Political Blog Pursuing Balance & Moderation in American Politics

Yesterday I posted a comment on a blog written by Peter Abel at Donklephant entitled Can Speech Be an Act of Treason/War? It can be found at:

http://donklephant.com/2007/09/27/can-speech-be-an-act-of-treasonwar/

My comment seems to have struck a chord. It was reposted by the blogs owner on the same website.  Please note that JD did not write this comment and I am not affiliated with JD’s Neoconniseures. He is, however, on my friend list and I visit his web site from time to time. My previous blog below (MoveOn Sparks Controversy) was also a comment on his blog.

I am posting the comment in its entirety here. We must never forget the importance of Freedom of Speech in a civilized and democratic society. Without it - there is no democracy.

Freedom of speech is a hallmark of democratic society. It was important enough that our founding fathers spelled it out fairly succinctly in the FIRST amendment to the Constitution. It is important because freedom of expression is one of the tools that a liberated people can use to prevent oppression and injustice and to assure the survival of democracy. But it comes with a price tag, it means that citizens will sometimes be exposed to opinions and viewpoints with which they do not agree. But it’s a small price to pay for freedom.

I do not agree with the tactic employed by MoveOn in the recent ad. But I do think that a culture as advanced as that of the US has the capacity to recognize that some expression may cross a line of civility and decorum and nevertheless be protected by the Constitution. You have to take the good with the bad - why is that so hard for people to comprehend? The kind of speech that is not protected by the Constitution is that kind of expression that is patently offensive or obscene - like shouting vulgarities in Church - surely noone would recognize such speech as protected by the Constitution. But other speech, unless it is patently offensive and out of place, is protected - as rightly it should be.

So what did MoveOn do wrong? Instead of attacking policies, statistics, and other substantive issues related to the war, they leveled a personal attack at a millitary officer who was acting in an official capacity. The ad in question could have hoped to achieve little other than to attack the personal integrity of the General. While this is undoubtedly out of bounds - it is not unconstitutional and should not be criminalized. (And it shouldn’t have even been discussed!) Unfortunately, neither of our political parties seems to have much problem with “making it personal”. We seem to have a penchant in this country for having no decorum or civility when it comes to politics. If we don’t like the opinions of our political opponents we simply move to attack them personally - its much easier to attack the person - rather than put forth the effort to win the hearts and minds of the American people through evidence, logic, discussion, debate etc. Believe me when I say that MoveOn does not have the market cornered on that tactic.

Whether we like it or not, when we talk about our brave soldiers fighting for freedom, one of the basic and fundamental rights they are fighting either to protect or establish is freedom of speech. It is a precious and sacred right that should be regarded with great reverence and respect. It should not be trivialized or become subject to erosion because it is sometimes inconvenient or uncomfortable. This does not mean that we have to give credence to those who cross the line. The best approach to dealing with this type of expression is to just ignore it - or make a single dignified statement about why the message or tactic employed lends nothing useful to the debate.

It’s high time that mainstream American’s impose some contraint on the tone and tenor of political debate. We should not tolerate attacks that are purely personal in nature. Nor should we tolerate attempts to silence debate about a war by allowing those one one side of the debate to claim that those who do not support it are unpatriotic or unsupportive of our troops. Regardless of one’s position on the issues, one should recognize bunk when it surfaces.

This last week MoveOn.Org generated a firestorm of controversy by taking out a full page ad questioning the veracity of reports by General Patraeus to Congress regarding the war in Iraq. Although I have not personally seen the ad in question, from all that I have read, I too find the ad disparaging General Patraeus to be indefensible. General Petraeus is acting honorably in the service of his country to do that which he has been asked to do. There is no good that can come from attacking our millitary officials for attempting to do their job.

However, I do take issue with the tone of political arguments related to criticism of the administration or the war - or any administration or any war. What makes the United States of America great is the right of its citizens to participate in its governance. As far as I am concerned this is a God given right that comes with the absolute freedom to exercise it at (almost) any time and for (almost) any reason. Today we are at war - in a war that many believe is necessary to protect our country from terror - but there are many who do not believe that is what we are doing. As citizens of this country, they are entitled to their opinion and they are entitled to express it. I take issue with anyone who claims that a citizen is any less of a patriot for questioning his country’s involvement in a war. This is NOT aiding and abetting the enemy. The war today may be justifiable - but one day we may be involved in a war that is not - and when that day comes, I sure hope there are citizens who will stand up and express their opinions instead of being afraid they are going to be denounced as weak, or unpatriotic, or as traitors. I do not believe anyone wants to live in a repressive society where people lose their jobs or are branded, hated, or discriminated against for their political opinions. I honestly pray, at times, that we in this country are beyond that. The tactic of demonizing people for their opinions is despicable and is a tactic that is trotted out when the proposition one supports cannot be defended on its own grounds. Our government leaders are not infallible - sometimes they make mistakes - and they are subject to the will of the people. The will of the people cannot be known unless it is expressed.

Good citizens can appreciate that in a pluralistic society - people will have differing viewpoints - the right to have differences is not terminated when we declare war. Being against the war - does not equate to being critical or unappreciative of our troops - the two concepts are utterly unrelated. We should appreciate the fact that there is still debate in our country about the decisions our leaders make. When the debate stops - oppression begins. Here the criticism was directed toward a millitary officer acting in an official capacity, and should not have been. However, questioning the ideas of our politicians, candidates, and prevailing policies is always fair game, regardless of the subject.