|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Why I Am a Neocon
| Article
# : |
11661 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
9 / 1986 |
2,349 Words |
| Author
: |
Herbert London
Herbert London is dean of the Gallatin Division of New
York University and Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute. |
As a college student in the mid-1950s, I imbibed the liberal shibboleths offered by Columbia College professors as gospel. Nonetheless, I shunned facile theories of human behavior. I happened to believe that what was liberal was right. Despite my orientation and that of my professors and fellow students, there was an openness about campus life. One would not have won an argument at Columbia College by supporting Eisenhower over Stevenson in the 1956 election, but there were standards of rhetorical rectitude that militated against open-and-shut cases. In fact, every issue was debated; it was really a matter of honing undeveloped minds. I would argue as vigorously about the virtues of the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers as Dostoyevskian literary ploys.
There were, however, some matters that evoked student and faculty consensus. By the 1950s, it was accepted that quotas for admission into the college were wrong. That didn't mean, however, that quotas were not applied by university officials; it meant only that the issue could mobilize the political will of an overwhelming majority of liberals and a handful of conservatives.
Similarly propaganda, which most of us could readily identify, was to be criticized, particularly in the classroom. If one were to say, "That's propaganda!" it was a put-down as harsh as "nonsense." That rule of thumb applied to students and faculty members alike. "Put up or shut up" was the ultimate rhetorical challenge; one had to prove his argument was sound. Nothing was taken for granted. At times students went to absurd lengths to demonstrate the truth of their claims, but this was in the interest of promoting truth as we understood it. McCarthyism for me meant the arbitrary closing of discussion. It was as much a standard for debate as a political litmus test. Being a McCarthyite meant for others generally adherence to an orthodoxy instead of a fair assessment of information.
The last matter on which there was consensus was the belief that, without inner restraint, external restraint was necessary. There might have been difference of opinion on how much or what kind of restraint was necessary, but the Burkean principle was accepted by students on the left and right. No one that I can recall confused freedom with license. Freedom by its very nature was limited in order to protect the rights of others.
Political Odyssey
Those years at Columbia were the beginning of a political odyssey that took me across the world,
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
