Loyal Opposition?

I heard on the news that the President recently had a colonoscopy: I wonder if they found his head? OK, that was terribly obvious. I have never been a fan of our current president; mission accomplished, the “surge” (a nice euphemism for what people of my generation called “escalation of the war”), and – of course – a declaration of war on an idea. My sarcastic comment about having located Mr. Bush’s so-called and somewhat addled brain stands in the mainstream of the most American of virtues: the right of dissent.

Applied Dialectic
The object of a rational dialog is to resolve a disagreement through a logical proposition of thesis and antithesis to reach a synthesis: that is some resolution that is both reasonable and regards the original proponent’s viewpoints. This seems to be central to the ideals of our constitutional republic: we have a system that is filled with checks and balances. This is not terribly effective if measured in terms of hasty completion of tasks, but does tend to create points of dialog where truth may be discovered. Any dialectic method has, as its aim, the discovery of a common truth that may not be self-evident and requires a good deal of parsing to discover.

The fact that dialectic supposes opposition suggests that the confrontation is not a bad thing; quite to the contrary, it warns against the presumption of absolute knowledge of truth by requiring that any supposition of justice be subject to the test of loyal opposition. For any dialectical method to function there must be an advocate of the antithesis, that is to say an opposing viewpoint.

Accountability: Checks and Balances
Since when is calling our leaders to account for actions taken on our behalf – Do you recall the creation of a government by and for the people? – an unpatriotic act? Apparently this is the position of our current administration. Senator Hillary Clinton was rebuked by the Under Secretary of Defense, Eric Edelman, for asking questions deemed to be inappropriate: "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda." Is the issue that a free exchange of ideas is a reinforcement of enemy propaganda? And just who is the enemy, terror? It would seem to this fool that when one is terrified that one cannot dare to speak the truth that is on one’s mind. Who is the terrorist in this exchange? The one that seeks to diminish the dialog that leads to truth.

In a free and democratic society public servants are free to speak their minds. This means that a spirited public debate is necessary to hear all points of view. It would seem that if there is any image to bring to the so-called enemies of freedom it is this: a great nation is open to dialog. I wish that I recalled who said it: In a war, the first casualty is the truth.

Beware of Absolute Loyalty
I fear for the welfare of my children when I hear our government demanding absolute and unquestioning loyalty to an ideal proposed by those in power. How dare they make this demand? And why are we not demanding their removal when it is made? This is not an issue of left and right, conservative and liberal: it is an issue of truth. Anybody that dares to question one’s loyalty because the veracity of our leaders has been called to account is a dangerous fellow that needs to be brought out of the shadows and into the light to be seen for what he or she is. The way that this is done is to dare to ask the questions and question the answers.

Dissent is the most American of virtues. I prove my loyalty by my dissent. I prove my patriotism by demanding accountability. Democracy is difficult. It presumes that we cherish the freedoms that define us as a nation. It presumes that we will work to make our legacy to our children this great democratic experiment that we call America. To do this we cannot fall into an ideological absolutism that precludes dialog and forbids the one who marches to the beat of a different drummer to speak the truth as he or she hears it. Indeed, we welcome dissent because the dialog makes us stronger. Away with the terror that requires blind faith in leaders that have been proven as liars.

Who knows, maybe they found Bush’s brain right next to the WMDs that were the reason for the war. They were right next to Osama Bin Laden’s hideout deep in the imagination of those who feel that mere bluster is an argument that will persuade. Ask the question. Question the answers.

Ah, but I am only a fool…