A Word from London

 Herbert London

      Herbert London is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., President of the Hudson Institute, author of Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books, and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Our Current Policy Is Working

Some of the President’s critics contend that using democracy as an instrument for stability will not work since democracy is intrinsically unstable.

Others argue that the potential for democracy and the requisites for democracy are not the same so that aspiration and performance may not be consonant.

Still others view the President’s claims for democracy as a form of utopianism that, like most utopias, increases hope and accelerates failure. But there are signs that the President’s policy is working.

The vote in Iraq is a remarkable development and a clear sign that the people of this embattled nation wish to participate in the affairs of state. Even ardent critics admit as much, although they rarely give President Bush credit for the outcome. In their biased eyes it is a manifestation of deus ex machina or spontaneous combustion, anything but Bush.

Other signs have gone unnoticed or unreported.

On an Israeli television program an Egyptian politician who intends to run against Mubarak said Egypt has much to learn from Israel. He proceeded to discuss the openness in Israeli politics and the virtues of democracy. That an aspiring Egyptian politician would say this on a television news program is nothing short of miraculous. It is inconceivable this kind of admission could have been made three years ago.

Is this a sign of political liberalization in Egypt? It is too soon to say, but without the President’s commitment to democracy even this modest gesture would not have been possible.

Perhaps more noteworthy is the reaction of the Iranian students to the President’s plea for democracy. MEMRI--the organization that monitors Arab television programs--caught an address that President Khatami was making at an Iranian university.

The auditorium was filled with students as the president proceeded to explain government policy on a host of issues. After only a few minutes, several students started shouting, “Don’t lie to us,” “No more lies.” Then a few more raised their voices; finally everyone in the auditorium was shouting. Khatami could not continue.

Needless to say, this episode was censored from Iranian TV. But censorship does not eliminate student sentiment opposed to the ruling mullahs and for democratic expression.

Solzhenitsyn once remarked that if the totalitarians covered the earth in cement there would be a crack and from it would emerge a plant. Despite all of the efforts to control free expression, despite the gulags and the secret police, despite radical mullahs and terror groups, the desire for democracy is inextinguishable.

This is what President Bush is counting on. The tyrannies in the Arab world have received the message. It is not clear which one will next be in the President’s sights, but if I were the Syrian or Iranian president I would not be sleeping soundly.

This is not merely a military battle; it is a war of ideas. It is largely a question of letting grassroots organizations make the democratic arguments the President has unleashed.

One prominent resident of the West Bank told me that President Bush has caused a veritable tsunami in Palestinian political circles. If Abu Mazen seems more conciliatory than Arafat that can be explained, he noted, by Bush’s actions and words.

Can the Bush Doctrine spread like political ripples across the region? Is this democratic impulse sustainable? Can democracy take hold in a region where the rule of law and individual rights haven’t taken root? Is Islam compatible with democracy? Questions abound.

Yet what is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the Bush Doctrine, the call for the spread of democracy, is having an effect. From these small signs of openness and rebellion big effects might emerge. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but it will happen. And for this President Bush deserves our collective gratitude.

The Meaning of Middle East Peace Talks

Declarations of reductions in violence are not new in the Middle East. The deliberations at Oslo in 1995 heralded a “new era” in the region that was soon undermined by Intifada II or what more accurately might be called the war against the Jewish state.

Still hope springs eternal. Both Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) agree that there must be a halt to acts of violence. If this understanding holds, it will have far reaching implications for America’s role in the region. Needless to say, there are many reasons for justifiable skepticism.

If there is a reason to believe “this time it might be different” the Bush Doctrine serves as the evidence. By overturning totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and emphasizing the need for democratization as the forerunner for regional reform, the president has set in motion a tidal wave of activity that even the intractable Palestinian forces may not be able to resist.

In June 2002 President Bush made it clear that any resolution of the Palestinian question will be dependent on democratization in the territories, the elimination of terrorism and the introduction of free markets. Presumably he will hold to these goals as his Road Map.

As a first step, Prime Minister Sharon has vowed to disengage from Gaza, a potentially turbulent event with 8000 Jewish settlers being expelled from their homes. A recent rally of 125,000 dissidents representing right and left opinion demonstrated against withdrawal.

As difficult as this step may be, the anticipated next step is far more problematic. There are about 240,000 settlers in Judea and Samaria in the West Bank. They were encouraged to move into this area after the ‘67 War in order to guard the passages into Jerusalem. These villages have been converted over time into cities. To assume--as the press often does--that these are pioneers in trailers--virtual outliers--is sadly mistaken.

Since any accord for a Palestinian state will include some portion of this West Bank, the question is what are the new lines. Israel will most certainly oppose a return to the ‘67 Green Line. The Palestinians will demand as much as they can get arguing that with a reduction in terror the need to retain population centers monitoring key roadways is unnecessary. In any comparison, the withdrawal from Gaza is a cake walk.

