Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Dissent and criticism are not treason

Please read this post and participate. I'm sick of being called unpatriotic because I don't follow the President blindly.


May. 22nd, 2004 08:43 pm (UTC)
Re: Question.
Well, by all means, feel free to say what you mean, rather than what might just make a good sound bite. You will have to forgive me, but I consider there to be an enormous difference between someone "challenging your patriotism" and saying that your behavior is "putting American lives at risk." I find that more or less as questionable as I find John Kerry's insinuation that detailing his public record is akin to questioning his patriotism. I just think we need to deal with what is.

As for the actual content of Pelosi's statement... I'm not sure what, if anything, there is to say about it. I support her right to say what she feels, even if I don't agree with it. And, similarly, I support Mr. DeLay's right to say what he feels, even if I don't agree with it. I don't believe Ms. Pelosi should be immune from criticism. Do I believe her "rhetoric" is "dangerous" or "irresponsible"? I'm not sure I can say that. Do I believe that "her words are putting American lives at risk"? I can't say that, either. Personally, I don't think so. Nor, of course, do I believe it's possible to conduct a war without deaths or some sort of financial obligations, or that Bush is an incompetent.

The very tenor of her remarks does suggest to me (though I doubt it does for you) that DeLay was quite correct in saying that Pelosi is "caught up in partisan hatred for President Bush." I know lots of people who are. And I know a few who are caught up in partisan hatred of Democrats for similar reasons. I don't approve of any kind of hate for reasons like this, and I don't understand it. There are better ways of dealing with political disagreement, which is what it boils down to, and I wish Ms. Pelosi, Mr. DeLay, and other people who face off so bitterly on these sorts of issues would find ways to behave and speak more constructively than this exchange demonstrates. I am, however, not holding my breath.
May. 23rd, 2004 06:12 pm (UTC)
Re: Question.
How convenient for you that you choose to argue over semantics rather than the actual issues involved. As vehemently as you try to deny it, in the past two years, criticising Bush or his administration or their policies has been equated many times over with being unpatriotic or siding with the enemy or hating America. Of course it's not easy to find a notable figure saying exactly that -- they know it would be too easy for their opponents to use it against them. But what people say and do has implications. It's how communication works. Just because I can't locate an exact quote doesn't mean that information wasn't conveyed.

Saying "these aren't the exact words spoken" makes you sound like a lawyer trying to get a conviction thrown out on a technicality. People communicate in ways that the Associated Press can't convey in a news story.

Pelosi's statements were not fueled by hatred. They are her opinion, and a well-reasoned one: the war was preciptated on poor information, it has taken far longer and cost far more in terms of both money and time than was originally expected, and it is now, whether you admit it or not, a quagmire. Pelosi should not have to apologise for her opinion, and DeLay should not call for her to do so.

And to answer another of your points: if someone says "all men are idiots," does that insult not apply to me? If someone says "all LiveJournal users are angstful teenage losers," does that insult not apply to me? No, nobody has called me unpatriotic to my face, but when someone says the equivalent of "criticising Bush is unpatriotic," it does still apply to me, since I criticise Bush on a regular basis.
May. 23rd, 2004 06:23 pm (UTC)
Re: Question.
See, but you get into trouble when it's perfectly okay for Pelosi to state her opinion, yet it's apparently not okay for anyone to disagree with that opinion.

Take a look at one phrase, edited only for length, not for content: "the war... is now, whether you admit it or not, a quagmire." By saying that, you're saying that I am not allowed to have an opinion. Regardless of what information I have, regardless of my interpretation of the news, regardless of whatever facts I have, just because they don't agree with yours, they're all worthless in your eyes. You're claiming that you're being called unpatriotic because you're criticizing Bush, which you are not, and yet you are doing everything you can to close your ears to all points of view that don't match yours straight out of the box. In what way does that put you on any higher platform than DeLay?

Please, I like you, I hope you know that. It's because I like you, and I've enjoyed our conversations in the past that I find this attitude bothersome. I know you're better than this. And I would hope you'd be more accepting than this. As a liberal, isn't one of the things you believe in tolerance and open-mindedness? I wish you'd show some to me, rather than dismissing all my opinions about the subject of Iraq simply because they aren't yours.

Until you make the decision to do so, I see no point to continue this discussion. When you're actually ready to talk and listen to what someone else has to say, just let me know, and I'll be happy to take this up with you again.
May. 23rd, 2004 08:18 pm (UTC)
Re: Question.
I never said DeLay shouldn't be able to disagree. If he had said "I disagree with Nancy Pelosi," I wouldn't have any issue. But calling for her to retract her statements is nothing more than attempting to stifle freedom of speech, which I simply will not stand for. I completely recognise DeLay's right to say what he said; however, it's just plain wrong, and he needs to understand that.

I've never said you're not allowed to have an opinion. You can have any opinion you choose. Opinions, however, can be, and often are, wrong. I've looked at the facts, and judging by those, I see no way anyone can successfully argue that what we have created in Iraq isn't a quagmire. I haven't closed my ears to all points of view; I've considered them, and weighed them, and listened to them, and found them lacking. That's what forming an opinion is. If you have something new to tell me or show me that you think will change my mind, please, by all means, let me know and I'll gladly consider it and possibly modify my opinion based on it. But until something comes along to make me reconsider, I see no reason to find that viewpoint valid.

So far in this discussion, the only rhetoric you've come up with is "nobody has personally called you unpatriotic, therefore you should have no complaint about what DeLay said." I find that logic severely flawed, and it doesn't provide me with any reason to change what I believe.

I think you're confusing "open-minded" with "unwilling to form an opinion." Opinions are meant to be decided upon and argued for, not half-heartedly bandied about and disregarded whenever anyone offers a counter-opinion.

So please, if you want to change my mind, give me a solid reason, something that challenges what I've decided on. Back it up with facts. I'm completely open-minded, but I won't change my opinions unless I have a very solid reason to do so. My opinions weren't formed on a whim; I've spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours considering these issues and weighing everything I know and can find out about them. It would take a lot to change that, but I'm more than willing to do so if I see a valid reason to.

Latest Month

February 2011
Powered by LiveJournal.com