Political dissent is a time honored tradition in the English-speaking world. Editorials, commentary, and cartoons over the years have been rude, crude, and barely socially acceptable. Political commentary has lampooned, harassed, criticized, annoyed, and has come close to threatening the opposition. It’s politics. All’s fair in love and politics.
Throughout much of human history a person practiced political dissent at their own risk. Greek city states, at various times in their existence allowed political criticism. It was allowed in the Roman Republic until Brutus attempted the ultimate expression of free speech; stabbing his political mentor in the back, literally, thus putting an end to “free speech and expression” for a good thousand years.
After that, your friendly neighborhood despot and conqueror frowned on opposition of any sort – most of the time. During the reign of Henry II in England, the cornerstone of the first viable constitution was laid, one which our Founding Fathers used as a building block for the Constitution of the United States. Under Henry, his best bud, pal, and drinking buddy, pushed the premise of free speech and political dissent to the breaking point, and paid the ultimate price for it, when one of Henry’s sycophants took him at his word and actually did rid him of that bothersome priest.
During the Puritan rule in those dark days of the Cromwellian purges during the British Civil War, free political speech was basically exterminated, only to spring forth, full blown, during the restoration of Charles II, and has never died since. Taking their cue from their British brethren, those disorderly American Colonists and early settlers took the whole idea of free political speech to the extreme; the world has never been the same.
Political discourse and commentary rose to the level of a spectator sport. It became the powdered wig version of world wide wrestling, complete with a thesaurus of steroidal verbiage. Not only was it indulged, but it was nurtured to the point where the Colonies, in open rebellion, were subjected to a very unpopular (the British Version) political action. It was about the right to speak freely, to criticize freely, and not be subjected to punitive action. It became the very bedrock of the American psyche, so ingrained in our political souls that the more the British tried to quench the flame of political discourse, the more it grew and flourished.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaron Whitehead
Unfortunately, the current trend here in the United States under the early days of Obama is to label any opposition to him to be "unpatriotic".
It is beyond hilarious to hear this after eight years of the Bush Administration.
Perhaps you should avoid a short history of free speech if all you can muster is a vague reference to Henry II, who did something great (we never find out what). And he did it with the help of his drinking buddy, who should get his name mentioned in the article, if only out of respect (Thomas Becket). And then there were Puritans and then there were the ominous, uncorroborated tales of impending Islamofascist doom. No, that's not a random segue (politically protected sarcasm).
And perhaps you should refresh yourself about Part 2 before you write Part 3. In part 2, you turn up your nose about the state of political discourse. In part 3, you write about the necessity of free speech (even if it's unpleasant) and the evils of political correctness. I can't say I'm surprised that you contradicted yourself, just that you did it so quickly and efficiently.
Is there going to be a part 4?
2 - STM
The only thing wrong with this version of history from SJ is that when it comes to democracy, Americans weren't an oppressed people at the time of the revolution. Far from it. The truth is different to the myth, in many aspects of this discussion.
It's well documented that they had a better standard of living than virtually any of the countries in Europe they'd come from, and a great deal of open, political discourse that was gushing even well prior to revolution from the wellspring of personal freedoms that was the very country that spawned the 13 colonies.
It's also well known that a ruling regarding a slave bound for Virginia of the Court of King's bench, in a classic case of executing a the writ of Habeas Corpus and execution of due process dating back to the statute added to the Magna Carta by Edward III in 1351 (that is almost a repeat of those that survived to become part of the constitution of the US), had effectively banned slavery in the British Isles and that that was in danger of spilling over to all British colonies (including those in the Americas) - as indeed it did.
Less than a decade after the revolution ended, Britain had abolished the slave trade - a start, at least.
My view, and one about which I can't be swayed: The American revolution was less about free speech and liberty - the colonists already had it - than it was about a ruling colonial clique desperate to maintain its hold on power, prestige and money and to protect its own interests.
To do that, it had to drag the rest of those in the colonies into a bloody war - and it's also well documented that at the outset, most colonists weren't interested in a revolution.
They got pulled along by the coat tails initially.
As proof of my hypothesis, I'll offer up just the one well-known case - as there are more - and it's that of Thomas Jefferson.