While hope is in the air, a genuine accord remains elusive. Having just returned from Israel, I am persuaded Sharm El Sheik is not Oslo. The context for negotiations has changed. Abu Mazen is certainly not a Jeffersonian, but he is probably not Arafat either. And if through the course of events he turns out to be another Arafat in an Armani suit, Israel will be justified in crushing him and the Hamas terrorists once and for all. For Israelis hope is mixed with a large dose of apprehension.

Will Abu Mazen shut down the arms-smuggling pipeline that runs under the Sinai into the terrorist arsenals of Gaza? Can he control Hamas that, at least for the time being, has given him the benefit of the doubt? Will he settle for a compromise in the West Bank that acknowledges areas of Israeli control? Will he formally recognize the state of Israel and dismantle the hate machinery in the schools and popular culture that promote anti-semitism? Can he control the corruption? Will he come to grips with a culture of lies and nihilism?

These questions deserve answers and in time we will have them. But looming in the background is President Bush who has altered the regional framework. It is not clear which Arab tyranny is next in his sights. King Abdullah of Jordan clearly wants to keep Palestinians in the West Bank at bay since 70 percent of Jordan is already Palestinian. Prime Minister Sharon realizes he cannot rule over the territories indefinitely and integration would result in the end of the Jewish state. The beginning of a new era may be upon us.

It is noteworthy that negotiations have moved precipitously from land for peace (the Oslo supposition) to peace for land, a point that foreshadows an alteration in outlook. But outlook and outcomes are not synonymous.

As I stood at the fence in Abu Dis I read with interest local graffiti: “Death to Sharon, Bush and Blair,” “From the Abu Dis Ghetto to the Warsaw Ghetto.” The words of hatred haven’t left the Arab streets. A fence suggests that Israelis and Palestinians cannot live together, not yet anyway. And almost any conversation with Israelis leads to a memory of women and children being targeted by suicide bombers willing to see their limbs fly in any direction as long as Jews are killed.

At the moment both societies are suffering. Unemployment in the West Bank is at 60 percent. Tourism to Israel has declined dramatically. While I remain a skeptic about peace, I am somewhat hopeful a modus vivendi might be crafted. Yet doubts remain because Palestinians have been weaned on terrorism. Surely Israel’s crushing of terrorist attacks and its cultural resiliency demonstrate that neither a Palestinian victory on the ground nor in the Israeli psyche is possible.

During a conversation with an Israeli strategist, I raised the pros and cons of disengagement and the issues that accompany drawing new lines in the West Bank. He listened politely and then said, “We’ve been here before. We know what to look for.” Then with a hint of playful resignation said, “We’ll see, we’ll see.” Alas, the world will see whether hope is genuinely the harbinger of geographic change or whether yet another disappointment is what awaits us.

Subversion on Our Back Door

During the Cold War the USSR sought a surrogate for its anti-American stance in Castro’s Cuba. Finding an ally with proximity to the United States clearly served Soviet interests in the Western hemisphere. In a way history has repeated itself.

With much fanfare Iranian president Mohammed Khatami and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez recently signed some 20 agreements on cooperation in the oil and petrochemical industries, trade and construction, with a fair number of secret clauses.

For years Iran has been seeking a base to stir up subversion against the United States. Cuba was the natural choice, but Castro was disturbed by the jamming of Farsi satellite broadcasts from Iran’s Havana embassy. This stealthy enterprise irritated Castro, leading to a rejection of Iranian overtures. Waiting in the wings, however, was a most willing Chavez.

After the Bush administration dubbed Chavez a threat to Latin American stability, the Venezuelan leader backed what he called “Iran’s right to develop its atomic energy.”

From Iran’s standpoint a presence in the Western hemisphere is a way to counter U.S. presence on Iran’s border in Iraq and Afghanistan. A new U.S. air base on the outskirts of Herat can place American fighter planes minutes from targets in Iran.

The Iranian government is creating a worldwide network of covert agents trained to launch sabotage and terrorism. Chavez is admired as an adventurer who will not shrink from America’s military strength. Moreover, Venezuela is perceived by Iran as the stepping stone for agents who will eventually be capable of terror activity within the United States.

To cement the relationship, Iran is building a manufacturing plant--Veniran--in Venezuela. In fact, the project is cover for importing dozens of experts in low-intensity conflict and subversion. Chavez will also receive Iranian tanks, artillery and a gift of more than 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles.

There is little doubt that Iran aims to convert Caracas into its primary Latin American base of operations. That is not all. From Venezuela, Iran can assist the drug cartels in Columbia and forge links to the large Arab community in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina--an assignment taken on by Hezbollah and its terrorist network.

