Why did the
educated, propertied and influential white men gathered at Philadelphia to
write a constitution value freedom of
expression so highly that they explicitly included it in the document that
founded the United States of America?
The public school rationale
provided to American students teaches that under the British governing system,
freedom of expression was suppressed. British citizens enjoyed informally
defined degrees of free expression depending on their social and/or economic
rank in society, with poorer folk who depended upon the wealthier for their
livelihoods required to hold their tongues for much of their lives.
The men who
have come to be known as our founding fathers attempted to create a country in
which citizens, regardless of economic or social class, would have the legal
right to express their thoughts and feelings about anything—as long as such
expression did not encourage others to become violent, or lead to mass hysteria
that could cause bodily harm to others. In other words: even in America it is
wrong to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre and cause a stampede for the
doors.
Since this
country’s inception, citizens have had the opportunity to experience and
observe how well the concept of freedom of expression is working in our
country. Writers such as Noam Chomsky have observed that freedom of expression
without the opportunity to effect real political or economic change offers only
limited power to those exercising their lungs. One person’s voice or even the
voices of thousands raised on a public square for many weeks lack the
persuasive power of those whose voices are expressed through incredible
economic power.
Making
noise does not equal the ability to make change—at least not as our country’s
system currently exists. Or, if looking at this reality from a slightly more
hopeful point of view, making noise to effect change takes a lot longer than
making change using economic influence.
Freedom of expression could be a far
more influential right if people burrowed a little more deeply into this idea.
Why is it so important for people to have this freedom? Is it simply, as some
psychologists suggest, a right that allows people to communicate who they are?
Is freedom of expression what allows citizens to feel they are living authentic
lives, rather than moving through their days wearing masks of compliance? And
if those who wield economic power endure the free expression of those who work
for them, do they really have much to lose when they grit their teeth and
suffer through outbursts or written communications with which they disagree?
In a system that permits freedom of
expression but expects those who are dissatisfied with the political, social or
economic system to wait lifetimes before change happens, citizens enjoy a
hollow right. Sadly, freedom of
expression is often a constitutional guarantee that seems important but, in
reality, often substitutes for real change.
Consider how long it took before
blacks or women were granted the right to vote in this country. Consider how
temporary changes that improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans really
are when a vote by elected representatives or appointed judges—who are part of
a powerful economic class or who are influenced by the political contributions
from powerful economic entities—can undo progress that took decades to put in
place. This year the Voting Rights Act that at least attempted to protect the
voices of blacks in our country has been undermined. Decades of work designed
to give blacks a voice in their states is threatened.
Freedom
of expression serves the majority of people in the United States only if
the thoughtfulness, commitment and courage required for such expression are understood as first steps in the process of shared governance. When the vast
majority of people in a country come to a consensus about a problem
and—let us hope—a shared sense of how to address the problem, they should be
able to trust that elected representatives put into office with their votes
will effect change that expresses the will of the people.
But citizens in our country can
rely on no such reality. Instead, exercising one’s right to freedom of expression at this point in
our country’s history has become, at worst, an unsatisfying panacea or, at
best, a right whose power is valued so much less than the power of many dollars
gathered into a bank account. The right to exert economic influence has
effectively diffused majority voices in our country, like the roar of a crowd
swept away by a stiff wind.
Freedom
of expression, unfortunately, often resembles the circuses of classical
Rome, where the many enjoyed an afternoon of spectacle and filled their
stomachs with free bread only to return to their difficult lives when the
circus was over. The thrill experienced by those who attend protests in
Washington D.C.? Those who devote their limited budgets and their time to
express themselves do so hoping that if their numbers are great enough and
their voices loud enough they will somehow force politicians to change policy
positions so that the needs of the many are finally taken into account. But how
long must they wait for such changes! When such protests focus on one issue at
a time, years will be needed to bring positive change to our country. And many
of us understand that our country just doesn’t have that kind of time to turn
life around.
Freedom
of expression has been gutted because this right of ours currently has
little power to affect economic interests in our country. In fact, even our
elected representatives have little power over economic interests that now
circle the globe.
I have written this before and I
will write it here again: a country that lacks the power to control economic
interests within the country—even if those interests do business in other parts
of the world—has lost the true power to govern. Such a country’s political
system is most accurately described as being in service to economic interests
that are more powerful than political leaders.
It is also patently obvious that safeguarding economic interests in our country will not improve the lives of the majority--no matter how often corporations or economic experts insist such a linkage exists. Safeguarding economic interests increases corporate profits. And increasing corporate power makes these entities even more likely to put us at risk in ways too numerous to count.
We must, as a people, look long and
hard at the true nature of governance in our country. We can’t hope to improve
the rights of blacks, latinos, working people, poor people, women, children, or
the environment if each issue competes with others to get the attention of
politicians and somehow convince them to do the right thing. But if all of us
who are suffering in one way or another came together and recognized that the
political/economic system as it currently exists is at the heart of our
problem—if we devised ways to disentangle ourselves from this system—we would discover
how we can understand and empathize with each other. If we learned to join
forces, we would find at last how to speak with one voice.
Freedom
of expression offers us most power when citizens speak with a voice that is
as united as the voices of economic interests. There is no equivalent to an MBA
for citizen activism. We must teach ourselves how to come together. Our
willingness to do so presents the only obstacle to our success.
Attempts to do this are already
beginning in several places in our country. In many states, there are People’s
Action organizations. Illinois People’s Action brings activists together to
work on environmental, socio-economic and political issues http://www.illinoispeoplesaction.org/.
In Washington citizens have formed the Working Family’s Party http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/.
In Florida, there is discussion about a party that will be called the New
Congress Party http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-New-Congress-Party-a-by-Roger-Copple-Democracy_Education_Happiness_Health-130907-817.html.
Chris Williams has written at Climate and Capitalism an article titled,
“Strategy and Tactics in the Environmental Movement,” http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/09/21/strategy-tactics-environmental-movement/
partly a response to statements by Naomi Klein about the complicated relationship
between environmental activists and labor http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/.
And recently, the author Frances Moore Lappé has written “Before You Give Up on
Democracy, Read This!” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frances-moore-lappe/before-you-give-up-on-democracy_b_3915901.html
about the need to link ecological and socio-political concerns together. These
writers are asking difficult questions about how our country currently
disempowers so many of us and how we might look critically at the forces that
stand in our way.
It is not un-American to look
critically at the country we live in—to do this work is the most patriotic action
we can take. To re-imagine how we might govern ourselves, taking into account
how economic power is added to the equation, is the stuff of citizenship. Our
country is the sum of our people, the living plants and animals within our
borders, and the land on which all of us live. If there are economic entities
in our country that seem very powerful, we must remember that they were
imagined and built by citizens. The entities are only real as long as our laws
give them the right to exist. Citizens write laws. We need to redefine our
country so that citizens, not economic interests, have voices powerful enough
to bring positive change to what is truly our country.
Most importantly, we need to bring
our most positive efforts to working together. We cannot afford to stand
divided anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment