It looks like Arnold was heckled during his Santa Monica College commencement address. However, unlike the numerous reports of leftist polemics disguised as graduation speeches, it doesn't look like Arnold spent much time on politics.
SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to his alma mater turned into an exercise in perseverance when virtually his every word was accompanied by catcalls, howls and piercing whistles from the crowd.Schwarzenegger's face appeared to redden during his 15-minute commencement address Tuesday to 600 graduates at Santa Monica College, but he ignored the shouting as he recalled his days as a student and, later, his work as a bodybuilder and actor.
"Always go all out and overcome your fears," he told the graduates. "Work, work, work. Study, study, study."
I wasn't there, and I haven't read a transcript, but it seems that Arnold appropriately focused on the students and did his best to give them advice for future success -- which he is eminently qualified to do, regardless of what one thinks of his politics. Nonetheless, the leftist "liberals" who are so in favor of free speech attempted to scream him down and prevent him from speaking, essentially resorting to the thuggery that is apparently the left's only remaining contribution to civilization.
One Democrat, at least, thinks that perhaps it's inappropriate for the professors to politicize their students' graduation. And no, it doesn't make you a "bad Democrat", it makes you part of the civil discourse our nation relies upon.
I was being facetious about the "bad Democrat" line -- after all, I'm a liberal blogger, so in my world there's no such thing. :-)
I'm not bananas about the faculty being involved in the protest. I think they forgot the fact that their students were the most important thing at that precise moment. There are lots of ways to protest that don't involve crashing a party that people under your care have been planning for four years. I've been an educator myself and will be again, and I would never have risked spoiling a commencement for anyone under really any circumstances.
The media coverage didn't do justice to one important distinction: There were protesters there who remained outside, quietly passing out literature, and then there were the antics inside the stadium. The two were operated by totally different organizations, and that's mentioned nowhere in the press. The sins of one doesn't reflect on the sins of the other, though I'd encouraged anti-Schwarzenegger activists to stay away from the event because of the danger that the bad behavior of some would reflect on the whole. It looks like that happened. Protest coverage almost always blurs those sorts of distinctions, in my experience.
On another subject: It's hard enough to poke the tinest bud of an olive branch across the aisle, or make the tiniest deviation from the comfy umbrella of one's own side's dogma, when one's thanks is the opportunity to get called a thug (more precisely, to have one's words used in support of an argument whose upshot is that me and all of my cohort engage in thuggery.) Snark is fun but name-calling isn't. In this context, it dried up my enthusiasm for further exchange. (I know you'll lose no sleep over that; neither will I.)
I've been engaging "the other side" a fair amount recently (e.g., in the comment thread of this article), seriously hoping for at least an exchange of ideas if not mind-changing on either side. Consequently, I was excited to get a link from a conservative, and even to share a moment of agreement, but after seeing the context in which it took place, I have to say that -- like those protesters, differing by degree and the admittedly significant fact that you own and operate this forum -- your idea of "civil discourse" could use a bit of work too. Good arguments make themselves, without name-calling, right?
In any event, thanks for the link and the insight.
My uncle has had a few good observations in his life time that he has passed on to me. One of wich may apply and help to possibly engage discussion on both "sides" of the political aisle.
He said, "The fundamental, difference between the two parties of our political system is where and how they want to spend money".
After careful consideration, I quickly realized that he was correct from that perspective. No one has disagreed with me on that sigular conclusion of my uncle's observation.
Simply following the money will allow you to follow political motivations for any given topic. It has allowed me to vote concientiously when I can't decide on candidates regardless of their party affiliations or lack there of.
Read a politician's comments, and you can always use my uncle's observation to make a choice that's right by your ideals.
CP: First off, since SMC is a community college, one would hope that the students hadn't been planning their commencement for four years, but rather closer to two :)
Anyway though, I specifically exempted you from my comment about typical leftists (not necessarily Democrats), though I can see why you'd feel insulted by my characterization of "your" side. However, it seems accurate to say that if a group engages in uncivil protest against the government or its agents, that group almost certainly consists of leftists. Does that mean that all leftists are thugs? Probably not, but as you point out they're the most visible.
On the other side, "my" side, there aren't many accounts of rightist thuggery, fraud, violence, and so forth. There are some, like the so-called "right wing militias" and that sort of nonsense, but those groups are ostracized from the mainstream rightists in America; the wacko, violent, disruptive, uncivil leftists are running the Democratic party!
Ralph Reed's Gamble
The indiscretions (at best) or non-existent ethics (at worst) of Tom DeLay.
The bottom line: There are plenty of examples of thuggery on both sides of the ideological divide.
Scott: Your uncle is right to some degree, but he misses many of the most divisive issues, such as abortion. Even though the abortion lobby gives lots of money to the Dems, the industry itself isn't huge and most leftists don't support it because of money, but because they think convenience is worth killing babies over. Contrariwise, rightists don't oppose abortion because of money, but because we think murdering babies is wrong. There are many other issues that fall along similar lines.
Mark: None of that is "thuggery". DeLay hasn't done anything other politicians don't do. It'd be great if they didn't, but singling him out is pointless.
MW: Actually, some of Ralph Reed's actions are indeed "thuggery"... ditto for Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon.
The fact that other politicians do what DeLay does doesn't make it any better. Singling him out as I did merely points out that "your side" has its share of loose ethics and unsavory characters (including politicians) as well.
Then, I guess it depends on everyon's definition of "thuggery". I believe politics is all about favors. And when you "win" is when you have the ability to write off favors you owe others.
When I think of "thuggery" I don't think of polititians. I think of journalism and the "dark side" of protestor type oriented groups.
Now, I agree, that some of these "dark sides" can be linked to some politicians, but the politicians treat them like CIA agents....if they get caught....they never knew them. If they succeed, well, then it's because the politician did such a good job in that big empty room on capital hill. (sarcasm)
---------
About the obortion and such. Actually, you can tie that to money, too. Oh, sure, many of us "citizens" ascribe to our beliefs as you said, Michael, but I believe there are many politicians and other "movers-&-shakers" who are motivated by the money that can be generated by "a culture of death". Now you might wonder, is there money in a culture of life? Yes. Both sides promise scientific discoveries that promise money and power, whether those promises are based in fact or not.
So, I still stand by the general idea, that you can trace the money to the politician or ideal you seek.
Another Conservatism; Doubt vs. Fundamentalism by Andrew Sullivan