Progress Through Perspective and Patience
May. 26th, 2004 09:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ursangnomeDiscussions elsewhere have inspired some thoughts...
Folks in Boston are annoyed. Cops are starting to ask for ID on the subway. For the Democratic National Convention this summer, the Powers That Be are imposing some godawful traffic restrictions in the evenings. We protest these things, because they are both inconvenient and ideologically questionable.
Well, you know what? On the scale of draconian measures, these are small potatoes. We haven't even seen the slightest bit of infringement of rights and inconvenience, compared to the sort of stuff that drove my grandparents from their homeland. Folks who weren't in places like the Soviet Union in the 50's through the mid-80's really don't have much of a clue (and that includes myself, by the way).
The United States of America has been blissfully safe for a century. For a while, there was a powerful nuclear threat, but it was also vague and distant. There's be no threat of substance to our home and soil for a good long time now, and so that's made us forget. Freedom is not easy, quick, and convenient, as if it came from McDonald's. Freedom doesn't come instant-gratification style. Gaining and holding freedom is bloody, sweaty, conceptually difficult work that takes time.
Folks gripe a great deal about how poorly the Administration is handling things. But we ought to think for a moment - right now, facing a new sort of threat that defies our systems, even a perfectly sane Administration would be in a bind. The Public Needs, Public Wants, and Public Rights now form a competing triad. And it winds up rather like juggling flaming chainsaws to come up with policy.
The public needs to be protected - but good protection is probably invisible, and infringes on rights. The public wants to feel protected - but the measures that you see invariably don't work well, and if you see it that means that someone's gotten their toes stepped upon. The public has rights of privacy, free speech, and the like - but how can they wrap you in a visible and warm protective blanket while allowing you to roam around at will, how can they catch the bad guys without the occasional problem for a few nice folks too?
Even an intelligent, benevolent Administration would need some trial and error to work through the conundrums. There'd be some false starts, a few bungles and blunders. Freedom is cool in theory, but the practical considerations are legion. Public patience is required.
Which is not to say that we need to put up with a less than sane and intelligent Administration. We still need to resist impositions and demand policy that works. But we need to do so politely and patiently. Our freedom and safety are worth mild temporary inconvenience. We still live in one of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most free nations on the planet. To keep it that way, we must respond to adversity with a certain amount of decorum.
So, if the cop asks you for your ID, don't give him a hard time. That'll give you a visceral satisfaction, but it isn't constructive. The cop on the street doesn't set the policy. Refuse him politely, stating your reasons, and let things move along. When faced with horrendous traffic, keep your head on your shoulders. Being a jerk on the road will only make things worse, cheese off your fellow inconvenienced citizens, and give the cops ulcers.
And in November, go to the polls, and vote for someone sane and intelligent, please.
Folks in Boston are annoyed. Cops are starting to ask for ID on the subway. For the Democratic National Convention this summer, the Powers That Be are imposing some godawful traffic restrictions in the evenings. We protest these things, because they are both inconvenient and ideologically questionable.
Well, you know what? On the scale of draconian measures, these are small potatoes. We haven't even seen the slightest bit of infringement of rights and inconvenience, compared to the sort of stuff that drove my grandparents from their homeland. Folks who weren't in places like the Soviet Union in the 50's through the mid-80's really don't have much of a clue (and that includes myself, by the way).
The United States of America has been blissfully safe for a century. For a while, there was a powerful nuclear threat, but it was also vague and distant. There's be no threat of substance to our home and soil for a good long time now, and so that's made us forget. Freedom is not easy, quick, and convenient, as if it came from McDonald's. Freedom doesn't come instant-gratification style. Gaining and holding freedom is bloody, sweaty, conceptually difficult work that takes time.
Folks gripe a great deal about how poorly the Administration is handling things. But we ought to think for a moment - right now, facing a new sort of threat that defies our systems, even a perfectly sane Administration would be in a bind. The Public Needs, Public Wants, and Public Rights now form a competing triad. And it winds up rather like juggling flaming chainsaws to come up with policy.
