CLIFFORD SMITH
Staff Writer
On Feb. 13, the School of Public Policy and the Los Angeles chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) sponsored a discussion on Stephen Spielberg’s Academy Award nominated film “Munich.” The panel featured Pepperdine’s Dr. Robert Kaufman Professor of Public Policy, as well as Spielberg’s former media and political advisor, and several other experts on history, politics and film. It was one of the most frustrating events I’ve ever attended.
Spielberg’s film is inspired by a book that has had its accuracy and authenticity called into question before and is significantly ambiguous in its message, to render a lot of interesting debate on artistic intent and commentary on current issues with terrorism. Unfortunately, the discussion quickly degenerated into accusations from the right (the majority of the crowd) that the film advocated appeasing terrorists and preached moral equivalence and the left accused the right of dehumanizing people. There was shouting and catcalls from the audience, interruptions, etc. The majority of the debate focused on defending or attacking views that were already assumed to exist.
While Spielberg’s film is about a terrorist act and the reprisal that took place more then 30 years ago, most of the same issues remain today, in both the Palestine-Israel conflict and the larger war on terror. The war on terror is a difficult war, both for Israel then, and us now. This isn’t like World War II. The enemy isn’t clear, the tactics are different, we don’t have a Berlin or Tokyo to conquer. However, in the current situation, we have become so polarized, it seems that there are only two positions to take, “for” or “against.”
I kept thinking about a story I once heard from former governor and senator of Georgia: Zell Miller. Miller tells the story like this: once, while approaching his campaign for re-election as governor of Georgia, one of his consultants took a poll about gun control. At that time, a majority of Georgians favored it according to the poll. He urged Miller, a longtime opponent of gun control, to soften his stance on the issue.
Miller didn’t even blink. He told his consultant to go back and do another poll, this time ask, “When I hear politicians talk about gun control, I don’t think they understand me or my values. Agree or disagree?”
More than 70 percent of the same Georgians agreed with this statement. Miller didn’t change his stance, and won re-election.
What Miller knew, is that people judge you in part based on what you talk about, not just what you say. If someone talks about gun control, we make assumptions about other things. Even if I agree with you on gun control, the fact that you talk about it means you have a certain set of priorities and a certain way of looking at things that I don’t agree with. To some degree, it is a legitimate way of trying to figure out where a person comes from. Taken too far, however, it does nothing but shut off debate and the exchange of ideas and concerns.
Unfortunately, this is true in spades in the war on terror. People say things like, “I’m for the war on terror,” before adding the words “but,” and a whole litany of complaints. Likewise, people say, “I think the president has made some mistakes,” before adding the words “but,” and then agreeing with essentially everything he’s done. We know they aren’t serious about it, they have already told us where they are coming from by what they chose to talk about. John Kerry lost the election in large part because people didn’t take him seriously when he said he’d aggressively prosecute the war on terror.
It’s just what Miller was talking about. Sometimes, what you chose to talk about is more important than what you say. If someone dare approve of the war in Iraq, they are obviously “brainless Bushbots,” If someone actually says that maybe certain tactics in the war aren’t warranted, or that there isn’t enough attention paid to human costs, they are obviously “hippie pacifists.”
As a big supporter of the war on terror and most of the ways it has been waged, I clearly saw the film in a different light than most who take a similar stand. Spielberg’s film definitely raises some fundamental questions about the roots of terror and responses to it. I saw it as asking some tough questions without easy answers, questions that force us to know why we do things, to confront the reality of what we must do and maybe to make some changes when we have been wrong.
Spielberg does call into question some tactics used to fight terrorism, but I don’t think that means he would necessarily damn them. He also clearly sees human tragedy and seeks to show us the emotional and intellectual difficulties that this fight can present, but I don’t think he necessarily thinks these are avoidable at an acceptable cost. Personally, while I believe the war is totally necessary, I sympathise with his view that these are large problems that are not easily dealt with or dismissed.
Can one hold that view without being viewed as weak? Can a hard-line terror warrior be touched by the tragedy of the situation? I’d sure like to think so, but our current climate for debate sure makes it difficult.
03-16-2006