Words escape them
The liberal concept of civil discourse
By Alexander Marlow
From the April 2007 Print Edition
One of the most popular news stories on campus is that the old oak trees in the grove near Memorial Stadium will probably be torn out to make room for a new gym for athletes. On the one hand, the move will help our sports teams, which will in turn generate money, campus enthusiasm, and national name recognition for our school; yet the downside is that beautiful trees are removed.
Many argue it is acceptable to uproot our historic arboretum because for each tree removed, three new ones will be planted in its place. But it takes years for oak trees to grow, so current students will not enjoy the new oaks. It’s the equivalent of trading one mint-condition autographed Babe Ruth rookie card for three worthless Delino DeShields cards you dug out of a box of Wheaties (trust me, there is a reason you have never heard of Delino DeShields).
One good reason to tear out the oaks is that athletes tend to be humanities majors and pull down the curve, which is good for my GPA. Thus, I fully support attracting the country’s best athletes, who tend to prioritize athletics (and transitively my admission to law school) over their own education. Yet perhaps the most compelling advocates from the “Save the Oaks” side of the debate are the tree-huggers protesting in the Berkeley trees! Berkeley students who don’t find this entertaining have the personality of a “stadium oak tree” themselves.
Jokes aside, it is disturbing that some Berkeley residents (and students alike) believe relocating their residence to upholstery-free, unfurnished branches that are hanging an inconvenient 20 feet in the air to constitute civil discourse. If you try to debate the protesters you get a stiff neck long before they even “finish their bowl” and put down their marijuana. Unfortunately, such tactics are not limited to protesters in Berkeley.
A few weeks ago, I debated the topic of “immigration policy” in the Berkeley College Republicans vs. Cal Berkeley Democrats debate. I, not unreasonably, suggested that a fence or wall needs to be erected on our southern border. Every time I used the word “fence,” the Cal Democrats erupted with laughter. I was mystified by their response, especially considering that left-leaning presidential hopeful Barack Obama also advocates a barrier on our southern border. The Democrats’ behavior was bad-mannered, vulgar, and ignorant.
In my “Varieties of Capitalism” class, we watched a video in which a black New Yorker sang America’s praises because he had the freedom to own his own business: a hamburger stand that expanded to a full-service restaurant. Many (presumably leftist) students in the class laughed at his enthusiasm for America and his humble business, as if to say “who would be proud of that?” Instead of being “open-minded” and the champion of the poor, leftists reveal themselves to be elitist.
Such banal mocking of hardworking Americans is frequently lauded. Obama is hailed as the “freshest” voice on the political scene with a book titled The Audacity of Hope. Most of his platforms and observations are unoriginal left-wing platitudes. It’s audacious to suggest Americans are broken and demoralized. Unemployment is low, freedom is high, and wealth is enormous. We don’t need hope. We need a president who won’t interfere with the mechanisms that make this the greatest country on earth, and yet it appears Obama would intrude more than anyone else running. Initiating more social programs for the undeserving will not make this a greater nation.
Recently, Obama also made a gaffe by suggesting that the troops’ lives were “wasted” in Iraq. Obama later apologized, but it will be a tough sell to prove he didn’t mean exactly what he said. It's reminiscent of John Kerry’s fatal remarks about uneducated soldiers “stuck” serving in Iraq and subsequent attempts to suggest it was just a bad joke. Jibes at the military are popular. This past Sunday, unabashed liberal advocate Andy Rooney ran a piece on “60 Minutes” suggesting the military is uneducated. One-upping his fellow liberals, he announced the latest smear of our most courageous Americans and suggested that our soldiers lacked morals too. These remarks aid our soldiers’ enemies, who are categorically emboldened by the liberals’ constant undermining of our troops, but also demonstrate the left’s deficit of respect for those who fight for the very freedoms they enjoy.
Ironically, presidential candidate John Edwards proclaimed that Jesus would be “appalled” at America’s selfishness. One shouldn’t doubt Edwards’ authority on the matter because he is the man that once claimed to be communicating with the dead in front of judge and jury during a medical malpractice trial. It's more interesting to ponder what Jesus would have thought about Mr. Edwards’ huge settlements for himself and his clients after destroying the reputation of countless good doctors who had the misfortune of participating in unfortunate natural deliveries. Yet we sure can pay Edwards tribute for the increase in insurance premiums due to the rise in unnecessary and expensive operations.
The left’s conception of civil discourse is to run and hide in a tree; whether through a mischaracterization of our country and our soldiers or through advocating unsubstantiated and trumpeted claims. For a group that insists we raise a generation of wimps to “use their words” to solve all school-yard disputes (instead of the occasionally more effective “school-yard punch in the jaw”), I am surprised that they seem to be so bad at it. While I get my jollies every time I think of tree-huggers literally hugging our trees, I am concerned that the days of a brave, incisive, and courteous left may long be behind us.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot