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