It never is difficult to find an educated or an ignorant opportunist who hijacks a legitimate grievance and claim representation of a suffering people. Their kind can be found among various kinds of groups and all forms of religion or ideals. Some are misguided in their sincerity while others are pre-meditated in their attempts at raising themselves from the valleys of obscurity by courting controversy and wrapping themselves with enough threads of legitimacy to garner attention and achieve self-promotion.
In advertising for Andrew Bernstein’s lecture last week, the Objectivist Club published an article by Leonard Peikoff. People who attended Bernstein’s lecture could easily see through the holes in his spew of hate and anti-Islamic rhetoric all wrapped in the legitimacy of patriotism. The Objectivist Club should have been more careful in the selection of such an opportunistic speaker, and The Poly more responsible in the type of advertisements they publish. Inflammatory, prejudiced rhetoric, especially in the current national atmosphere of well-founded fear and edginess, and the resulting hate crimes that follow from ignorance and prejudice demands that we all act in the most responsible fashion.
Since people exposed to Peikoff’s paid-for article have not heard or read a dissenting viewpoint, it is important not to let it pass. If silence signals acquiescence, this article doth protest! While Peikoff did not intentionally write his article for The Poly, the format the Objectivist Club presented it in and the fact that The Poly chose to publish it demands that it be treated as one. The short comments of this article are therefore addressed to Peikoff and Bernstein as well as anyone who indiscriminately embraces all their ideas.
We wish Peikoff could have understood the word "objective" in its dynamic operative mode and had stuck to the factual parts of his article or complaint so that we would have been at the forefront of those objectively supporting his viewpoint. Yet, in advancing the case for the legitimate suffering and pain resulting from the September 11 tragedy, Peikoff’s article butters and surrounds so many statements of patriotism and factual incidents with misstatements of basic facts and advocacy of indiscriminate violence that his intention, surely, must have been that some of the negativity and prejudice that accompanies his rhetoric would stick.
From the very beginning, Peikoff starts off complaining about the rights countries have over their own oil and moves on to sweeping generalizations of all Muslim countries, painting them indiscriminately in the same camp as extremism. In between statements patriotism and recalling of factual incidents is an advocacy of "a clash of cultures," criticism of voices of reason as well as of most leaders of the U.S. government, and anguish over the notion of multi-cultural acceptance of others. A political science 101 course could have answered many of the questions raised. Other points need a lengthier forum than the current one offers.
Peikoff, Bernstein, and the terrorists of September 11 and their supporters seem to have more in common than any of them might like to acknowledge. They, unfortunately, attempt to wrap themselves in and advance themselves under the banner of legitimate causes: religion or patriotism. They are extremist in their interpretations. They justify killing innocent civilians in the pursuit of their causes. Moreover, they bemoan the isolationism that their views suffer from.
Peikoff states: "A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess (a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons). And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire. These innocents suffer and die because of the action of their own government in sponsoring the initiation of force against America. Their fate, therefore, is their government’s moral responsibility. There is no way for our bullets to be aimed only at evil men." And: "The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations."
Anyone who has heard terrorists advocating and justifying the killing of innocent people in pursuit of their causes wonders when exactly they, as well as Peikoff and Bernstein, joined the "means justify the ends" club. And, perhaps terrorists hiding in the corners of the world care less about their reputations and the consequences of their statements and actions, but Peikoff, Bernstein, and anyone who advocates their "kill the innocent and mar the facts" ideas are afraid of being recognized that they and the terrorists are all kindred spirits in their approach to solving problems and in their twisting of elementary facts.
Fortunately for us all, President Bush and many in positions of responsibility have shown tremendous courage and wisdom in leadership and have set the correct tone for the country. Peikoff and Bernstein decry that. The fact that the president enjoys overwhelming support from the American people is a testimony to the level of cultural isolation that such extremist viewpoints in their midst suffers from.
Yet, we all recognize from the actions of the terrorist few on September 11 the importance of constant vigilance in the protection of justice and liberty.
Prejudice and ignorance are the best allies of the extremists! Let us not allow self-serving opportunistic viewpoints to taint us and box us into a corner. Rather, let us all come together in standing up for what is right and just so that we can build a better world. It is the only one we have!
Muslim Students Association at RPI
