http://www.columbiaspectator.com/authors/posts/25939 An authors posts... used for embedding en http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/52898 I expected the Bollinger, Clinton, and Havel event to be something more than a merely surface-deep discussion in which the audience played perfectly into the stereotype of what Bill O'Reilly has labeled "the left-wing jihad." We did not act as students wanting to hear an intellectual discussion but rather as children overly excited to hear the greatest living liberal politician reinforce what we wanted to hear. The discussion had no real substance. As a talk about emerging democracies, last Wednesday's discussion should have had plenty of topics to delve into, even given that the participants had only an hour. Former President Bill Clinton failed to go into specifics on topics that were discussed, such as his belief in redistribution of government spending from military to humanitarian missions and education to foster the creation of democracy abroad. He simply professed support for his own well-known, post-presidential liberal positions, remaining in the realm of broad statements of support for democratization and general critiques of current policy. He did have a great point that governments don't need to be democracies to listen to their people or to have the support of their people, which he supported with a solid example from China's SARS experience. But he failed to do what he typically does so well, which is to demonstrate his clear understanding of the essential issues in a topic and then reinforce his position by bringing a plethora of examples and facts into the explanation of each point. The audience's reaction also was upsetting. A vocal majority of attendees clearly were there just to see Clinton and bask in his aura. If it could ever be said that Columbia was a hotbed of left-wing jihad, this event proved it: we need to be able to appreciate good speeches, discussions, and analyses without blindly supporting our champions when they come to speak. As a strong liberal, I'm normally quick to criticize right-wingers when they accuse liberals of not asking their fellows the "hard" questions that they ask conservatives, but I am beginning to see the truth in their accusations. People were in complete awe of Clinton, laughing with him and praising him with applause when he wasn't even saying anything special. This wasn't a discussion so much as a pep rally. As students at a top-tier institution, we need to be able to discern a well-made argument from the simple restatement by famous people of views that we like. When Clinton came to speak about the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education, he deserved the applause he received because he showed how brilliant, soundly opinionated, and articulate he is. That time, he gave an incredible speech, cutting right to the heart of the issues and giving strong examples to make his points. The question-and-answer session afterward allowed students to ask tough questions that he answered skillfully. Now, let's not forget about former Czechoslovakian President Václav Havel, as the audience did. His words, too, disappointed. The man who helped engineer and guide a peaceful transition to democracy in former Czechoslovakia was not asked to talk about the issues he faced and the solutions he found. We know that he's for democracy-he created one. I came to hear him talk about his experience and to learn what he thinks is essential for the survival of new democracies. In the end, I would rather not have missed my history class with professor Eric Foner, for at least Foner carefully backs his viewpoints with facts and explanations. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/52898#comments Opinion Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:00:00 -0600 Aaron Berman 52898 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com