How Jefferson (and many of those who joined him) could have signed those instruments proclaiming "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and ALL men being equal whilst denying those very rights to a certain group even on his own property simply because of the colour of their skin should be beyond the understanding of good men and women everywhere and stands as one of the greatest acts of political hypocrisy ever.
It still stuns me and many others that he remains such a revered figure in the US, knowing everything we know now - and probably everything people knew then, too.
While I don't discount the right of people to decide their own destiney - and the revolution should be seen as totally legitimate for that alone - I maintain that despite George's (illegal) meddling in parliament, the great majority of influential Britons had no issue with American home rule. Indeed, it was a change of government to the party opposed to the war from the start that effectively ensured there would be no further fighting.
So I see the whole thing from a different perspective, and believe the way the revolution came about and was pursued, the issue of free speech, the catch-cry of "liberty" and the misguided notion of American exceptionalism have been shrouded in myth - and that the fog continues to blind Americans to the truth even today.
As evidence, I'll point out that in the English-speaking country I live in, we don't have a Bill of Rights - because the framers of our constitution, in debating that issue, decided we already had those rights inherited from over 100 years of rule of law, and that they were protected at law. Indeed, the greatest of those is freedom of speech, and it exists here in a robust form that challenges governments, corporations, wrongdoers and bureacracies at every turn. It was taken to exist, and is therefore taken to be implied in our constiution.
That goes right down to such things as Miranda-style rights, which while slightly different in wording, have exactly the same intent: "You do not have to say anything but anything you do say can be used in evidence - do you unsderstand that?" The fact that we have it means it all comes from Britain. I'd say that's pretty good evidence in the case of America getting it from them too.
I also believe that when the idea of the revolution going beyond just the right to decide one's destiny, and being about true oppression, that is the greatest myth of all.
American revolutionaries got their ideas of rights and freedoms not out of thin air but from the British, either through the laws that already existed in the colonies or from the great thinkers who were allowed to flourish in the other great modern democracy across the pond.
So I see the early revolutionaries rather as self-serving traitors who started a nasty war and sucked the populace into it.
On the other issues - of course, the real clue to all this rule of law - and that all our laws and rights in the English-speaking world are virtually identical and don't come from America.
Also, SJ is slightly wrong in her view history - Cromwell's parliamentarians weren't oppressing puritans (the same ones who'd fled to America). They were puritans themselves. King Charles I was the oppressor of puritans, and believed in absolute rule.
By the time Cromwell had rid the country of the monarch at the end of the English Civil War, the puritans in Britain had the same rights of worship sought by those who in the few decades earlier had gone to America as Pilgrims, and behaved in much the same way.
They even tore all the gold from the chucrhes, and stripped out such things as leadlight windows in the zeal to purify the corrupt Church of England, and to destroy Catholicism, of which it was seen as a vestige.
However, Cromwell became a dictator and religious zealot and eventually did away with parliament. However, his overzealous religious views actually dovetailed quite nicely with many - perhaps even a great majority - of those on the other side of the pond.
It was the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that turned Britain into a genuine democracy - the longest continuous running one in the modern world - by making the king a figurehead with no real power who had to acquiese to parliament, it being the representative of the people.
It wasn't perfect though - and in my view, early American democracy was a shade better although both gave more rights to the rich and powerful than they did to the common man.
But the march of time brought the two divergent paths back together, and they have arrived at the same spot.
So yes, robust discourse is still very much in my veins, and of a similar type to yours too SJ since I share a common ancestry with many Americans - and who cares what shade of politics you are?
The important thing here is not in the delivery but the right to free expression.
I write this here for one reason: I understand that my view won't be popular among many Americans, but I have a genuine right to say it, and know that nmy view is as valid as those that are diamterically opposed. The beauty of modern democracy is that anyone can say what they like, as long as they aren't encouraging anyone to do anything illegal.
Which kind of knocks your idea on the head a bit here SJ. I say, in a representative democracy, all points of view are valid and everyone has a right to deliver those points of view how they choose, so long as that delivery is within the letter of the law. Notions of morality and good manners, while preferable, have nothing to do with free speech.
SJ should probably embrace it, and all it stands for, in its current American form or search for an alternative that won't be anywhere near as good - and I know that because I've seen a few of those first hand in some awful places around the world that leave me feeling incredibly lucky that I can write this stuff without fear or favour.
