Silencing and Name-calling as Agents of Change

Favoring enforcement of the law, even when it calls for prosecution of illegal immigrants, does not make one racist.  In the past week I have been called that along with “anti-American,” “not human,” “a heartless devil,” “evil,” “un-caring,” “a Jew” (used in the pejorative – “even though I assume you are a Jew, you should still have some compassion”), “ignorant,” “selfish,” and “privileged.” I have been told my “exhausting and conformist” views (of following the law and our democratic process for its change) leave “zero room for change to help as many people as possible.”

No matter.  I stick to believing that in a country of laws, all laws must be enforced.  In this country we have a process for changing laws we do not like.  That process does not include name calling and other personal attacks.  It does, however, allow infinite room for change and has the ability to help enormous numbers, especially when the laws are equally and fully applied.

Yet, along with a prevalent misunderstanding or ignorance of our laws and Constitution, there is an even more dangerous attitude that is so prevalent that it is becoming a societal norm within this country.  That attitude is that it is OK to silence those with whom one disagrees; and, the preferred method of doing so is name calling and other personal attacks.  People who simply want to have a rational dialog or share information with others of varying views on an issue are shamed, silenced, and made to feel guilty about opposing views.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union (upon whose local board of directors I once sat) seems moving toward that norm.  That (previously) staunch defender of the First Amendment which includes the right of free speech, has now stated that "Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed.”  The ACLU will no longer defend all speech, but will weigh it against other social justice issues.  Certainly, social justice issues are important, but so is the right of everyone in in this country to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech, even when that speech is unfavorable to many.

The danger of this, of allowing free speech only when one’s views are acceptable, is that it gives enormous power to those deciding exactly what is acceptable as well as whom can be silenced.  Such a model is one of dictatorship where, eventually, the people have no voice at all.  The founders of our democratic republic, in contrast, stated that free people need a free marketplace of ideas.

Governments that place all power in one individual can be kind and benevolent, but they can also be cruel and inhumane.  In current and recent history alone, we can see examples of countries where the people have no voice and their only recourse is to violently rise up against their leaders until the protestors are either fully silenced, even to the point of death, or until some form of coup is successful.

Thankfully, in this country we the people have a voice that we can exercise productively and peacefully to bring about change.  I realize that some anti-Trump propaganda would have us believe that he is some form of dictator, but that is just not the case.  He may or may not want to be king (I personally doubt it), but he currently does not have that power and our system of government does not allow it.  Only when we fail to follow that system does it make the idea of kingship more possible.

Demanding that we follow our laws and follow our Constitutional process for changing unacceptable, outdated, or otherwise offensive laws does not mean that one is racist, evil, or the Devil.  More importantly, name-calling is not an effective agent of change, and the possible consequences of using it as such are more in line with 1984 than a government that cares about its people.   

A desire to follow the process to change a law does not necessarily reflect lack of compassion for those affected by the law.  Rather, it reflects a true belief in America and all that it stands for, including a government of, for, and by the people, a country where diverse views and opinions are welcome and can be discussed rationally, a country where we listen to and have tolerance for the opinions and views of others, even when those views are not ours.