|
|
Advise
and Dissent
Freedom
of speech and democratic discourse about world
events are most important precisely at times when
American troops are committed to war.
Freedoms
of speech and assembly under the U.S.
Constitution, more than anything else, apply
precisely at the point someone is saying something
you don't agree with in a public place you might
wish were being used for something else. Speech
and assembly are core rights that define
democratic societies, even at a time when American
troops are committed in a war. So why are
dissenters – whether France or the Dixie Chicks
– being pilloried for suggesting that a new
American interventionist doctrine, "Do unto
others before they do unto you," might not be
a perfect course of action?
It's
not easy to reaffirm speech and assembly rights in
considering the decision to go to war in Iraq as
the active conflict enters its second week and as,
for the first time, we see Americans killed,
wounded and taken prisoner. No one wants these
consequences of war. Instead, all the caveats
demand center stage. Saddam Hussein left us no
choice. The United Nations just can't move
decisively. Our coalition of the willing shows
there is an international consensus. Saddam
supporters will get what they deserve. The Iraqi
people will get more freedom and a better economic
future. Our troops deserve our support no matter
what. History will be the judge.
But
Virginians, above all others, are in a position to
reaffirm the right, even the need to question
leaders and the courses of action they chose.
Virginians are heirs to the greatest thoughts on
human rights the world has ever known. George
Mason, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others
literally wrote the book on rights, first for
Virginia, then for the United States and
eventually for the world. They took it a step
farther in organizing how a representative
democracy can best secure and protect those rights
that are so fundamental as to be self-evident.
Just because the U.S. has not perfectly achieved
or implemented its own best instincts does not
detract from its continuing commitment to do so.
Securing
and protecting fundamental rights, indeed, are
part of the rationale that underpins the
American-led war in Iraq. Uprooting a tyrant and
removing threats to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness for Iraqis and their neighbors are
goals worthy of the best American traditions. But
the uneasiness about the decision to go to war now
starts with the realization that the "shock
and awe" campaign started months ago and was
aimed first at potential dissenters from a war
policy that was put on a fast track by events of
September 11, 2001.
The
rationale has been simplistic. Events of 9/11
caught America flat-footed and unprepared.
Terrorists exploited American freedoms to attack
those freedoms. Americans, therefore, would need
to sacrifice freedoms in order to engage the enemy
successfully in the U.S. The United States, in
turn, would have to move to preemptive defense,
attacking abroad where necessary, to reduce the
threat. Fundamental to these decisions were
regular pronouncements from what one clergyman has
termed the self-appointed
"Theologian-in-Chief" on evil, evil
doers and evil empires. No advice or dissent is
needed when forces of good do battle with evil.
And for the policy record, you either are for us
or against us.
What
is missed, if this is where the discussions stop,
is the understanding that speech and assembly are
not just freedoms, they are essential ingredients
in the way democratic and representative
governments work. An informed and active citizenry
is a strength of the United States. Public
opinion, therefore, is not some sideshow
researchers use to spotlight presidential
elections. What Americans think, say, feel and
want are drive wheels. And there are no shortcuts
to gaining popular support for difficult
decisions.
Strong
leaders, for example, can acknowledge the
questions of Americans (and of long-standing
allies in the international community) and the
need to satisfactorily answer those questions
before proceeding on any policy of significance
with long-term consequences that requires
investment of lives and treasure. British Prime
Minister Tony Blair did so last week in his
eloquent address formally committing British
troops in Iraq. President George W. Bush still
publicly ignores them and has gone out of his way
to suggest dissent will have no influence on his
decisions. The United States Congress continues to
discuss critical matters only in a cryptic and
disjointed fashion.
Further,
the Bush administration continues to paint
dissenters as uninformed, irrational, insincere,
irrelevant or illegitimate. Whether it is France,
the Dixie Chicks, certain Members of Congress or
millions of anti-war demonstrators worldwide,
advocates of a different course just don't have
the information we have. They don't understand
what is at stake. They're not asking the most
important questions. Their actions encourage the
enemy. They aren't committed to a strong America
or safer world. Their agenda is weird. Their
protests don't matter and won't change anything.
We won the election. They should apologize for
opposing us. We don't need to give war budget
estimates.
What
needs to be said aloud is the President of the
United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces. Americans support his decisions when
troops are engaged in war. But the President is
not the Commander-in-Chief of the American people.
The president, in fact, works for the American
people, including the majority who did not vote
for him in 2000. To turn the phrase of Edmund
Burke around, the president owes Americans not
only his judgment, but an adequate reflection of
their views.
Faced
with a Constitutional disagreement between the
executive and legislative branches of the U.S.
government over a foreign policy matter decades
ago, a justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States concluded, "In this area, the
Constitution is an invitation to struggle."
Nothing in the Constitution has been struggled
about more in the last five decades than going to
war without declaring war. How we tackle
challenges that put democratic discourse and
dissent at odds with radical new policies of
preventive detention and offensive defense are
questions for this war in Iraq just as big as the
fate of Saddam Hussein.
The
self-adjusting power of representative democracy
as outlined by Mason, Jefferson and Madison
requires buttons that read "Peace is
Patriotic," requests for war budget
estimates, suggestions that the U.S. seek
cooperation through the United Nations and lyrics
about "wide open spaces, room to make a big
mistake." Acknowledging that dissent exists
is a small step, tolerating dissent is a
Constitutional requirement, but respecting dissent
is a necessary course if democracy is to work.
--
March 24, 2003
|
