Reply
Tue 13 May, 2003 09:23 am
The apparent failure of our political culture to grasp a distinction one would have thought was elementary, the core of our Constitution and its values, the first principle taught in Democracy 101, namely, the difference between dissent and disloyalty.
The (House Unamerican Activities and McCarthy) inquisitorial committees of the 1950s were wrong not because they so often got the wrong guy but because they occasionally got the right one. The red hunt was misguided because the equation that came to define the McCarthy era (to be a liberal is to be a pinko is to be a red is to be a spy) was misguided. And it was misguided because, in the name of national security and national safety, it inhibited, marginalized, attacked and attempted to decimate dissent.
It should by now be an old story that in the name of countersubversion, those who did their best (i.e., their worst) to put the alleged subversives out of business did more damage to the Republic than the alleged subversives themselves. But today's counter-subversives, in the name of counterterrorism, scoop up suspected terrorists without due process, or any kind of process for that matter, and ship them to an island off the coast of Florida, where they are deprived of the right to counsel (although why would they need counsel if, under the Ashcroft doctrine, they are not entitled to a trial, fair or otherwise?). Preventive detention does not seem quite so bad when it is carried out in the shadow of a "preventive" war.
-----Victor Navasky
Well, but we must not forget that some of the Reds infiltrated to the most sensitive areas (for example, to the nuclear project), and they actively spied in favor of the foreign country (e.g. Rosenbergs or Klaus Fuchs). It is a pity that FBI overlooked them...
Re: The difference between dissent and disloyalty
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:It should by now be an old story that in the name of countersubversion, those who did their best (i.e., their worst) to put the alleged subversives out of business did more damage to the Republic than the alleged subversives themselves.
This is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. They did more damage according to whom? I'd like to know how that "damage" is quantified. We have no way of knowing what socio-political results may have come about had McCarthy not held his little dog and pony shows. The author if this piece presupposes that had there been no Joe McCarthy the end result would have been just as it is right now. He has no way of ever proving that though.
His comment would be like me saying that if my grandmother hadn't died in 1970 she'd still be alive today - a statement that totally ignores what MAY HAVE happened in the interveneing years.
I think we're seeing the effects of the damage right now in the "statist" bent of the Bush administation, using "terror in quotes" and the certainties of religiosity to gain power. Because that's all McCarthy was into: power. Much of the shameless rhetoric, though it wasn't exactly born in the McCarthy era, got a foothold at that point. He was also a serious alcoholic, something I suspect drives much of what we're seeing in office right now.
But I believe we're still too close to the McCarthy era for a final assessment. And note that Navasky is not speaking of the convicted spies of that era, but rather of "alleged subversives" -- of which there were one helluva lot. These were people in the arts and commerce and academia who had or had not been passive members of a political party during time when it was legal, chic, and considerably less dangerous than, say, the neo-cons are turning out to be!
Just out of curiosity - how many here are familiar with Wilson's "To the Finland Station"?
That was required reading in school -- it's a wonderful book and one which needs constant rereading...
one must be aware of that to which one is loyal. is it to the state and its manifestations, or is it to an ideal? if the former, then loyalty is a by-product of propaganda. if the latter, than loyalty to an ideal can be dissent and measured by how far the ways of state differ from its ideals.
too often the rhetoric ignores the fact that different people believe that their country means and represents different things to them.
Joining this discussion late, and responding to the title's question...
To me, the difference between disloyalty and dissent is the likelihood that the action or speech engaged in will cause harm to the nation or its citizens.
The likelihood or the knowledge?
I ask because some advocate positions that might have a high likelihood of causing harm to the nation without their knowledge. In those cases they might simply have a misfortunate opinion and not be disloyal in the least.
Craven - Interesting point...
I guess you've shown that it is sometimes (perhaps often) a matter of perspective. If I raise my voice in dissent and ill befalls my countrymen because of it through a mechanism which I had not considered I think most would say I was disloyal, whether I intended to be or even recognized the possibility.
I'd say you were a liability but that loyalty and disloyalty would have to be concious.
But it's moot, I do not subscribe to nationalism.
Craven de Kere wrote:But it's moot, I do not subscribe to nationalism.
Does a citizen owe nothing to his country and his countrymen?
Perhaps, but the debt does not have to be nationalism. And nationalism can harm as much as it can help.
To me it comes down to the fact that nationalism is the best defense against the other peoples' nationalism. It makes sense on a very base level (survival through solidarity) but it's a danger to other nations, who in turn must have nationalism to confrot it and protect themselves.
It's a vicious cycle over lines drawn in the sand.
I live in a real world so the reallity dictates that it will always be there. I simply think it is a very base instinct just as is territorialism.
Incidentally some people owe nothing to their country, some countries have done little for their people. I haven't seen the level of nationalism coincide with that.
