Are Protestors Really Traitors?

Copyright Jonathan McNeill 20030220

It's after 1 AM as I begin to write this. I should be working on something else. Actually, this is probably more important in the long run, but, in the short run, it could wait (Mr 7-Habits-of-Highly-Successful-People: Important, Not Urgent).

The U.S. prides itself on being "the freest nation on Earth," people routinely say, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'd die to defend your right to say it." I couldn't count the number of times I've heard that phrase uttered in this supposedly free country of ours.

I won't dispute that the people who say that phrase would actually go through with it. It's too far into the hypothetical (martyrdom to end the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?). However, I have observed numerous people calling anti-war protestors "Anti-American." And this is coming from many of the same people who have said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'd die to defend your right to say it." Are those people saying they'd die to defend the rights of "Anti-American" Americans? Perhaps they are. I'll assume, for the optimistic remaining moments of this article, that this is so.

Whether or not these uberpatriots would die to defend the rights of supposed traitors, this name calling is sheerly emotional. "I disagree with you, so you must be a poopy head." This behaviour is more appropriate for school children than it is for adults (even then, it's ridiculous).

How many of us would call John Quincy Adams (6th U.S. President) anti-American? Probably none, and yet, he said some words that might well be on the lips of all anti-war protesters today: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

It is a common tactic in politics to paint the opposition as being heartless, or of less than the best of intent. Just because it is common, doesn't mean it is right. Politics should be about ideas and ideals. Arguments and disagreements are a part of this, but name calling and over-generalization is not a necessary or useful accompaniment to politics.

I won't deny that some participating in these anti-war protests are anti-American. Some are Marxists (and frankly, not even all of these are, strictly speaking, anti-American). Some even support militant Islamic groups. But to paint every anti-war protester as being anti-American is silly, and disingenuous.

Do you disagree with the anti-war protestors? Fine, go out and stage your own protest. Don't resort to insults to try and guilt people into agreeing with you.

I haven't yet made up my mind about the war on Iraq. In it's current form, I'm opposed. I'm not morally concerned with the possibility of any given country having WMDs. That is, in my mind, a question of national defense.

If we go into Iraq, we should do so with the express intention of removing Saddam Hussein. And nothing else save what is necessary to accomplish this goal. However, the Bush Administrations current efforts seem to be along the lines of removing the WMDs, and leaving Saddam if necessary. Even if we succeed in removing the WMDs from Iraq, but do not remove Saddam, in five years he will have more WMDs.

The best course of action, for all concerned (for the Iraqis-- especially the Kurds --and for Americans), is an Iraq that is free. Then, it won't matter whether Iraq has WMDs or not.

So, I'm not exactly "Give Peace A Chance" here, but I'm definitely not gun-ho "Let's Kill 'Em All!" either.

Basic principle: in a fist fight, don't go swinging 'til the other guy does first. In a gun fight, if the other guy pulls his gun out and starts to pull the trigger, you'd better shoot. How does that correspond with countries? Well, nuclear weapons and other "WMDs" have become one of the basic national defense weapons. A deterrent if you will, or "Mutual Assured Destruction" times ten. The U.S. (and Britain?), Russia, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all have nuclear weapons. In a fist fight, you wait until the other guy swings, in a gun fight you wait until he's about to fire. You don't shoot him when you see him heading to the Pawn shop to purchase a handgun.

If you know he has his wife and kids locked up in the basement, mightn't you tie him up and take him out of the house? Sounds reasonable to me.