The moral: Just don't get caught up in the myth of American exceptionalism, though, SJ - because it's just that and taints anything else you write.
(And if you can write the Gettysburg address, so can I).
3 - Jordan Richardson
Our Founding Fathers did not intend for any rational or irrational political discourse to be silenced or discouraged. This tendency to do just that is a rather current invention by the political left; the MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post end of the spectrum.
Expressing an idea from the other end of the political spectrum that you don't agree with is not "silencing or discouraging" political discourse. Nor is wishing for the president to fail. All's fair in love and war on BOTH sides, so I'm not quite sure you understand what you're actually saying here.
The entire basis of your argument, that liberals and liberals alone are attempting to "silence" other views, is presented without evidence and without any logical support. Seemingly you aim to get your point across by gutless repetition and fear-mongering.
Also, political correctness isn't bad on its face. The overuse and abuse of it, from BOTH sides, is what ruins the concept. Conservatives tend to ignore the growing diversity of the world they live in, while Democrats tend to ignore the basis of the world they came from. Both sides are flawed and political correctness, ideally, should be an attempt to reconcile these flaws in a changing, evolving world. Instead, it's a weapon against free speech in some hands and a tool of paranoia in the others.
The reality is that nobody has it quite right, every political party is stacked to the rafters with hypocrites and cheats, and to paint particular villainy or evil (as in "liberals are trying to destroy America") one or the other is simply immature and, I daresay, dangerous in a physical sense to the construct of society.
4 - Jordan Richardson
Now the question is: will SJ stand up for the political discourse and freedom of speech she attempts to uphold in this piece by actually participating in the commentary and discussion she provokes or will she once again bash it from afar and continue to prove her hypocrisy?
5 - Clavos
@#4:
Well said, Jordan.
6 - Clavos
@#3:
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct in regard to the motivation of the leaders of the American Revolution, it nonetheless was a serendipitous event in the sense that, without it, there would be 300+ million more Poms in the world today.
Think about it.
7 - Christopher Rose
You mean the prospect of another 300 million civilized, well educated, polite people who can talk and spell properly somehow seems less attractive than the armed penal colony we have now?
Chortle!
8 - Joanne Huspek
"The reality is that nobody has it quite right, every political party is stacked to the rafters with hypocrites and cheats, and to paint particular villainy or evil (as in "liberals are trying to destroy America") one or the other is simply immature and, I daresay, dangerous in a physical sense to the construct of society.
Very true words...
9 - Clavos
Would that were true, Chris.
The Britain you describe may have existed in the 18th, 19th, even the early 20th century, but not today.
Today you're just like all the rest of the countries; run over with coarse, poorly educated, louts and slackers -- witness the crowds at your football games.
10 - roger nowosielski
STM,
"Less than a decade after the revolution ended, Britain had abolished the slave trade - a start, at least."
"Amazing Grace," the movie, is a great though somewhat fictionalized account of those times.
11 - roger nowosielski
STM,
Could you provide some sources/books please? I would like to familiarize myself with the British account of the Revolutionary War.
Roger
12 - roger nowosielski
"the greatest of those is freedom of speech, and it exists here in a robust form that challenges governments, corporations, wrongdoers and bureacracies at every turn. It was taken to exist, and is therefore taken to be implied in our constitution."
On analogy with the English concept of "common law."
13 - Les Slater
Hi, I've been quite busy lately but just have to report what I just witnessed here in Chicago. I was picking up toner at a UPS store on the corner of S 35th and MLK and in the parking lot was a Jaguar with an Illinois license plate with the picture of Lincoln replaced with one of Obama. The Obama picture was much more prominent than that of Lincoln it replaced. It was bigger and while Lincoln was centered, Obama was, of course, on the left.
14 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, actually, most of Britain is as I depicted it.
There are a few small areas in some of the bigger cities that are a bit more challenging, but there is nothing in the UK that remotely compares to commonplace US urban landscapes everywhere from Liberty City to Baltimore, San Diego to Seattle.
15 - roger nowosielski
An interesting aside to the long-term tradition and rule of law in English-descended countries:
One would have to get outside the US (or the UK or Australia, I suppose) to realize the extent to which bureaucracies have permeated almost every aspect of a person's life. Interestingly, it doesn't include other Western nations as France, Italy or Germany (where arcane system of laws and complex bureaucracies are still more of a rule than an exception). Kafka's "Trial" should give anyone a pretty good feel as to how insecure you can be in your own person when there: it's not that much of an exaggeration.
