Dissent - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[Guest TNSovereignty]

There's been some discussion in other threads about 'dissent'; it seems to be in the American mindset that dissent is a good thing, which is slightly inaccurate unless there are some boundaries & modifiers to outline what we consider 'good.'  And there have been others that like to argue that all opinions are valuable, which is another inaccuracy.  I'm going to take a shot at defining good vs bad dissent/opinion; others will have shades of gray that aren't as stark as my rather stark black/white.  And we won't get anywhere with the dialogue unless we can agree on a presupposition - there is such a thing as absolute truth.  If you're a relativist please start your own thread.

 

There's this quote that I think is sometimes attributed to Jefferson, which isn't really true, but is dated back to the 60s era:  "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."  Think that through folks.  I think that statement is bunk, at least when stated as an absolute without defining what type of dissent we're talking about.

 

I would agree, most here would agree, and I believe the Founders would agree, that dissent is a great thing when exercised on behalf of individual liberty.  Actually, liberty cannot survive without good dissent.  This is the kind of dissent we can all get behind, we can call it 'good': 

This brave man is making the same dissenting statement as Patrick Henry's close to a great speech - "Give me liberty or give me death."  Another great case study in brave dissent is Dietrich Bonhoeffer ... read up on this guy and his "treason" against Germany.  In truth, he was treasonous against Hitler, but a patriot on behalf of Germany.  Doesn't all good dissent come down to a similar paradox?  You take a stand against tyranny, are branded a neanderthal idiot by the masses, but the liberty-minded support you as a patriot.  History always comes down on the right side of good dissent.

 

Here's another example of good dissent:

This is a young MLK being arrested for having an opinion on behalf of liberty.  His opinion ran contrary to the majority at the time, angered the politicians, and landed him in jail.  But when the vast majority of his stances/opinions were compared alongside the Constitution, they were (eventually) found to be valid & true.  Good dissent on behalf of liberty.  Good dissent is invariably true truth ... it is logical & consistent.  Good dissent is supportive of the Constitution's intent to preserve & advance liberty.

 

In my opinion, here's an example of dissent that many here might think was treasonous.  Some of the 60s protesters were most certainly treasonous, but many DID have an understanding of the Constitution & made foreign policy arguments that Vietnam was an unconstitutional war:

This is a type of dissent that's hard to characterize.  This picture (for me) seems to capture raw emotion instead of a foreign policy statement.  I think this picture offers a gray area ... hard to discern without knowing the motives of the marchers.  Those who lived through this period of history would probably agree that most dissenters belonged to the ignorant mass ... but their flames were fanned by those who hated liberty & saw an opportunity to translate this raw emotion into a liberty-bashing power grab.

 

Here's the 20th century king of American dissent.  He's the godfather of Obama-style community organizing.  His name was Saul Alinsky.  Read about this man, because he's still influencing the socialist agenda.  He wrote the 'how-to' book on dissent, American style.  It's treasonous dissent.

Alinksy's style of dissent is bad, very bad.  He wanted to slowly destabilize America, dupe them with feel-good proposals, instigate class warfare, and psychologically undermine the people's understanding of their Constitution.  So sure, his dissent, in and of itself, was protected First Amendment, and rightly so.  But we can still call it BAD dissent.  

 

More bad dissent:  masses of people fired by emotion, ignorant of the Constitution, with a desire to run roughshod over those they disagree with.  These are victims of the Alinsky school ... people unable to think on their own two feet, with a voracious appetite for propagandized news and a hunger for security vice liberty.

Just because these people are ignorant of history & illiterate on their Constitution doesn't mean they're bad people.  People are not the enemy, it is their wrongheaded ideas.  This is more dissent that is constitutionally protected - well & good - but that doesn't mean we don't brand their opinions as bad, dangerous, or stupid.  

 

I'll leave 'ugly' dissent to one's imagination ... I think of Hitler in the 20s & early 30s.  Ugly dissent starts off with a nice candy wrapper of nationalism, and ends with absolute tyranny.  The proverbial #*%@Twinkie.

