Memo to Conservative Bloggers and Internet Pundits: Give Indra Nooyi a Break!

Much anger has been spewing forth from the blogosphere against PepsiCo President Indra Nooyi's speech at the Columbia Business School MBA recognition ceremony last Sunday (see Powerline here & here, Hugh Hewitt & others).

I say, give Ms. Indra a break.

First of all, she did not lie about anything.

Second, she did not lie about anything that maligned our soldiers or our military as did CNN's Eason Jordan, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff or, more recently, Linda Foley, president of the 35,000-member Newspaper Guild, who recently asserted (a la Eason) that U.S. troops deliberately are killing journalists in Iraq.

Third, she did not say anything that put anyone else in danger of their lives.

Fourth, she did not speak in a nation-wide venue. She spoke locally to a specific group of people at Columbia.

Fifth, she is not someone who carries a great deal of influence in American public foriegn policy (although PepsiCo's international marketing, etc., makes them a significant player in international economics and trade).

I have read the text of her speech and have come to these conclusions:

1. Her illustrative use of the five fingers on the hand was a result of a major brain malfunction. There is absolutely no way "in the world" (pun intended) that her meaning could be misconstrued.

2. On the other hand, it is my opinion that she was not so much expressing her personal opinion about the United States being the extended "middle finger" of the world as she was attempting to illustrate the way much of the world perceives the United States to be.

It is not a bad idea to tell graduating business students that the rest of the world does not necessarily look at us in the same way that we look at ourselves. No doubt Ms. Indra has learned this bit of realpolitik from first hand experience in the trenches of international trade competition.

3. She did not leave that "extended middle finger" as the closing image of her metaphor. She specifically used that it as an image to be avoided as these new graduating students begin to enter the international business community as representatives of this country. "When you extend your hand in a gesture of greeting to a foreign trader," she seemed to be saying, " be sure that you present yourself as being a member of the world community instead of as a big bully projecting your national identity with a "do it my way or the 'highway'" attitude."

Is there anyone out there in the 'sphere who would contest Ms. Indra's thesis that much of the world (rightly or wrongly) views American political and economic policies as arrogant? Is there anyone out there who would not agree with her desire for business graduate students to be sensitive to the feelings, needs and viewpoints of other nations? Is there anyone out there who does not believe that there is much needed to be done to improve our country's image around the world? Is there anyone out there who would not consider this advice to be excellent "Adam-Smith-Free-Market-based" advice that is good for both the producer and the consumer?

4. Within the tex of her speech, Ms. Indra clearly and unequivocably affirms her love of America, her apprciation of its essential goodness and the priviledge she feels in being able to live and work here.

Are all of you calling her a liar? On what grounds? Does she have a long track record of other "America-bashing" comments?

Is there not one of you who will extend to her the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, her intentions were honest and sincere? That she might have simply gotten so caught up in what she thought was a clever metaphor that she lost sight of how it could be easily perceived to mean something far different that she had meant it to mean?

5. There is no reasonable way to justify granting this incident the status of being national news. It is worthy of neither the attention nor the amount of jump-on-the-bandwagon criticism being leveled on her by the conservative new media.

The incident is local, folks. It is between Ms. Indra, those who were present when she spoke, PepsiCo and Columbia University. Not every "molehill" needs to be granted the status of "mountain." Let the parties directly involved sort the matter out themselves, with dignity and some measure of privacy. Ms. Indra has absolutely no reason to apologize to you or me, to the American puplic or, for that matter, to the world.

As I surf through the web I sense the same sort of "blood-in-the-water" mob mentality that we normally associate with such things as the Salem Witch Trials.

I am embarrassed and ashamed that we would treat this woman in this way. It is neither fair to her, to PepsiCo or to the world of international opinion who will think even less of our country as a result of this irresponsible response to her words at Columbia.

We have rightly and correctly been complaining for months and years about the "other side's" vicious, exaggerated and substance-less attacks on President Bush's judicial nominees.

Today, in light of the attacks on Indra Nooyi, I am wondering if there is really any difference between Democrats and Republicans.