OPEN TO DEBATE by Gary Rosenblatt
Few would argue that the level of public
discourse in our society has reached a
dangerously low point. Witness the
mean-spirited partisanship of Congress
and the belligerent rudeness of cable
television discussions of the issues of
the day, which themselves tend to be
more about celebrities and scandals than
thoughtful analysis of pressing topics
like the struggle against Islamic
militancy, global warming, and improving
our children’s education.
Robert Rosenkranz decided to try to do
something to raise our standards of
discussion, and the results of his
effort should be studied and emulated by
leaders of the Jewish community.
Impressed with a series of popular
weekly debates held in London that
combine wit, charm and serious content,
the chairman of The Rosenkranz
Foundation decided to import the concept
to these shores. Last Wednesday he
launched Intelligence Squared
(www.iq2us.org), a series of
Oxford-style debates before a live
audience in New York that will be
broadcast by NPR around the country.
The first debate, held at the Asia House
on Park Avenue, attracted a full house
of about 300 people to hear six experts
on Iran tackle the motion: “We must
tolerate a nuclear Iran.” Guests were
polled before and after the debate to
see if their views shifted on the basis
of the skills and logic of the panelists
of academics, analysts and writers.
In the first round George Perkovich of
the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, speaking for the motion, argued
that launching a war against Iran would
not solve the problem, while Patrick
Clawson of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy countered that allowing
a nuclear Iran would lead to up to 30
more countries developing nuclear
weapons. (Most people were against the
motion, but the margin narrowed by
evening’s end.)
Rosenkranz, a prominent New York
insurance executive, said he was pleased
with the inaugural effort, though he
would like to attract a younger and more
diverse audience in the future.
(Upcoming topics include “freedom of
expression must include the license to
offend” on Oct. 18 and “a democratically
elected Hamas is still a terrorist
organization” on Nov. 29).
Rosenkranz said that as a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations and several
think tanks, he was used to discussions
that sought to “minimize rather than
sharpen differences.” But the
Intelligence Squared series is trying to
do something different, he said. “We
want to help people understand the facts
behind the emotions” of a given topic,
and “force people to have a greater
respect for civil discourse, not by
trying to be bland but appreciating how
complicated the issues are.”
The NPR broadcasts will give the debates
a national platform, and it will be
interesting to see if the U.S. debates
achieve the kind of success the British
version of Intelligence Squared does.
The Jewish community certainly could
benefit from a platform of sophisticated
discussion on vital and sensitive
topics, from if, when and how to
criticize Israeli policies, to finding
creative ways to subsidize Jewish day
school tuitions, to encouraging the
participation of interfaith families in
Jewish life without lowering religious
standards. Too often these and other
important issues are either discussed
narrowly, by proponents or critics, or
not at all, for fear of fostering
further communal division.
Some of these issues were to be dealt
with this Chanukah at an ambitious World
Jewish Forum in Jerusalem under the
auspices of Israeli President Moshe
Katzav. But Katzav is facing serious
allegations of sexual harassment, and
the conference has been shelved for now.
In several weeks The Jewish Week will
hold its second annual gathering of The
Conversation, bringing together about 60
American Jews who are leaders (or
emerging leaders) in their respective
fields, from arts to business to
philanthropy, to grapple with the issues
they feel are most pressing. The
participants reflect a broad range of
religious and political views, but at
their request the retreat will be off
the record, a chance for them to speak
openly about their concerns, goals and
dreams.
Though the thousands of pages of the
Talmud, echoing over the centuries with
the vigorous give and take of rabbinic
sages, are a reminder of our tradition
of open discussion, that art has been
lost in our day of deep divide and
minimal discourse.
The communal agenda should include a
platform for public dialogue and debate
of Jewish issues that affect us all,
emphasizing logic and reason rather than
what Robert Rosenkranz calls “the
toxically emotional and reflexively
ideological” discussions that permeate
our society.
Proposed motion, then: “Our community
needs a forum for airing vital issues
with vigor, but no rancor.”
Who can argue with that?
© 2000 - 2002 The Jewish Week, Inc. All
rights reserved.
Back |