"Democracy is FRAGILE. Civil liberties are perishable at a whim, a breath. It has happened before. It can happen here.
It happens because we believe our institutions are strong enough to protect us. No, no, it is WE who must be strong enough to protect THEM."
[Editorial comment about this quote: over the past year I've seen pretty much the same thing said -- often in nearly the same words -- many, many times, by small-time-bloggers and big-name-columnists and folks in-between ... and mostly by historians. Although my own political leanings are not hard to discern from my journal, I do not feel this can be safely dismissed as a mere partisan-activist sound-bite.]
(no subject)
(no subject)
the analysis of Why:
Part of the problem, a large part of the reason why our civil liberties,
especially freedom of speech are threatened nearly constantly, and gravely
threatened in waves and cycles is NOT because WE are confident that our
precious institutions will protect them.
It's because for a frighteningly large amount of the time a frighteningly
large amount of people DON'T want the Freedom To Speak protected.
Speech, especially speech that people don't want to hear, especially speech
that displays even a hint that the status quo is wrong somehow, is very
threatening and scary.
So people's natural instinct to protect themselves is to silence the speech
that they don't want to hear.
This happens at the macro level, with important Supreme Court decisions all
the way down to the micro level.
And it has nothing at all to do with who's actually correct, only with who
is threatening to whom at the time.
I have a reputation as a "firebrand" a "trouble maker", "rude", "stubborn"
and "asshole" because, of More than anything else, what I say. And my
experience is not unique. And, I've observed, more often than not, people
like me get shunned and ostracised when what they say is exactly,
verifiably correct. People like to kid themselves that there's something
about the person whom they're shunning, rudeness, bad timing, etc that
justifies this, but that's all a bunch of balderdash and rationalisation.
I'm not buying that. Not for a rusty quarter.
It's all about content. They dare to disagree. They have the unmitigated
gall to express an opinion (more often a fact) not "dittoed" by the herd.
And if they have the fortitude to stand by what gets blithely labelled an
"opinion" in the face of popular resistance, then their social life is over-
whether it's in Jr High School or on the Radio. The people who succeed, who
are listened to are the people who regurgitate the popular wisdom regardless
of fact.
The people who are "out" are the ones who challenge that, even (and often
especially) if what they say is correct but counter to popular opinion.
Make no mistake. Our civil liberties are not threatened by any of "them"
it's threatened by US. WE THE PEOPLE, all of the people in order to
preserve our perfect Union where we have the freedom to speak, have got to
learn to listen- especially to those with whom we disagree.
And if we don't learn to do it in our little social and familial circles,
what hope do any laws or principles protecting them on the national level
have. The problem with Democracy, is that you DO get the government you
want, and it is a reflection of the Society that wields it. You want a
hypocritical government? Be a hypocritical society. Ta da!
And as Bill Cosby so sagely put it (talking about children, or was he?)
"And those brain damaged people have the nerve to be surprised..."