Let the People Speak

The Institute of Politics mishandles New Members of Congress

By Jordan A. Monge

As I began chatting quietly with a Minnesotan Congressman-elect, I was eagerly anticipating a scintillating night of conversation at the New Members of Congress dinner. Instead, I exchanged exasperated looks with the nearby Republicans as four Harvard professors gave a lengthy sermon on race with heavy exaltations of Barack Obama.

Now, I understand that this election is historic for African Americans. But at an event for a university which praises diversity, the chiming harmony of African American professors was grating to those of a different mindset, especially considering that students had been anticipating chats with their new Congress members. Although these rising politicians turned out to be surprisingly humble, gracious, and curious, there was no opportunity to discuss with them due to the proselytizing that was occurring onstage.

In the Institute’s defense, the initial portion of the event was congenial, as participants perused the John Fitzgerald Kennedy library. Unfortunately, it took time for students to grow comfortable enough to talk to the Congress members-elect, making the inability to converse over dinner both uncomfortable and disappointing. Rather than gleaning insights from men and women in whose footsteps they may soon follow, students were subjected to the racial rants of Henry Louis Gates, Lawrence Bobo, Kimberly McClain DaCosta, and William Julius Wilson.

For them, apparently this election was only important because it marked the pinnacle of success for a man who shared the same skin color. Despite the media’s infatuation with Obama, which even Saturday Night Live recognized, these professors emphasized the inherent bias that Barack Obama encountered due to his race. They seemed content to emphasize the latent racism of whites that still exists in our society, be it the uproar over the highly offensive comments of Reverend Jeremiah Wright or the attitudes toward interracial relationships that permeate the populace, as demonstrated by those voters who opposed Barack Obama due to their personal racism or the mistaken belief that he was a Muslim. 

Of course, they overlooked the fact that the only minority group whose turnout would have affected the outcome of the election (in terms of giving McCain the electoral votes necessary for victory) was African Americans, who disproportionately supported Barack Obama. Furthermore, the media attention that Obama received was essential in creating the public perception that he was a viable candidate. Without his African ancestry, Obama’s campaign would have been much more likely to fizzle because of initially low polling. 

The most grating aspect of the dinner was not only the disappointment of the lost opportunity to gain insight from the Congress members-elect, but the realization that the campus has absolutely no sense of the “diversity” it claims to seek. All of the professors presented the same perspective on the importance of the election for their community and the inherent challenges facing African Americans in America. Apparently this university feels that differences in skin color alone classify as diversity, neglecting entirely any diversity of opinion. This bias appeared not only in the night’s highly slanted speeches, but also by the faculty, which supported Obama over McCain at a ratio of 20 to 1.

While such a lengthy diatribe by concordant professors may have been appropriate at a lecture on race, it was inappropriate at a gathering intended to allow for the mingling of students with politicians. The goal of such an event should have been to provide a welcoming and bipartisan atmosphere in which students of all political persuasion felt comfortable conversing and sharing their diverse viewpoints with politicians of both parties. Unfortunately this opportunity was lost amongst the partisan rancor of Harvard’s vocal liberal majority.

The night was not a complete waste, however, with the exploration of the Kennedy library serving as a reminder of the power our great nation once possessed and the challenges we once faced. The Cold War created a bipolar world torn between two economic systems; one promising liberty and the other proclaiming equality. As history would reveal, only one system could provide both liberty and equality, allowing democracy to prevail. Our struggle against jihadists today is similarly important in drawing a line between the defenders of liberty and those would destroy it. 

Although many are quick to draw comparisons between Obama and John F. Kennedy, the ties between these two compelling orators are tenuous. Kennedy recognized the importance of securing global democracy and maintaining American dominance, proclaiming at his inaugural, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” These words are a far cry from the man who proclaimed the need for withdrawal from Iraq for years, even when such a strategy would have allowed the new country to devolve into civil war.

The liberals who would renege our obligations in Iraq in order to guarantee universal health care and other socialistic reforms ought to remember the words of the great man whose library housed this great gathering: “Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”