The Indispensable Opposition
WALTER LIPPMAN
Atlantic Monthly, 1939

Were they pressed hard enough, most men would probably confess that political
freedom—that is to say, the right to speak freely and to act in opposition—is a noble ideal
rather than a practical necessity. As the case for freedom is generally put today, the argument
lends itself to this feeling. It is made to appear that, whereas each man claims his freedom as amatter of right, the freedom he accords to other men is a matter of toleration. Thus, thedefense of freedom of opinion tends to rest not on its substantial, bene cial, andindispensable consequences, but on a somewhat eccentric, a rather vaguely benevolent,
attachment to an abstraction
It is all very well to say with Voltaire, “I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will
defend to the death your right to say it,” but as a matter of fact most men will not defend to
the death the rights of other men: if they disapprove suf ciently what other men say, they will
somehow suppress those men if they can1fifi.

N.

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANN

So, if this is the best that can be said for liberty of opinion, that a man must tolerate
his opponents because everyone has a “right” to say what he pleases, then we shall ndthat liberty of opinion is a luxury, safe only in pleasant times when men can be tolerant
because they are not deeply and vitally concerned.
Yet actually, as a matter of historic fact, there is a much stronger foundation for thegreat constitutional right of freedom of speech, and as a matter of practical humanexperience there is a much more compelling reason for cultivating the habits of free men.
We take, it seems to me, a naively self-righteous view when we argue as if the right of ouropponents to speak were something that we protect because we are magnanimous, noble,and unsel sh. The compelling reason why, if liberty of opinion did not exist, we shouldhave to invent it, why it will eventually have to be restored in all civilized countries where
it is now suppressed, is that we must protect the right of our opponents to speak because
we must hear what they have to say.
We miss the whole point when we imagine that we tolerate the freedom of ourpolitical opponents as we tolerate a howling baby next door, as we put up with the blasts
from our neighbor’s radio because we are too peaceable to heave a brick through thewindow. If this were all there is to freedom of opinion, that we are too good-natured or
too timid to do anything about our opponents and dur critics except to let them talk, it
would be dif cult to say whether we are tolerant because we are magnanimous orbecause we are lazy, because we have strong principles or because we lack serious
convictions, whether we have the hospitality of an inquiring mind or the indifference ofan empty mind. And so, if we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a
civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves
our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity.
We are much closer to the essence of the matter, not when we quote Voltaire, butwhen we go to the doctor and pay him to ask us the most embarrassing questions and toprescribe the most disagreeable diet. When we pay the doctor to exercise complete
freedom of speech about the cause and cure of our stomachache, we do not look uponourselves as tolerant and magnanimous, and worthy to be admired by ourselves. We haveenough common sense to know that if we threaten to put the doctor in jail because we do
not like the diagnosis and the prescription it will be unpleasant for the doctor, to be sure,but equally unpleasant for our own stomachache. That is why even the most ferociousfi2   fifi

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANN

dictator would rather be treated by a doctor who was free to think and speak the truth
than by his own Minister of Propaganda. For there is a point, the point at which things
really matter, where the freedom of others is no longer a question of their right but of ourown need.
The point at which we recognize this need is much higher in some men than inothers. The totalitarian rulers think they do not need the freedom of an opposition: theyexile, imprison, or shoot their opponents. We have concluded on the basis of practicalexperience, which goes hack to Magna Carta and beyond, that we need the opposition. We
pay the opposition salaries out of the public treasury. In so far as the usual apology forfreedom of speech ignores this experience, it becomes abstract and eccentric rather thanconcrete and human. The emphasis is generally put on the right to speak, as if all thatmattered were that the doctor should be free to go out into the park and explain to thevacant air why I have a stomachache. Surely that is a miserable caricature of the great civic
right which men have bled and died for. What really matters is that the doctor should tellme what ails me, that I should listen to him; that if I do not like what he says I should befree to call in another doctor; and that then the rst doctor should have to listen to thesecond doctor; and that out of all the speaking and listening, the give-and-take ofopinions, the truth should be arrived at.
This is the creative principle of freedom of speech, not that it is a system for thetolerating of error, but that it is a system fornding the truth. It may not produce thetruth, or the whole truth all the time, or often, or in some cases ever. But if the truth can befound, there is no other system which will normally and habitually nd so much truth.
Until we have thoroughly understood this principle, we shall not know why we mustvalue our liberty, or how we can protect and develop it
Let us apply this principle to the system of public speech in a totalitarian state. We
may, without any serious falsi cation, picture a condition of affairs in which the mass ofthe people are being addressed through one broadcasting system by one man and hischosen subordinates. The orators speak. The audience listens but cannot and dare notspeak back. It is a system of one-way communication; the opinions of the rulers arebroadcast outwardly to the mass of the people. But nothing comes back to the rulers fromthe people except the cheers; nothing returns in the way of knowledge of forgotten facts,
hidden feelings, neglected truths, and practical suggestions.

