|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Fear and Loathing in America David C. Stolinsky, M.D.Hunter S. Thompson’s novel "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was a best seller. I have used the words for a topic that I hope is as interesting, but I know is a lot less amusing. Of course, I could have used other words — hatred and contempt, for example. What I’m referring to is the degeneration of politics into name-calling, slander, invective, and insults of the vilest sort. What I’m complaining about is the abuse of the right of free speech. What I’m distressed by is the lack of awareness that this right, like all rights, comes with responsibilities firmly attached. I have a right — perhaps a duty — to criticize those with whom I disagree. In fact, I do it often. No one except a totalitarian denies this right. But does free speech include the right to use cruel humor and make fun of people’s disabilities? Does it include the right to compare political opponents to mass murderers or practitioners of genocide? Does it include the right to imply, or even to state plainly, that those with whom we disagree ought to be exterminated? No, I’m not referring to a legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment. I leave that to professors of law. I’m not referring to what is legal, but to what is moral. I realize that for many Americans today, this distinction is difficult, because they were never taught to think in moral terms. Nevertheless, it is a vital distinction. Perhaps some examples will clarify what I mean.
What are we to make of all this? Is it legitimate political discourse? Is it permissible criticism? Is it to be expected in the rough-and-tumble of politics? Is it merely a bit exaggerated? Is it just a little "over the top"? Or is it hate speech? Is it heartless "fun" at the expense of those struck down by illness or disability? Is it dehumanizing political opponents by comparing them to disgusting reptiles, rabid animals, or practitioners of genocide? Is it justifying the murder of those with whom we disagree — or even openly advocating it? I can attempt to have a productive dialogue with those I consider mistaken or misled. I can try to talk things over with those I believe are confused or misinformed. I can try to reach an understanding with those I regard as ignorant or even stupid. But how am I to act toward those I think are truly evil? How should I behave with those I believe to be racists plotting genocide? How can I compromise with those I regard as fit only to be exterminated? How can I tolerate people who voted for Satan? How can I respect the law if the Antichrist is on the Supreme Court? But there’s something odd here. The same people who insist on removing all mention of God from our public life now insert mention of Satan and the Antichrist. When I was a kid, you could mention God in public, but devil was a cuss word. Now you can mention the devil in political discourse, but many people mention God only when cursing. This is called progress. The above examples, and many others I could list, are the symptoms. The underlying disease is an absolute certainty that we are right, and everyone else is wrong. The disease is a narcissistic conviction that we are good, and everyone who disagrees is evil. The disease is a fervent zeal to push the agenda we find appealing down everyone’s throat, and to crush opposing ideas. The disease, in other words, is fanaticism. Like cancer, fanaticism is curable if it is recognized in its early stages. But once it has progressed beyond a certain point, which is recognizable only in retrospect, it’s too late. Cure is then impossible, and the best one can hope for is to prolong things for a while. Like cancer, fanaticism invades stealthily, creeping into journalism, law, academia, and even lunchtime conversation, until eventually all aspects of society are affected. The disintegration starts slowly, then accelerates. So far we appear to be at an early stage. But let’s not press our luck. We are operating under the optimistic assumption that our nation, and our civilization, are held together by a powerful glue that is essentially unbreakable. So we think we can employ as much force as we like in an effort to achieve our aims. We assume that we can be as divisive as we wish, and nothing bad will happen. But what if we’re wrong? What if the glue that holds us together isn’t epoxy, but merely library paste? What if the glue is soluble in the acid of hatred? What if it isn’t strong enough to withstand the stress of contempt? What if it can’t hold up against the divisive power of class hatred, race hatred and ideologic hatred? What if our system of government, limited by a Constitution, can’t withstand the centrifugal forces of white power, black power, brown power, class envy, radical environmentalism, radical animal rights, radical anti-tobacco, extreme pro-abortion, extreme anti-abortion, extreme pro-immigration, extreme anti-immigration, single-issue fanaticism, and all the other pressures to enrich or empower one group at the expense of others? What then? We will discover — when it’s too late — that the beautiful structure the Founders designed, and past generations built, is coming apart at the seams. But then there won’t be anything to do about it. We will be left sitting in the ruins, bemoaning our fate. Then our only choices will be anarchy or tyranny. Democracy works when most citizens respect one another. But only a jungle or a dictatorship can tolerate hatred and contempt. So let’s put a lid on it for a while. Let’s restrain our immoderate rhetoric. Let’s try to disagree without hating, and to express opposition without contempt. Who knows? We might even get used to it. Fear and loathing make an entertaining novel, but an unhappy and unstable nation. Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
Editor's note: |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |