A few years ago Barack Obama made a comment that a good way to save gasoline would be for every american to check their tire pressure (low tire pressure of course, lowers gas mileage).
All the pundits on the “other side” hooted at this as a silly idea, saying it would never deal with the gas/energy problem. Basically, these are people who are anti-democratic party anything, and they derided this suggestion.
This is a classic example of what I shall call the “kneejerk putdown.” The idea itself is not being considered. The goal is the putdown. The imperfection and limitation of the idea, i.e., whatever is possibly or potentially wrong about it, is emphasized.
Now it’s true, tire pressure alone will not solve the energy problem. But it certainly can’t hurt. I’m not sure how much gas would be saved by everyone checking their tire pressure but I am willing to bet we would be talking millions of gallons. But the whole thing got dropped. This is a pity. Mrs. Obama’s attempts to teach kids about nutrition got a similar treatment. This kneejerk putdown of her opening a discussion of nutrition for children was going to happen no matter what, as people who are against the democratic party are looking for any excuse to criticize.
It’s not one sided, democrats do the same thing to good republican ideas too.
These kneejerk putdowns are a bane of our collective existence these days. No matter what idea anyone has, that idea will immediately be given the kneejerk putdown by anyone who has an agenda against the person putting the idea forward. If they do it well enough, the person who floated the idea will actually lose support generally. The end result is, there is a chilling effect on anyone offering any new ideas about anything, much less actually trying them out. There is an entire industry, both political and comedic, that lives to just jeer at any new idea.
In New York, Mayor Bloomberg is trying to pass a law against oversized softdrinks. I admit, it sounds a bit odd to me, but given the problem of obesity, I say, “hey, why not give it a try?” Worst case is, it doesn’t work and we go back to the drawing board.
In China, I am told they have this great system where they don’t do legislative experiments with the whole country. They test legislation in a limited area. If it doesn’t work, they toss it out. Why is it that when it comes to legislation, we don’t do trial runs with it first? This would have saved a lot of headaches, like, say, prohibition. And while we’re at it, how about trying out legalization of drugs?
Sadly, in a kneejerk putdown environment, we live with a sort of default censorship, as the only people who can freely express themselves are those who have the stomach to withstand this kind of shaming public put-down from strangers. You may have experienced this form of censorship yourself if you have ever gotten into an online discussion thread. There is always bully wanting to put everyone down. Everyone else gets offended and they walk away, the result being that communication stopped. This is dangerous.
I confess, when I first started writing my blogs and books, I was truly scared to death as to what sort of reaction they might receive. My fear of these putdowns made me hesitate to start voicing my opinion. I am human, I have feelings, I don’t wish to be caught saying something nonsensical, so I am always hesitant to present a new idea. But amazingly, I guess I am not famous enough to care about, no one ever devotes columns in major publications to saying I am an idiot. I will know I have arrived when they do.
There is a new class of people who are allowed to speak in public. It’s not just having access tot he microphone. It is those who are willing to withstand the onslaught of ridicule for whatever you say. If you don’t have that ability, you cannot be heard. The average citizen does not have the training or experience to do that, hence, they have lost their political voice. They may not be afraid of imprisonment, but the fear of being laughed at works just as well at maintaining their silence.
I forget which founding father said, “I disagree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” There is a new assault on free speech. It is not from the government, it is, however, from the agents of powerful forces who wish to suppress the free expression of new ideas. Many of them don’t even know that is what they are doing. They are merely acting as they have been acted upon.
We tend to look at free speech as some sort of odd right to vent your anger and throw eggs at anyone you don’t like. It’s not. It’s the right to express opinions that aren’t necessarily popular or convenient to the majority or to those in power. That freedom comes at the cost of having to be polite to people we vehemently disagree with. If we continue to allow the suppression of free speech via silently sitting back and allowing this rude vitriol to occur without calling it out, we run a terrible risk of having the same effect as censorship, i.e, a suppression of the free flow of ideas. It is essential that we have people willing to stand up and say “enough”and “have you no decency?” If we give a free hand to those who seek to gain power by shouting others down, we are submitting to a form of homegrown tyranny.
(c) Justin Locke
