Civil Disobedience Lite

By Ryan D. Gorsche | Thursday, April 3, 2003

New England Cable News dropped by the other day to interview me about The Dartmouth Review's stance on the war. We are, to no one's great surprise, decidedly for it. This, of course, is quite contrary to the attitude of most college campuses. Just last week, while I was at home in San Antonio, KRVL radio reported that students from the University of Texas had poured outside in protest after hearing the soundbites of the coalition bombs in Baghdad.They'd shut down Guadalupe Street, one of Austin's busiest roadways. Keep this in context: when rowdy Longhorns fans are involved in similar activities, perhaps after a hard-won gridiron victory, they are met with riot police and knee-knockers. These young leftists, however, disrupted a significant portion of the city without consequence, despite angry motorists and overwhelming opinion that the students were "grossly misinformed."

Near Los Angeles, a high school classroom "walkout for peace" ended with the looting of a convenience store. Mahmood Behroozi, the owner and an Iranian-American ?no irony lost on us there—took it in stride. It would be safe to say that most walk-out participants have not emulated the civil disobedience of a Dr. Martin Luther King? but rather the attendance record of a Jeff Spicoli. A few students may have believed their walkout to be a strong statement—but directed, I ask, to whom? Last I checked, the War Powers Act doesn't grant any launch codes to public school civics teachers. By walking out of the classroom the students only prove their unwillingness to debate other viewpoints. I say that the activist's tactics of "making noise" and "getting in the way" are not changing minds, just raising blood pressure. Not all of us are as kind as Mr. Behroozi, with his cute shrug and "kids will be kids" grin.

Surprisingly, here at Dartmouth, the administration buildings are unoccupied by protestors, and the only students missing from class are probably hungover. Yet, while the traditional forms of civil disobedience may be absent, the mental blockage is every bit as grating, if not more so. Dartmouth is currently offering couseling to soothe any war-induced angst. The only counseling some of us need is anger management, lest our heads explode from the usual self-righteous blathering.

Several of our contributors recently attended an open discussion regarding the war. All of activism's stock characters put in appearances: the burned out hippie with bald pate and scraggly pony-tail; the young socialist, full of pompous piss and vinegar but lacking entirely in argument; and the bleeding heart, fresh from communing with baby birds. Some of the speakers were tolerable, but misguided. I envied one young woman's appeal to emotion, her ability to shoot from the hip with a little heart-to-heart pleading. She probably still cried over the hunters in Bambi, but she was willing to give the most heinous criminals the benefit of the doubt if it meant temporary peace. Sadly, after hearing about human shredding machines, most of us left such naiveté behind. At least she admitted she didn't rely on the use of "intellect."Those who did relied on a flawed intellect at best; history professor Bruce Nelson asserted that our action "is breeding terrorists—not because they hate our democracy or freedom, but because of this [war]."Oh, really?

Read the texts the terrorists quote, and you will see it is precisely our culture and freedom they hate. Sayyid Qutb's Milestones clearly marks his preoccupation with the West's supposed moral bankruptcy; he describes American cultureas "a suburban sewer," wherein the believer's job is "purifying the filthy marsh of this world." If any militant caliphs were present to hear Professor Nelson they would not be pleased to see Americans arguing for Iraq; they'd be too busy telling the sexy hippies in tight jeans to grab a burqa.

While some of the activists were willing to admit Iraq's chemical weapons, they discounted these as minor details. Dartmouth's undergraduate peace movement "Why War?" cited an article claiming Saddam has been cooperative, going so far as "helping set up inspection offices." Saddam is guilty of only one tiny, easily overlooked sin: failure to account "for some nuclear know-how and some biological and chemical weapons." Ah, those pesky little weapons of mass destruction. So the Butcher of Baghdad has a few? what's the big deal? The fact that Iraq-sponsored inspection offices are even considered cooperation, when "some chemical weapons" go unaccounted for, displays the activists hope to find peace at any cost, including dangerous deception.

The peace movement has failed, but not because of public obstinacy or berserk blood thirst. The blame lies squarely on the activists' shoulders. They presume public apathy and ignorance. ?If you're not angry, you're not paying attention,? they scream. But we do pay attention, and we're fighting mad about Saddam. They suggest anarchy and socialist propaganda: "We support our troops, when they kill their officers" or "Revolution: If They Want War, They Got It."Sorry, but most Americans aren't looking to live in the worker's paradise. Perhaps if the protesters did not rely entirely on emotion, Iraqi state-run media reports, and socialist utopian dreams, they might stand a chance of convincing someone. Then again, if they didn't use suspect evidence or flawed logic, they wouldn't be chanting in the streets.

Civil Disobedience Lite

Article Tools

Related Articles