Kristof's message: an 'uncomfortable' awakening

The Tufts Daily ^ | 2/26/07 | Daniel Halper

[dmh191]

When I asked two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof about his guiding moral doctrine, he hummed, hawed and ahhed for a few seconds before he offered this line: "I don't think I have any sort of, you know, particularly unusual or even sophisticated moral doctrine. I think it is more a matter that I try to push people to care equally about injustices that are a long way away versus those that are next door."

Many deem Kristof to be an intellectual figure looked to for moral insight and guidance. Readers see him as a voice of courage worthy of praise. The New York Times Web site proudly describes him as one of the only Americans to be a "two-time visitor to every member of the Axis of Evil." And his knack for finding himself amidst danger makes him all the more intriguing: he was once in the midst of an Indonesian mob "carrying heads on pikes," he survived a plane crash in Uganda, and he has navigated several other dangers far removed from the American suburbs where many of his readers reside.

But his true fame stems from his groundbreaking work in the Darfur region of Sudan, where he has chronicled the destruction and chaos through his biweekly column in The New York Times. After nine or 10 trips to the region, Kristof came to know the crisis intimately.

For Kristof, the solution to unmitigated calamities - such as unprovoked genocide and mass rape - is simple: awareness and diplomacy. The more people know about the tragedy in Sudan, the greater the likelihood that a solution will arise. After all, he said, "if any of these things were happening next door, if the Janjaweed was, you know, pillaging New Hampshire or if, you know, young girls were being dragged out, kidnapped, [and] sold into brothels in North Carolina, then it would just seem intuitive and obvious that we should take greater action."

Kristof is exactly right - we would never let what is happening in Darfur happen here in the States.

But let's assume that these atrocities were happening next door ...

Would we have the audacity to hold vigils on the National Mall to encourage diplomatic action while the murders continued to take place?

Would Americans urge President Bush to organize talks among those running a brothel in North Carolina?

I would hope that Kristof would urge those with power to be proactive - to prevent the destruction and devastation, even if military action were necessary. But he won't go this far. He does not even advocate military action against the Islamists who inflict terror, murder their citizens and rape women as soon as they leave their houses to fetch wood from the forest. Instead he advocates giving these events more "public attention."

The fact remains that people are increasingly aware, yet the destruction in Sudan and elsewhere continues. America offers the most aid to the region and even Kristof has noted that, while this does make him proud, it will not solve all of the problems.

Both Kristof and I consider the most fundamental rights to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We can agree on that much, yet I am inclined to go further. So long as the leaders in Sudan seek only to maintain their own power at the cost of the lives and rights of their own citizens, I propose that NATO get involved in Darfur by not just asking for peace but by demanding it. If (or, more likely, when) that fails, America and its allies must take a more forceful, long-term approach.

I agree with Kristof that we should not "shrug and move on" while these atrocities continue. While candlelight vigils are nice, however, they are little more than a diplomatic shrug. We, as Americans, have sat back too many times in the past. Roosevelt allowed Hitler to gain power and systematically murder over 11 million people, and this only ended through mighty military intervention that remains justified. Of course, Sudan poses no military threat to America, but the genocide is an injustice nonetheless.

As Kristof puts it, he wants his "column to give people an uncomfortable breakfast each morning." And tomorrow night in Cohen Auditorium, the Tufts community will be uncomfortable as he has "a whack at encouraging people to care and to be more active on these issues." Yet he could go further himself by offering viable and forceful solutions that would relieve the Sudanese citizens and free them from oppression.

Without an "unusual or even sophisticated moral doctrine," Kristof does his part by showing us part of the way. Alas, the work has only begun. Kristof is right that we would not tolerate oppression in the United States, but let's do more than sit around and light a candle.

[Brilliant]

"we would never let what is happening in Darfur happen here in the States."



I'm not sure if that's really true. The gang violence is not that different.

[Sherman Logan]

if the Janjaweed was, you know, pillaging New Hampshire or if, you know, young girls were being dragged out, kidnapped, [and] sold into brothels in North Carolina

New Hampshire gun owners would turn them into dog meat.

[Sherman Logan]

As Kristof puts it, he wants his "column to give people an uncomfortable breakfast each morning."

Absolutely fascinating. He isn't interesting in doing anything effective to protect the victims, only about making more Americans uncomfortable, and therefore (according to liberal doctrine) superior human beings.

[LibFreeOrDie]

"Of course, Sudan poses no military threat to America, but the genocide is an injustice nonetheless."

Uh, the libs said the same about Iraq. But according to them, we should not have gone into Iraq, but now we should go into Darfur???

[Sherman Logan]

We shouldn't send troops to Darfur, but we should feel very bad about what is happening there. This won't help the victims a bit, but it will make us feel bad about America for not helping them. Anything that makes one feel bad about America is by definition a very good thing.

[theBuckwheat]

The same crowd wants us to send our troops to "intervene" in Darfur also wants us to withdraw our troops from Iraq. They obviously have not thought things through. The instant we pull out of Iraq before the Iraqi government is capable of keeping the peace, Iraq would descend into a hell far worse than Darfur ever could be.

But this crowd is not capable of recognizing errors in judgment (except when it comes to Bush's judgment), let alone admitting those errors.

You will notice that this crowd never mentions Blackhawk Down, a policy disaster that occurred during the US "intervention" in Somalia. But that was Clinton, and Darfur is the obvious fault of Bushitler.

Go figure.

[LibFreeOrDie]

You're absolutely right about what New Hampshire gun owners would do if invaded.

Too late to put up that fence at the Assachusetts border, though : (

[DB]

Well yes, good liberals hate themselves and everything connected to America. The more self pain they feel the more superior they are.

[Popman]

"I don't think I have any sort of, you know, particularly unusual or even sophisticated moral doctrine. I think it is more a matter that I try to push people to care equally about injustices that are a long way away versus those that are next door."

If Nicholas D. Kristof had a moral doctrine of any kind, he would calling for the outright elimination of the jihadist making Darfur region of Sudan a living hell hole.

His moral doctrine is more of a situational relativism, which in it's core value is immoral

[popdonnelly]

"His moral doctrine is more of a situational relativism"

His moral doctrine is the U.S. is morally wrong, and Bush is particularly wrong.

[Enchante]

Kristof is the perfect quisling liberal: don't do anything effective overseas, don't actually depose a genocidal dictator (Iraq), just posture and preen and pretend that you care soooo much. Oh, and if everyone can have an "uncomfortable breakfast" now and then, well gee whiz, liberals have reached their nirvana of moralistic preening and narcissism.