Thread: Free speech for... everyone?

Yes, It would be nice if we could find a way to make the pendulum stop in the central position. There's far too much bickering on both sides of the aisle. Many Americans are locked into the notion that the polarization is something that seems to be limited to their country. But, looking at the developments on the global sphere, I think there's a drastic polarization that's occurring world-wide. I mean, look at some of the disruptions occurring not only in France, but also Germany, and even Great Britain, the coalitions formed in their Parliamentary systems seem to be torn between extremes. I suppose each generation in history faces a time like this. But, in all honesty, as a rabid student of history, I don't think we've seen such divisiveness since the 1930's. That, in and of itself, is enough to cause some alarm. But, as the point of this topic goes to. We're struggling to find solutions, and it seems more than ever, that political officials, no matter what political position they hold, push aside the interest of a greater National good And I don't mean this in the sense of a national collective, by any-means, rather, I'm focusing a bit on opportunities of choice for every individual within a society, in favor of self-interested political gains. In a sense, it doesn't matter what sort of a governmental system is in place, those who hold the reins of power, seem to be propping themselves up as some sort of separate, ruling elite. What's tragic about this, is not even something that should touch political ideology. If the entire notion behind government, is to provide a social contract for the people, where the peoplevia some initiative on their own accordare able to flourish, then when politicians refuse to negotiate, instead of barking meaningless platitudes from the bully pulpit, they stand in breach of the social contract. So, that, in turn, ties into the original observation of this post. It would seem that the dogma of certain groups has established enough power to keep certain politicians in their pockets. It's to the point where in my home state, Texaswe really do have odd politics here, and we're not as one dimensional, politically, as some might believethat the candidates running for governor are flinging base personal insults at each other...about who has lived the most difficult life. I mean, on the right-wing side you have Attorney General Greg Abbott running for office. Politics aside, Abbott proved himself a fantastic private attorney, before entering the realm of politics. During his second year of law school, a heavy oak tree fell on him paralyzing his legs. Ever since he's been in a wheelchair. The fact that he needs a wheelchair shouldn't matter a damn bit in the political arena, yet some of these groups you speak of including one of the women's rights activists groups who threw their support behind Wendy Davis, for engaging in that filibusterer against the rather odd Texas abortion laws have come out demanding that Abbott prove he actually needs to use his wheelchair. To her credit, Wendy Davis distanced herself from such conduct, but it sickens me to see these politicians run around trying to out maneuver one another in a race to the bottom. Decorum and decency have gone out the window, but the question remains why? Is that we have allowed politics to become so polarized that the marketplace of ideas is shunned to such an extent that it no longer has a place in civil discourse and debate? I've often been described as being so far to the right I'm to the left. A radical minarchist if ever one walked the face of the planet, yet I'm realistic enough to realize that a singularity in making decisions, no matter where on the political spectrum one stands, is a horrible idea for the people. It drowns out debate, and, let's face it, some of the greatest governmental creations have come out of disagreement. The United States Constitution is a prime example. The Magna Charta in Great Britain is another example. Hell, the French Republic I forget what number they're in now, was born from a multitude of debate, even breaking down into violence, when one thinks of the revolutionary terror of 1792. But with each successive change in generational power, it seems that at some point, one side attempts to shut out the other, and we spiral back down to a chaotic pile of embers lacking any sensible measure of value. This brings me to an important thought, with regard to the spiritual meaning not religious, but meaning the purest essence of free speech. It's designed to force those in positions of power to separate themselves enough from their own self-conscious, or political dogma, to witness those things that work, and those things that do not. And, the way things stand now, there definitely seems to be a lack of national reflection by leaders. Indeed, it rolls out nicely to another thing that worries me, the mens' rights group you mentioned in the opening of this post were attempting to have a speech at the University of Toronto. If ever there is a place that should support free speech it's a University. Yet, as I recall from my own time in University, I was the radical libertarian whose best friend was a self-proclaimed Marxist...yeah, let's just say I'm very open minded, the victors of the counter culture revolution, became complacent. Many of the professors have allowed their subconscious to fall asleep. They still think things are like they were in 1969. Never even realizing that it was their side that won, at least for the most part, the revolution. I remember placing a challenge to my Professor friendTerry since he insisted we refer to him by his first name, if things are still as they were in 1969, then why is it that you have open protests to the way the government is handled This was 2004, mind you, so Iraq was gearing up to the debacle that it wound up being, are openly allowed, with no need to concern ourselves with violence? His response was certain gains have been made over the years. But, I knew he missed the most crucial point, Why is there not a group from the other side protesting on campus? They're gathered off campus. The answer, was that members of this group had received anonymous threats. It was a point of realization that made me understand that the system they protested against didn't really change, it just changed hands. What good is that? I firmly believe open discourse, and an exchange of ideas makes everyone better, but, some can't seem to divorce themselves enough from their own views, to let go of the past, and to step into the future. So, as I think we have both pointed to here, the future will trample upon them, if they aren't careful. Because any time a group is truly oppressed, tensions boil over, and we're left with one hell of a mess. I suppose a good comparison to my point can be found in reference to the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39. The Republic of Spain was a huge coalition of differing views. You had traditionalist Basques, seeking autonomy you had the Anarchists in Valencia, and the communists split into two factions 1 The POUM which didn't share allegiance with Joseph Stalin and, 2 The regular communist faction which sought direction from Moscow. During the early stages of the war, after the reactionary armies of Francisco Franco who really wasn't fascist. Rather, he was an opportunist, conservative monarchist...who decided he like power too much to let it go, when these factions tolerated each other, they managed to hold back the Nationalists for quite some time. However, the sort of divisions we see now, with groups, developed inside the Republic, and they tore themselves apart. The anarchists and the basques suffered the worst at the hands of the changing government from within. Once civil debate was closed, and hatred ruled the day, the forces turned on each other, and Franco crushed them. But, on the Nationalist side you had a similar function happen. You had another Hodgepodge of factions, many whom were diametrically opposed to the system that developed, coming together. The Falange were the typical fascists modeling themselves more off of Mussolini than Hitler. Ceda, which was a sort of traditionalist Catholic Right, made up of mostly middle class citizens, who didn't want the return of the monarchy...to the extreme Monarchists of the Carlists, who, like the Basques wanted to be wholly separate from Spain. Franco did something bizarre, he compiled all of these groups under a Falange of his own making, that disillusioned many of the Falange members within the Nationalist faction denied Carlist independence, and told Ceda that they must disband and join this new group. Yet, because the military backed him in such a staunch position, they all complied, and so they all claimed victory at the end, albeit a very hollow one. But what this goes to show is, no one gets a truly meaningful resolution when the ability to engage in open discourse is quashed. And, in some of the ways that groups are silenced, I'm seeing reflections from the Spanish Civil War. We're breaking down into factions like that, and all because our leaders won't listen. I think, that aspect of it could make this change different too. I don't think it will come to an armed conflict like the Spanish Civil War, but I do fear things will get much uglier, before they get any better.