While the Bush administration has been preoccupied with the Middle East, Iran has been actively involved in subversive activity in America’s back door. In a recent interview President Bush indicated he recognized the threat and is taking steps to counter it.

The stakes remain high. Chavez is a megalomaniac intent on using oil revenue to undermine U.S. interests in South America. If Iran can produce nuclear weapons, the threat level against U.S. interests would increase exponentially and not only in the Middle East.

Clearly the clock is ticking on the Muslim dictatorship in Iran. But the question of how much damage the ruling mullahs might do before the regime falls remains unanswered. This is a race against time. Can a revolution in Iran unseat Khatami and his band of religious leaders? Will a coup dispose of Chavez despite his military buildup? Will the U.S. unite the democratic forces in Latin America against this emerging threat?

The nexus between Iran and Venezuela has given an urgency to these questions. In fact, the war on terror is a global war that reached our shore on 9/11. Now we must concentrate on the United States’ southern flank and determine if this might be a staging area for widespread subversion and terror. 

Anti-Semitism and Academic Freedom at Columbia

A recent report by Columbia University officials argues that, despite allegations of anti-semitism from some students in the Middle East Studies program, there isn’t substantial evidence of anti-semitism on campus. Moreover, notwithstanding claims of intimidation in the classroom, there is corroboration of only one incident.

Having spoken to students in the Middle East Studies program, I’m persuaded the university report is a whitewash. There have been several incidents in the classroom that reliable student accounts can verify.

But that in my judgment is not the central point. Universities--to state the obvious--should be open to various points of view. I wouldn’t have the slightest objection to having a speaker with whom I vigorously disagree address students. The First Amendment accords certain guarantees about free speech that should not be abridged, unless, of course, these opinions represent a clear and present danger.

Yet it is one thing to defend the First Amendment free speech provision and quite another matter defending academic freedom. According to the 1940 AAUP (American Association of University Professors) statement about academic freedom, a professor should be free to express his views in an unrestrained way in the area of study in which he has expertise. In other words, the music instructor who chooses to comment on the privatization of Social Security is not protected by academic freedom.

As a consequence, a proponent of the Flat Earth Society should be free to stand in the Columbia University Quad expressing his opinions. But these opinions do not translate into an appointment at Columbia’s Geology Department. Free speech and academic freedom often part company.

It should also be noted returning to the origin of academic freedom that it has two components: lehrfreiheit or the ability to teach freely in an area of scholarly competence and lernfreiheit or the right of a student to express himself free from intimidation or concern. While these conditions are subject to interpretation, their essence is transparently clear.

Hence, I haven’t any problem with a professor expressing any opinion, however odious, outside the classroom. Once in the classroom that professor is obliged by dint of his professional obligations to restrict his commentary to areas in which he has demonstrated competence. He must also maintain an environment in which students are free to engage in open discussion without the fear of intimidation.

In considering events at Columbia, at least how they have been reported in the student paper and the national press, there has been a conflation between free speech and academic freedom. From what I can determine the opinions expressed by the professors in the Middle East Studies program, which diverge wildly from my own, deserve First Amendment protection. However, if intimidation in the classroom was a condition of the learning experience--a condition I believe occurred more than once--the professor(s) in question must be held accountable as violators of academic freedom.

It is distinctly inappropriate for professors to seek cover from academic freedom when in the process of teaching they have violated one of its key precepts. Either a professor adheres to his professional responsibilities to avoid an aura of intimidation or he negates those responsibilities and cannot be protected by academic freedom in the classroom.

Unfortunately the distinction I’ve described has been beclouded by an excessive use of the word freedom and the avoidance of duty and responsibility. Alas, to make matters worse, one might assume that academics would understand these refinements, but unfortunately that isn’t the case.

Perhaps this ignorance suggests a great deal about university life today and why the issue arose in the first place.

Rapping Rap

It was recently reported that Massacre, a new album by 50 Cent, sold 1.14 million copies in the first four days of its release, the largest total ever reached in an abbreviated sales cycle. This rapper holds the previous record set in 2003 with Get Rich or Die Tryin’ which sold 872,000 copies in four days.

From the standpoint of the free market, these numbers are staggering. But if one considers the cultural influence, the debased cultural influence, these numbers are depressing.

What 50 Cent sells is debauchery, violence and prurience. His personal experience, which includes an impressive array of arrests, is incorporated into his rap lyrics. He is proud to be a rap “gangsta.”

Headlines about 50 Cent and his posse being involved in a shooting at a radio station on Manhattan’s west side occurred one day before the release of Massacre. But the incident apparently did not hurt sales.

Geoff Mayfield, Billboard’s director of charts, said, “Rap is the kind of genre where contrary publicity can actually help an album like this.” What Mayfield means by “contrary publicity” is the manifestation of violence, gang related murder or mayhem that displays street toughness.

