The Eureka Panel
| By Siegez - Jul 12th, 2006 at 5:02 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog | 2006 Campus Progress National Student Conference |
Question: on what issue does this Campus Progress intern heartily agree with a National Review intern?
In the summer, besides throngs of tourists, Washington is inundated by a lot of political conferences (including ours). Each conference has its niche, but mostly they are groups of the firm believers parading out their heroes and slamming their villains. Certainly conventions serve a purpose--excitement of activists and incitement of action--but in the large scheme of things, the conferences themselves often don't further political discourse.
I have to admit, I don't usually enjoy these ideological orgies. I am a strong believer (sometimes to fault) in the politics of the practical and these rhetoric filled ballrooms usually make my head spin.
Not to toot Campus Progress's horn but the last panel I attended on academic freedom here at the National Student conference was as refreshing as an oasis in the middle of the usual rhetorical desert. The panelists were Jacob Laskin of David Horowitz's Front Page magazine and Samuel Richards, a professor Horowitz named one of the 101 most dangerous academics in America in his book The Professors.
In this civil discussion the dangerous professor namer and the named dangerous professor acknowledged where they agreed (surprisingly a lot) and highlighted the places in which they disagreed. Walking out of that panel students could make decisions on their positions on academic freedom based on the few points of disagreement
What was so unique was that this jazz about free exchange of ideas was more than just rhetoric. The two panelists kept referring to the dinner they had last night where they discussed and debated academic freedom. That's right, these guys are friends. There is an art that is lost in government today; I'm going to dub it "pub politics." That is, people solving problems while they're not at work in their think tanks by conferring with their friend who don't agree with them. It would be interesting to do a historical study on how many policies were created or enacted this way. It is to our detriment that this is not a rarity.
Mr. Rasbin at one point answered a charge that much of Horowitz's evidence was not factual by saying "that's slander." He then started chuckling and said "I'm just kidding, let me answer that question." Yep, you got it, his joke was that he was going to dismiss a legitimate question with rhetoric.
It totally wasn't just pragmatic-obsessed me who felt this way. It seemed to be a consensus among all the students in this break-out session, from the lefty activists to the National Review intern sitting in the back.
In the summer, besides throngs of tourists, Washington is inundated by a lot of political conferences (including ours). Each conference has its niche, but mostly they are groups of the firm believers parading out their heroes and slamming their villains. Certainly conventions serve a purpose--excitement of activists and incitement of action--but in the large scheme of things, the conferences themselves often don't further political discourse.
I have to admit, I don't usually enjoy these ideological orgies. I am a strong believer (sometimes to fault) in the politics of the practical and these rhetoric filled ballrooms usually make my head spin.
Not to toot Campus Progress's horn but the last panel I attended on academic freedom here at the National Student conference was as refreshing as an oasis in the middle of the usual rhetorical desert. The panelists were Jacob Laskin of David Horowitz's Front Page magazine and Samuel Richards, a professor Horowitz named one of the 101 most dangerous academics in America in his book The Professors.
In this civil discussion the dangerous professor namer and the named dangerous professor acknowledged where they agreed (surprisingly a lot) and highlighted the places in which they disagreed. Walking out of that panel students could make decisions on their positions on academic freedom based on the few points of disagreement
What was so unique was that this jazz about free exchange of ideas was more than just rhetoric. The two panelists kept referring to the dinner they had last night where they discussed and debated academic freedom. That's right, these guys are friends. There is an art that is lost in government today; I'm going to dub it "pub politics." That is, people solving problems while they're not at work in their think tanks by conferring with their friend who don't agree with them. It would be interesting to do a historical study on how many policies were created or enacted this way. It is to our detriment that this is not a rarity.
Mr. Rasbin at one point answered a charge that much of Horowitz's evidence was not factual by saying "that's slander." He then started chuckling and said "I'm just kidding, let me answer that question." Yep, you got it, his joke was that he was going to dismiss a legitimate question with rhetoric.
It totally wasn't just pragmatic-obsessed me who felt this way. It seemed to be a consensus among all the students in this break-out session, from the lefty activists to the National Review intern sitting in the back.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
The answer is "a hell of a lot". :) If you get the chance while you're in DC, stop by Martin's Tavern, around Wisconsin and N. Aside from being a cozy place for drunken intellectualism in general, the back room (known as the 'dugout') is where Lyndon Johnson made a lot of the critical deals that got so much contentious legislation passed when he was a ringleader of the Senate.
I got a lot out of a discussion today with an Iranian girl here at UCI who actually voted for their current president.
Talking to people you disagree with is important.
Oh, and on that note, fuck Jason Mattera - but I'd still have a drink with him.