What Did You Say?

http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/needed-reminder-dissent-debate-healthy-byproduct-freedom/#QJroY7RkmsTv0Zql.99

By Michelle Zook / 9 April 2014

There’s a phrase, often misattributed to Voltaire, which goes something along the lines of, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” While the author of the quote is probably lost to history, there is a lesson to be learned from this: dissent is healthy, but forced agreement stifles liberty.

America is not Nazi Germany or communist Russia. We should not fear government agents lurking about everywhere we go. Neither, however, should we fear each other or each other’s ideas. The forced resignation of the Mozilla CEO this weekend is just another in a long line of popular culture attempting to dictate what is thought, what is said, and what is written. Why must everyone conform to the same line of thought? More importantly, why must there be sanctions or punishments when we do not conform?

I understand that everyone has their own ideas, their line in the sand where they say, “This far and no more.” But we should at least be willing to respect that others have a similar boundary in their individual lives, and that when our boundaries collide, we owe it to each other—and to society as a whole—to have a civil, open debate, and to tolerate dissent.

In the last decade, we’ve seen party lines widen and harden. America is perhaps more polarized than any other time in its history. Even within the GOP, there is talk of a civil war with battle lines being drawn between the party’s social conservatives, neo-conservatives, establishment wing, and the libertarian Goldwater wing (if there’s talk of such an inner ideological war on the left, it’s not so obvious).

Why are we so afraid to sit down and talk? Why must it immediately become a shout-fest, and then we insult each other, and then no one changes anyone’s mind? The GOP can be just as guilty of this as the Democrats; while as of late the left’s hill to die on seems to be gay rights, the right prefers to crucify people over lack of conformity to issues such as immigration, marijuana decriminalization or individual rights.

Now, there are indeed many who view these as important societal issues with serious long-term ramifications for the nation as a whole. And, yes, these issues are—but please realize that these are exactly the feelings that those opposing you may have, too, or that those advocating for gay rights probably do have (and if your immediate response, rather than to sit down and discuss this, is to shout “YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG!”, then you’re as much a part of the problem as the Mozilla board, and thank you for your tolerance).

I’m not asking for anyone to concede ground. What I am asking, instead, is that we allow a free exchange of ideas and have a civil, intelligent debate. Decisions and policy are not made lightly or in vacuums. Informed policy is like a good wine; it needs room to breathe, something we cannot have if the environment is too stifled for either side to present options or arguments.

While the Mozilla issue of this weekend brings this sharply to the forefront, it is going to become even more of an issue as candidates begin to step forward for presidential primaries. We need to allow our inner debates to continue, civilly and intelligently, rather than try to shout each other down or just dismiss ideas offhand.

It’s time that both Right and Left remembered that dissent and debate are healthy by-products of a free, open society—and take a long look at the examples in history of those on either end of the political spectrum who decided only one point of view was worth being heard.