This summer I received an e-mail that contained a message I’ve now become used to. The e-mail said I should reconsider my views on our foreign policy in the Middle East because those views question the infallibility of the president, so they must be evil.
The e-mail was sent by an older family member in response to a conversation I had held with a younger family member, but I’d heard the same message broadcast other places like bumper stickers and Fox “News.”
I didn’t respond to the e-mail, but if I did it would have said something like this.
Criticism of my government, including the president, is essential to the health of our democracy, making criticism an act of patriotism.
In this case, the irony of the message in the e-mail is obvious. Unfortunately, we have grown used to this irony, especially in the long, pitiful wake of the events of Sept. 11.
An eerily similar slew of e-mails filled my inbox last semester after a column I wrote criticized the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The writers of those e-mails repeated the same question as the recent one: Why did I choose the one democratic country in the region to pick on?
Again with the blatant irony.
I didn’t respond to these e-mails either, but if I had they would have said something like this.
Criticism of democracies other than the one I belong to is an act of accountability to the push for a global democracy.
Being a democracy is not — contrary to popular belief — a ticket to do whatever we want. There is no “get out of jail free” card.
Democratic states should be held to a higher standard of accountability by other democracies. Any country claiming democratic status must not only accept criticism, but it must expect, invite and be duly grateful when it occurs.
Asserting that someone should refrain from criticizing a political entity because that entity is a democracy is like asking someone to refrain from criticizing the actions of North Korea or Burma because they’re not democracies.
An appeal to silence dissent at the expense of democracy is a danger to everything democracy stands for, especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I’m not the lone voice of extremism — this is what they teach us at the University.
In my public speaking textbook, I recently read of the importance of the public forum: a space “that exists wherever people have the freedom to exchange ideas,” to democratic societies.
According to author David Zarefsky, professor of communication studies at Northwestern University, a democracy fares the best when its “public forum is active and vibrant. Without a well-cultivated public forum, democracies tend to decline.”
The importance of such criticism is rooted deep in tradition at this university. The KU student and Kansan William Allen White, wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning column, “To An Anxious Friend,” not only about the importance of free speech, but directly to our foreign policy in the Middle East: “If you are interested in peace through force and without free discussion — that is to say, free utterance decently and in order — your interest in justice is slight. And peace without justice is tyranny, no matter how you may sugarcoat it with expedience.”
Healthy democracies cherish criticism because they do not see a difference between free speech and justice.
Does the United States represent the healthy democracy that some claim it does?
The sad truth is that the argument that labels any criticism of a democracy as a heinous sin is usually bolstered by an assumption that the critic only criticizes because he harbors a deep-seated hatred for what he criticizes.
This argument is a last resort for those whose reason has left them little to work with, and have instead turned to emotional appeals.
Beware of appeals for your emotional investment without reason.
If anyone asserts that your critical argument concerning the action of any country stems from your inherent and maniacal hatred for that country and its inhabitants (America: love it or leave it!), recognize it for what it is: the regurgitation of propaganda that has appealed to the deepest emotions of a person, and not to her reason.
Anderson is a Perry junior in creative writing.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
First off it is our Republic not "our democracy", get it right. Crack open your history book or refer to the Constitution every once in a while.
Next, Democracy doesn't stand for freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It most often stands for freedom of popular speech and freedom of popular press. You are experiencing decent from a somewhat more popular line of reasoning, hence all the mail, but in a true Republic like ours your freedom of speech is protected even if you are the only one proclaiming it. In a Democracy on the other hand, as we see in other countries, you risk the threat of suppression of your views as you may not be in the majority of thought. That mindset is beginning to sink in here, hence all the cease and desist style e-mails. They don't realize in this country you can express whatever crazy, fringe, or distasteful view you choose as long as you don't infringe upon the very right of other, in which case you have not.
I agree, criticism is patriotic, as it ensures the preservation of a value system and keeps governments accountable to the people. It is indeed healthy. I'll ask you though, why is it that you seek "global democracy"? Are you sure that people outside the US all want that? How would you go about establishing global democracy? Would it be by force of arms or coercion like the Bush or Clinton administrations, or even the McCain or Obama administrations? Can we not lead by example?
My young, naive, Mr Anderson, you are making the same mistake that so many left-of-center idealogues have made for the last two generations, and sadly, will probably continue to make for another generation or two to follow: You foolishly confuse your right to criticize your country without persecution with the utter fantasy that you can level ill-conceived, poorly reasoned criticisms at your country without consequence.
To illustrate: You are also free to criticize Barack Obama about his associations with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers - loathsome characters all. It may not win you friends in Lawrence, but you won't go to jail over it. And aside from a handful of rabid, brain-dead partisans, most people would at least agree that these associations are fair game for scrutiny - as they are matters of public record. If however, you were to call Senator Obama a "Jew-hating, Stalinist who cheats on his wife and murders all of his dozens of illegetimate children" - well, you probably still won't go to jail. But about the nicest thing anybody could say about you is that you're irresponsible, and they'd be right. There is no evidence whatsoever that Senator Obama is any of those things. You're criticisms would be dismissed as irrational. And you would be, too.
So the lesson? Make more rational criticisms of Israel. And your country. Show a sense of proportion, for crying out loud. If you were to call America "the worst Human rights offender in history" because some General at Gitmo made poor Abdul listen to Sheryl Crowe all night, that just wouldn't leave you enough adequate words to describe the 500,000 bodies found in Saddam Hussein's mass graves, would it? Your criticisms go further when you demonstrate to your listeners that on balance, even while criticizing, you understand the chasm of difference that still exists between America and the World.
Nice article.
Yea...another in a string of crappy articles by you Josh. You're a terrible writer. Your style of prose is mediocre at best and you generally try to rationalize an extremist point of view. Either you actually believe the nonsense that you espouse in these articles, which makes you an idiot, or you are going for the cheap shock, at which case you're just a tool. Learn a bit about the world before you write another article or do us all a favor and quit so a decent writer can take your place.
Wow TJG87, if you don't like his opinion so be it, but why be so cruel? Being mean doesn't make your argument look any better. If you're so unimpressed with his writing don't read it.
I happen to agree that questioning things helps our society move forward. If you don't look any deeper into things YOU are the tool. And why are you so threatened by his opinion?
Just my 2 cents.
I'm not threatened by his opinion. Instead, I feel that his opinion is non-constructive to our political discourse. There is an argument to be made to questioning certain things in our society, however when Josh chooses to back radical terrorists (IE: Hamas and Hezbollah) because he dislikes Israel, it makes him a moron. And cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. I think my comments reflected the truth and that if somehow it discouraged him from writing again that I did society a favor.
TJG87, I think his goal is opening up discussion on 'political discourse' which he succeeds in doing. You seem to want to stifle that by shutting him up. That to me is non productive and frankly, a bit scary.
Hatred breeds more hatred and your posts do not support your cause, but rather show your 'dislike' for people who disagree with you. I don't see Josh Anderson using terms like 'moron' in his posts. You may believe he is wrong, but at least he has tact.
THE END.
Yea, tact goes out the window when you are an anti-Semite. it'd be one thing if he was just liberal, but he is an apologist for a radical Muslim agenda against Israel. Anderson's positions on the Jewish people show a clear disrespect for their culture and society. I have no tolerance for those who show hatred for an entire group of people. Josh is just as bad as Louis Farrakhan.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.