The public needs to be protected - but good protection is probably invisible, and infringes on rights. The public wants to feel protected - but the measures that you see invariably don't work well, and if you see it that means that someone's gotten their toes stepped upon. The public has rights of privacy, free speech, and the like - but how can they wrap you in a visible and warm protective blanket while allowing you to roam around at will, how can they catch the bad guys without the occasional problem for a few nice folks too?
Even an intelligent, benevolent Administration would need some trial and error to work through the conundrums. There'd be some false starts, a few bungles and blunders. Freedom is cool in theory, but the practical considerations are legion. Public patience is required.
Which is not to say that we need to put up with a less than sane and intelligent Administration. We still need to resist impositions and demand policy that works. But we need to do so politely and patiently. Our freedom and safety are worth mild temporary inconvenience. We still live in one of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most free nations on the planet. To keep it that way, we must respond to adversity with a certain amount of decorum.
So, if the cop asks you for your ID, don't give him a hard time. That'll give you a visceral satisfaction, but it isn't constructive. The cop on the street doesn't set the policy. Refuse him politely, stating your reasons, and let things move along. When faced with horrendous traffic, keep your head on your shoulders. Being a jerk on the road will only make things worse, cheese off your fellow inconvenienced citizens, and give the cops ulcers.
And in November, go to the polls, and vote for someone sane and intelligent, please.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 07:12 am (UTC)My point was not that they did the same things we are doing now. My point was that they did much worse things.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 11:15 am (UTC)At the same time, though, I react fairly strongly to this statement:
Our freedom and safety are worth mild temporary inconvenience.
While this is probably true, it's true only if the inconveniences *do* actually facilitate freedom and safety.
The thing is, people get inured to this kind of thing. When there's one little erosion of personal liberty after another, a certain fatigue sets in -- a sense of "what's one more little inconvenience?". As far as I'm concerned, that's where the real danger lies: not in the restriction of the day (random ID checks on the subway), but in the casual *acceptance* of the underlying memes there.
In other words, the reason to protest these measures actively is less to protest any single measure, as to keep people from getting into the habit of blind acceptance. If the government is going to move in the direction of restrictions on civil liberties (and I believe it's inevitable that they will for at least the foreseeable future), then it's important to hold them to high standards of necessity and effectiveness. And in general, you have to hit politicians with a 2x4, repeatedly, before they're going to get that particular message.
I think I'm just emphasizing things differently than you are. You're focusing on the point that we should be civilized in this process, which I agree with. But we should also be consistent, firm and clear about our concerns, and those concerns need to be articulated frequently, not just at the polls...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 12:49 pm (UTC)Yes. However, it is perhaps important to realize that failed experiments facilitate freedom and safety. There's only so much that can be done on the drawing board. Occasionally, one needs a field experiment. We need to put up with these, too, and give them time to prove their failure and show the results.
The upcoming disruption of Boston traffic is probably a good example. It certainly wil not make us notably more safe. It might make us feel more safe, but it infringes on our rights in attempting to do so. Presumably, some yutz planner got it in his head that the infringement would be worth it.
Well, let them give it a shot. I expect they'll quickly learn that the cost to the city is too great. Having learned that lesson, they will hopefully know better than to try similar things elsewhere. Sure, we could have told them this right off, but frequently a prediction is insufficient. Proof is occasionally required before something the size of a government is willing to believe. And Boston is the guinea pig.
I think I'm just emphasizing things differently than you are.
Yes. My thought is that temperance is key. Aside from the simple idea of being courteous to one's neighbors, excessively rude resistance makes one look like a hothead, knee-jerk or radical objector, and those are easy to dismiss. You don't want to be labelled "just another wacko".
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 03:29 pm (UTC)I wish I had your faith that they will learn from the lesson -- my suspicion is that they will say, "Look: no one got killed!" and treat the whole thing as a rousing success. But perhaps I'm being excessively cynical...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 05:03 pm (UTC)Proof is occasionally required. Proof is not sufficient. Honestly, I don't think the current Administration is capable of learning much of anything. But the next Administration will be in a position to learn, if they choose to try. That's what I'm banking on...