 

Well, I'm standing by for the potshots.  This is not a well thought out term paper ... it needs your refinements.  But once we have this particular issue hashed out, maybe THEN we can understand one another when we throw around words like 'treasonous' or 'traitor' when talking of those who wish to strip further liberties from the people.  Anti-liberty dissent is absolutely traitorous to a free people.  Doesn't mean there should be a public hanging, but it does mean that we should be prepared to call a spade a shovel in the court of public opinion.  Unless anyone here wants to start calling guys like Judas or Benedict Arnold mere dissenters ;)

 

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You did a very good job on that. I wouldn't be expecting any pot shots. Those were good examples. Dissent, in it's correct

form is patriotic, not altruistic, or not a bunch of stoned out hippies with communism on their minds protesting Vietnam.

That young Chinese dissident was a shot heard around the world. It showed the cowardice of the red masters in China.

 

I like it!

[hipower]

Wow. Well thought out and very well stated. Truly am humbled. I wish I could present my own thoughts as well.

[mcurrier]

Bravo.  Clear and concise.

[Will H]

Very well written.  

Edited January 10, 2013 by Will H

[Guest TNSovereignty]

You did a very good job on that. I wouldn't be expecting any pot shots. 

Well, thanks for the support, but I took a LOT of potshots when I made a statement elsewhere that Gen McChrystal's anti-gun statement was treasonous.  Others prefer to soften my charge, in my opinion, as mere dissent, as if that's a great thing that tends to strengthen our nation & culture.  Gen McChrystal may be a fine guy, would love to have a beer with him & see if he'd backpedal from his unconstitutional stance on "black" guns.  But he made an oath to a principle that he either doesn't understand or is knowingly trying to undermine ... at best, that's 'bad' dissent.  But the profession of arms is a higher calling, particularly for flag officers.  So I label his statement as stupid (not in a childish sense, but merely unintelligent) and treasonous.  

 

I think it's worth defining terms & thinking through these issues.  Always easier to define/categorize the issues of history than current events because emotion tends to transcend logic & ruthless consistency.  

[jdogvol]

Stated more simply, "Good dissent advances the cause of liberty, bad dissent retards it."

[seez52]

I love TGO!

[Wheelgunner]

@ TNSovereignty - Is it safe to say then that good dissent is composed of certain elements? Say, good dissent requires courage, individual critical thinking, and a solid understanding of the Constitution? Are those the right elements?

If so, then knowing those elements could help us identify the flaws in our adversaries' philosophies. That would make it really easy to quickly point out to a misguided individual the flaws in his position and thus begin to win him over with right thinking.

E.g. "What you're saying shows that you've read a lot about the purposivist method of constitutional interpretation. And the fact that you're saying your comments here in this debate shows the courage behind your conviction. But good dissent also requires individual work. Tell me about the critical analysis you've done on your own. In other words, why don't you adhere to a different school, like the textual interpretation for example?"

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, thanks for the support, but I took a LOT of potshots when I made a statement elsewhere that Gen McChrystal's anti-gun statement was treasonous.  Others prefer to soften my charge, in my opinion, as mere dissent, as if that's a great thing that tends to strengthen our nation & culture.  Gen McChrystal may be a fine guy, would love to have a beer with him & see if he'd backpedal from his unconstitutional stance on "black" guns.  But he made an oath to a principle that he either doesn't understand or is knowingly trying to undermine ... at best, that's 'bad' dissent.  But the profession of arms is a higher calling, particularly for flag officers.  So I label his statement as stupid (not in a childish sense, but merely unintelligent) and treasonous.  

 

I think it's worth defining terms & thinking through these issues.  Always easier to define/categorize the issues of history than current events because emotion tends to transcend logic & ruthless consistency.  

I agree with you about the General's stance, also. It may have been politically motivated for possibly a reason I don't know,

but it is still wrong.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

@ TNSovereignty - Is it safe to say then that good dissent is composed of certain elements? Say, good dissent requires courage, individual critical thinking, and a solid understanding of the Constitution? Are those the right elements?

If so, then knowing those elements could help us identify the flaws in our adversaries' philosophies. That would make it really easy to quickly point out to a misguided individual the flaws in his position and thus begin to win him over with right thinking.

E.g. "What you're saying shows that you've read a lot about the purposivist method of constitutional interpretation. And the fact that you're saying your comments here in this debate shows the courage behind your conviction. But good dissent also requires individual work. Tell me about the critical analysis you've done on your own. In other words, why don't you adhere to a different school, like the textual interpretation for example?"

