Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author Arthur Schlesinger Jr. speaks on campus about patriotism during times of war. He argued that dissent is essential in times of war, such as the recent conflict in Iraq. photo by Christopher Wong
Posted on 10/23/2003 2:39:53 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
(CAMPUS : events & lectures) -- What is the true nature of patriotism, anyway? That was the question posed by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in his speech to about 300 people Wednesday night in Harris Hall room 107.
Schlesinger stressed that disagreement is essential to democracy in his lecture, "Patriotism and Dissent in Wartime."
Schlesinger was chosen to speak for the annual Richard W. Leopold Lectureship. Leopold taught a seminar in diplomatic history at Northwestern and has been a close friend of Schlesinger's for more than 70 years.
"To rally around the president during a time of war is not in the American tradition," said Schlesinger. "No one man, even the president of the United States, should be denied this opposition."
The author of more than two dozen books, Schlesinger drew on his wealth of knowledge about political history in the speech, one of two he gave on campus. He also spoke at a fireside at International Studies Residential College.
Schlesinger, who graduated from Harvard University, worked in the Office of War Information during World War II and later overseas in the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA.
Most notably, he served as special assistant to the president during the Kennedy administration, debating such pressing issues as the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Schlesinger criticized President Bush for waging what he called a preventive war against Iraq. "America's new strategy is that we must attack them before they attack us," he said.
He drew parallels between the United State's latest actions and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor before the United States entered World War II.
"Not for 75 years have we been that kind of country," he said. "But under the Bush doctrine, we are that kind of country now."
He went on to question the "imminent danger" posed by Iraq.
"There was no urgency in the Iraq situation," he said. "The only urgency was to hurry and do everything before the summer heat."
He further furnished examples of dissent to wars throughout history, dating back to the Revolutionary War.
Calling the discouragement of dissent by public officials "morally treasonable to the American public," Schlesinger said the Americans have an obligation to voice opposing views.
Schlesinger blamed television and the press for underrepresenting views opposing the war in Iraq. The media impeded any national debate over the merits of the Bush doctrine, he said.
But patriotism doesn't mean silencing dissent, Schlesinger said.
"True patriotism consists of living up to a nation's highest ideals," he said.
Brian Garfield, a Weinberg senior, said he thought that while Schlesinger had a lot of experiences to draw on, the author lacked constructive alternatives to the ideas he was criticizing.
Garfield said he came to see Schlesinger speak because of his reputation and celebrity.
"How often do you get the chance to see someone who can say he sat in the same room as JFK?" he asked.
Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author Arthur Schlesinger Jr. speaks on campus about patriotism during times of war. He argued that dissent is essential in times of war, such as the recent conflict in Iraq. photo by Christopher Wong
Unless he's a Democrat, right Art?
Go fellate a Kennedy you tired old fossil.
Unless the president is Clinton,... or Carter... or (looking skyward and genuflecting) Kennedy, ...or Roosevelt..... but anyone else must be opposed!
This is one of the most hateful things I've ever heard someone say about my country. It makes me feel bad to read this -- thank goodness the voters will never endorse leftist politics built on this kind of rabid anti-Americanism.
If the Bush Administration is like WWII Japan, I guess that puts Saddam in the role of FDR. I bet he likes that image. And if he can get back in power it gives him a moral "green light" to develop (and use) nuclear weapons on us.
Okay, and what if the nation's "highest ideals" do not include Marxist-Leninist slavery, huh?
No fool like an old fool.
/showing ENOURMOUS restraint in this comment
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.