Personal Dissent
Not exactly what you'd call a rant, is it? Anyone who's watched Penn and Teller's Bulls***! over the years knows how easily Penn can tear someone (or their ideas and beliefs) a new asshole when he's worked up about something. So I was struck by the almost apologetic tone to the video.
Of course, what he's talking about isn't really political dissent at all. This is about dissenting from your friends and associates, all those people you have to talk to and work with every day. This is dissent of the personal kind, the kind that can cost you jobs, money, and friendships.
Personally, I would have preferred a rant but maybe it's a little early for that. Still, I appreciate (and pretty much agree with) his comments and beliefs and I admire his willingness to go on the record with them. (h/t Big Hollywood)
posted by VermontGuy @ 5:48 AM
3 Comments:
Very good point about the difference between public dissent and personal dissent. Everyone is still welcome to write a letter to a newspaper advocating any viewpoint. It's when you air a viewpoint in a social setting -- or in a workplace setting -- that you get in trouble.
Also, I think that Obama's demand for "bipartisanship" (which may turn out to be honest in some cases, but in the case of the stimulus bill simply means "I expect the Republicans to vote for this Democratic piece of legislation") serves to cast the Republicans as obstructionists -- or even traitors -- rather than a loyal opposition.
"Bipartisanship" is just another political hammer people try to beat the other side with. So far, Obama is the least bipartisan President we've had since Reagan, at least. At least we're regularly seeing the political spectacle of Democrats saying people who disagree with them aren't patriotic.
As far as dissent being patriotic, that never made any sense. The right to dissent is central to a free society, but that doesn't mean any criticism, or boosterism for that matter, is a good thing.
I'm generally skeptical about happy, cozy bipartisanship, because I think politics is a bloodsport. However, these critiques of Obama are off-base. Obama seriously courted the Republicans on this stimulus bill, incorporating many of their suggestions without getting virtually any of their votes. He was hoping for a bipartisan bill, or he would not have spoken of "80 votes" -- which later caused him embarrasment when he got only 3 Republican senators. The Republicans thought at first that they might participate, but then made a cynical decision that, since he didn't actually have to have their votes to pass it, they could hedge their political bets by hoping for its failure to cure the economy. (If he'd needed them, my guess is they would have found more votes rather than be the cause of its not passing. Also, if it were a Republican administration, they would have passed it.) They figured, if it does well, he'll get the credit not us, so we'll have to hope for it to fail.
By the way, if we're talking partisan administrations, it seems like everyone is forgetting the first several years of the Bush administration, when they had high approval ratings. (The last couple of years of dismal ratings have eclipsed this in our collective memory, apparently.) How about running off a Republican senator when he votes with the Democrats? How about instructing all the lobbyist firms that they could kiss their contacts good-bye if they didn't fire all their Democrats? Do you all remember how the Dixie Chicks were practically run off the planet for criticizing Bush? It took several years for the other side to muster the courage to argue that "Dissent is patriotic." That's where the argument comes from, remember? No one could dissent unscathed for about 4 years following September 11th.
Post a Comment
<< Home