Progressives often find it difficult to convey our ideas succinctly, so I was not surprised to find myself struggling to express my opposition to the conservative clamor against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia this week. As usual, one of the key difficulties was defining the neoconservative position from an ideological standpoint, rather than from the jingoistic angle that they themselves prefer. Luckily, Bill Kristol's ludicrous proposition that Columbia students boycott the event provided just the accidental window into the neoconservative mind that I needed.
Kristol's argument is axiomatic neoconservative drivel -- he takes a personal position of his and of his followers, generalizes it to the entire Columbia student body, then implies that those who break with him are unpatriotic and -- of course -- do not support the troops. This part of his short two paragraph post in the Weekly Standard's "Daily Standard" blog is as unremarkable as it is typical. However, his briefly revealed reasoning for this personal position is fundamentally revealing of the mindset of the right wing demagogues he champions.
Just in passing, barely pausing in his excitement to brand Columbia's leaders as degenerate left-wing sissies who hate America and like talking to terrorists, he sputters, "After all, this is not primarily about Ahmadinejad." No, Kristol howls, "Dealing with his regime is mostly a task for our government." Really, Mr. Kristol?
It is, unfortunately, nothing new for the right wing to speak about "the Government" with a capital G, as though the rest of us "people" were merely subjects to an awesome state power that -- let's be honest here -- really doesn't operate down at our plebeian level. The complete lack of awareness on the part of William the Bloody that he is living in a democracy makes his views about Columbia's invitation to President Ahmadinejad much more understandable. In a world of demagogues competing for the affection of the uninformed, pliable masses, why let the competition inside the castle gates?
However, the rest of us live in a different world. In our world, America is defined not by the autocratic strength of its Government, but by the democratic strength of its People. Americans, in turn, are necessarily well-educated, as "on education all our lives depend" and "liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people." In Iran, there is a lack of meaningful public debate, especially since Ahmadinejad came to power, and the erosion in broader liberties has come hand in hand with the erosion in political debate, for "without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights." In a democracy like this, we cannot begin a serious debate about the future of Iran, the Middle East, and American foreign policy without educating ourselves about other world leaders -- even the ones we dislike. The people, after all, "are the ultimate guardians of the own liberty," and should be the front line in guarding our right to create our own educated foreign policy, engage the world, and avoid against another idiotic neoconservative war. After all, "of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded."