SimpleSimon
02-12-2003, 03:31 AM
http://msnbc.com/news/871380.asp?0cv=CB20
Originally appearing on MSNBC.com:
<center>Patriotism and free speech
It’s OK to support the troops and still oppose the war
Lawrence M. Solan</center>
Feb. 11 — Although the Bush administration continues to insist that war with Iraq is not inevitable, most people think that war is close to inevitable, although it will not begin immediately. That gives the American people a short window of time to think in advance about how those who now who oppose a war in Iraq should conduct themselves once it begins, and how those who support the war should react to contrary views.
POLLS BOTH HERE and abroad show discomfort with unilateral military action taken by the United States, but considerably more support for concerted action taken with the support of the United Nations. People on both sides hold strong views. The government has been advocating its position forcefully, and has been gaining increased support, especially with Secretary of State Powell coming forth as a leading spokesman for the administration’s views. On the other hand, large demonstrations in opposition to a war have been held, and many who do not protest in the streets have their own doubts about the prospect of another war in the Persian Gulf.
Of those who disagree with Bush’s approach, many will throw their support behind the president’s policies once war begins. They will believe that once Americans are endangered, it is time to put differences behind us, and to support the administration. But many others will continue to disagree with those policies. Right now, before emotions flare, is the time to ask how these groups should deal with one another.
SUPPORTING THE TROOPS
The easy answer, which we will hear over again once the war begins, is that patriotism requires that Americans support their armed forces once they are put in harm’s way. To some, this will mean suppressing any misgivings about the military action, and cheering from the sidelines.
Of course, Americans should support the troops, and most everyone will. The United States is a patriotic country. But it is also a country whose values include perhaps the most uncompromising protection of free speech in the world. We should not forsake one value for the other. This leaves us with the question of what constitutes responsible behavior on all sides.
Supporting those called to serve in the war need not be the same thing as pretending to agree with a foreign policy that one believes is flawed, or simply wrongminded. Being patriotic should not mean having the obligation to be silent or to express ideas that are at odds with what one really believes. Not only do individuals have the right to speak their mind, but people should know how their own views compare to those of other citizens. Silence at a time of controversy can only create a false impression of consensus, which tends to undermine democratic values.
Basic decency, however, should motivate even those against a war genuinely and openly to concern themselves with the well-being those sent to fight. After all, whether one agrees with the policy that sent them away, they are fighting in our name. Opponents should also, I believe, give our political leaders the benefit of the doubt in a very important respect. Whether or not one agrees with the administration’s policies, one should presume, absent evidence to the contrary, that those who have made the policy have done so because they believe that it is in the best interests of the country. Opposition should express argument beyond angry rhetoric.
SPEAKING OUT
But there is nothing wrong with those who oppose the government’s foreign policy to say so and to say why they oppose it even with American troops abroad. Every American has the right to try to sway both the policymakers and the voters toward positions they consider better justified than those of the government. The expression of dissenting views is healthy in a democracy. It tends to force leaders to articulate the reasons behind their actions, and to be held accountable if they cannot. To the extent that it gives enemies the impression that the people of this country do not all speak with the same voice, so be it. We are a country of many voices, and should be very proud of that fact. With a military force as strong as ours, no one can sensibly confuse debate for weakness.
Some people live in societies so repressive that this issue would never arise. In Cuba, people are afraid to be too vocal in their criticism of Castro for fear of reprisal. Other dictators, including Saddam Hussein himself, are virtually beyond reproach in their own countries. The same is true in countries friendlier to American interests. We should be thankful for our freedom to speak. But we should not be so thankful that we give it up. We need not celebrate freedom by acting as though we ourselves live in one of the terrible societies that we so rightly deplore.
Lawrence M. Solan is a Visiting Fellow in the Psychology Department at Princeton University, and a Professor and Director of the Center for the Study of Law, Language and Cognition at Brooklyn Law School.
Interesting viewpoint. In part I can agree, but for the most it seems he thinks that I, as an opponent of this rush to war, must honor dubya’s reasoning.
