Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 5, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Wednesday, January 5,2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 JEN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR IARED PABEN AY1SHA YAHYA NEWS EDITORS MECHANN CUNIFF PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS MORIAH BALINGIT AMANDA BOLSINGER ADAM CHERRY KARA HANSEN ANTHONY LUCERO NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON (ONES SPORTS EDITOR ION ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MI1.1.ER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR NATASHA CHILINGERIAN SENIOR PULSE REPORTER AMY IJCHTY RYAN MURPHY PULSE REPORTERS CAT BALDWIN PULSE CARTOONIST DAVID JAGERNAUTH EDITORIAL EDITOR JENNIFER MCBRIDE A1LEE SLATER TRAVIS WILLSE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR GABE BRADLEY NEWS FREELANCE EDITOR/ DIRECTOR OF RECRUITMENT DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR IAURF.N WIMER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER ERIK BISHOFF PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST KIRA PARK DESIGN EDITOR WENDY KIEFFER AMANDA LEE DUSTIN REESE BR1ANNESHOL1AN DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY IEANNIE EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD PAULTHOMPSON SPORTS COPY EDITORS AMANDA EVRARD AMBER LINDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS LINDSAY BURT PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR SLADE LEESON WEBMASTER BUSINESS (541)346-5511 IUDY R1EDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER REBECCA CRITCHETT RECEPTIONIST NATHAN POSTER AIBING GUO ANDREW LEAHY IOHN LONG MALLORY MAHONEY HOLLY MISTELL DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MEUSSAGUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER MATT BETZ HERON CAJJSCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAMLIN KATE HIRONAKA MAEGAN KASER-LEE MIA LEIDELMEYER EMILY PHILBIN SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES KELLEE KAUFTHEIL AD ASSISTANT CLASSIFIED (541)3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KAIY GAGNON SABRINA GOWETTE LESLIE STRAIGHT KERI SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541)346-4381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARA SLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR |EN CRAM LET KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pu6 lished dally Monday through Fri day dunng the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law ..AH,thatk in ^\ MOST CASES, I mu... I ...1*^ ru*r#wcLi:* Burt Furtwangler | Graphic artist ■ Guest commentary Noncommittal language lost election for Democratic Party HANOVER, N.H. — Two months after the election, much of the grass roots energy that brought a supposed ly unelectable liberal within one state of beating a wartime Republican in cumbent has dissipated. This vacuum has allowed weak but vocal factions within the Democratic Party to lay claim to the party agenda. Although it has been quite some time since the unnecessary and murderously unsuc cessful conflict in Iraq was considered a popular war, hawkish Democrats are blaming John Kerry’s defeat on his failure to support the protracted ordeal enthusiastically. More generally, these Democrats are arguing that the party should be come more charitably disposed to overseas conflict. Defense is a worthy goal when it is non-partisan, as it was in Afghanistan, but the conservative Democrats are advocating a danger ously militaristic hard-line as a road to popularity. A recent and increasingly influen tial opinion piece by Peter Beinart, ed itor of The New Republic, illustrates the confusion and intellectual bank ruptcy of the Democratic Party’s right wing. His lack of forward vision be comes immediately apparent as he compares the war on terror to the Cold War. This analogy forms the backbone of his analysis, and it forces the reader to conceive the future of the Democratic Party in the language of the Bush ideologues. Beinart’s article represents a sur render to the language and agenda of the Republican right. The idea of the Cold War still represents fear, para noia, and political opportunity for those who exploit it. Through this language, the 21st century I -- international effort against terrorism was abandoned in favor of an adven ture in Iraq. Democratic lawmakers, following logic that bears a striking re semblance to Beinart’s, authorized that war. Precisely because election-con scious Democrats were afraid to ap pear “soft” (Beinart’s word for non hawks), thousands of people are dead and the U.S. is the proud owner of a brutal guerilla war. Beinart tells us that the real lesson of Nov. 2 is that Democrats should lead America into conflict Rambo-style while Republi cans struggle to keep up. Although he professes opposition to America’s de cisions in Iraq, the next Iraq is pre cisely where his logic leads. Beinart is no lone nut. The Democ ratic Leadership Council, a conserva tive Democratic think tank, heartily endorses his program. Although the DLC generates little popular enthusi asm within the party’s grassroots net works, it is well funded by narrow in terests. