Columnists, students must stop rhetoric

Golis is a third-year microbiology and molecular genetics
student.

By Christopher Golis

Why did Ben Shapiro say the Bush Administration hadn’t
done anything illegal regarding Enron? (“Bush
not collected to collapse of Enron, contrary to liberal
opinion,“ Viewpoint Jan. 22).

We don’t yet know if the White House and Enron had some
illicit, improper relationship. There is no evidence to suggest
such impropriety, but because of the contact the White House and
Enron have had, there is reason for suspicion and
investigation.

I sincerely hope investigations will show that the
Administration is blameless, but it is possible that there were
improper actions taken by members of the Bush Administration on
Enron’s behalf.

So why would Shapiro declare the Bush Administration clean,
before the Justice Department, FBI, and Congress are finished
investigating? Unless Shapiro has some secret source in Washington,
he doesn’t know any more than the rest of us who depend on
print media and the TV for our information on this issue.

I think the answer is that Shapiro doesn’t care what the
investigations conclude. His past articles have made clear his
preference for the Republican Party and its conservative dogma.
Shapiro has already decided that the Bush Administration is clean
because he chooses to blindly follow the conservative line without
objectively looking at the problem for himself. He didn’t
even attempt to add evidence to his argument, instead relying on
rhetoric to make his point.

But who wants to listen to the rhetoric of a college student who
says the same thing the conservative pundits on CNN are saying? If
I want to hear the standard pro-business, small-government
conservative line, I’ll listen to Trent Lott. Similarly, if I
want to hear the standard anti-business, pro-regulation liberal
line, I’ll listen to Ralph Nader.

Either way, I don’t need to read anything in the Daily
Bruin parroting political groups.

Shapiro’s article is an excellent example of a problem in
the Viewpoint section. It seems we get a lot of such predictable,
canned rhetoric in the Daily Bruin.

Any student who is an international development studies major
will most likely write about the unfairness of the international
establishment and be critical of the current political
establishment.

Those who submit with Jewish last names will criticize Arafat
and the Palestine Authority or extremist Islam, while people with
Middle Eastern last names will call Israel an apartheid police
state.

The Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats can be counted on to
say exactly the opposite thing, which happens to be very similar to
what their party leaders are saying in Washington.

I don’t mean to criticize these people; they all have
perfectly good reasons for believing what they believe and usually
good arguments to support their beliefs. Though this predictability
makes reading the Viewpoint section very quick and efficient, it
also makes it boring. This mindless back-and-forth leads to
divisive, unproductive bickering that polarizes the issues and
convinces people not to think for themselves.

The readers of the Bruin deserve more from their columnists.
Student writers should be more open-minded with their ideas, more
objective with their analysis, and more creative with their
opinions. No one party has all of the right answers just as no one
party has always been right on every issue. To blindly follow any
one political opinion out of habit is unproductive.

I hope that a student attending UCLA can cut through the
political rhetoric and media posturing to see the true meat of an
issue. I hope such a student is able to analyze the issue from many
perspectives and not just one’s own ““ it may be that
the most important perspective to understand is that of those that
disagree with you. Only from objective understanding of the issue
and the synthesis of the opinions of those involved can a lasting,
effective solution emerge.