LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth |
CAMPTalk: Jingoist Bells |
by Bill Sievert |
"Where's your patriotism?" demanded the hawker with an armful of clip-on flags as he pounded on my car window while I was stopped at a traffic light. "I don't want my window washed!" I barked back, pretending not to notice his true purpose. "Geez, this guy doesn't want to fly our flag," the hawker hollered, sauntering toward the car behind me the only other vehicle among a half dozen or so at the busy intersection without something red-white-and blue hooked, tied or glued to it. Ah, the joys of a society in the throes of unbridled national chauvinism, where the ringing sounds of the holiday season often are jingoist bells. The owner of a shop in my quaint Florida town is told by the Chamber of Commerce that all store windows should be decorated in red-white-and blue for Christmas this year; he went ahead and put up the purple and silver ornamentation he had ordered months earlier. My sister in Louisville is criticized for being the only person in her office to refuse to place a company-distributed flag decal on her car. "I might have gone along with it just to keep everyone happy, if my car wasn't brand new," she says. "But now they're threatening to march out to the parking lot and paste one on for me. I don't even want to put an AAA sticker on it yet." Of course, she shouldn't have to put a flag on her Honda. No one should feel so intimidated that they drape their doors in Old Glory bunting just because everyone else on the block is doing it. But, these are trying times in which all too many Americans are forgetting the very principles upon which their country was founded. It's not easy being a civil-libertarian right now. Not with so many radio talk-show jocks harping that anyone who questions the Administration's military approach to terrorism is a "lily livered pansy." Not with the nation's clever corporate giants demanding that we must buy their products to prove we're proud Americans. Not with John Ashcroft salivating over his chance of a lifetime to increase the federal government's power over the people to pry into our computers and tap any of our phones in the guise of searching for evil doers. We've been down this road before, with Joe McCarthy's anti-Commie crusade in the 50's and pretty-in-pink J. Edgar's spy campaigns against dissenters in the 60's. It takes a long time to retrieve our personal rights once the government has trounced on them. Certainly, at a point in history when a small number of madmen have attacked our shores, there is a need for heightened security and the accompanying inconveniences we're all learning to tolerate at airports, concert halls and ballparks. But the kinds of changes the Bush administration has been pushing through Congress, giving federal agents more eavesdropping powers, are broadly worded and pose very real threats to every one of us. "So much of the way we communicate today is on cell phones or by computer, and we have a right to privacy," Alan Lunin, chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union in Central Florida, recently told me during a discussion of the real dangers facing our nation. "We can't allow the government to charge people [with a crime] for simply expressing their thoughts. When I balance my checkbook on my home computer or when I send an e-mail correspondence to an acquaintance, the government damned well better have a search warrant before it intercepts my thoughts." Unfortunately, with almost no Congressional opposition, that's no longer the law. Still, many people argue that, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Not so, says Lunin. "There's a crucial principle at stake." But he admits that protection of our rights is a tough sell at this moment in time: "The most important thing we can do is to keep reminding people what it is we're truly fighting for. We're willing to fight because we hold our rights so dearly. We shouldn't be willing to give any of them away too readily." America may well be united on the need to protect ourselves from terrorists, butafter even a few short weeks of military actionthere are growing ripples of dissent as to how to go about it. There are even those who in good conscience believe that waging war is not the answer. The number of people who have questions about the administration's policies will certainly grow as the clock and the war wind on. The rising public debate will be most appropriate in a free society, and no one should feel (or be) threatened for letting his or her views known. It was a sad moment during the recent concert at Madison Square Garden to honor New York firefighters and police when a sizeable number in the audience roundly booed actor Richard Gere for expressing the anti-war views of his Buddhist religion. Likewise, it is disheartening to hear of Arab-Americans and Muslims being insulted or attacked, peace demonstrators being beaten, or newspaper writers being fired for opining something not in accord with the new political correctness. (At one publication I work for, a columnist has received several threats from readers for reporting that there are reasons many people in the Arab world don't particularly like the United States.) It is important for those who boo at Buddhists or hurl epithets on talk shows or ridicule their fellow citizens for not flapping flags from their car windows to keep one thing in mind: Their right to be rude is protected because our country is based on principles of free expressioneven for those with whom they disagree. Usually at this time of year, it's appropriate to greet one another with warm wishes of Peace on Earth. But, considering the pro-war temperament (and hot tempers) in our nation, that kind of talk could get a guy in trouble. Oh, well. Peace on earth, and good will to all anyway. |
LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth, Vol. 11, No. 15, November 21, 2001. |