Good thoughts; I like your list of elements.  I think listing the characteristics of good dissent (e.g. courage) is helpful.  That helps us get away from the cliche "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."  It's a pithy cliche but doesn't mean anything unless we have an intelligent understanding of dissent and clearly defined terms of patriotism. 

 

The flaws in our adversaries, in my opinion, always boils down to their underlying presuppositions and motives.  If we're dealing only with a 'misguided' adversary who also happens to believe in absolute truth, then yes, that individual may be won over with a persuasive lesson on facts, history, logic, etc.  There are quite a few of these folks out there that we can reach; the Founders worked this angle to good effect, but that was a far different culture.  Unfortunately most of our adversaries no longer share the Judeo-Christian worldview of a Sovereign God, absolute truth, etc.  Today's prevailing presupposition is man-centered (i.e. humanist), resulting from a belief in mechanistic evolution and pure 'chance' ... your truth isn't my truth.  You don't win arguments with relativists. 

 

My own critical analysis?  Textualist vs Purposivist?  Have read about these judicial philosophies & it's beyond me ... I incline to Originalism - the Constitution was written for the people - not the courts, not the elite.  It was written in clear language for the citizenry, or at least a citizenry that will take the time to read it.  I leave the Textualist/Purposivist debate to those with more intelligence like you & Justice Scalia :)  

[DMark]

And then there is Dissent that Destroys.

 

To understand Obama...., Study Alinsky.

 

Obama first learned Alinsky’s rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid Obama as a community organizer in South Side Chicago …In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,” …he traveled to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics. Obama also taught Alinsky’s “Power Analysis” methods at the University of Chicago.

 

 

Saul Alinsky wrote that the key to weaken — then take over America, its economy and its people — is to “destroy the middle class.” Alinsky advocated use of class and race warfare. He believed that “wealth redistribution,” taking from those who work and giving it to those who don’t, is the catalyst to bring down the U.S. economy and free-market capitalism. After four years in office, Obama is well on his way to doing just that. Alinsky’s socialist guidebook is embedded in Obama’s record of economic policies that he has visited upon all Americans and their families — specifically the “middle class.”

 

This is who Obama is.  This is his radical ideology.

 

 

[mcurrier]

0bama should get the Alinksy Prize for being a good little Alinsky student.  He got this one.

 

[Guest semiautots]

A good representation of dissent.  Thanks for your work.

 

I might pose a question.  When does dissent transform into action?  Is dissent verbal or muscular?  Is dissent a tool to organize or is it individual action?  Grand orators are grand orators.  Most do not actually "do".  For us, will it dissent mean verbiage, or will it mean ignoring obviously unConstitutional laws/regulations?

 

And if we ignore these laws, how will we react?

 

After living through the 1994 AWB, I observed much verbal discussion of "rights", but not much action.  Are we now any different?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good thoughts; I like your list of elements.  I think listing the characteristics of good dissent (e.g. courage) is helpful.  That helps us get away from the cliche "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."  It's a pithy cliche but doesn't mean anything unless we have an intelligent understanding of dissent and clearly defined terms of patriotism. 

 

The flaws in our adversaries, in my opinion, always boils down to their underlying presuppositions and motives.  If we're dealing only with a 'misguided' adversary who also happens to believe in absolute truth, then yes, that individual may be won over with a persuasive lesson on facts, history, logic, etc.  There are quite a few of these folks out there that we can reach; the Founders worked this angle to good effect, but that was a far different culture.  Unfortunately most of our adversaries no longer share the Judeo-Christian worldview of a Sovereign God, absolute truth, etc.  Today's prevailing presupposition is man-centered (i.e. humanist), resulting from a belief in mechanistic evolution and pure 'chance' ... your truth isn't my truth.  You don't win arguments with relativists. 

 

My own critical analysis?  Textualist vs Purposivist?  Have read about these judicial philosophies & it's beyond me ... I incline to Originalism - the Constitution was written for the people - not the courts, not the elite.  It was written in clear language for the citizenry, or at least a citizenry that will take the time to read it.  I leave the Textualist/Purposivist debate to those with more intelligence like you & Justice Scalia :)

Good points. The minimalists, or originalists believe in those rights coming from our creator and the least laws to get in the way of society. The positivists, or

purposivist(hadn't heard it that way) believe all rights come from government. That's really simple enough and Scalia doesn't need to interpret, but I am glad

he is of the former. It's so amazing how clear language gets interpreted so differently from one group to another.