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the DLC still maintains that the war in Iraq was an excellent policy decision but was mis handled. On its Web site, the DLC lists defense and the “war” on terror as its top priorities. Grassroots organizations were re sponsible for getting Kerry within one state of winning the election. The nebulous, DLC-style language of the Kerry campaign ensured that Kerry, would, in fact, fall short. Voters pre ferred John Kerry when he was draw ing clear-cut distinctions between himself and Bush, as seen in their first debate. People doubted John Kerry when he claimed to have “supported the war but totally disagreed with the administration’s handling of the war.” That language lost the election. That is the language of the DLC, not the liberal heart of the party. Ultimate ly, offering a watered down alterna tive to the conservative Republican agenda will not make the Democratic Party a party of government. Voters prefer and respect original ideas from political parties. A party that has a real agenda can make a stand. When a party decides the best option is to react to the other party, it will never have the initiative. Liberals must distance themselves from DLC-like cheerleading for con flict unless they want to share the shame when that violence returns to the U.S. It would be better for the De mocrats to embrace the war-wary lib erals and the domestic security em phasis that liberals have steadfastly championed. There is an inordinate amount of fear in the modern Democratic Party. Every election loss, every unfavorable poll, every accusation of liberalism is seen as the end of the party. Wake up. The supposedly liberal, unelectable, flip-flopping and cold Massachusetts senator lost by just three points in a national election. Keep that liberal ac tivism and vision alive. As the war turns sour, the meaning of “moral val ues” will change. “Immoral” will come to mean “unjust” as the govern ment leads us into crisis. This nation’s enthusiasm for con flict is declining daily. Today’s Demo cratic Party needs to be ready to meet the demands of tomorrow and not mimic a conservative movement that is blind to the future. Tim Mosso writes for The Dartmouth OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic submissions are preferred Letters are limited to 250 words, and giest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submissions should include phone number and address for venfication. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald. ■ Editorial Committee threatens free speech on campus In an already disgrace-filled year for Universi ty student leaders, the Programs Finance Com mittee’s recent attempt to muzzle the Oregon Commentator is the most disgraceful moment yet. In fact, all prior examples of the PFC’s con tempt for students’ rights (and money) pale in comparison to this ignorant attack on campus free speech. In the PFC’s note of rejection to the Com mentator, it stated that several unspecified is sues of the magazine “contain material that is in violation” of an Oregon statute designating incidental fees for programs “advantageous to the cultural or physical development of stu dents.” The PFC then had the gall to lecture the Commentator on what an immense “privilege” it is to be recognized as a culturally advanta geous program, a privilege that can be “re voked” at any time. The threat is clear: Write so much as one article that we don’t like, and your entire publication will be punished. The PFC provided few clues to what specifi cally set the members off, and it leaves the con cept of “culturally advantageous” so vague that it renders it meaningless. Committee members’ attitudes seem to be, like pornography, that they know it when they see it. In an open letter to the PFC (posted online at www.oregoncom mentator.com), Daniel Atkinson, publisher and board member of the Commentator, brilliantly rebukes all of the PFC’s haphazard accusations. The letter is so well argued that it, in and of it self, proves that the magazine is a culturally ad vantageous project. One problem with the PFC’s position: The Commentator has never published anything re motely inconsistent with the law — constitu tional or otherwise. We hate to break it to the PFC, but last time we checked disagreeing with liberal dogma does not constitute hate speech. Apart from that, the PFC has absolutely no right to adjudicate what is acceptable campus ex pression. It is on a perverse and illegal power trip. The real question students should be ask ing themselves is: How culturally advantageous are our student leaders? Ironically, by challenging the Commentator’s recognized status, the PFC has legitimized the magazine’s mission, the very mission that it has chosen to reject. In part it reads: “We believe that the University should be a forum for ration al and informed debate — instead of the current climate in which ideological dogma, political correctness, fashion and mob mentality inter fere with academic pursuit. ” We need to embrace this attitude now more than ever. Many liberals and conservatives alike have a lot to learn about tolerance. Protesting an idea does not mean trying to silence that idea. Publishing an idea does not necessarily mean endorsing it. And listening to an idea is not the same as embracing it. Rather than cleansing campus speech of everything poten tially upsetting, we should be encouraging truthful expression even if it is ugly, uncomfort able or controversial. Every student who cares about his or her right to speak freely on this campus should support the Oregon Commentator as it continues to fight for the funding that rightfully belongs to it. EDITORIAL BOARD Jennifer Sudick Editor in Chief David Jagernauth Editorial Editor Steven R. Neuman Managing Editor Gabe Bradley Freelance Editor
