ash has come to realize that many letters prompting her response aren’t worth bothering to reproduce, that is, that while they caused her to reflect on an issue, the statement they provoked is in and of itself. This is one of those cases. For those who are interested, the letter reprised that old false choice between accepting one’s homeland as is or abandoning it. How foolish. She has no patience with such sentiments.
What happens when you’ve invested time and energy into helping a befuddled person understand a concept only for that person not merely to shrug and say, “Sorry, I still don’t get it” but to press on with exactly the same arguments you thought you dismantled the first time?
You make a choice. Either you say, ‘’Never mind. You’re not worth a second explanation” or, if that person is important to you and your well-being (a boss or a relative, perhaps), normally perceptive enough to merit clarification, too infuriating to ignore, or some combination of the above, you rephrase the message and hope it sinks in.
Welcome to American Democracy 101. (Though Government is hardly my forte, I believe I know enough to convey a simple principle and discuss its implications.) A fundamental component of a democracy is the right to dissent. This means if a citizen objects to a policy or practice of his/her country’s lawmakers (Congress), law enforcers (the Executive branch), or law interpreters (the Judiciary), he/she is free to question, complain, chastise, challenge, disapprove, and/or protest in a public forum without fear of repercussion beyond debate from those with the opposing view. In the case of American democracy, there is a document called the Constitution (capitalized for gravitas) which guarantees that privilege, in fact warns against the attempt to suppress that privilege, lest the temptation to punish free speech be without consequence.
Dissent is not only a benefit of democracy, it’s vital to the functioning of democracy. The right to dissent extends precisely to the point where it threatens another’s security, should verbal or written dissent become physical endangerment. While the right to dissent has limitations, this essence of democracy is a seeming paradox. For why, in a democracy where freedom is anything but a happy buzz word, would a citizen wish to denounce a good and benevolent system, to take advantage of a freedom which by virtue of its very existence should preclude disgruntlement and displeasure?
We continue our civics lesson in Psychology class. (I have studied this subject extensively.) It is not the nature of democracy itself, but of those who lead through election or selection, which can be susceptible to disconcerting and corrupt behavior. For example, now. Specifically, the Bush administration and its supporters. Particularly in matters relating to the United States’ several wars. Rather than elaborate on the whos and whats and hows that our government is conducting those wars, I return to the impact of Psychology on democracy. It is not the nature of democracy, but human nature, to exploit power. To create and apply selfishly policy, practice, and law. To make frivolous, unqualified appointments to important positions. To misuse and contort democracy in ways it was never intended. Thus the right to dissent protects citizens against any number of abuses before, after, and in case they should occur. To proclaim democracy and then discount the need to allow for the exercise of dissent would be to deny human tendencies, not to condemn a free society in its unadulterated form.
Now comes the discussion of when and whether to dismiss and depart the offending country. Though it is certainly a possibility, there is also the notion of engaging from within to rectify the imperfect conditions and improve the general conditions to restore that structure to its original, admirable condition. Again, you make a choice. You can say, “That’s it. It’s too rotten to salvage, my grievances too severe, to invest further time and energy to a losing cause.” You can say (especially if it’s your country of origin or the country you consider home), “It’s still a great country. I want to do my part to restore its grandeur through constructive criticism” and hope that your efforts prove not to be in vain. If it’s the latter, and you choose to remain, of what value is the suggestion that you shut up or get out, as if you couldn’t possibly find satisfaction in refusing neither to bend nor break, as if compromise were not a viable alternative?
Or you can say, “America, love it or leave it,” and pretend that sentiment – fully embrace it or desert it – retains the valuable currency it lacked a generation ago. One letter writer to the State Journal-Register, who apparently failed to comprehend that the two extremes are not the only options, reiterated the same points he had made after being corrected by four separate letters (two of them from the couple he ‘‘bashed” by name). Or could it be he refused to accept the answers he got the first time?