All Shoock Up

Voltaire is credited with saying, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Striking words from someone who never had the benefit of institutionalized free speech. It is also a sentiment that has long since left the social landscape of America.

Friends, war is upon us, and men and women have died and will die as its result. It is with this backdrop that a grave issue must be addressed, lest we cheapen the unimaginable sacrifice individuals and their loved ones are suffering. Flatly stated, disagreeing with the president is okay, and disagreeing with war is okay, and those who suggest that dissenters ought to "leave America if you don't like it" are themselves advocating the ideals of totalitarianism embodied in fascists, Nazis and Stalinists - all groups they supposedly wish to eradicate.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public," said former President Theodore Roosevelt.

It's been about a century since Roosevelt spoke these words, but they ring as true as though they were spoken by our national conscience.

Each day, those who disagree with the decision to go to war, or those who would wish it had been carried out another way are accosted as unpatriotic, anti-American or even traitorous. Organizations like the FReepers (F.R. for Free Republic) have sprung up, listing dissenters' names and addresses online, according to Michael I. Niman of Artvoice, much like the Army of God anti-abortionists which has similar lists of abortion doctors.

On the other side of this coin, some ardent pacifists might argue that people who support the president's timing or decision to invade Iraq in the first place are no better than sick individuals like these, but that, too, cannot be further from the truth.

Opposing opinions, as long as they are grounded in some logical footing, are valid. It is only in discussion that as a nation we can begin to formulate a consensus.

There is no correct answer to conflict that mere humans can divine, as evidenced by the fact that we still have uncertainty, angst, suffering, war and fear after hundreds of thousands of years on the planet as a species.

The solution begins with dialogue where everyone can advance an idea without fear of reprisal. In the end, all that's needed is for everyone to at least feel they've been heard.

Of course, this is the justification for a democracy - a national forum for the thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas. Congress was designed by Article I of the Constitution to fulfill this purpose on a grand scale, but the essence of democratic government was to have this exchange occur between people sitting by the fountains at the Commons or eating a sub at the Cellar, with no official tinge to it; just good old-fashioned public discourse.

President George W. Bush may be ill fit for the job of president, and maybe he has sent America into another Vietnam. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein may be the Arab version of Adolf Hitler, and those who oppose forcefully removing him from power could be akin to appeasers like Neville Chamberlain, as has been argued by writers for this newspaper and many others that hold fancier titles than mine.

Whatever way one slices this tomato, a tomato it remains. Said another way: Patriotic Americans who appreciate and support their troops no more or less than each other can disagree on this topic and still be patriotic Americans.

There is no excuse short of ignorance or brainwashing that could allow a group or an individual to try and make another group or individual feel uncomfortable in the land of the free. The facts remain: Bush served just as many tours of duty in Vietnam as Bill Clinton, and I have seen just as much combat as most who say I would be a traitor if I saw an alternative to fighting.

Yet, until the Supreme Court rules the First Amendment does not apply to those who peacefully (this caveat, by the way, takes care of all you that have gotten out your copies of Schenk v. U.S.) disagree with the government, I am content staying right here in America, where freedom is a birthright and disagreement shapes democracy. I think Voltaire would be proud. Then again, his contemporary Montesquieu said, "An author is a fool who, not content with boring those he lives with, insists on boring future generations." But that's not the point here.