This weekend, Former President Jimmy Carter and a host of other "dignataries" are coming to Athens to host a conference entitled "The Carter Presidency: Lessons for the 21st Century." Carter has said he hopes the conference will be conducted in a "bi-partisan spirit" to discuss the complexities his administration had to face, and then how today's complexities could similarly be addressed. By experiencing, in the words of UGA's website, a "critical, balanced and enlightening exploration of the key domestic and foreign policy decisions made by the Carter administration," we can hope to address the problems that plague the world in 2007.
Carter, who lives in his own world, is probably one of the most liberal people living and breathing in the United States today, but that's okay because we're all entitled to our own political philosophy. So let's see who the University picked to help "balance" things out to create this purported "bi-partisan" atmosphere:
- Walter Mondale, former presidential candidate and liberal. The people were so receptive to his ideas that he garnered a whopping 40% of the popular vote against Reagan's 59%.
- Justice Stephen Breyer, a noted liberal member of the Supreme Court.
- Robert Rubin, economic advisor under President Clinton
- Brian Williams, anchor of NBC News.
- Judy Woodruff, political correspondent for CNN.
- Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under President Clinton
- Other Democrats who were in Congress at the time of Carter's presidency, as well as members of his adiministration.
- 15 or so University Professors from the School of Public and International Affairs
I guess my main point is as you scroll through this list of dignataries and panelists, you won't be able to find one conservative thinker. Not one. It continues to amaze me how Universities, supposedly the most free-speech supporting institutions, can put so many resources into such a large conference without presenting at least one view from the other side of the aisle.
Again, this is what liberals do when they lose elections or their views are out of the mainstream: they retreat into the halls of academia where they can feel relevant by making simple problems into "complexities" that must be discussed using big words and with people who have read lots of books and the wisdom of those who have never had to make it in the private sector before.
If I were a panelist at this thing, I would start things off by asking one simple, straightforward question: does anyone here seriously think this country would have been better off had Carter been re-elected in 1980? And I'm sure most professors would snicker back about how it's not so simple. But it really is that simple: Carter was a disaster. This was the same man who sat back and watched as the Soviet Union expanded its military and invaded Afghanistan, whose policy was "peaceful coexistence" with Communism, who kept income tax rates at 70%, who tried to plan and manage America's energy sector, only worsening gasoline shortages.
Why then are his views so well respected in the academic community as opposed to say, the views of former Reagan officials? Does anyone really care to hear how to deal with Iran from a man who didn't lift a finger when 20 Americans were taken hostage there?
When a conservative (Justice Thomas) comes to campus, he's villified: protests are organized, and professors go out of their way to boycott his speeches. But when liberals come, it's a whole different story: it's "bi-partisan," it's intelligent, it's introspective, it's enlightening. Someone please help me understand the reason for this distinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment