Temper Tantrums
Last night, Butler University witnessed just the latest in a series of food-attacks on conservative speakers. In brief,
- David Horowitz, chocolate cream pie, 04/06, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN
- Pat Buchanan, salad dressing, 03/31, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI
- Bill Kristol, ice cream pie, 03/30, Earlham College, Richmond, IN
I should note that I’m not an apologist for any of these pundits, but I think it’s proper to condemn the actions against them. I think it would be premature to say that a trend is afoot, but it does seem as if there is some uncivil behaviour on America’s campuses (here, here, here, and here, for examples).
The temptation for lumping is high, since most of this stuff is coming from the Left. More serious minds, of course, realize that we might confine such behaviour to a narrow group: immature campus radicals, for whom emotion replaces more intellectual contemplation of politics. Of course, college kids in general can adopt a sort of arrogance about their beliefs, but I would suppose a key factor tipping this pretentiousness toward impotent guerrilla outbursts from the Left is the recent election.
These kids got all fired up about Dean (or Kucinich (or ABB)), and the self-righteousness still burns in the true believers. Many of us conservatives expected the fringe Left to be demoralized, but it seems reasonable to suppose that a small group of immature and weak-minded individuals wish to fight on by other means. Hopefully, these kids will wise up before anyone does anything serious.
It is heartening to see some condemnation from the Left regarding these tactics, even if it is mixed with some Schadenfreude. One such example is interesting: Rachel Goodman, at the anti-Horowitz-and-up-with-college-liberalism Campus Progress, notes that this kind of thing only adds to conservative gripes, especially Horowitz’s, about campus liberals “lowering the level of discourse and exercising fascist control over expression.” And then, rather than responding to this charge, she writes, “However, while he was thinking all that, he was still standing there with filling dripping off his balding head. And that part of it is just so slightly delightful . . .” If she really finds Horowitz to be so risible, she should be able to offer counter-arguments here instead of glee.
10 Responses to “Temper Tantrums”
I don’t have a problem with pie-throwing per se, but the current round of it is stupid, juvenile, and counterproductive. I actually thought that the inital pie-throwers were doing something interesting – they focused on largely behind-the-scenes agents of global capitalism. By doing that, they highlighted that there are actual people involved in the day-to-day operation of globalism, it’s not just a machine that functions independently of ethics, etc. etc. Pie-throwing tried to single out the human at the heart of the system, if you will.
By contrast, this round is theoretically stupid -pundits, in fact, make their money by being humans (or personalities). In fact, the pie-throwing plays right into the logic of the celebrity pundit system. The pie-throwing just tells america what they hear every sunday morning when they flip past talk shows: these are Important People.
ABB? Please explain
ABB = “Anybody But Bush?”
I have to wonder if the food attacks might encourage laxity in campus security. I worry about a reverse of the “boy who cried wolf” – security will get used to the idea of food attacks, and one day the ordnance will be something a lot more menacing than a pie.
Actually it’s a reverse “boy who cried wolf” only in that the boy is crying “not wolf” (”food fight”) all the time until the real wolf shows up. It parallels the analogy in that a string of relative nonthreats could dampen the stimulus to immediate response in the face of a real threat.
Oh, lighten up! There’s nothing better than a good pie-in-the-face gag. Plus, this gives us a chance to laugh not just at the pundits, but also at the idiots who think they’re making a bold political statement with ranch dressing. And isn’t that what life is really about?
See the Limbaugh dictionary for the difference between “a fraternity prank” and “Fomenting Violence”…
Gotta keep the Party Line straight…;-)
William Kristol takes one in the face
The Palladium-Item is reporting that William Kristol, neocon editor of the Weekly Standard and member in good standing of the chattering classes was assaulted by a pie while engaging in a debate at Earlham College. I certainly have my reservations…
Come on, don’t you watch the Simpsons? Krusty has told us that the pie gag is only funny “if the sap’s got dignity.”
A pie in the face is funny if it’s on a sitcom or a circus. A pie in the face to a speaker on a college campus who is presenting his views is a form of physical humiliation that is intended to circumvent intellectual discourse. It is absolutely counter to the very mission of the university, and any instance of this — regardless of the political position of the target — has to be thoroughly denounced. (Butler and Earlham have both done so.)
In fact, although I am no lawyer, the Indiana Criminal Code seems to classify this incident as battery. Battery is defined in the ICC as “A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery.” Throwing a physical object at somebody constitutes “touching”. So Horowitz would be within his rights to press charges, and he has said he would do so.
Zach is right — if Horowitz is so easy to refute, why not refute him instead of attack him?
I do agree that pie-ing and other forms of physical assault — even if not threatening of permanent harm — should not be tolerated, and I was very glad to see recently that Earlham is suspending its pie-thrower.
But I would add that one should not infer from the non-refutation by various protestors that Horowitz is not, in fact, rather easily refuted, in most of he claims. The only sense in which he’s not easily refuted, in fact, is in that he frequently fails to actually make an argument; and it’s perhaps a category mistake to speak of refuting that which is not an argument.