THE BROADER VIEW : Dissent and civility

Current myths and realities

— " We must learn to welcomeand not to fear the voices of dissent. We must dare to think about 'unthinkable things' becausewhen things become 'unthinkable,' thinking stops and action becomes mindless."

Conservative columnist Cal Thomas quoted those words at the beginning of a recent column and noted that they were not the words of a "right-wing extremist" or cable TV or radio talk show host. Instead, he said, those words were written by J. William Fulbright in his book, "The Arrogance of Power," published in 1966.

Thomas was making the point that in his view "what fueled much of the dissent expressed in town hall meetings" is "the arrogance of power and disdain for average Americans."

As it turns out, those words from Fulbright actually came from an earlier book, "Old Myths and New Realities," published in 1964, and from a series of speeches Fulbright gave during that period.

There is no doubt, however, that the quotation Thomas used is reflective of Fulbright's views and a reminder that dissent is an important element of American tradition, or as Fulbright said, "In a democracy dissent is an act of faith."

Fulbright was writing primarily about America's role in the world in both of those books, but he was also discussing the importance of American citizens and their representatives making informed judgments about national policies and questioning or opposing those policies when - in their informed judgment - they believed those policies to be wrong. Fulbright and others did just that in regard to the Vietnam War, and in some cases were met with strong criticism and accused of being unpatriotic for not supporting a war they believed to be contrary to the nation's best interests.

Cal Thomas in his column was defending those who expressed their discontent in the recent town hall meetings and other gatherings, focused primarily on proposals related to health care legislation. Their dissent is obviously very much within the American tradition. Indeed, citizens have a responsibility to stand up and express their doubts and concerns about government actions and plans.

However, there are some other considerations that need to be factored in. As Fulbright also wrote in "The Arrogance of Power," the most effective dissent "is dissent expressed in an orderly, which is to say a conservative manner." He also noted that "the most dramatic expression of grievances is not necessarily the most effective."

That brings us back to the recent expressions of discontent and dissent at the town-hall meetings and even to the outburst during President Obama's address to the joint session of Congress.

What gets the most attention is bluster and vilification. We are told that these eruptions result from passionate feelings, motivated by anger and fear. Rep. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, says "the American people are more engaged in their government than at any time in our history." He says "Americans are scared. That's why they are speaking up and that's why they are engaging in their government."

I'm not at all sure that Americans are more engaged in their government than ever before.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), recently told a Washington protest, "Americans are awake, they're informed, and they're outraged." (It was DeMint who earlier said, "If we are able to stop Obama on this (health care) it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.")

I'm not at all sure that Americans arethat well-informed.

Certainly some Americans are well-informed. And some may believe they are informed. But where are they getting their information? Withthe fragmentation of channels of information on television and the Internet, many are drawing their "news" from sources that pander to prejudices, reinforce previously held views, and reflect a partisan outlook. And some of this is delivered with a cocksure certainty that leaves no room for doubt or gray areas. There is no attempt to take a measured, open-minded assessment of opposing views. Instead, those who hold other views are belittled and said, in effect, to be "un-American."

A recent Pew Research Survey on American attitudes toward the media indicated that public views of various media sources "are deeply divided along party lines." This tendency is reminiscent of the early decades of our republic when almost all the newspapers were unabashedly partisan.

Television also plays a role in dramatizing the way issues are presented and perceived. Confrontation and outrageous behavior make much more entertaining viewing than do serious discussion and analysis of issues, often confined to CSPAN. This was evident in the coverage of some of the town-hall sessions.

I often think back to the time decades ago when I was attending a baseball game in New York. Periodically, a group of fans seated nearby would go bonkers, waving their arms and jumping around. I soon realized what was happening: they were trying to attract the TV cameras with outlandish behavior. Since then, I have, of course, seen that behavior repeated numerous times. But it is hardly confined to sports events.

And on the subject of dissent and television, let's return to the Vietnam War era. Younger Americans today may have a rather distorted sense of what happened when they see retrospective coverage of the domestic opposition to U.S policy. As with other issues, television takes a shortcut approach, presenting a dramatized, polarized portrayal. In these media portrayals, the opposition came from "demonstrations in the streets" and often focused on those very few who burned American flags or carried Viet Cong banners. The demonstrations were not unimportant, and particularly after the invasion of Cambodia in 1970, many Americans felt they had to march in order to show their opposition.

Dramatic and visually interesting as some of the demonstrations were, however, those video clips do not convey the broad-based and diverse individuals and groups that eventually coalesced against the war. Those dissenters in Congress and across the country who informed themselves and worked to change U.S. policy played a vital role.

Turning back to the current scene, we need reliable information and responsible citizen involvement. Engagement without accurate information is not responsible engagement. Anger and fear may provide motivation, but that motivation should be grounded in reality, not based on misleading talking points.

There is an honorable tradition of dissent in this country. However, that tradition is best represented not by mindless, knee-jerk opposition, but through thoughtful, informed dissent, based on realities and not on myths.

Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor and served as press secretary to Sen. J. William Fulbright, foreign/defense policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, and as chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. His column appears on Sundays.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/27/2009

Upcoming Events