THIS WEEK
Cover News
Opinion A & E
Sports Intramurals
Calendar Comics
 
YH FEATURES
Exclusive
Archives/Search
Planet of Sound
Speak Your Mind
Pick the Pros
Crossword
 
ONLINE TOOLS
Ground Zero
Sublet Search
Rideboard
Book Shopper
Blue Book Search
 
ABOUT US
the Yale Herald
YH Online
 


Fight for freedom, not right-wing politics

When you disagree with some group, there's an easy way to discredit it: turn its members into fanatics. This is a convention of American politics. Grab a piece of the lunatic fringe (say, environmentalists who want to raise the price of gas to $5 a gallon) and use it to represent an entire movement (people who oppose drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge). All of the sudden, a group of citizens with a rational demand turns into a collection of wackos who'd feel more at home in Stalinist Russia than the House of Representatives.

Opponents of the United States' war on terrorism have put this tactic to constant use in the past weeks. The "corporate media" have incited the American people to "jingoistic nationalism." Assaults on Muslims, Sikhs, and Indians aren't the work of a few degenerates; they're indicative of revenge fantasies percolating in the minds of all American with flags on their cars. Worse still, the U.S. abetted the hijackers.

No, I'm not making this up. The Thurs., Sept. 20 issue of The New Republic quoted one peace activist at MIT as saying: "I feel nothing but anger at the U.S. government for allowing this to happen. Now they have an excuse...to do whatever the fuck they want." The attacks are America's Reichstag fire, an excuse for President George W. Bush, DC '68, to steamroll Democratic opposition. Certainly, most peace advocates don't insinuate that America let 6,500 people die for the sake of missile defense and school vouchers. But few feel any qualms about suggesting that most of this country wants to turn the Middle East, or at least Afghanistan, into a giant irradiated parking lot.
MARK WILSON/GETTY IMAGES
President George Bush, DC '68, addresses the House and Senate and the nation.

One would think the American left would feel particular aversion to tarring entire groups with one brush. Only 50 years ago, a subscription to The Nation was enough to earn the wrath of Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt. But to believe today's antiwar activists, it is impossible to support war without advocating racism at home and genocide abroad. The idea is the same—all leftists are communists, everyone willing to fight is a jingoist. That logic is just as false now as it was then.

I can't pretend to speak for the entire American public, but I can speak for myself. And after talking to friends at Yale, to my family, and to people elsewhere, I feel that I am not alone in my opinions. I do not support wiping out Afghanistan, nor do I want war. If we need to fight, I hope we take pains to target terrorists and the Taliban without unnecessary harm to civilians. And I believe we must help rebuild Afghanistan to show those who doubt our motives that our war is with terrorists, not with the people they have already victimized.

I support the president in this effort, but I do not support him unconditionally. I hate the death penalty. I want every effort made to extend the same civil rights and basic opportunities to every American. I believe abortion must be legally and easily available. I want an end to our misguided war on drugs. I oppose sanctions against Cuba and Iraq, and I believe we must push for an equitable peace in Israel. The events of Sept. 11 did not change these views, and neither will war. It is possible to rally around a common cause without acquiescing on all causes.

My decision to support war stems from the same ideals that motivate my other beliefs. People deserve freedom—to choose their own values, to make the most of their abilities, and to live without fear. Like all political or religious radicals, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden oppose these freedoms. Our nation has an obligation to preserve them at home and promote them abroad. We have not always lived up to this responsibility, and in some parts of the world we fail to today, but we can change, and we have every right to defend ourselves against our enemies.

I'm not concerned if antiwar activists disagree with these views. I'm not apologizing for them, because they need no apology. But I demand that they be given credit for what they are—moderate and reasoned, entirely opposed to war for war's sake.

If you accept that the Taliban (obviously) does not represent the spirit of every Muslim, you must accept that racists and annihilationists do not represent the spirit of every American. I've yet to speak with anyone who advocates attacking American Muslims or destroying Afghanistan. I doubt most Americans do. Our own fanatics might support America's war, but it will not be fought for them, and we will not fight for their goals. We reject them unconditionally—and that is why we're willing to fight.

Back to Opinion...

 

 


All materials © 2001 The Yale Herald, Inc., and its staff.
Got any questions, comments, or advice? Email the online editors at
online@yaleherald.com.
Like to join us?