The Loyal Opposition
For people who spend so much of their time whining about “individual freedom,” the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal and their ilk sure have a short fuse when it comes to people who actually try to exercise it. Over the last few months as the country has been whipped into a militarist frenzy, the right has felt freer than ever to demonize opponents as not just misguided, but somehow deeply and pathologically unpatriotic. This piece (“The Liberal Pessimists,” WSJ, 4/1803), helpfully pointed out by our good friend Mr. Duffy, is typical of the schoolyard taunting that has lately assumed an ominous and threatening tone in the media.
Let’s leave aside the important question of who gave the Wall Street Journal the right to define American values. Pieces like this – a more restrained and grammatical distillation of the noxious propaganda that permeates talk radio, Fox News and right-wing Websites – casually generalize from their own assumptions and prejudices that the questions raised by critics of the Administration are the product of “a self-insulated elite convinced of its own virtue” (I always love it when the WSJ calls someone else elite and means it to be an insult). For this reason, we are led to believe, no concern raised by the left could ever have any independent validity, because, in their view, the only reason to ever oppose this President is out of some petty vendetta or misguided ideology.
There are a couple of possible responses to that. First, the WSJ was curiously tolerant of the petty vendetta leveled against the last President by a group of fanatical ideologues. One might even say indulgent, or supportive, or, perhaps, leading the charge. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a free country, and if people feel motivated to use whatever means are at their disposal to discredit the duly-constituted government, that’s their right. At least Clinton was twice elected to his office, however you want to slice and dice the vote count. All one can hope is that their new-found respect for the office carries over to the next time a Democrat is President.
The second response is that opposition is not only an inevitable part of the political process, but a necessary and desirable one. The current occupant of the White House clearly believes he is on a mission from God. He’s even said so, more than once. Historically, that is an attitude that often leads to trouble, even when it is honestly and sincerely held. So far we have been fortunate to have avoided the most dire consequences of our actions. That does not mean we were wrong to be concerned about them, and being concerned is not the same as hoping they come to pass. As a country, we need a strong domestic counterweight to all the certitude and swagger of Bush, Rumsfeld and company – both to provide accountability and to show an increasingly skeptical world that the actions of America are the product of a free and informed public debate.
Finally, it is necessary to the continued health of our democracy to retain a respect for the principles of our opponents. There are no arguments from the perspective of practicality or policy that will convince dedicated Right-to-Lifers that abortion is a moral choice, for example. That’s not my view, but I recognize the legitimacy of those who hold it. Likewise, if someone were to suggest the re-introduction of slavery, I doubt there is an argument that would sway me, no matter how many supposed benefits it would have for our country or how many times the proponents were “proven right” by circumstances (according to their own logic).
Like many who oppose the current Bush policies, I believe in our right to defend ourselves, but do not believe that we are being told the truth about our real objectives in Iraq. As a bottom-line value, I would rather die the citizen of a republic than live securely as the subject of an empire. Arguments about fighting for the freedom of oppressed Iraqis or trumped-up and increasingly flimsy accusations about “weapons of mass destruction” and ties to Al-Qaeda strike me as insincere and misleading at the very best, and more likely pretextual to a very sinister long-term agenda. Bush’s people have given me no reason to trust them and every reason to believe they are utterly ruthless, narrow-minded ideologues who share none of my values or interests. Disagree with me if you’d like, but please acknowledge that this is a question of principle founded on experience and observation, not some knee-jerk prejudice.
Many on the right venerate – even fetishize – authority. It is a core feature of their politics, and those who question authority or attempt to put questions in a larger context than “duty, honor, love of country” provoke a visceral reaction of contempt. There is, unfortunately, no analogous response on the Left (withering sarcasm, while intellectually satisfying, simply can’t compare). As a result, we’re frequently knocked off balance by the intensity and singlemindedness of the Right’s efforts to shut us up and utterly banish opposing views from the political spectrum. But just because we can’t relate to the project itself shouldn’t stop us from calling it what it is: an assault on freedom, fundamentally and intolerably undemocratic and un-American.
10:44:59 PM 
|
|
