Last Thursday, we were pleasantly surprised to read Benjamin Silver's op-ed, "We had a deal!", and find that old axiom, "If it seems too good to be true, it is," violated. Mr. Silver, unfortunately, had broken his indefinite New Year's resolution to never look at The Primary Source, and it's only February! If he had only read a little further in the Jan. 28 issue (still on newsstands), he would have realized that he is portraying the stereotypical "silly leftist" role that the Source takes such pleasure in highlighting.
In all seriousness, we have neither the time nor the word space to properly refute every logical fallacy and each sanctimonious line in this frivolous, oversensitive piece. However, we do want to defend our news journal and its cover, as we believe the cover represents a legitimate criticism of "Obamaniacs" that is hardly a radical viewpoint. "We had a deal!" is fairly off the mark, though we are more than happy to fulfill his request and explain ourselves.
To be frank, we can't believe that we actually have to clarify this cover to people. The Primary Source meant no disrespect to Christians, Muslims or Jews when we put that picture of Obama on the cover. For that matter, we are not racist, sexist, homosexist, Islamophobic or any other wild label Mr. Silver could throw at us. We were lightly mocking the deification of a public servant who inspires people to cheer when he sneezes; the Source, contrary to Mr. Silver's assertion, does not actually think President Obama is the Messiah. At least, we think that's what he means when he calls us "blasphemous," as any other use of the word in this context would not be correct.
Mr. Silver, however, chose to accuse us with the typical anti-Source spiel of "I support free speech, but this has gone too far." In response, we submit that it is others who have gone too far with their idolization of a politician. For months, Obama coverage consisted of news articles raving about fans fainting at his rallies and video reels of adoring crowds swooning over Obama's lofty speeches. Artists quickly lent their talents in this propaganda push and the Manifest Hope Gallery, a traveling exhibition of Obama- and politically themed art, was born. Some of the paintings featured somewhat creative images: Lincoln's face merged with Obama's face or Obama's head superimposed over Mohammed Ali's from his infamous bout with Sonny Liston. Some images bordered the surreal: An eerie painting showed Obama's head breaking through the clouds, giving off sun-ray, and surveying a maiden adorned in the flag, flanked by crowds of kneeling servants. If someone is simultaneously committing blasphemy against Jews, Christians and Muslims, it's not us — it's the ardent Obama supporters who subscribe to the Obama-for-Messiah shtick in the first place, like Chris Matthews and Jesse Jackson, whom we also mention on the cover.
The Primary Source is hardly the only media source to poke fun at Obama enthusiasts for their unlimited and unswerving support for Obama and his policies. Sources as far-right as The Weekly Standard and as far-left as The Daily Kos, as well as The Daily Show and The Onion, have all run bits about the exaltation of "The One." Mr. Silver must live an extremely sheltered life if he's never come across these criticisms. Whether you approve of our president or not, recognize him for what he is: a politician whose best quality is his ability to inspire people, a skill highly dependent on the mastery of rhetoric. Mr. Silver certainly cannot claim to be blind to this; he is already a member of the Facebook.com groups "The Committee to Re-Elect President Obama" and "The Official Daily Kos Facebook Group."
For what it's worth, we at the Source believe we are allowed to criticize our president without being accused of hate. Before his election to the presidency, he had no executive experience, an extremely partisan voting record and was the beneficiary of a viral marketing campaign and identity politics. He may well be a great president, and we wish him well, but we're skeptical. Mr. Silver has the prerogative to disagree with us, but it's deceptive and intellectually cowardly to dismiss us as "blasphemous" and "offensive" journalists who "spew filth" just "to stir up anger." We simply think that it's a very valid point to say that Obama is not God.
Mr. Silver is just as hypocritical as he is obnoxious. According to him, simply by criticizing our president, the Source has apparently offended democracy itself since Obama is a popularly elected leader and therefore immune from criticism. We're still not entirely sure how that inane logic works, but we cannot help but conjure up images of "Bush = Hitler" signs and "Buck Fush" bumper stickers. Where was his outrage over that degradation of our highest office? Where was Mr. Silver's op-ed calling for restraint and a limit to the partisan obscenities lobbed at Bush? Many have compared former President Bush to a monkey, but the Source can only imagine the consequences if we did the same to Obama.
One of the most bemusing aspects of Source detractors is how they always transform into psychology experts whenever writing op-eds. Mr. Silver asserts that Source members "write pieces to stir up anger in students like [himself]" and that we "[thrive] on the controversy [we] create both on and off campus." As humorous as the image of a "Need to Offend" checklist is, it's not the most accurate portrayal of our publication. At Source meetings (every Monday at 10 p.m. in the Zamparelli Room, all are welcome), we don't sit around like a cult, summoning demons, placing curses upon our adversaries and thinking of what racial group to best offend in the next issue. We discuss the news, brainstorm ideas from a conservative/libertarian viewpoint and write articles according to that viewpoint.
In other words, there is no grand conspiracy to anger Benjamin Silver. There is certainly no agreement that we are allowed to print extremely offensive content as long as the campus refuses to read it; we're actually pretty sure Mr. Silver only made that up as an excuse to quote George Costanza. In reality, we provide quality journalism from our political standpoint and make covers that grab students' attention, admittedly running contrary to our left-of-center campus.
Mr. Silver says he "understand[s] the need to express one's opinion," but it is hard to take him at his word, especially considering how quickly he resorts to name calling and petty insults. We are not sure if he is actually that intellectually bankrupt or maybe just too lazy to investigate, but the Source provides numerous opportunities to engage in healthy debate about a myriad of topics.
We never had a deal, Mr. Silver. We write it, and we hope you read it, though it's fine if you don't. That's free speech. Our last issue contained articles on the 17th Amendment, the Madoff scandal, the deification of Obama, Bush's legacy, Guantanamo, Airbus, media bias, Bill Richardson and, for good measure, both pro- and anti-Israel articles. There is also plenty of humor for the more Zamboni-minded reader. But in a very closed-minded fashion, Benjamin Silver walked by a newsstand, saw a cover he didn't agree with and decided to tell the world how much he hates The Primary Source. He should spend less time looking for reasons to be indignant and more time finding his sense of humor.
--
Joel VanDixhorn is a senior majoring in economics and political science; he is the editor-in-chief of The Primary Source. Jonathan Danzig is a freshman who has not yet declared a major; he is an assistant editor of The Primary Source.
