Note: This editorial by executive editor Joseph Bonica will appear in this week’s issue of the Cornell Review. The event “Karl Rove: Thoughts on 2012” will occur this Wednesday, April 13th.
Of all of American liberalism’s favorite targets, few inspire as much vitriol and blind rage as Karl Rove. As the architect of former President Bush’s two presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, many on the left see him as an insidious puppetmaster, pulling the strings behind every policy decision in the administration and thus public enemy number one. In fact, if not for the rapid ascension of Sarah Palin to the top of the list of people liberals love to hate, Karl Rove would probably still be the cocaine used to fuel the far left’s rage. This is not to say that only liberals criticize Mr. Rove; many on the right also take issue to his techniques and policy stances. However, their criticism of him is based typically in logic and actual thought rather than sheer partisan rage. This general attitude towards Mr. Rove will make April 13th a very interesting day indeed, as on that day he will speak in front of a Cornell University crowd that hasn’t been too welcoming to the idea thus far.
Certainly, though, in an institution that prides itself on rational discussion and the presentation of all sides of an argument, the student body would be willing to see someone they disagree with and ensure a fair intellectual atmosphere, correct? Theoretically, yes; however, the initial reactions don’t seem too promising. Here, for example, are direct quotes assembled from the event page on Facebook:
“I hate this man with a passion…which is exactly why I am going to see this.”
“Christ, it’s like meeting Darth Vader. Who wouldn’t want to?”
“You’ve GOT to be kidding me for sending me the invite! I’d rather chew rusty tacks! I abandoned the Republican Party in 2000 and it remains the best thing I ever did for myself in the previous decade! So thanks, but NO!”
While this is obviously a small sample size, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to assume that many students will be attending the event for the same kinds of reason. They won’t be attending to actually listen to an alternate political reality to their own; debate doesn’t really seem to be their thing. Rather, they are attending for the sheer novelty of meeting the bad guy and get a chance to air their grievances with him. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is not a good starting point for healthy intellectual conversation.
This especially doesn’t bode well, however, for the day Rove actually stands a few dozen feet away from them and outlines his thoughts on the upcoming elections. While the reactions and debate will likely be largely civil, it’s hard to imagine the most enraged far leftist will be able to halt themselves from enacting their borderline sexual desire to stand down the great “war criminal” himself. Evidence of some kind of protest has already been seen; on the comment board of the Ithaca Journal, one intrepid poster has the bright idea of printing fake tickets to get into the event and cause a little bit of chaos. It is fully expected that there will be at least a few moments of aggression, self-righteousness, and outright rage from audience members upon confronting Rove himself.
From this, a question inevitably arises: is this behavior of a tolerant political ideology? Anyone who follows any kind of politics knows that the American left prides itself on “tolerance” and “openness to alternate ideas”. These ideals sure sound nice and are immeasurably important to the proper running of a republic, but in practice we see that many “liberals” are in fact far more tyrannical than the other side of the aisle. It is this very lack of tolerance among the left, especially the campus left, that transforms an event such as Karl Rove’s speech from an informative discussion to an opportunity to act out a repressed Empire Strikes Back fantasy; to preserve the intellectual integrity of this environment, this thought process must change.
