Are American Universities the "Covert Enemies" of America?

[DRJ4]

<p>Michael Barone, a political commentator and Harvard/Yale Law graduate, thinks so:</p>

<p>

Our covert enemies</p>

<p>By Michael Barone
Monday, August 21, 2006</p>

<p>In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.</p>

<p>Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington’s) transnationalism. </p>

<p>At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours – who’s to say who is right? No ideas should be “privileged,” especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. **Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.</p>

<p>These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized.** We are taught that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders – and are left ignorant of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II – and not that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert enemies have their effect. </p>

<p>Of course, this distorts history. We are taught that American slavery was the most evil institution in human history. But every society in history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish it. The movement to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery was not started by the reason-guided philosophies of 18th century France. It was started, as Adam Hochschild documents in his admirable book “Bury the Chains,” by Quakers and Evangelical Christians in Britain, followed in time by similar men and women in America. The slave trade was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the U.S. Navy even before the Civil War. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and consider Israel’s self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.</p>

<p>We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don’t want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.

<a href=“http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2006/08/21/our_covert_enemies[/url]”>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2006/08/21/our_covert_enemies&lt;/a&gt;
Emphasis added.
.</p>

[marite]

<p>

They teach an American history with the good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders – and are left ignorant of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II – and not that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny.

</p>

<p>I’d like names please. Who are the unnamed “they”?</p>

[digmedia]

<p>Total BS…</p>

<p>This is the neocon talking point of anyone disagreeing with current administration policy is unpatriotic, a threat to our country, non-supportive of our troops, and an “enemy.”</p>

[DRJ4]

<p>I don’t know, Marite, but NPR had a related segment in 2004: </p>

<p>

Politics & Society
How the World Learns about American History</p>

<p>Talk of the Nation, August 23, 2004 · It’s hardly surprising that the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis are taught differently in Havana than in Hartford, Conn. In many cases, though, foreign texts cover material that American kids never see – Nigeria’s role in the slave trade, for example – or Canada’s longstanding fears of American invasion.

<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3866153[/url]”>How the World Learns about American History : NPR;

[marite]

<p>DRJ:</p>

<p>Wow! What a surprise! The Cuban missile crisis is taught differently in Cuba than in CT!!! </p>

<p>You know, I learned history through a French lens. Believe me, what is taught about the Napoleonic wars in France is not the same was is taught in Britain or Russia. Why should it be a matter of surprise? And what does this have to do with how American profs teach American history in American universities?</p>

<p>So, who are are the “they” that Barrone refers to?</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>“But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.”</p>

<p>Hmmmmm. Most of the chickenhawks of this adminsitration never “obeyed the call to duty” (most having deferred many times). No heros there,a nd they are of far greater danger than any lowly university professor, no matter how scarily liberal s/he may be. <shrug></shrug></p>

[mapesy]

<p>I never learned this in school here in the US. From the National Archives:</p>

<p><a href=“Home | National Security Archive”>Home | National Security Archive;

[hayden]

<p>“We are taught that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders – and are left ignorant of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights.”</p>

<p>Really? Actually, I think I may have heard a word or two about the Founding Fathers’ proclamations of liberty and human rights. Starting in about kindergarten, and all through grad school. I even remember some of it :)</p>

[TheDad]

<p>AllMusic, we can start with Dick Cheney, who did not serve in Vietnam “because he had other priorities at that time.” As I’m sure that many who died there did.</p>

<p>Digi: today I saw a bumpersticker reflecting an inversion: Iraq, Love It or Leave It.</p>

[spoonyj]

<p>I’ve always felt that neo-con politicos are the true relativists, but in a way that is more subtle–and perhaps more destructive–than the more obvious sort of relativism noted in the excerpt offered by the OP. Whatever one’s political leanings, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth campaign was, by its very title, frightening for its deliberate and unabashed conflation of spin and truth, a move that doesn’t help us uphold the idea that there might be some kind of objective truth that transcends our predilections and manipulations. Of course, both sides are going to have their paritcular takes on issues–spin is a fact of political life–but there’s something incredibly bold, and more than a little creepy, in so explicitly using the very notion of truth itself (with a capital T) as part of one’s political maneuvers, as if the concept is just another tool in the marketing arsenal, a means to an end. </p>