If you've ever been there (or in any of the ex-socialist countries), you'd realize the extent to which bureaucratic functionaries (regardless of the agency they represent) are routinely exercising their "authority" in a completely arbitrary fashion: which necessitates bribes, cajoling, you name it, to get something done.
This is uniquely absent in countries which follow the English tradition. And why?
Only because "law" (and "appeal to law") takes precedence over persons and individual decision-making And for this we really ought to be thankful to the British.
16 - Dr Dreadful
"Under Henry, his best bud, pal, and drinking buddy, pushed the premise of free speech..."
The name of Thomas Becket needs to be inserted here, in case anyone's scratching their head over that one.
17 - roger nowosielski
Jordan,
"Conservatives tend to ignore the growing diversity of the world they live in, while Democrats tend to ignore the basis of the world they came from."
A heck of a statement. Could you explain the second part? I'm not certain I quite get it.
18 - Clavos
St. Thomas Becket.
19 - roger nowosielski
#4 (Jordan)
"Now the question is: will SJ stand up for the political discourse and freedom of speech she attempts to uphold in this piece by actually participating in the commentary and discussion she provokes or will she once again bash it from afar and continue to prove her hypocrisy?"
I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm almost certain SJ is not hypocritical but a true believer. And to me, that's even more amazing.
20 - roger nowosielski
#9:
"Today you're just like all the rest of the countries; run over with coarse, poorly educated, louts and slackers -- witness the crowds at your football games."
Somebody had explained it to me once or I read it somewhere, and it made a great deal of sense - concerning "hooliganism" as being peculiarly British phenomenon.
I believe it had to do with lack of the kind of diversions and/or toys (which are in such a proliferation in the U.S.), and therefore having "poorer economic conditions" as its source.
21 - Dr Dreadful
STM @ #2:
So I see the whole thing from a different perspective, and believe the way the revolution came about and was pursued, the issue of free speech, the catch-cry of "liberty" and the misguided notion of American exceptionalism have been shrouded in myth - and that the fog continues to blind Americans to the truth even today.
The USA isn't the only nation blinkered by myth, Stan. There's a good piece on the BBC website today about France's strangely edited version of her own WWII liberation - and how Sarkozy, by bringing the country back into NATO, seems to be steering the French towards a more honest acknowledgment of their long and intricate relationship with the English-speaking peoples.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Somebody had explained it to me once or I read it somewhere, and it made a great deal of sense - concerning "hooliganism" as being peculiarly British phenomenon.
We may have 'pioneered' hooliganism*, Roger, but serious violence at British football games is now a very rare occurrence.
Sadly, it proved to be a very appealing export, and was taken up with enthusiasm by 'fans' in the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Italy, Greece and Turkey among other places - where I believe it still flourishes.
* Although the word is actually Irish.
23 - roger nowosielski
How do you explain, though, it taking root so readily in the UK? I'm talking of times past - even in the '60 or before (when I was still in Poland) it was already widespread?
Was it a form of "rebellion"? Of taking a stand different from the mainstream, especially by the young?
24 - roger nowosielski
"There are several theories about the origin of the word hooliganisme. The Oxford English Dictionary states that word possibly originates from the surname of a fictional rowdy Irish family in a music hall song of the 1890s.[1][2] Clarence Rooks, in his 1899 book, Hooligan Nights, claimed that the word came from Patrick Holligan (or Hooligan), an Irish bouncer and thief who lived in the London borough of Southwark.[citation needed] Another writer, Earnest Weekley, wrote in his 1912 book Romance of Words, "The original hooligans were a spirited Irish family of that name whose proceedings enlivened the drab monotony of life in Southwark about fourteen years ago".[3] There have also been references made to a 19th century rural Irish family with the surname Houlihan who were known for their wild lifestyle.[citation needed] Another theory is that the term came from a street gang in Islington named Hooley.[citation needed] Yet another theory is that the term is based on an Irish word, houlie, which means a wild, spirited party.[4]"
From the Wiki
25 - roger nowosielski
One also thinks of "Clockwork Orange."