Brian W. Carver -- Share Alike

Make No Law

I'm about finished reading Make No Law, a book about the Sullivan v. New York Times case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sullivan was Police Commissioner in Montgomery, AL during the Civil Rights Movement and although he was not mentioned by name, he claimed a paid political advertisement in the New York Times libeled him. (Read the book!) Oversimplification: The case ended up establishing the freedom of the press to criticize public figures without fear of libel suits.

One of the things that occurs to me is what J.S. Mill talks about in On Liberty. He is at pains to say that we should fear not only the tyranny of our government, but also the tyranny of prevailing opinion or society. Mill writes,

But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

How appropriate Mill's concerns seem today. Americans, unfortunately, have a long history of trying to use not only political but also societal pressures to tyrannize those who hold an unpopular or minority opinion. This unfortunate tendency seems to show up most often in time of war, as it has now.

Think for a minute about the pressure Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, recently encountered when she made an unpopular comment about President Bush. American Country Music fans started boycotts, burned Dixie Chicks albums, etc. These fans would spend their time better reading a little Mill. It seems they sought to terrorize those of a different opinion. Their actions said, "Take note country music performers: if you express opinions we do not agree with, we will do whatever we can to ruin your career." That attitude is not an American attitude, or at least the framers of our constitution never intended it to be one. "America: Love it or Leave it" was never their creed. On the contrary, in the Sullivan opinion, Justice Brennan quotes approvingly Justice Brandeis' earlier statements in Whitney v. California:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law--the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Did you catch that? "Public discussion is a political duty." It is our DUTY to discuss these things. If Democracy is going to work, if we really want a country where the people are sovereign and the government is merely the public's temporarily appointed functionaries, then it is our duty to have public discussion. And the appropriate reaction to an opinion you do not share is not boycotts, punishment, and repression, but reasoned argumentation.

In thinking about political duty, I did something else for the first time yesterday. I sent $20 to the Democratic National Committee. Once the Democrats have a candidate (hopefully Dean or Edwards) I intend to send that candidate something too. If I'm so dissatisfied with the current state of things (and I am), I ought to be willing to do something tangible (besides moaning about it here) that might change the situation. You should too.

It is no wonder that the Republicans run things when you follow the money. It is a strange phenomenon, but it seems to me that Democrats who can afford it are less likely to make political contributions than are Republicans who can afford it. Clearly, this needs to change. We are all paying for the current administration, like it or not. We are paying with our economy, the state of education, the cost of prescription drugs, the cost of the war in Iraq, the cost of tax cuts for the rich, the cost of reconstruction contracts for Bush's cronies etc., etc., etc. So, Democrats should ask themselves, "Should I pay a little now in the form of political contributions to Democrats to avoid paying a lot more later in the form of Republican waste and greed?" Clear answer: Yes!