“To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible”
The thing I find the most disheartening about the current political situation is lack of what I would call responsible dissent. We have plenty of dissent, yet most of it is not “responsible”.
Dissent is a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (e.g. a government’s policies) or an entity (e.g.. an individual or political party which supports such policies). Antonyms include agreement, consensus and consent.
Dissent may be expressed in many ways. In some political systems, dissent may be formally expressed by way of opposition politics, while politically repressive regimes may prohibit any form of dissent, leading to suppression of dissent and the encouragement of social or political activism. Individuals who do not conform or support the policies of certain states may be described as “dissidents” or in extreme cases, “enemies of the state”.
I would define “Responsible Dissent” as a sharing of opinions and ideas designed to lead to a further understanding and part of a move to formulate a better plan or idea than may currently be proposed.
Basically, when the President says; “I believe we need twenty thousand more troops in Iraq, and his is how and why this is going to work…” It should be the responsibility of those who disagree with him to put forth a plan that they could live with.
To simply say…
“You’re going to have to do a much better job,” said Senator George Voinovich, a Republican. “I’ve gone along with the President on this and I bought into his dream, and at this stage of the game I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
“Madam Secretary,” said Senator Bill Nelson, a moderate Democrat, “I have supported you and the Administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the Administration’s position. … I have not been told the truth over and over again.”
…is irresponsible. Especially when you claim that the President is a liar, yet cite no evidence to prove it.
The President addressed the idea of a drawdown in his speech, he demonstrated responsible dissent by presenting a plan to move forward, and then addressing specific concerns:
Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States, and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
Compare that to this…
“I think this speech given [Wednesday] night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out,” Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a potential 2008 presidential contender, told Rice.
Or to Barbara Boxer’s comments to Dr. Rice….
Or compare it to Sen. Edward Kennedy who is trying to pass a bill that would defund the “surge”, without proposing a way forward.
The country is divided. We are war weary. Everyone wants out of Iraq. However, the way to leave Iraq is at the heart of this debate. Do we leave now, and just throw the Iraqis under the bus?
Do we choose to ignore the word of the Iraqi Vice President?
Despite all the hardships, however, we Iraqis were able to raise the rudimentary pillars of our nascent democracy by writing a constitution, electing a parliament based on that constitution and granting a vote of confidence to a government through that elected parliament. It is not fair to look at Iraq as a collection of failures without identifying its successes. The birth of a new nation is not easy, but just as your nation has become a beacon for democracy, we hope that Iraq will one day do the same.
Why can’t the children in Congress come together to find a way forward they can agree on? Why must be have the ugly public dissent?
As Americans it is as if we are living with two abusive parents. Constantly arguing, constantly back-biting the other one, rarely if ever doing what’s best of the family/country.
We have Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy as grandparents, and Nancy Pelosi as a mother on one side, and on the other we have John McCain and Elizabeth Dole as grandparents, with George W Bush being our Father.
Is it any wonder why we as Americans are as screwed up as we are? We are locked in the middle of this popularity contest we call elections. No one in government seems to be concerned with the welfare of us kids… but only in their own self-interest and partisan bashing.
Why can’t our “parents” take their argument behind closed doors and come out united with a real plan for the war? Arguing in front of the children like this is simply traumatizing to the country.
It breaks my heart that we have turned our country over to such petty and idiotic people.
We should be working towards the common good and what’s best for us and the world.
Withdrawing from Iraq and leaving it to de-evolve into a real civil war is not in the country’s best interest, nor is it in the best interest of the world.
Now that you’ve read my take on it,go over and read the famous Jane’s. She bloviates far less than I.Â
Sniper One is a mid-career Information System Administrator/Information System Security Professional currently living in Huntsville, Alabama. He is married, and the father of three sons.He has returned to the United States after working as a military contractor for a year near Kabul, Afghanistan; and several months in Iraq’s “Green Zone”.Â
3 users commented in " Responsible Dissent "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackRight on! Right on! Right on!
I’m sick of people being against Bush just to be against him. With no real plan for action or change.
I’m tired of being forced into Devi’s Advocate, merely because there are no angels.
I hope that more people will have some of the same feelings and that we will unite together and tell Congress (and Bush) what we think and why we think it. So that the government will know that even as “children” we have voices and we are not afraid to use them.
Often times I sit and think what the changes need to be to be successful. Sometimes I hear rumblings from the government that perhaps there are some there that are thinking about them. However, I never see them enacted. Maybe it is time for the rest of the moderates out there to stand up and give a plan of action that will leave both the left and right wingers speechless.
Thanks for your great words. Victory through unity!!
Sniper One,
Since you have been kind enough to read my blog (since I started last month I wondered if anybody really read them) and give me my first comment, I will give you my take on what you say here (I should also say that I hope you have not read my comments and responses as harsh or irresponsible). I share some of your frustrations with opponents of the war, and do not like pointless partisan bickering much either. Also, I think you are on the right track talking about elections. However, I think popular participation and public involvement in decision-making is essential to a functioning democracy. This seems to me the biggest lesson of the U.S. civil rights movements and other people’s movements around the world (like the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, and many others). While laws were passed by national leaders that abolished slavery, granted suffrage to women, guaranteed civil rights, etc., the only reason this was ever able to happen is because regular people, and often the poorest and most downtrodded people in the country, expressed and acted upon their dissent in a remarkable way. It is this element of American history and culture that I find most beautiful and important, and it should continue to grow and not be stifled by secrecy or arrogant and, I would argue, truly irresponsible people in power.
On the dissent from the Iraq war, I would simply point out that opposing something is logically equivalent to advocating its opposite, or some other alternative. So when someone comes out and opposes the proposed “surge”, they are advocating a decrease in troops and a way out. And there is nothing wrong or irresponsible about opposing a plan that you think, for a number of reasons, is not likely to “work” (whatever that is supposed to mean in Iraq). Those that advocate immediate withdrawal but still say that we have responsibilities to Iraq (for reconstruction, humanitarian aid, etc.) have the beginnings of a very definite plan, one that has much more popular support. I would suggest that you read some of the detailed critiques of the Iraq war from the beginning, and some of the many proposed plans for what to do by scholars and even lawmakers. The president’s plan would be disasterous, and is based on manipulation, secrecy, and hidden motives as has been standard practice during his entire administration, especially since 9/11. Scholarship is nearly unanimous on this point, and the American people are waking up and realizing they have been manipulated. Almost anything is better than escalating this disaster. That, as I see it, is the point to all this dissent.
Also, do you really see our leaders as father figures, and the American people as little children who can’t stand the truth? Good God man. Considering all the things that regular people understand better than our national leaders (like that it is a bad idea to proliferate nuclear weapons), I would opt for a more egalitarian picture. Your metaphors are interesting, though. Have you ever read George Lakoff’s Moral Politics? He analyzes some of these very kinds of metaphors. It is an interesting work.
Keep writing and thinking, good sir.
[…] Responsible Dissent […]
Leave A Reply