I would, if it were rational.
Originally appearing on MSNBC.com:
<center>Patriotism and free speech
It’s OK to support the troops and still oppose the war
Lawrence M. Solan</center>
Feb. 11 — Although the Bush administration continues to insist that war with Iraq is not inevitable, most people think that war is close to inevitable, although it will not begin immediately. That gives the American people a short window of time to think in advance about how those who now who oppose a war in Iraq should conduct themselves once it begins, and how those who support the war should react to contrary views.
POLLS BOTH HERE and abroad show discomfort with unilateral military action taken by the United States, but considerably more support for concerted action taken with the support of the United Nations. People on both sides hold strong views. The government has been advocating its position forcefully, and has been gaining increased support, especially with Secretary of State Powell coming forth as a leading spokesman for the administration’s views. On the other hand, large demonstrations in opposition to a war have been held, and many who do not protest in the streets have their own doubts about the prospect of another war in the Persian Gulf.
Of those who disagree with Bush’s approach, many will throw their support behind the president’s policies once war begins. They will believe that once Americans are endangered, it is time to put differences behind us, and to support the administration. But many others will continue to disagree with those policies. Right now, before emotions flare, is the time to ask how these groups should deal with one another.
SUPPORTING THE TROOPS
The easy answer, which we will hear over again once the war begins, is that patriotism requires that Americans support their armed forces once they are put in harm’s way. To some, this will mean suppressing any misgivings about the military action, and cheering from the sidelines.
Of course, Americans should support the troops, and most everyone will. The United States is a patriotic country. But it is also a country whose values include perhaps the most uncompromising protection of free speech in the world. We should not forsake one value for the other. This leaves us with the question of what constitutes responsible behavior on all sides.
Supporting those called to serve in the war need not be the same thing as pretending to agree with a foreign policy that one believes is flawed, or simply wrongminded. Being patriotic should not mean having the obligation to be silent or to express ideas that are at odds with what one really believes. Not only do individuals have the right to speak their mind, but people should know how their own views compare to those of other citizens. Silence at a time of controversy can only create a false impression of consensus, which tends to undermine democratic values.
Basic decency, however, should motivate even those against a war genuinely and openly to concern themselves with the well-being those sent to fight. After all, whether one agrees with the policy that sent them away, they are fighting in our name. Opponents should also, I believe, give our political leaders the benefit of the doubt in a very important respect. Whether or not one agrees with the administration’s policies, one should presume, absent evidence to the contrary, that those who have made the policy have done so because they believe that it is in the best interests of the country. Opposition should express argument beyond angry rhetoric.
SPEAKING OUT
But there is nothing wrong with those who oppose the government’s foreign policy to say so and to say why they oppose it even with American troops abroad. Every American has the right to try to sway both the policymakers and the voters toward positions they consider better justified than those of the government. The expression of dissenting views is healthy in a democracy. It tends to force leaders to articulate the reasons behind their actions, and to be held accountable if they cannot. To the extent that it gives enemies the impression that the people of this country do not all speak with the same voice, so be it. We are a country of many voices, and should be very proud of that fact. With a military force as strong as ours, no one can sensibly confuse debate for weakness.
Some people live in societies so repressive that this issue would never arise. In Cuba, people are afraid to be too vocal in their criticism of Castro for fear of reprisal. Other dictators, including Saddam Hussein himself, are virtually beyond reproach in their own countries. The same is true in countries friendlier to American interests. We should be thankful for our freedom to speak. But we should not be so thankful that we give it up. We need not celebrate freedom by acting as though we ourselves live in one of the terrible societies that we so rightly deplore.
Lawrence M. Solan is a Visiting Fellow in the Psychology Department at Princeton University, and a Professor and Director of the Center for the Study of Law, Language and Cognition at Brooklyn Law School.
Interesting viewpoint. In part I can agree, but for the most it seems he thinks that I, as an opponent of this rush to war, must honor dubya’s reasoning.
I would, if it were rational.