Seems to me the difference between dissent and disloyalty is often in the eyes of the beholder -- and dependent upon whose ox is being gored.
The most recent case of discussion of this difference, of course, had to do with the people who protested the recent war against Iraq.
Can't tell you how many letters to the editor I read where the patriotism/loyalty (and often the sanity and intelligence) of people protesting the war was called into question.
Based on what? Isn't it possible for a person to be loyal to the country and still see moves like this administration is making as ill-advised? And isn't it possible for a person to be loyal -- and still do the American thing, protest where it is appropriate?
In fact, even in the mid-1950's -- wasn't it possible for a person to think communism might have answers for some of the problems that plagued our country -- and still be loyal to this land? Why would espousing some of the philosophy of communism make a person perforce disloyal?
I may be jaded, but to be honest, I can't think of a serious, pervasive case of people questioning the loyalty of a fellow American because of dissent -- except by conservatives questioning people who espouse non-conservative ideas. The conservatives seem to make a habit out of this kind of thing -- and seem to be at the bottom of all incidents of it happening that I can think of.
Anybody got any situtations from anyone but conservatives?
Craven de Kere wrote:Perhaps, but the debt does not have to be nationalism. And nationalism can harm as much as it can help.
I am probably misinterpreting you or inferring too much here, but you seem to be suggesting that the only alternative to disloyalty is nationalism.
Not at all. I do not equate loyalty with nationalism. I do think loyalty is less often exclusive than nationalism is.
But again, I do not see any need to be loyal to a set on lines in the sand. It's only useful to give the home team an advantage. And I think there is nothing wrong with cheering for the away team.
I pick my spots. e.g. I'd be willing to endure a smaller economy in America if it would help more people in another economy (I don't have to make this decision because I don't think it does).
Craven de Kere wrote:I pick my spots. e.g. I'd be willing to endure a smaller economy in America if it would help more people in another economy (I don't have to make this decision because I don't think it does).
Another interesting point. It might make for a lively discussion, although it sounds like we may agree on this one.
Those interested in this topic may enjoy this excerpt from an essay written by a dear friend, Robert D. Sutherland. If anyone would like the whole essay, PM me with your email address and I will be happy to send it along to you.
Quote:Despite widespread opposition, the invasion of Iraq
has occurred and will continue for the foreseeable future. The onset of military action does not nullify the need for opposition, but rather strengthens it. However, it does confront those who oppose the invasion with hostile
accusations of not supporting the troops and allegations of being disloyal. An example of this is a letter to the Pantagraph of April 6, 2003:
"Webster defines treason as 'giving aid and comfort to
our enemies." I would like to suggest that the anti-war demonstrators who break the law or burn the flag to gain media attention in the name of free speech are in fact giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Now that we are at war and our military men and women are in harm's way, it is time to shut up or be considered a traitor!."
Well, this sentiment is an old chestnut which, every time there's opposition to a military action, is trotted out to
silence dissent. As a matter of historical fact, every one of America's wars has been met with opposition from citizens motivated not by treason but by legitimate disagreement with governmental aims and policies. It is the government that puts our military men and women in harm's way, and if the government's policies responsible for this are misguided, and its aims and motivations specious and murky, then maybe the best
way to support our troops is to call a halt to hostilities and bring them home.
Name-calling is an attempt at intimidation and insult,
designed to chill and badger people into silence. It has nothing
to do with objective truth. Those of us who demonstrate in opposition to the invasion of Iraq or to any other war, or to war in general, should not be intimidated by being accused of treason, or of being disloyal. Those accusations are simply not true, and they shouldn't be allowed to distract us from the
task at hand.
Peaceful demonstrations protesting government policies and opposing wars that are planned or underway are exercises of
free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U. S.
Constitution. To challenge and oppose policies of the government which are unjust, illegal, and immoral is the essence of patriotism. Such opposition is the duty and obligation of good citizenship.
If the invasion of Iraq was wrong before it started, it is wrong while it continues, and it will always be wrong for the U.S. to have waged it. It doesn't matter if the shooting is in process or whether Baghdad and Saddam Hussein have fallen. The invasion, an unjustified unilateral aggression launched on the flimsiest of unsubstantiated pretexts against a country which had not attacked us, is wrong: unjust, illegal, immoral. The saturation bombing, the killing of civilians, the maiming of children, the destruction of schools and hospitals, the destruction of
infrastructures for housing and for obtaining food and clean water are wrong. Once the regime change has occurred, the United
States will be in for a long occupation, with our forces deployed indefinitely to be picked off by guerrilla sniping, with enormous financial resources being poured into the occupation at the expense of health, education, and other institutions and services here at home. It's not only the people of Iraq who have been victimized by our government's
policies, but our own troops and their families as well.
"NO WAR IN IRAQ" registers and asserts our opposition
for all time-whether the invasion is yet to come, is in
process, or is morphed into an indefinite occupation.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace