November 2003 editorial by Stanley Schmidt

Let’s make one thing clear right from the start: this is not about the Iraq War. I say that because I know all too well that some readers will immediately assume that it is. If you’re one of them, you’re immediately jumping to an unjustified and incorrect conclusion and you should start over and try again. It’s not that I couldn’t give any opinions about the war itself, but I won’t because our production cycle takes several months and anything I said here about anything so specifically current would probably be obsolete by the time it appeared. Conditions will likely be very different by then—most of us can probably agree that we hope the war will be over by the time you read this, even if we can’t agree on anything else—and whether it is or not, new considerations will likely have come to light to change my thinking. Furthermore, my expressing any opinion about the war itself, no matter what that was, would so inflame approximately half my readers that they couldn’t see what I do want to talk about. And what I want to talk about is a cluster of things that need to be considered periodically, regardless of what war we’re currently in or between, and regardless of where you stand politically.

So I will take no stand on this war per se. But I feel compelled once more to talk about some of the ways people have reacted to the war, because those seem regrettably timeless. I said similar things during the Grenada Invasion (see, for example, “Loyal Opposition” [May 1984] and the (First) Gulf War [“The Perils of Victory,” Mid-December 1991], but the need never seems to go away for more than a little while.

Again we have factions favoring and opposing the war, and intolerance on both sides. In general, the intolerance seems to be more often blatantly overt from pro-war individuals and groups, but it’s not limited to them. I recently talked to someone who had attended a convention (on an unrelated topic) at which almost everyone was strongly anti-war, and not very willing to listen to any suggestion that there might be enough different about present circumstances to make this war a less clear-cut issue than “either” side made it out to be. (There are, of course, far more than two sides; but our language being what it is, it’s hard in casual discourse to avoid lumping similar ones into two major groups and talking about them as if they were more homogeneous than they are.) But the lopsidedness of this convention was, as I understand it, more a matter of many people having their minds made up in roughly similar ways and not very open to considering alternate viewpoints, than of anyone actively trying to suppress alternate viewpoints.

I’ve heard several cases of that from the “pro-war” camp, like the businessman who posted a huge sign in front of his premises saying, and I quote verbatim: “Protesters Keep Your Mouth Shut.” That attitude I find profoundly disturbing, no matter what side of what issue it’s coming from. It’s one thing to hear somebody espousing a viewpoint you disagree with and say, “I think you’re wrong, and here’s why; let’s see if I can persuade you to see it my way.” It’s quite another to say, “I think you’re wrong, so shut up; I don’t want to listen to you, and I don’t want anybody else to either.”

Those who would forcibly silence the opposition miss the point of what makes this country worth fighting for: the right of individuals to have and express honest opinions, even if they’re not popular ones. Ironically, this right applies even to those who hang out such “Shut up” signs, as long as they don’t try to force compliance with their wishes. But it’s a dangerously short leap from expressing such repressive views to banding together with others who share them to forcibly silence those who don’t. As long as that line is not crossed, I can only express my dismay that some people can talk about defending freedom while their actions try to restrict it—and not see the irony in that.

A few days after the feature article about that businessman appeared, the same newspaper carried a letter to the editor echoing his belief that the opposition should “shut up” and adding, “Now is the time to let the leaders of this country (right or wrong) conduct this operation in an uninhibited fashion.” When should people let their leaders do what they want, “right or wrong”? Mark Twain had an answer still worth pondering: “Only when the republic’s life is in danger should a man uphold its government when it’s wrong. Otherwise the nation has sold its honor for a phrase.” Again I remind you that I’m not saying to what extent I thought the government was right or wrong in this case. But I am saying that every citizen has a moral obligation to ask that question and answer it to the best of his or her ability—and if his answer is that the government is wrong, to similarly consider the question of whether the republic’s life is in sufficient danger to support it anyway. If not, there’s a concomitant obligation to do what he can to steer it toward “right.”

Of course, with hundreds of millions of citizens, there will inevitably be a great many different opinions about what is “right.” None of those citizens has an inherent right to assume that his version should be accepted by everybody else—but supporting a government that you really believe (after due thought) is wrong does the country a grave disservice. Bear in mind that Adolf Hitler’s rise to power rested largely on numerous citizens accepting his actions even if they thought them wrong. I’m not suggesting that we have ever experienced a similar threat, but I say outright that all of us should keep the historical lesson in mind and support officials and policies we think (not just feel) are right, and likewise oppose those we think are wrong.

Again (in the Iraq War of 2003) we have people on “both” sides failing to make crucial distinctions, such as those among supporting the war, supporting the troops, supporting America, and supporting a particular government. Mark Twain again: “Who is the country? Is it the government? In a republic the government is merely a servant, a temporary one. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” Or as Abraham Lincoln described it, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” There can be times when the highest form of support for the troops in a war can be opposing the policies that put them there, and the strongest support for the country can be opposition to a particular administration. No useful purpose is served by “either” side building a straw man, stuffing it with stereotypes, and acting as if it were an accurate representation of everyone on the “other side.” Yet letters to the editor of every paper and magazine in the country are filled with exactly that.

We’ve also seen a resurgence of one particular form of sloppy thinking that I’d hoped my grandparents had seen the last of: holding every citizen of a country responsible for the personal actions of a handful of their leaders. Renaming things “Liberty This” and “Liberty That” was a stupid idea in World War I; it hasn’t gotten any smarter with “freedom fries” 85 years later. Neither has taking symbolic actions without considering their actual consequences. Boycotting French wines in this country because you don't like the way the French president voted in the UN doesn't hurt him; unless it goes on for a long time it won't even hurt French vintners who are trying to make a living—but it does hurt American restaurant owners who have already bought the stuff and can neither sell nor return it. Beating up or maligning Arabs or Americans simply because they are Arabs or Americans goes beyond stupid. It is reprehensible.

Finally, we have those who say you’re welcome to oppose the war, but keep it to yourself at least until after the war is over. Well, what good will that do if the war (this war or any other) is wrong? The only meaningful time to object to a war is before you’re in too deep to be able to get out. A few people started objecting to the Viet Nam War relatively early and were largely ignored. Eventually the chorus grew so big and loud that the war had to stop—after so many casualties and such unsatisfying results that the whole thing left a bitter aftertaste and emotional scars that still haven’t fully healed. If so many people hadn’t become vocal opponents, might we still be there? If more had yelled louder, sooner, might much of the pain have been avoided?

We’ll never know, on this timeline—but any time similar situations seem to be developing in the future, everyone would be well advised to stay as informed as possible, form their own careful opinions, and support or oppose as their consciences dictate. I can’t emphasize too strongly that I mean that advice for everybody, regardless of where on the political spectrum they stand. And it comes with a corollary: Always keep open the possibility that somebody on the “other” side may have something true and important to say, so you, too, should be willing to listen.

The main point that so many people are missing—one of the main threads in the great experiment of this country—is that everybody has a right to express an opinion, and a moral obligation to do it conscientiously and responsibly. It’s no coincidence that you’ll be reading this shortly before an election. If you really love your country, listen attentively but critically to everybody you can, say whatever you think you must, and then vote as you think you should.

Stanley Schmidt

MISSING THE POINT