Not too long ago, the Argus criticized WesPeace for holding events that didn’t provide intelligent arguments from pro-war speakers. Monday’s debate between pro-war journalist Christopher Hitchens and anti-war scholar Dr. Michael Parenti filled that void. The debate—which ranged from provocative to sarcastic, and on occasion rude, provided complex arguments for and against the invasion of Iraq.
We were most interested in the selection of Christopher Hitchens as a speaker. Hitchens, who supports the war, is far from neoconservative or religious right thinkers who also support the war. An erudite intellectual (and self-described liberal) with a British accent and fierce secularism, Hitchens’ beliefs show that there are more nuanced positions than cable news scream-fests and our highly-polarized Capitol Hill would have us believe. He was a speaker that many anti-war Wesleyan students would have trouble dismissing easily on ideological grounds because he shares with liberal students the same views on social issues. In this sense, Hitchens proves that to be pro-war and social liberal-minded are not mutually exclusive characteristics. You can be pro-war and pro-choice at the same time.
While Hitchens’ facts couldn’t be validated on the spot, he grounded his arguments in context and in first-hand reporting, which gave him credibility.
The anti-war speaker was slightly less impressive. While he had a good sense of humor which earned him some laughs, he evaded a few questions from the panel and his platforms were predictable and laden with conspiracy theories, although he denied this. Granted, Parenti’s anti-administration stance may have sounded uninspired to us because we at Wesleyan hear it all the time. To be fair, Parenti also substantiated his arguments with facts of his own and presented convincing arguments as well.
Both speakers received considerable applause from the audience of students, professors and community members who nearly filled the chapel where the debate was held. Responding to an assertion by Parenti that U.S foreign policy is always manipulative and calculating, Hitchens received applause when he mentioned that the U.S. effort to intervene in Darfur (weak as the effort may be) is not rooted in any ulterior motive.
This sort of event is very productive because it provides us with intelligent perspectives from opposing sides of an issue. WesPeace should be congratulated for their efforts in making this event possible. Significantly, though, this event was also by the President’s Office, the Sociology and Government departments, WESU, the Muslim Students Association and the United Student Labor Action Coalition (USLAC), and they too should be thanked. The fact that diverse groups on campus came together to sponsor a debate where two truly distinct points of view were put forth, is very positive.
Leave a Reply