Let It Be. Just Let It Be

By Daniel F. Linsalata | Thursday, November 9, 2006

Early this week, I was discussing with a friend the differences between liberal and conservative ‘activism.’ Liberal activism is activism in the conventional sense. You know, marching around and chanting until everyone is out of breath, burning things until nothing save a pile of ash remains to burn, and hosting forums and panels to discuss topics nobody really wants to talk about anyway. Conservative ‘activism’ is far simpler (and less stress inducing). When conservatives believe a policy or action is wrong, they wait for everything to come crashing down by itself. Or, at the very most, they take to the editorial pages of any publication that people will read. Either way, there is far less effort expended, with a comparable record on results.

Think about it: name an instance when a group of angry, cause-du-jour marchers screaming on the Green effected any true, widespread societal change? “Sparking a discourse” or “raising awareness of the problem” may make the demonstrators feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but still remains a far cry from actually solving any real problems facing a community.

And to the converse, consider the results of waiting for a situation to turn into an unmitigated disaster on its own merits. President Freedman’s vision of Dartmouth as “Harvard Light” comes to mind. By the same token, his Rally Against the Review Hate, in which he urged the whole Dartmouth community to gather on the Green and sing songs about the evils of “hate” accomplished nothing save bringing gallons of unwanted negative ink to Dartmouth in the national press. But at least he made people aware of the problem, right?

Note, however, that I am not discounting all forms of activism, even the ones that traditionally fall into the liberal realm. The Red Cross and Amnesty International, for instance, do very important work. If nothing else, I’d be comforted knowing they have my back if I ever found myself held political prisoner in a third-world dictatorship (incidentally, also the reason I refuse to travel anywhere besides Canada and ski towns in the western U.S.).

The most interesting facet of the liberal protest paradigm is the participants. Here at Dartmouth, it seems that the same crowd likes to show up for every protest, no matter the cause. Be it sexual assault, the Indian symbol, or the apparently ‘excessive’ waste generated by students nourishing themselves, the protestors rarely differ (I’m not pointing fingers, but you can easily assume). And, uniquely this year, Student Assembly President Timmy Andreadis has been conspicuously leading nearly every one of these protests—when he’s not busy bringing sexy back.

Why the ubiquity of these protestors, especially for such unrelated causes? I’m not a psychology major, so I have to run with the assumption that this “cause of the day” mentality stems from the necessity for some people (read: most liberals) to always be angry about something. They’re just not happy unless they’re angry. As to where this anger comes from: maybe their daddies didn’t love them enough as children, maybe their daddies loved them, ahem, a little too much. Again, I don’t know; I’m not qualified for this type of thing.

Here’s a thought though: try lightening up a bit. It is, in fact, possible to achieve happiness without the requisite anger. In his most famous address, former Dartmouth president John Sloan Dickey posited, “There is nothing wrong with this world that better human beings cannot fix.” As a follow-up thought, how about, “There is nothing wrong with this world that cannot be fixed by not taking everything so seriously.” Hyperbole perhaps, But, contrary to popular liberal belief, nothing is ever a matter of life and death until somebody is holding a gun to your head. And even then, there’s a good chance he’s bluffing.

Members of the Dartmouth community would do well to heed this advice. This week alone two firestorms have flared up over, well, nearly nothing. On Monday, Daily Dartmouth cartoonist Drew Lerman ’10 published a strip subtly critiquing liberal academic revisionism. In the comic, Lerman portrayed a student quizzing Friedrich Nietzsche on a moral dilemma: “This girl’s acting all into me but she’s really [drunk]. I don’t want to do the wrong thing.” Nietzsche encourages the lad to “assert your power to will. Take advantage of her.” Nietzsche goes on to explain that liberal academic revisionism has created the interpretation that he is against such behavior.

Needless to say, students were up in arms. The Daily D was flooded with angry emails, Lerman received death threats, and protestors gathered in front of the Daily D offices to chant angrily, burn copies of the paper, and revel in their shared lack of cleanliness. The editorial staff, in a rare praise-worthy action, printed an emergency editorial defending their printing of the comic. The cause of the outcry? Printing the comic explicitly endorsed sexual assault, naturally. The protestors never bothered to consider that the point of Lerman’s cartoon was not to encourage rape, but rather to offer a parodic critique of revisionism gone awry. Instead of thinking, they latched onto a favorite buzzword and held on for dear life in defiance of all logic.

Granted, Lerman could have used a more tasteful moral dilemma—such as stealing from a fraternity or cheating on an exam—but a thoughtful, non-reactionary reading of the cartoon yields the same message. As such, the chants, burnings, and similar gestures were for naught. The editors have no intention of retracting the comic, and no apology is forthcoming. One has to wonder if the hour or so out of the protestors’ day was really worth the effort. Empirical evidence says no.

And lest you think this type of behavior is limited to young neo-hippies, consider the demoralized behavior of the proponents of the Alumni Constitution upon learning that they had been soundly defeated (see page six). Rather than putting on a gracious public face and expressing gratitude for the record voter turnout in the election, they immediately bemoaned every circumstance of perceived ‘unfairness’ in the election process. In an interview with the Daily D, Alumni Constitution Task Force member Martha Hennessey ’76 bemoaned, “The opposition had the editor of the Wall Street Journal in their back pocket and how do you combat that?” Dare I mention that the pro-constitution group had endorsements from the Daily D, as well as the Board of Trustees and President James Wright? That certainly seems as if it would level the playing field. Continuing the spirit of name calling that has characterized the entire campaign, she described the unexpected opposition and the subsequent failure as a “sad thing for Dartmouth.”

In reality, the constitution’s spectacular failure is no more a sad thing than, say, a poor grade on a paper. The vote on the constitution was no more than a referendum, certainly not a do-or-die scenario. On this paper, the AGTF got a low D. This is not a personal affront; it happens. Dartmouth has not yet burned to the ground, and the sun will rise tomorrow. Laissez-faire; everything will be okay.

Let It Be. Just Let It Be

Article Tools

Related Articles