As Crimson editorial editor Elise M. Stefanik reported this past Wednesday, leftist political arguments are no more sophisticated at Harvard than they are anywhere else.
Stefanik attended a panel discussion on counterterrorism hosted by Harvard's Office of Career Services; on the panel were representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.
As she explains, the anti-Bush left showed up and started (or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, continued) acting like whiny, infantile brats:
The propagandists’ techniques of disruption varied: their base tactics ranged from coughing incessantly to the point where none of the panelists could be heard, interrupting presentations to ask ludicrous questions such as “Isn’t it true you train your employees to torture,” staging a mock deportation of an ethnic minority protestor midway through the discussion, clapping obnoxiously to halt the dialogue, and ridiculing students who posed legitimate questions to the panelists. A protestor sitting three rows behind me physically made himself vomit.Vomiting has a long and proud tradition at Harvard, to be sure, but only in the context of trying to drink oneself into a stupor at football games. It has no place in the realm of reasoned political discourse. And neither, it seems, does the radical left.
7 comments:
Well, to be fair, Harvard has no place in reasoned political discourse, either.
Posted by Joe
GB
Your broad generalizations of the "anti-Bush left" are polarizing, inaccurate and unproductive. As a proud and vocal member of the anti-Bush left, I deplore these infantile and smug techniques. These people represent the 49% of the country who voted against Bush to the same extent that the theocrat nudnicks who participated in the Terry Schiavo death watch represent those who voted for him. Your casting these yahoos as the anti-Bush left and leaving it at that is hardly reasoned politcial discourse.
And speaking of theocrat nudnicks, why so silent on the impending war against the federal judiciary?
Posted by Bojack
I did call them the "radical" left, too, implying that there are also non-radical people with the same positions.
The fact that such types are found even at a supposedly sophisticated place like Harvard, however, suggests that there might be more of them out there than you think.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Not to belabor the point, but how do you reconcile your nuance with your opening salvo: "[a]s Crimson editorial editor Elise M. Stefanik reported this past Wednesday, leftist political arguments are no more sophisticated at Harvard than they are anywhere else"?
More importantly, how do you reconcile the thrust of your entire post with Ms. Stefanik's plain statement that "[l]iberal and conservative students alike were mortified and disgusted by the behavior of the protestors who were not only disruptive to the panelists but were disrespectful to their fellow Harvard students"?
Posted by Bojack
You are indeed belaboring the point.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Perhaps Bojack is unaware that 'leftist' is a common term for the radical left and does not generally mean liberal or anything to the right of center but is reserved for the far left fringe.
Posted by Dave Justus
Perhaps Justus couldn't be more wrong .
Posted by Oy Vey
Post a Comment