The Voice of Consent
"While it is true that a government rules only by the consent of the governed. Too many of us have not considered that silence might easily be construed to be consent."These are my own words. I made the statement over on DI's blog when commenting on the latest post there. I've tweaked it slightly when compared to what I posted there because Haloscan doesn't allow a poster to edit their comments to refine their language and I am a compulsive word tweaker. I added it to the side bar because it impressed me as being a rather deep statement. Not that I'm saying that I am some sort of font of wisdom or anything, but even an idiot can occasionally happen upon a statement of great profundity by accident.
On its face the statement speaks affirmatively about the tumult we have been creating at the townhalls of late. We are making our lack of consent on that topic clearly known and it seems to be working.
I then began to think about the statement and the context in which it was made. DI and Miradena's post was comparing the many similarities of the actions of our current administration to the actions of Adolf Hitler and National Worker's German Socialist Party (NAZIs) when they siezed power in Germany. We have I'm sure, all heard the contention that as soon as you evoke the NAZIs you've lost the debate because it just isn't politically correct to compare someone to Hitler.
Now we have hit upon a far more important meaning for my statement. George Orwell once wisely posited that controlling the use of language is the avenue for controlling the mind.
Political correctness is an insidious device! Look at the out cry over the administration's attempts to control our health industry... We have all raised our voices and then turned surprisedly to realize that we are not the only ones decrying it. We have suddenly discovered the might of our voices when raised in chorus. Political correctness prevents the organization of political opposition. It stifles the chorus of discontent. It does this because it masks the thoughts of masses. How can we know that we all oppose a thing if we are afraid to voice that opposition? Instead we stand there like islands of solitude, afraid that the unacceptability of voicing our inner thoughts will garner us rejection from those around us.
We must not fear voicing our thoughts. If we allow even the hideous thoughts of lunacy to be untremblingly voiced then it makes the vocalization of the valid but hard questions all the more easy. That is the true gift our founding fathers granted us with the first amendment. The ability to stand basked in the naked light of our thoughts. Our forefathers are often described as rugged individualists. They thought what they thought and freely shared those thoughts, regardless how novel or heretical those thoughts may have been. Over the intervening years we have grown fearful of stating even the obvious; "yes, the emperor is indeed naked", and peer pressure is the instrument of our demise. We are but a shadow our outspoken fore-bearers and more's the pity.
While we as conservatives reside in the acceptable silence, our opponents feel no such compunction. The full tenor of the national voice must be heard in order to set the mid-line. How do you define the middle if one side monopolizes the discourse? The carriage of the melody slips to the sopranos when the baritones fall silent and the piece becomes shrill as it is deprived of the fullness of tone. Suddenly we have laws being proposed to ban "hate" speech but "hate" is defined as only that which is objectionable to one side.Allow me to return to the post on DI's blog. The left has felt no impediment to comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. Why then should DI and Miradena be apologetic when comparing Obama to Hitler? The standard argument I have heard is that until the person has murdered millions as Hitler did, that the comparison is ill-advised. But a very wise man once said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Should we wait until millions are marched off to the gas chambers before we sound the alarm? That sounds like the standard liberal tactic when dealing with terrorism... Wait until the act occurs, then prosecute the perpetrators rather than acting proactively to prevent the act.
I suppose what I am saying my friends is fearlessly raise your voices. Speak proudly and without timidity. I, at the very least, will not shun you as a thought leper. I may disagree, but I prefer independent minds as they are far less tedious and boring than their cookie cutter alternatives:
Orwell said that political prose was formed "to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." (Source)