Town meetings and civilized dialogue
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette had an insightful opinion piece about Senator Tom Cotton’s town hall meeting in Springdale on Feb. 22.
The editorial page essay (which ran on Saturday, Feb. 25) made it quite clear that any person can disagree vehemently against his or her U.S. Senator, or anyone else for that matter.
But it made a distinction between voicing a disagreement and trying to shout someone down.
In the newspaper’s words, “It warms the inky heart to know that folks are interested in government. But we do wish when good Arkansans and Americans get together like this, and a senator — or any public servant — puts himself on stage to answer questions, that the crowd allows him to actually answer.”
Questioning governmental action is an important part of the fabric of American liberty; but trying to drown someone out with boos, chants, or name-calling is a characteristic of an uncivilized society.
As the Democrat-Gazette put it, “…the crowd was unruly at times, and a few folks were downright rude…”
But the notion of resisting an elected official in such a way is only a part of a larger picture, and that larger picture is that many Americans believe their rights supersede all else.
Is freedom of speech to be exercised at the expense of being cordial, considerate, or diplomatic?
Does your right to speak your mind overrule someone else’s right to respond?
Do the guarantees in the Bill of Rights (free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, etc.) mean that we should exercise rights with no restraint at all?
Free speech works best in an environment characterized by good citizenship. But using free speech doesn’t necessarily mean that you can say whatever you want, to anyone you want, any time you want, as loud as you want.
Oh there may be occasions in which you can do all of the above, but the chances are there will always be someone within earshot who doesn’t appreciate the manner in which you carry out your liberty.
As I once heard a teacher say, “In some instances you will find that just because you have the freedom to do something, it doesn’t mean that it is the smart thing to do.”
So we must ask ourselves, does freedom carry with it an obligation — even an understanding — that there is an appropriate way and an inappropriate way to utilize our liberty? I think so. Many of us have heard the quotation, “The right to swing my fist ends where
your nose begins.”
The origin of that quotation is in dispute, but its point is quite clear. Everything done in the name of freedom comes with a moral obligation to consider others.
When a country comes to the conclusion that freedom doesn’t need to be coupled with responsibility, then the exercise of freedom becomes quite reckless, sometimes bringing about unfortunate results.
In the 1800s the United States learned the hard way what can happen when citizens can’t work out their social and political differences. The years before and during the American Civil War were marked by stubbornness and a refusal to hear from the other side of an issue. The southern states in particular tenaciously held on to their belief in states’ rights, and they did this in a way that made them practically oblivious to the consequences that would come as a result.
In fact, some historians have written that the South died from “an overdose of states’ rights.”
Today the situation isn’t exactly the same, but it is true that the U.S. is not exactly united, and one of the main reasons is that we exercise freedom without responsibility. We are becoming incapable of having civilized discussions.
In this very column I once mentioned that Victor Frankl, who survived the horrors of a Nazi death camp, wrote in his memoir "Man’s Search for Meaning," “I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.”
We teach about rights in our homes and in our schools. It’s time to teach responsibility and consideration for others.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution do not directly tell us to be responsible. The founders of our country simply outlined our rights and our laws, assuming that free and reasonable people who adhere to Judeo-Christian values would for the most part treat each other with kindness and respect.
As a nation we are either going to have a civilized dialogue or we are going to simply see who can yell the loudest. One option gives us a chance to make sound decisions. The other leads to further confrontation and division.
David Wilson, EdD, of Springdale, is a writer, consultant and presenter, who grew up in Arkansas but worked 27 years in education in Missouri. You may e-mail him at dwnotes@hotmail.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.