3fi .

fi

fi 

fi 

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANN

But even a dictator cannot govern by his own one-way inspiration alone. In practice,therefore, the totalitarian rulers get back the reports of the secret police and of their party
henchmen down among the crowd. If these reports are competent, the rulers may manage
to remain in touch with public sentiment. Yet that is not enough to know what theaudience feels. The rulers have also to make great decisions that have enormous
consequences, and here their system provides virtually no help from the give-and-take ofopinion in the nation. So they must either rely on their intuition, which cannot bepermanently and continually inspired, or, if they are intelligent despots, encourage theirtrusted advisers and their technicians to speak and debate freely in their presence
On the walls of the houses of Italian peasants one may see inscribed in large lettersthe legend, “Mussolini is always right.” But if that legend is taken seriously by Italianambassadors, by the Italian General Staff, and by the Ministry of Finance, then all one cansay is heaven help Mussolini, heaven help Italy, and the new Emperor of Ethiopia.
For at some point, even in a totalitarian state, it is indispensable that there should
exist the freedom of opinion which causes opposing opinions to be debated. As time goeson, that is less and less easy under a despotism; critical discussion disappears as theinternal opposition is liquidated in favor of men who think and feel alike. That is why theearly successors of despots, of Napoleon I and of Napoleon III, have usually been
followed by an irreparable mistake. For in listening only to his yes men—the others being
in exile or in concentration camps, or terri ed—the despot shuts himself off from the truththat no man can dispense with.
We know all this well enough when we contemplate the dictatorships. But when wetry to picture our own system, by way of contrast, what picture do we have in our minds?
Tt is, is it not, that anyone may stand up on his own soapbox and say anything he pleases,
like the individuals in Kipling’s poem who sit each in his Separate star and draw theThing as they see it for the God of Things as they are. Kipling, perhaps, could do this,since he was a poet. But the ordinary mortal isolated on his separate star will have anhallucination, and a citizenry declaiming from separate soapboxes will poison the air with
hot and nonsensical confusion
If the democratic alternative to the totalitarian one-way broadcasts is a rowr ofseparate soap boxes, then I submit that the alternative is unworkable, is unreasonable, andis humanly unattractive. It is above all a false alternative. It is not true that liberty has 4.

fi .

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANN

developed among civilized men when anyone is free to set up a soapbox, is free to hire ahall where he may expound his opinions to those who are willing to listen. On thecontrary, freedom of speech is established to achieve its essential purpose only whendifferent opinions are expounded in the same hall to the same audience.
For, while the right to talk may be the beginning of freedom, the necessity oflistening is what makes the right important. Even in Russia and Germany a man may still
stand in an open eld and speak his mind. What matters is not the utterance of opinions.
What matters is the confrontation of opinions in debate. No man can care profoundly thatevery fool should say what he likes. Nothing has been accomplished if the wisest man
proclaims his wisdom in the middle of the Sahara Desert. This is the shadow. We have thesubstance of liberty when the fool is compelled to listen to the wise man and learn; when
the wise man is compelled to take account of the fool, and to instruct him; when the wise
man can increase his wisdom by hearing the judgment of his peers.
That is why civilized men must cherish liberty—as a means of promoting thediscovery of truth. So we must not x our whole attention on the right of anyone to hire
his own hall, to rent his own broadcasting station, to distribute his own pamphlets. Theserights are incidental; and thought they must be preserved, they can be preserved only byregarding them as incidental, as auxiliary to the substance of liberty that must becherished and cultivated.
Freedom of speech is best conceived, therefore, by having in mind the picture of aplace like the American Congress, an assembly where opposing views are represented,
where ideas are not merely uttered but debated, or the British Parliament, where men who
are free to speak are also compelled to answer. We may picture the true condition offreedom as existing in a place like a court of law, where witnesses testify and are crossexamined, where the lawyer argues against the opposing lawyer before the same judge
and in the presence of one jury. We may picture freedom as existing in a forum where thespeaker must respond to questions; in a gathering of scientists where the data, thehypothesis, and the conclusion are submitted to men competent to judge them; in a
reputable newspaper which not only will publish the opinions of those who disagree butwill reexamine its own opinion in the light of what they say
Thus the essence of freedom of opinion is not in mere toleration as such, but in thedebate which toleration provides; it is not in the venting of opinion, but in the 5 .

