Democracy Is About Respectful Discourse 573.6
On this 4th of July, I hope you will take time to experience pride in and appreciation for the great qualities of our country.
One quality of our democracy is that every citizen is a public official. Thus, the passionate advocacy of political convictions is not only a right, it’s a patriotic obligation.
What worries me, however, is the tendency of many basically good people to be overcome with self-righteous certainty that they’re right and that those who disagree with them are wrong.
Having grown up during the ’60s, I have ugly memories of the brutality and futility of close-minded ideological warfare about the Vietnam War.
The conduct and name-calling from anti-war factions was often ferocious and unfair. They called people who believed the war was justified warmongers, imperialists, or ignorant government stooges. Worse, some went beyond protesting policies; they belittled, condemned, and rejected the military personnel who gave and risked their lives in service to their country.
The other side was no better. Adamant hawks labeled war opponents traitors or cowards. They considered any dissent to be disloyal, even criticism of the atrocious slaughter of innocent civilians in a village called My Lai. They evoked the all-purpose shield of national security to suppress documents (the Pentagon Papers) that discredited government claims about the conduct of the war.
Patriotism shouldn’t take the form of arrogant, chest-pounding, flag-waving claims of superiority or the morally blind chauvinistic claim that we have an inherent right to do whatever is thought to be in our national self-interest.
Patriotism doesn’t require us to support whatever national policy our elected officials pursue, but it does require respectful and responsible discourse – on both sides.
Instead of name-calling and political posturing about the war in Iraq, we need honest, open, constructive, and sincere debate about what is right and sensible.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Comments
Thank you for shining a light on the '60s war protest movement - somewhat glorified today and copied. Perhaps most who marched in the anti-war movement (I did) did so from a gut feeling that Vietnam was an unjust war -- but throwing rocks at police and shouting obscenites was hypocritical (peace and love generation?) -- yet somehow justified -- even in light of Martin Luther King's peaceful march example and Gandhi. A second American revolution was in the air, with rock music leading the march. Aside from the government infilitration of AIM, Black Panthers, etc., that led to distrust and disintegration, if The Beatles hadn't divorced and Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison hadn't died, who knows? Character does count.
Posted by: Keith Sloane | July 4, 2008 6:58 AM
Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison all died from drug overdoses and the Beatles celebrated their own drug use. What kind of character is that?
Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 10:15 AM
The problem with the war in Iraq is that everyone differs on what they accept as facts. This is not as clear an issue as the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor or Hitler invading European countries. You can’t even pin the enemy down to a single country. Governments and politicians can't agree on who said what, to whom, and when. Much of this conflict is couched in secrecy with many people taking conjecture as fact. It is difficult to decipher exactly what is “right and sensible.”
There is a scene in The American President where the President says his opponent’s strategy is to sell fear. The current administration doesn’t seem to have that problem. And once you sell fear, truth is no longer the objective. The goal is now to win the argument to either maintain status quo or change it.
It is difficult to refrain from name-calling and posturing when emotional topics arise. War is an emotional topic. But fear is an even baser emotion. That’s why they don’t try to sell terrorism – they sell the FEAR of terrorism. Respectful discourse is only possible when people realize that they are being manipulated for political reasons and/or in the absence of individuals who are not under the influence of this manipulation.
The solution is for politicians to eliminate political posturing in favor of rational, respectful, reasonable, and responsible dialogue to solve problems instead of merely supporting their party platforms. Or we, the people, could just revolt and vote everyone out and start over. Isn’t that what gave birth to this great nation? But, wait, didn’t that also start with name-calling and political posturing? Hmmmm…I may have to re-think all this!
Posted by: James | July 11, 2008 11:32 AM