|
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 10:23 PM by theemu
I think your point is an interesting one, but I also think the Truth in this case (the Bush administration) probably sounds like partisan political rhetoric to some. Or, put another way, as Harry Truman put it: I just tell the truth about Republicans and they THINK I'm givin' them hell.
In fact, I think between us we've just hit on something important the Professor might want to discuss with his class. Let's tear this apart a little, shall we? (My own defs -- others may shoose to consult a dictionary.)
Partisan -- characterized by pertaining to one political party over another. Often used unflatteringly to connote "unfair" or "biased." Also used by opposition to imply that the comments or criticisms being they're characterizing are intended only for the political gain of those doing the critiques. Neither of these two connotations are necessarily accurate.
Political rhetoric -- Usually used to demean or diminish the comments of others. However, the denotation of the term is merely "talk about politics."
The Republicans are very quick to lob that phrase -- partisan political rhetoric -- and others similar whenever they are being challenged on the truth and facts and merely want to deflect the objective criticism by dismissing it as just so much politics. It's a very clever ploy of theirs, and the Dems never seem to have quite the right response.
I know it's a phrase used commonly by the Republicans, but the fact is, if you look at what the words mean, it's exactly what he's doing. The fact is, an intelligent debater can argue any way he or she wants on political matters - there are, despite the wishes of many on all sides, facts and arguments which can effectively be used to argue all angles of any issue. To present only criticism of Bush is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, a waste of the money of the students who don't want to hear an attack, but would rather learn something.
There IS an important role in government for criticism by the opposition party. Our whole government is set up as a series of checks and balances and part of those checks and balances stem from having at least two political parties elected to office. When the complaints and criticisms of one party are stifled by this thin-skinned and dishonest countercharge, we get very poor government indeed. In fact, we get the effect of a single party without the inherent checks and balances that at least 2 parties would provide.
You could be a little more condescending in your explanation.
If you watch the news carefully, and compare things to when the last elected President was in office, and are HONEST, you'll notice that this administration gets away with murder (sometimes literally), whereas the Clinton administration's feet were held to the fire about everything, all the time. I think an argument can be made that GOOD government would come not from either extreme, but somewhere in the middle for all administrations of whichever political party.
Oh. That's better. That's definitely more condescending. BTW, I tend to agree that a GOOD government would be somewhere in the middle, although I do agree, as a liberal, that my 'middle' would be skewed toward the left. Which is why I don't believe an outright attack on a political figure is an effective way to teach intelligent human beings.
First, IMO you don't necessarily have the right -- and oughtn't expect it -- to be spared your professors' biases. AFAIC, that's part of what your education is all about -- being exposed to a panoply of different thinking on many different subjects. Further, if you don't have the criticial thinking ability at this point in your life to sort through what you consider "partisan political rhetoric" and come up either with pointed questions, counter arguments or, if those aren't allowed in the class, your own views ANYway (which you can argue with among your friends), then you maybe shouldn't be in college.
I recognize I don't have the right to be spared my professor's biases - I completely understand that and expect it. I'm not, despite what seems to be your thoughts to the contrary, an idiot. Hell, I don't even mind a biased professor - as long as the biased professor doesn't use his or her classroom as a pulpit, which is what it sounds like the original poster wishes to do.
Or perhaps you picked the wrong school if you only want to have your own views mirrored back to you.
Where did I say that? WHERE DID I FUCKING SAY THAT? I swear to God, that sort of statement grasps at straws like a Freeper would. It's a rhetorically dishonest thing to say, and you know it. I clearly stated that I don't want ANY political rants in my class. As a liberal who believes in fairness toward EVERY political view, even the ones I disagree with, even the ones I hate, I cannot support a professor who uses my freetime, which I help to pay 36,000 a year for, for his or her own personal political ends, unless said professor presents counterarguments. Using one's power as a professor to enforce dogma is an absolutely disgusting thing to do.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(11 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
