a tax cut. How are the real problems going to be tackled? Where is the constructive element? Many of the blindly patriotic Americans will oppose gun control, even in the midst of a shooting rampage by a sniper terrorist. Gun violence kills over 11,000 Americans every year, but the political dialogue simply opposes gun control without even addressing the problems. Will the wealthy be given tax cuts? How does this remedy the largest disparity between the rich and poor amongst industrialized nations?
The political discourse in the nation and on this campus has drifted towards a vacuous and knee-jerk dialogue. We must go beyond the base positions and ask the tough questions to address the difficult problems. It is not good enough to dissent; those dissenting must provide a credible alternative, whether to war or anything else. Let's cut through the rhetoric and hot air. Do the conservatives want to oppose race reparations? Fine, but then find another method of reconciliation in a nation where there is more segregation in the public schools today then there was 30 years ago. Let's dialogue, let's discuss, but first let's think constructively about the issues, and think hard. Taufiq Rahim is a Wilson School major from Vancouver, British Columbia. He can be reached at trahim@princeton.edu.
Read More
Calls for VP Calhoun's resignation mislead on free expression
Bill Hewitt“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