It is utterly perverse that a shooting incident in which at least one person was injured--an associate of 50 Cent--could accelerate album sales. Free speech is one condition that should be preserved in my judgment, but expression that encourages violence and tasteless lyrics should be discouraged. Of what possible benefit is listening to rap that says mistreating women is acceptable and taking the law into your own hands a sign of manliness? Moreover, this cultural poison is delivered directly right through an i-pod into the cerebrum, unadulterated and pure.

If one listens to the lyrics what you hear is a street language of combativeness filtered through Anglo Saxon words. This is not merely youthful rebelliousness; this is cultural degradation of a kind popular forms have not produced before.

Does it have an effect?      

While studies do not exist demonstrating a causal link between rap and street violence, all one has to do is listen to the conversation of students outside of any public high school in the United States. Language has grown coarse. Promiscuous sexual behavior is expected. And violence is very much in the air.

If PCBs pollute our rivers and streams, rap pollutes the cultural environment. It is also hard to avoid. Surely one doesn’t have to watch TV or listen to rap on the radio, but if you walk the streets of any urban area boom boxes flush rap through the regional air.

As the major figures in this form of music demonstrate the violence in the lyrics is manifest in the violent behavior of the performers. Murder, intimidation, disrespect are conditions in the rap business tabloids report with virtual regularity.  It is not a question of whether there will be a violent outbreak, but rather when it will occur.

Yet despite the demonstrably horrible influence of rap, the music companies, the agents and the radio stations have a stake in its promotion. There isn’t a constituency for its cleansing. Raise the banner of cultural decay and an even taller banner will be raised in behalf of free expression. Discuss taste and a music representative will say what you consider tasteful is not what I consider tasteful. Moral relativism is a useful club against criticism.

So the beat goes on undeterred by critics. When Johnny and Mary commit acts that shock their parents, cries of apparent concern are raised. But rap isn’t the culprit. There are too many with a financial interest to jeopardize their paychecks. Violence just happens; it doesn’t have a cause and it certainly isn’t related to rap music.

The cash register rings up more than a million sales of the new 50 Cent album. That is what counts. Should there be a violent undercurrent associated with the rapper, so much the better.

What the moral register counts is not in the obvious calculus. But this price is high and the social damage incalculable. At some point, rappers will have to face their own music. Not yet, of course, not as long as album sales records are broken and music companies derive extraordinary profits.

The Public’s Revulsion with TV

For years my continual criticism of debased programming on television was met with the plaintive response that programmers offer what the viewers want. Ergo, if degradation is what concerns you, blame it on the audience, not the producers.

That argument seemed to have some veracity, although I never found it entirely convincing. However, a recent poll suggests I may have been right after all.

More than half of America’s regular viewers--53 percent--think the Federal Communications Commission should place strict controls on broadcast channel shows depicting sexual themes and violence.

This Time Magazine poll also notes that 68 percent of respondents believe the entertainment industry has lost touch with the nation’s moral standards.

Specifically, 66 percent contend there is too much violence on television; 58 percent argue there is too much cursing and 50 percent accuse stations of being preoccupied with sexual content.

Almost half of the respondents--49 percent--think F.C.C. regulations ought to be extended to cable systems such as MTV.

There is little doubt politicians are starting to notice this “push back” from public defenders appalled by “wardrobe malfunctions” and “towel dropping” prior to Monday Night Football.

Shock jock Howard Stern is the poster boy for tasteless presentations. But he is surely not alone. Emmis Radio has been appropriately singled out for promoting “slap contests” on air. MTV invariably pushes the envelope of normative standards to new, degrading levels.

It is hardly surprising that, despite a loss of confidence in the accuracy of television news, 77 percent of those polled noted it is the least objectionable of television programs.

If television is having an effect on the viewing public--and it is hard to believe that isn’t the case--the effect is likely to be deleterious. For those who claim viewing is benign, a pleasant way to pass the time, why do advertisers spend millions to influence buying patterns? Are commercials more influential than regular programming?

The significant point is that the public does not get the programming it wants. It views what the producers want to air. The process is far less democratic and responsive than most people believe.

Some critics will undoubtedly maintain the Time poll has methodological flaws. That may be the case. But it does not obviate what many viewers have concluded: television programming is barren and offensive. It encourages coarse language and moral degradation.

Interestingly, it appears that a substantial portion of the viewing public wants a change. I don’t know if anyone is listening, but just as Fox News addressed a portion of the viewing public not served by network news, there is an opportunity to develop programming that a majority of the public seemingly wants.

In this era it isn’t positive events that propel change, but a revulsion with existing events. If the Time poll proves anything, it is a genuine distaste with what television provides and a silent majority that would like to see something else. Here’s hoping television producers read Time Magazine.     *

“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” –Oscar Wilde