U-wire writer speaks up for Klocek

This came into my e-mail box last week (still catching up on things) I'll run it in it entirety. This was published, via the U-wire (a college newspaper version of AP) by the Ohio University Post.

Political discussions need to be leveled

U-Wire
by Daniel Hiester
Indiana University, March 28, 2005

Liberals need to watch their mouths. After the build-up to war and the presidential election, it's as if they got drunk and said some things they shouldn't have. On www.sorryeverybody.com, liberals have posted messages such as, "We're sorry half our country is a bunch of morons." That translates from drunk-speak to English as "Hey, I'm not going down without a fight!" It's as if now, instead of sobering up and apologizing for their indignation, they're just getting drunker in their bitterness.

It's gotten so out of hand, columnist Jay Ambrose recently wrote that liberals' lack of tolerance for conservative or moderate ideas amounts to "New McCarthyism."

That is an ironic choice of words, because the phrase is usually used to describe radical liberals being visited by Secret Service agents, investigating reports of "Un-American behavior." If liberals are so intolerant that someone would flip "New McCarthyism" around on them, it's a good time to stop and think about it.

In his column, Ambrose wrote about the leftist intellectuals standing up to defend University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. The "mad professor" is most infamous for saying the thousands who died in the World Trade Center on 9-11 were "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolf Eichmann, who helped Hitler exterminate Jews during World War II.
While many were initially offended by the comparison, when one looks at Churchill's essay, to place his statements in context, his argument is nothing new: "the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved," he said, to the "mighty engine of profit." That doesn't seem too hard to swallow. The same thing happened with the British, French and Spanish back in their heyday.

If capitalism drives war, maybe it's just one small step to imply that those who work for "The Man" are guilty by association.

Most people I know who have asked themselves this question don't want to answer it, so they get up and fix themselves something to eat. I guess Churchill was hoping to preempt the snack attack by tossing the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.

Unfortunately, that use of hyperbolic rhetoric tainted the credibility of his entire argument and of anyone defending him.

Granted, Churchill is entitled to his opinion, and others are entitled to debate him; that's how things work in the marketplace of ideas. But should he be fired from his job?

If Churchill wasn't fired for his views, what about DePaul University professor Thomas Klocek? He was suspended without a university hearing after he debated against students who believed Israel is Nazi-like toward the Palestinians. Many believe Klocek was fired for not fitting into the cookie-cutter mold of what a liberal is "supposed to believe."

Why does it seem as though left-wing radicals are more entitled to their opinion than those on the right -or even in the middle?

A lot of radical opinions are more emotional than they are intelligent. It's easy to get emotional about things such as tyranny and war, but those who argue about it in public must understand the role they play in the big picture. When they let emotion drive their arguments, they're accidentally using one of the techniques Hitler used to rally support behind the Third Reich.

It is possible to engage the public's humanity without appealing to its emotions. Liberals hate to admit it, but President Bush does that all the time. We need to follow Bush's example and bring our political discussion back down to the level we can talk about at the dinner table, not the level that's liable to start a drunken bar brawl.