fi fi

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANN

confrontation of opinion. That this is the practical substance can readily be understoodwhen we remember how differently we feel and act about the censorship and regulationof opinion purveyed by different media of communication. We nd then that, in so far as
the medium makes dif cult the confrontation of opinion in debate, we are driven toward
censorship and regulation.
There is, for example, the whispering campaign, the circulation of anonymous
rumors by men who cannot be compelled to prove what they say. They put the utmost
strain on our tolerance, and there are few who do not rejoice when the anonymousslanderer is caught, exposed and punished. At a higher level there is the moving picture, amost powerful medium for conveying ideas, but a medium which does not permit debate.
A moving picture cannot be answered effectively by another moving picture; in all freecountries there is some censorship of the movies, and there would be more if theproducers did not recognize their limitations by avoiding political controversy. There isthen the radio. Here debate is dif cult: it is not easy to make sure that the speaker is being
answered in the presence of the same audience. Inevitably, there is some regulation of theradio
When we reach the newspaper press, the opportunity for debate is so considerable
that discontent cannot grow to the point where under normal conditions there is any
disposition to regulate the press. But when newspapers abuse their power by injuring
people who have no means of replying, a disposition to regulate the press appears. When
we arrive at Congress we nd that, because the membership of the House is so large, fulldebate is impracticable. So there are restrictive rules. On the other hand, in the Senate,
where the conditions of full debate exist, there is almost absolute freedom of speech.
This shows us that the preservation and development of freedom of opinion are not
only a matter of adhering to abstract legal rights, but also, and very urgently, a matter oforganizing and arranging suf cient debate. Once we have arm hold on the centralprinciple, there are many practical conclusions to be drawn. We then realize that thedefense of freedom of opinion consists primarily in perfecting the opportunity for anadequate give-and-take of opinion; it consists also in regulating the freedom of thoserevolutionists who cannot or will not permit or maintain debate when it does not suit
their purposes. 

fi

6fi

fi

fi 

fi

fi .

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANNWe must insist that free oratory is only the beginning of free speech; it is not the end,
but a means to an end. The end is tond the truth. The practical justi cation of civil

liberty is not that self-expression is one of the rights of man. It is that the examination ofopinion is one of the necessities of man. For experience tells us that it is only when
freedom of opinion becomes the compulsion to debate that the seed which our fathers
planted has produced its fruit. When that is understood, freedom will be cherished not
because it is a vent for our opinions but because it is the surest method of correcting them.
The unexamined life, said Socrates, is un t to be lived by man. This is the virtue ofliberty, and the ground on which we may best justify our belief in it, that it tolerates error
in order to serve the truth. When men are brought face to face with their opponents,
forced to listen and learn and mend their ideas, they cease to be children and savages andbegin to live like civilized men. Then only is freedom a reality, when men may voice theiropinions because they must examine their opinions
The only reason for dwelling on all this is that if we are to preserve democracy wemust understand its principles. And the principle which distinguishes it from all otherforms of government is that in a democracy the opposition not only is tolerated as
constitutional but must be maintained because it is in fact indispensable.
The democratic system cannot be operated without effective opposition. For, inmaking the great experiment of governing people by consent rather than by coercion, it is
not suf cient that the party in power should have a majority. It is just as necessary that theparty in power should never outrage the minority. That means that it must listen to theminority and be moved by the criticisms of the minority. That means that its measures
must take account of the minority’s objections, and that in administering measures it must
remember that the minority may become the majority.
The opposition is indispensable. A good statesman, like any other sensible humanbeing, always learns more from his opponents than from his fervent supporters. For hissupporters will push him where the dangers are. So if he is wise he will often pray to bedelivered from his friends, because they will ruin him. But, though it hurts, he ought topray never to be left without opponents; for they keep him on the path of reason and goodsense. 

fi7  .

fifi

fi 

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANNThe national unity of a free people depends upon a suf ciently even balance ofpolitical power to make it impracticable for the administration to be arbitrary and for theopposition to be revolutionary and irreconcilable. Where that balance no longer exists,
democracy perishes. For unless all the citizens of a state are forced by circumstances tocompromise, unless they feel that they can affect policy but that no one can wholly
dominate it, unless by habit and necessity they have to give and take, freedom cannot bemaintained.

fi

THE INDISPENSABLE OPPOSITION - WALTER LIPPMANN

8