Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjefe
The whole point of your comment was to paint Ogletree in a positive light, not just show the other side of the story. If it were anything else you, wouldn't have made the statement you made in your last line nor would you have used Media Matters as a source. I'm not as eloquent as you are, nor as intellectual. But I can tell a spade from a spade. The only thing of any importance to me is whether or not Ogletree did assist the Black Panther Party and some of the other deeds mentioned. One can google his name and within the first three pages tell that he did. Even Media Matters doesn't dispute it, they simply try and make it sound benign.
Bottom Line: Ogletree is a radical, in my opinion, and is in the same category as Ayers and Wright, which was the point of the thread to begin with.
|
QP sinjefe--
With respect, the point of my post was to indicate that more in-depth research on Professor Oagletree would lead to resources that would provide a more complex understanding of the man and his past. And, potentially, lead to criticisms of him that are more nuanced and relevant. For instance, what are the pedagogical implications of a tenured professor who holds an endowed chair hosting an event for a national politician? Is this type of behavior common place or is it rare? Is it an activity that helps advance the perception of the Ivory Tower as a bulwark of intellectual freedom or does it counter to that concept? (Should eggheads strive to be rock stars?)
Previously, I have made similar suggestions by providing links and references to resources that are readily available. Today, I deviated from that practice for reasons made clear in post #5.
IMO, attacks on a guy like Ogletree are gifts to the current administration. These attacks just re-enforce the left's widely-helped perception that the president's opponents will say and do anything to get him out of office. This perception is enhanced because the 'radicalism' that some attribute to a person like Ogletree does not fit into the radical critique of the Ivory Tower, of the legal profession, or, for that matter, the current president.
MOO, the task at hand as we approach the 2012 elections is finding ways to get supporters of the president to question their own assumptions about and understanding of the man and his policy preferences. (Cornel West, among others, has been doing so for months.) A guilt by association 'connect the dots' approach is not going to work any better than it did when opponents of Bush the Younger tried painting his administration as a tool of corporate America.
Since the 112th Congress began, house and senate Democrats have been constructing a narrative to turn the 2012 presidential election into a referendum on the president's opponents rather than the man's own job performance. For his part, the current president has continued a pernicious form of race baiting that lies at the core of my dislike for that man. He knows how the 'connect the dot' approach of many of his opponents is going to resonate among many of his supporters (and also, some of his critics).
IMO, too many of the president's opponents are doing more to play into both of these dynamics than they realize.*
As for the Black Panther party, I specifically made available in a previous post a reference to a recent article on its history that works to the benefit of that organization's supporters and its critics.
- Does it at all matter that eggheads who have spent decades studying the Panthers are now saying that there's much more to this organization than we originally thought?
- Does it matter that this recent scholarship has altered permanently the debate over that party's ethics and efficacy?
- Does it matter what professional subject matter experts have to say about a topic?
- Or do we just hold on to old knowledge?
As for Professor Oagletree, I would refer your attention to his conduct in the
Ethics in America series. The man stood across from men whom the radical left would call "the enemy"--including GEN Westmoreland--and consistently advanced a discussion of the ethics of armed service professionals from a position of genuine intellectual curiosity situated in a foundation of respect. While, as a moderator, he pushed the limits of the discussion, he never pushed the discussants' buttons. IME, radicals are simply unable to participate in these kinds of conversations with this level of civility. Also, as mentioned, I'd point to his view on reparations. He has made it abundantly clear that he wants discovery, dialogue, and debate at a national level. IMO, this approach is distinctly different than those who think .GOV should shell out greenbacks to the descendants of slaves.
My $0.02.
____________________________________
* An aside. I strongly believe that operatives of and consultants to the Democratic Party have spent a lot of time studying the Reagan Presidency. Much of what the Democrats are doing now is eerily similar to what the GOP did in 1980 and 1984.