Posted on 05/30/2004 10:20:01 AM PDT by Maria S
For the life of me I cannot remember when it happened.
I cannot recall when the United States of America ceased being a land of dissenters; of arguers, of contrary thinking; of people blessed with the right, in the words of the very First Amendment to their Constitution, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When did protest become unpatriotic? When did the Founding Fathers' vision of a land that honored and embraced contentiousness disappear?
It must have vanished without millions of Americans ever noticing. How else does one explain the view of so many Americans that to question our policy in Iraq is unpatriotic? How else does one justify the stated opinions that protesting government policy gives "aid and comfort" to our enemies?
Such opinions are stated regularly in letters to this newspaper, by senior government officials, by political supporters of President Bush and by many millions of others, who, for reasons that escape me, hold this notion that wartime somehow requires us to keep our political feelings to ourselves.
The great Republican U.S. senator from California, Arthur Vandenberg, once said, "Politics stops at the water's edge." He made that quip to discourage partisan sniping during wartime.
But that doesn't mean Americans should cease questioning government policy, or even challenging a wartime president as many Americans are doing today. Most Americans know their boundaries. Sitting in an anti-aircraft gun, joking with enemy gunners who had killed American pilots - as Jane Fonda did in 1972 during the Vietnam War - crosses that line.
That act still sticks in the craw of many Vietnam veterans, including mine. Protesting government policy through civil disobedience, which millions of Americans did during that time, remains an appropriate form of political expression.
But it seems today that such expressions of disagreement hit a nerve at every turn. To speak out against some aspects of the war against terror, in the minds of many, constitutes an unpatriotic act.
Protesters hate our country, many people contend.
Here's my favorite: Those protesters hate what this country stands for.
So, what does this country stand for?
It stands for liberty. It stands for freedom, but certainly within the bounds of good taste and community standards. The country stands for people's right to speak their minds freely.
At least it used to stand for all that.
Something must have happened to change many Americans' minds about freedom of political expression.
Maybe it was the goons who introduced the United States to their monstrous brand of terrorism on Sept. 11, 2001. They hit us on our own turf, not in some nightclub or military barracks far away. That could bring about a fundamental change in many Americans' outlook about freedom.
Are we now free to express ourselves only if we support our president and his policies?
The Founders didn't put any provisions into the Constitution that suspended our rights to protest when the shooting starts and Americans start dying in combat. By omitting those restrictions, the Founders said quite the opposite. They said protest is a fundamental American right, which I would hasten to add is a totally foreign concept to our enemies.
Another great Republican, President Theodore Roosevelt, said this: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. ...(I)t is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."
Old Roughrider knew a few things about combat, which he fought in the political arena and on the battlefield. The Founders had it correct when they set aside our rights to seek "redress of grievances." If a policy is strong, it will stand up to any protest. If it is weak, it will change according to the people's will.
Our current crop of leaders, though, needs to stop the overheated responses to those who question them and their policies. Don't they give aid and comfort to those who seek to undermine our very way of life? Last time I checked, that way of life included a healthy dose of dissent.
Unless, of course, that all changed when I wasn't paying attention.
John Kanelis is editorial page editor for the Amarillo Globe-News. He can be contacted at the Globe News, P.O. Box 2091, Amarillo, TX 79166, or via e-mail at john.kanelis@amarillo.com. His column appears each Sunday.
Thanks for the rant!
Patriotic Americans have silently watched liberals attempt to destroy this nation for decades now, now the cost is finally becoming too high to remain silent and let spoiled children throw their tantrums and allow the venting of their infantile hostility towards society destroy us. So now liberals are worried because for the first time in their lousy, worthless, space taking, existance, they are begining to hear the sound of a growing opposition after decades of having the field all to themselves? They should worry, they should spend sleepless nights worrying. Instead of "America love it or leave it", it may become "America love it or we will make you leave it".
Hope yer well my fellow Texan !....Stay Safe !
"Awwwww Maria....please don't shine any light on Kanelis."
Au contraire! (or something like that!) I figure it's kind of like turning on the light and watching the bugs scatter.
I honestly do NOT know what Kanelis was thinking when he wrote that editorial!!
Stay Safe !
mOSLTY, "oR WhaTEVeR". iF i WANT TO READ JUVENILE RANTS LIKE THAT i COULD... OH NEVERmiND.
Did you see my original rant in reply 30
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144797/ posts?page=30#30
"...or when, in England (God Bless 'em) Lord Haw Haw was FREAKING HANGED!)
Reckon it depends what yer protestin', don't it?!
FReegards...MUD
Perhaps true freedom is when everyone can say whatever they want, without being arrested for it. Maybe THAT'S what the First Amendment is all about. This bozo seems to think that the First Amendment means his opinion is sacred and no one has the right to disagree with him. What an elitist!
Worth repeating.
they were banned
Is this guy living in a cave? All the major papers I read and my local rag are anti-Bush and anti-war. The letters to the editors pages are also overwhelmingly anti-Bush in their content. From reading the papers I get, one would think that ninety percent of the population is against Bush and the war.
Maybe they read my bumpersticker......
The Administration's played it played it perfectly so far...ignore the RAT bastards until they break the law, then rain hell down upon them...MUD
Here's the author's real beef. An America under Republicans is no longer within the author's idea of "good taste and community standards" (i.e. his taste and standards).
Thus he feels oppressed as though his liberty to be an asshole has been taken from him. When in fact, he is as much of an asshole as he has ever been, and his right to be so, is more protected than ever.
Something must have happened to change many Americans' minds about freedom of political expression.
______________________________________________________________
Maybe, Mr. Kanelis............many Americans' minds are in agreement with our President.
Is that too much of a stretch for your mind to grasp?
If I promote the agenda of those who wish to take away the Constitution and all my rights, to overthrow the government with violence, put me under Sharia law, and kill those who disagree, am I being patriotic supporting what the country stands for -- "freedom of expression" or am I simply being a dupe in aiding and abetting the enemy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.