<p>In his article on the workings of talk radio, David Foster Wallace has a similar take on the marketing of Fox News: “It’s hard to understand Fox News tags like ‘Fair and Balanced,’ ‘No-Spin Zone,’ and ‘We Report, You Decide’ as anything but dark jokes, ones that delight the channel’s conservative audience precisely because their claims to objectivity so totally enrage liberals, whose own literal interpretation of the taglines then makes the left seem dim, humorless, and stodgy.”</p>

[DRJ4]

<p>Hey, I know I’m swimming against the tide here but these comments are fascinating. So … for those who care about diversity on campus, what about this December 2004 article? </p>

<p>

A recent study by Santa Clara University researcher Daniel Klein estimated that among social science and humanities faculty members nationwide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one; in some fields it’s as high as 30 to one. And in the last election, the two employers whose workers contributed the most to Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign were the University of California system and Harvard University.</p>

<p>Many teachers insist personal politics don’t affect teaching. But in a recent survey of students at 50 top schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that has argued there is too little intellectual diversity on campuses, 49 percent reported at least some professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter. Thirty-one percent said they felt there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor’s political or social views to get a good grade.

<a href=“http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600100436,00.html[/url]”>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600100436,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Not to mention Ward Churchill (UColorado), Robert Jensen (UTexas), and Kevin Barrett (UWisconsin).</p>

[marite]

<p>Okay. 3 out of the tens of thousands of profs in the thousands of American universities. They must be mighty influential.</p>

<p>

Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society.

</p>

<p>I don’t doubt that Democrats outnumber Republicans on college campuses. But since when have Democrats become America’s enemies?</p>

<p>Sorry, DRJ, this is hate-mongering demagoguery at its worst.</p>

[firewalker]

<p>“We are taught that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders – and are left ignorant of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II – and not that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny.”</p>

<p>This guy screams delusional.</p>

[firewalker]

<p>Anyone who buys into that bull needs to learn the definition of a straw man.</p>

[Dadguy]

<p>I’m envious of anyone with a job that involves drinking and writing at the same time.</p>

<p>I have often wondered what bin Laden did in his cave all day. I thought maybe he was downloading naughty pictures but apparently he has been developing lesson plans for our classrooms.</p>

[kluge]

<p>What is important to recognize is that habitual partakers of contemporary right wing propaganda can become inured to the obvious lack of a reality base in writing like this bunch of garbage and simply accept it as representing a reasonable description of reality. The fact that no real person actually matches the “they” the author so contemptuously reviles completely evades the awareness of the blog-impacted. The obvious straw men are seriously accepted as accurate representations of the “other” school of thought by a fair number of voting Americans. Scary, isn’t it?

Hitler had his way, we have ours – who’s to say who is right?

Yeah - see a lot of people arguing that one, eh?</p>

<p>Dadguy - :)</p>

[hereshoping]

<p>You are very brave, DRJ4!</p>

[hayden]

<p>Spoonyj - your comment was very interesting. I have been bothered by that also. On Fox news, particularly Hannity and Combs, whenever someone on the left strikes a chord, Hannity immediately says in a very disparaging voice, “Democrat”. It’s as if whatever truth may be in the person’s comment is immediately nullified by that person’s political viewpoint. As you say, our partisanship is slowly doing away with the concept of objective truth. The Swiftboat Vets were egregious is their misunse of facts. </p>

<p>If we cannot agree on facts as facts, we can never really communicate, as we are left with just two viewpoints constantly arguing, in one gigantic loop in which the two sides never connect. Is it that some of these partisans do not accept certain things as true, or that they are deliberately misleading? Depending on the individual, I guess the answer would vary. Depressing.</p>

[browninfall]

<p>Terrific article and right on. Barone is an especially astute observer of the passing scene. What I find most interesting about the critiques are the words used…they’re right out of the playbook…delusional…hate mongering demagoguery…chickenhawks. Barone has obviously struck a chord. It’s great being right.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Hmmmmm. Most of the chickenhawks of this adminsitration never “obeyed the call to duty” (most having deferred many times). No heros there,a nd they are of far greater danger than any lowly university professor, no matter how scarily liberal s/he may be. <shrug></shrug></p>

<p>AllMusic, we can start with Dick Cheney, who did not serve in Vietnam “because he had other priorities at that time.” As I’m sure that many who died there did.

</p>

<p>Sure, but what stop at a VP with “other priorities”? Others may have been busy with writing and speaking and marching against the war: </p>

<p>"First, I want to thank you, not only for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. </p>

<p>Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity."</p>

<p>Oh well! Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of all!</p>