Two articles in the New York Times, each saying several
things about the present, inadvertently add something important that harks back
to an earlier era – one that is worth revisiting.
The first article came under the title: “Did Salaita Cross
the Line of 'Civility'?” It was written by Joseph Levine, and was published on
December 15, 2014. It is about free speech, academic freedom, the Middle East
situation and what have you … all current topics, which I discussed on previous
occasions and will avoid this time. Instead, I see buried in the article the
concept of personal responsibility, a topic I shall take up while emphasizing
its early formulation during the decade of the 1970s.
The second article is actually an editorial of the New York
Times that came under the title: “Egypt 's latest Outrage” and was
published on December 16, 2014. It has to do with what the editors of the Times
call “aid” to Egypt, but is regarded by the people of Egypt as an American
trick to funnel Egyptian aid to Israel, and want to see it ended here and now.
What is buried in this editorial is a link that ties it to the Joseph Levine
article.
What began to happen in the 1970s was the gradual acceptance
of the principle that to let people do as they please was a good idea because
it permitted the creative minds to take flight, and thus enrich all of society
with new insights, knowledge, art, science and what have you. But what also
happened in this new and 'permissive' era – as it came to be called – was that
crime of the most spectacular kind began to increase. Rather than ask for the
recall of the steps taken to allow permissiveness to flourish, commentators in
many places attributed the criminal acts to the ills of society, and thus
absolved the individual perpetrators.
That approach did not sit well with another group of people.
These rejected the interpretation given by the first group, and began to
formulate the concept of personal responsibility. They said that to claim we
are the product of the environment is to deny the concept of free will.
Instead, they pushed the argument that we are the product of the choices we
make because we have the free will to make them. For example, two people living
in the same environment will make different choices and end up in different
places.
Well, what was difficult to see at the time, was the
possibility that things will evolve in such a way that there will be no choices
to make. Even in a so-called free, open and democratic society, the day will
come when you'll have to toe the line or perish. When this happens to someone,
it will be a fate more difficult to take from an open society than from its
authoritarian counterpart. And this is because you'll not be seen to have
courageously opposed tyranny and paid the price; you'll be judged to have
failed in life … and that's all that counts.
Look now how things have evolved over the decades as
described by a passage in the Levine article: “Think about the average person
who supported Israel 's
attacks this summer. Someone who gets most of her information about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the mainstream media, and generally
identifies with the reigning ideology of current American political culture,
will find severe moral condemnation of Israel 's actions difficult to
accept.” Well, professor Steven Salaita learned this lesson the hard way. And
the damage done to his career will last for a long time if not for the rest of
his life.
This brings us to the editorial of the New York Times. As
far as Egypt is concerned, nothing in what is said in this piece is worth the
paper it is written on because it will no more derail the plans for development
adopted by the country than a mouse could derail a freight train going
somewhere. But what this editorial will do is contribute to the “reigning
ideology of current American political culture” that tells the people of America which
line to toe if they want to keep their jobs. And that's a fate worse than
you'll find in Putin's Russia ,
North Korea or Iran .
Still, there is one thing that the Egyptians will take from
this editorial. Look at this passage: “a government [of Egypt ] whose treatment of people
like Ms. Dunne will discourage the tourism and development needed to revive the
economy.” This is an old message that refuses to die.