Senator Robert La Follette

Senator Robert La Follette

A survey in 1987 asked Americans to name the best U.S. senators, based on their accomplishments.  Senator Robert La Follette took first place (tying with Henry Clay).  This is striking, given the vast unpopularity he faced when, in 1917, he was one of six members of the Senate to vote against President Wilson’s call for a declaration of war against Germany.  This of course, being the same Woodrow Wilson who, just the previous year, ran on the slogan, “He Kept Us Out Of War.”  So strong was the reaction to La Follette’s anti-war stance that President Roosevelt, a fellow liberal, called for his expulsion from the Senate and a Texas judge said that he was a traitor who ought to be shot.  Though, to be fair, Texas.

In the run-up to the war,  organizations throughout the world were pre-emptively standing against the possibility of war.  Many of these groups were socialist organizations or labor unions, among others, desperate to prevent a war that would only be a vehicle for bosses killing workers.  Throughout France, Germany, Canada, Russia and Britains, groups were organizing protests, demonstrating and making every effort to prevent what they viewed as another stretch of power from the overbearing elite class, using the workers of the world against each other. 

The United States, in its grip of fear brought on by the terror of potential communist uprisings cracked down on this dissent unilaterally.  With outspoken critics of the war being rounded up and sent to Alcatraz, deported or just plain killed.

La Follette’s observations are, in my opinion, mild.  He is attempting to persuade sympathy by relating the stories of his fellow Senators, in addition to neighbors and citizens who, in his mind, are blameless of everything but being patriotic.  He even goes so far as to intimate that American’s should, in fact, expect to lose  some rights.  He says in his speech: “I think all men recognize that in time of war the citizen must surrender some rights ... which he is entitled to enjoy in time of peace [emphasis mine].” The question this raises for me, is: just which rights must a person surrender?

Senator La Follette expands on this: “In the time of war, the citizen must be more alert to the preservation of his right to control his government [emphasis mine].”  That’s more like it.  The basic understanding is here that the liberals had been fighting for, for years.  It’s not about what the government expects from the common man.  In fact, it’s the other way around.  It’s your responsibility as a citizen to be alert that the government is representing you. 

Protesters of World War I

For so many in the country, this couldn’t be further from the truth, and if we’re going to stand by one of the building blocks of our country, we should be compelled to speak out when action is taken that we disagree with.  Further, not only is this acceptable in a time of war -- it’s essential.

The opposing view has one solitary thing going for it:  the off-chance that you think that, in this case, America can do no wrong.  The belief that American war is somehow immune to questioning and that, by even questioning its motives, you are literally a traitor.  Frankly, this weak argument not only doesn’t work, it is flatly insulting to any intelligent thinker.  Relying primarily on a sickening, jingoistic mantra of “us and them,” we are left with a sense of the country being invaded from the inside.

It's not that vague how is it reminiscent of the language used in the current battle over gun rights.  The parties have switched sides now, with the government representing the fundamental shift in ethics that is ‘threatening’ culture.  The enemy is the same, though: a communist dictatorship.  This time it’s hell-bent on taking your rifle so they can steal your land and the black president can force you into slavery.  

Obviously, I’m exaggerating.  Right?

The simple truth of this matter is that if someone attempts to attack the freedom of speech, they are attacking something bigger.  They are attacking the ability of the people to control the government.  They are literally attacking freedom, in no small way.  This extends into political discourse outside of war, of course.  If we are bullied into stifling our questions on the motives of war; if we are pushed to silence on issues of the heavy-handed governmental incarceration and assassination of dissenting voices, how can we expect any amount of reasonable discourse when we are electing officials to office?

It’s a shame that, when La Follette was speaking to the Senate, he didn’t have the oft-quoted statement that Larry Flynt made, “Freedom of speech doesn’t protect speech you like; it protects speech you don’t like.”

Eat the rich.