Ben R. Cady's article in the Nov. 7 issue of The Spectrum, "Old Yearbooks Tell Story of Revolution," is one of the most egregiously incoherent and utterly misguided opinion pieces to appear in your otherwise professional publication.
The sheer amount of objections that one, with any sort of plebian historical or political understanding, is immediately confronted with after reading the column, is somewhat staggering. Thus, any attempt to seriously rebut the partially developed arguments within the piece may be in vain because of the inherent and palpable absurdity that is present therein. Nonetheless, an attempt will be made within this response.
Cady's essential argument in the column is that "for liberals, the Sixties revolution has always had an unusual allure. Students like myself think fondly of a time when young people cared about politics and came together to fight for a cause" and "as the Iraq crisis deepens, some young liberals dream of demonstrations that could rival those of the Vietnam era. Others imagine another liberal revolution." These reminders of unrest were apparently discovered in a chance encounter while searching the records of the Spectrum office. Cady then insists the issues of the late 1960s, which are listed as Left vs. Right, East vs. Heartland and military vs. civilian, "plainly establishes the divides that strangle America today."
One is at a loss as to where to respond. For starters, Cady's indifferent use of the word 'liberal' is shocking within itself. No regard is made to distinguish those of the Lockean liberal tradition from those of the more activist radical wing of the political spectrum. The term "revolution" or revolutionary is also used in the same haphazard and ideologically incorrect fashion throughout the piece.
For example, John McCain, a liberal republican from Arizona, is certainly one who neither advocates a revolution nor endorses political violence in any fashion. In the same vein, a pro-activist liberal, such as Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the leftist magazine "The Nation," cannot be simply placed in the same category with a more liberal democrat such as presidential hopeful Howard Dean simply because they sit on the same side of the political aisle. Yet no cogent distinctions are made within the article.
Cady's suggestion of the 1960s struggle involving left vs. right still being an issue is one that is very relevant in contemporary political debate today. One needs to look no further than the closely and caustically contested 2000 presidential election to see proof of the divide in ideology that is present throughout the country. Therefore, his point is well taken and is very appropriate. However, his other conclusions leave much more to be desired.
To suggest that young liberals pine for revolution today is not only extremely particularistic but also smacks of a certain naivety that is present throughout this article. Cady's final remarks of caution in responding with "violence and hate" in political debates are strikingly out of tune with the rest of his words and it is a mystery as to why the article was concluded in such an odd fashion.
