Limits of Dissent
[From an e-mail correspondence with my friend José]
Let me take that very good question out of its setting and ask it in another way. Is every criticism of Israel an act of anti-Semitism? No, obviously not. But, are many of Israel's critics die-hard anti-Semites? Yes, certainly they are.
But often the things they say will be the same. They will use the same words, make the same arguments. To discern which is which, you have to look behind the statements of the day. What else has that person said or written? Sometimes they'll give themselves away: if a person makes a reasonable pro-Palestinian argument on a mainstream Web site, and also posts a Jew-baiting screed on a neo-Nazi message board, you can probably be assured he's an anti-Semite, no matter how nicely he cleans up his act in public.
But there's another quality I look out for. It's the person who is always in the negative where something is concerned. So you criticize Israel for this or that. Do you ever say anything good about it? To me, this affects the legitimacy of the person I'm considering.
I know there is a tendency in, shall we say, leftist circles to believe that dissent is patriotic. It is patriotic. As Bronowski said, societies don't die of dissent. They die of conformity. But I have read an extreme view that says, in effect, "A patriot is someone who is never satisfied with his country."
Now, that I don't agree with. Many languages use their word for "father" to mean the nation (Vaterland, patria). But your country -- and I think especially in a democratic government -- is also your child. You are responsible for it, as a parent is for a son. You are the one ultimately who answers for what it does.
And there is a kind of parent who forever finds fault, who forever sees badness in his child. If the child gets all "Bs" on a report card, he punishes him for not getting all "As." If the child is attempting to do something difficult, the parent will tell everyone that the child is doomed to fail.
That's contemptible. And I think a lot of people feel the same kind of contempt for a critic of the U.S. who is only a critic of the U.S.
I have to judge dissenters within their context.
"The West," in the persona of the United States, is attacked by a malevolent force of medieval religious fundamentalists who would drive women back into veils and stone homosexuals to death.
Some people say, "it wasn't the West that Bin Laden attacked, it was specific American policies." I say that it takes a great deal of self-deception to really believe that Bin Laden only has a very narrow purpose. And even if you believe that, you still have to ask yourself, is it the best thing for the world to let this man win?
Dissent is a privilege that everyone enjoys in a free society. But just because you have the privilege doesn't mean you'll automatically be respected for being a dissenter. That has to be earned.
> [Y]ou seem to imply anyone strongly
> disagreeing
> with things like the Irak war is one of them, and
> therefore a crypto-totalitarian, using democracy's
> liberties to undermine it. I think there you might
> be
> seeing ghosts. What sort of society would be have
> without people who dare examine its legitimacy?
Let me take that very good question out of its setting and ask it in another way. Is every criticism of Israel an act of anti-Semitism? No, obviously not. But, are many of Israel's critics die-hard anti-Semites? Yes, certainly they are.
But often the things they say will be the same. They will use the same words, make the same arguments. To discern which is which, you have to look behind the statements of the day. What else has that person said or written? Sometimes they'll give themselves away: if a person makes a reasonable pro-Palestinian argument on a mainstream Web site, and also posts a Jew-baiting screed on a neo-Nazi message board, you can probably be assured he's an anti-Semite, no matter how nicely he cleans up his act in public.
But there's another quality I look out for. It's the person who is always in the negative where something is concerned. So you criticize Israel for this or that. Do you ever say anything good about it? To me, this affects the legitimacy of the person I'm considering.
I know there is a tendency in, shall we say, leftist circles to believe that dissent is patriotic. It is patriotic. As Bronowski said, societies don't die of dissent. They die of conformity. But I have read an extreme view that says, in effect, "A patriot is someone who is never satisfied with his country."
Now, that I don't agree with. Many languages use their word for "father" to mean the nation (Vaterland, patria). But your country -- and I think especially in a democratic government -- is also your child. You are responsible for it, as a parent is for a son. You are the one ultimately who answers for what it does.
And there is a kind of parent who forever finds fault, who forever sees badness in his child. If the child gets all "Bs" on a report card, he punishes him for not getting all "As." If the child is attempting to do something difficult, the parent will tell everyone that the child is doomed to fail.
That's contemptible. And I think a lot of people feel the same kind of contempt for a critic of the U.S. who is only a critic of the U.S.
I have to judge dissenters within their context.
"The West," in the persona of the United States, is attacked by a malevolent force of medieval religious fundamentalists who would drive women back into veils and stone homosexuals to death.
Some people say, "it wasn't the West that Bin Laden attacked, it was specific American policies." I say that it takes a great deal of self-deception to really believe that Bin Laden only has a very narrow purpose. And even if you believe that, you still have to ask yourself, is it the best thing for the world to let this man win?
Dissent is a privilege that everyone enjoys in a free society. But just because you have the privilege doesn't mean you'll automatically be respected for being a dissenter. That has to be earned.
Labels: America, dissent, patriotism
