Editorial
Rabble-Rousing: Will We Ever Be Free of the Chaos?
"But everytime you say the word racism my kneejerk reaction is ÔWhat do you propose we do about it?' That is the question that each of us must ask ourself every time we raise a fist, chant a slogan, or march in a protest. Then, and only then, will we make significant change for the better."

By 1987, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition had motivated the development of a Rainbow Agenda at Stanford University that, through tactics of sit-ins and insistent rabble-rousing, had forced the University to confront allegations of racism and ethnocentrism both in its employment practices and in its curriculum. Chants of "Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go" may still be fresh in the minds of a number of readers of the Review.

Indeed, the rabble-rousing of the Rainbow crew at Stanford was one of the key motivations for the founding of this paper, to insure that an alternate viewpoint would exist to prevent the Rainbow radicals from monopolizing the public eye of the University administration. The above quote contains the closing lines of "A closer look at the Rainbow Agenda," a poignant article by Scott Lyon from Volume I, Issue 1 of the Stanford Review.

This is where it all began: the Review as a rational, theoretically grounded, practically tested field of alternatives to fallacious leftist conceptions of "diversity" espoused by hypocrites. The Review created some profoundly thoughtful discourse by going after the good Reverend Jackson, and we have tracked him doggedly ever since over the numerous occasions on which he's returned to this favored stomping ground.

And yet, he's still here. As Travis Menk's article shows, his rhetoric is virtually the same: he talks about American society building itself on the backs of "the black, the brown, and the poor." Jackson's April 30th stint on campus featured another fire-and-brimstone display of rabble-rousing rhetoric. A thoughtful critic might ask the following question: if people know that he's been preaching discontent for decades and that his message hasn't changed, why do they still bother to listen?

This question is instrumental to understanding the psyche of rabble-rousing and to informing the course of action that we as conservatives should take to combat it. I will note first that I do not mean to suggest that preaching discontent is in any way a categorical evil: on the contrary, the rhetoric of discontent has been a powerful tool worldwide for freedom fighters against totalitarian and ideological oppression and for the attainment of equal rights and treatment for all citizens.

The key, however, is in understanding the distinction between the rhetoric of discontent and plain rabble-rousing. The lines from Scott Lyon's article offer a powerful criterion for understanding the difference: "What do you propose we do about it?" A constructive preacher of discontent offers an alternative, a way out, a long-term practicable vision. Rabble-rousers propose nothing: they scream, chant, push discontent down an irrational slippery-slope, and then go home and watch television. Of course, such rabble-rousers are rarely as successful as the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Reverend Jackson has a vision that he has made well known to the Stanford community: one of preferential treatment, double-standards, and reverse discrimination aimed at some nebulous, indefinite goal of "total equality."

So, if we understand the root cause of rabble-rousing, how do we solve it? Even before one looks at the issues, one must conclude that endless anarchic posturing with a goal that cannot be defined in terms of how it is to be realistically attained is divisive, inefficient, and unhealthy on the whole for any community.

The paradox of rabble-rousing, however, is that its proof is missing from the pudding: rabble-rousers can make their audiences believe that all action will be legitimated some day when the goal is achieved without ever identifying when that day will come. Granted, one should struggle against oppressive, unequal treatment, but one can only do so if one understands how one can possibly win such a struggle. We may never be rid of Jesse Jackson's antics, but we must continue to do our bit by pointing out the destructive tendencies inherent within unrealistic fire-and-brimstone activism.

This editorial expresses the joint opinion of the Editorial Board of the Stanford Review, which consists of the Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor, the Opinions Editor, and the News Editor.

Page last modified on Thursday, 02-Mar-2006 00:23:17 MST.