A Pragmatist View: It’s alRight to be Left….
By Greg Stewart
Traditionally, the Washington Post columnist are viewed as left leaning liberals that aim to demonstrate “error of our ways” with political correctness (Whew!). From some viewpoints they are ideologues whose motives must be suspected, because, after all, the Washington Post and their ilk are saboteurs to the American way of life. In so being that, the liberal left obfuscates and blinds Americans from the truth. In essence, papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times have agendas to shroud the public from its personal liberties, freedom of speech, and selfish intolerances; or at the least, that is what one is to believe.
So, when I see two diametrically oppose pundits virtually agree on the same topic, George Will and Richard Cohen and diatribe on the issue of free speech and to advocate for, in a fashion, David Irving’s oration and writings on the “faux” holocaust is tantamount to the mountain coming to Moses…Well, maybe not. But their points in their recent columns and their rationality within them are well taken. It is a mistake in a “free society” and I will add even during a time of “war” obscure liberties, such as “free speech.” To do so, is to defeat the example of our greatness and our inclusiveness. Admittedly, this may sound like a big tent moment, but it is not. Our democracy must not give in to our own insecurities, our greatest virtue and principle, the First Amendment, must not be relegated to the extremes of political correctness, from either side, it must be held up as our greatest asset.
By doing so, we must continuously live the example, if we are to maintain to be the “Golden City on the Hill,” we must stand proud and advocate with all fury that we shall overcome the hate, the desperation of fear. Fear makes us small. Fear places us in darkness. Yet, some would still excoriate and vilify those who questions our government’s secrecy, and its many faces of manipulation, or the laws that have been touted in the “people’s best interest.” In this “War on Terror,” I do not demonize, demean, or deny such critics, I applaud them. Why? Simply, because it takes courage to doubt, to challenge, to speak out, and not to succumb to one’s fear. Yes, some of their motives may not be virtuous, but in their suspicions, they have allowed us to examine and find the truth and to be on guard against the many demons of the fearful.
On the other hand, it shows our enemies, real and imagined, our resolve to control our own destiny. It also forewarns our government that, they must continue to earn our trust and that they may “execute,” with our blessing, “our” government, with the “rule of law.” And it is us, the citizen, and the citizen representatives that control, at our sufferance, the government. However, when we tolerate inane platitudes such as the restoration of speech on and off college campuses, high schools, or special corporate interest groups, then we are one step closer to the denial of the dream—of the freedom we have, seek, and desire.
Some of the capriciousness of this great experiment of freedom, which has evolved for more than 200 years, in which the preamble of civil discourse, argumentation was and is the allowance of the debate. It has grown into our symbol for humanity; we were argued into existence. And, such an experiment should not be vanquished into the realm of obscurity—but celebrated and held up as the enlightenment to the individual.
This is what I mean, I agree with George F. Will and Richard Cohen that the odious messages of David Irving, Ku Klux Klan, or a ranting liberal or social conservative must be heard. No to be obscured, to do so give them validation for those who wish to roll in the muck of ignorance and fear; we must as a civilization remain open with all our warts for all the world to see, in order to swallow the disarray and confusion of the majority of the moment. So, that not only the vast ocean of indifferences, of ignorance, can be stemmed—but their relevancies can be extenuated so that we can be there for our moments of pertinences.
These pertinences are for humanity’s aspiration, inspiration, and the continuation of the human condition’s better angels. In so being that, the grand leaders of our time, past and present, can act. These who were and are worthy would have had sacrificed in vane their messages and their lives (think Jesus, George Washington, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Ronald Reagan). Yes, even for persons such as David Irving’s denial of the Holocaust, Jay Bennish’s proselytizing, Ward Churchill’s intolerance, Pat Robertson’s condemnation, James Dobson’s demonizations for individual’s choices are examples of the cost of an open society, even in the minacious moments, such as 9/11. In fact, such moments should mettle our resolve. To sanction speech is to cower and to surrender to the enemy from within and to give into the enemy from the outside. Some of us may not always agree with our polar opposite, but it is alRight to be Left. And, lest we forget that, after everything is said and done, it is just another day in paradise. After all, we live together in the greatest city and we are the beacon for humanity and it is our burden to bear….
Comments
XXOO,
JTL