Democratic Irony

I, like every other person on this earth, have my own beliefs on controversial issues facing the world.  While my convictions may be strong on certain issues, I wouldn’t dare to challenge another person’s right to an opinion.  Doing so would inhibit freedom of speech, which in my opinion, is the cornerstone of societal understanding and progression.  This is why I was shocked when the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, issued a public letter to Chick-fil-A a year ago, stating that the chain wasn’t welcome in the city, and that he would personally make it very difficult for them to receive the permits needed to operate in Boston.  So much for the idea of a free-market economy, and allowing consumers to decide where their money goes.  God forbid a private fast food chain’s ownership doesn’t support gay marriage.  Do you think the mayor’s letter to the chain served its purpose in attempting to incentivize people to support gay marriage?  Absolutely not.  In fact, I think it’s safe to say that it polarized and enraged a large group of people who share similar views to those held by the ownership of Chick-fil-A.  Benjamin Franklin once famously stated, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”  Rather than stressing tolerance and acceptance in the promotion of gay marriage, the mayor took a major jab at a very large and successful restaurant chain because of their ownership’s view on a controversial issue, deliberately impeding an organization’s right to believe what they wish.

Less than 30 years ago, the Missouri branch of the KKK attempted to exercise their right to broadcast their views on a public television station in Kansas City.  Understandably enraged, the city council voted to eliminate the public television station, so as to not have to worry about any repercussions associated with selectively denying freedom of speech to a single organization.  Well, the intentions of the city council were obvious enough to the Federal Court that heard the case brought by the KKK against the city, and the issue was settled out of court before the court even had to render an official decision.  The public television station, thus, returned to air and the KKK broadcasted only a single episode due to the Kansas City population’s overwhelming support of racial equality, epitomized in their election of a black mayor.  When society is able to formulate a dialogue around controversial issues, progress and civility always succeed.  When censorship in any form attempts to rid an entire perspective from existence, we all lose, with one side feeling marginalized, and the other robbed of democratic forum.

I support the allowance of any man or woman to marry whomever they may choose, regardless of their partner’s gender.  Nonetheless, I recognize that forcing my personal belief onto others will only lead to animosity and divisiveness.  John Adams once ruled that, “Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.”  A truer statement may have never been spoken, but in order to have democracy, two (or more) sides must be able to engage in a thoughtful and open debate without attacking the other’s right to an opinion. 

So you may be wondering by now why I bring up this issue today, just about a year from the time that Mr. Menino wrote his heated letter to the corporate leaders of Chick-fil-A.  Well it turns out that he’s at it again, this time issuing a public letter to Rolling Stone Magazine, criticizing their decision to put a picture of one of the Boston Marathon bombers on the cover of the magazine’s most recent edition.  Shortly after this letter came out, major national retailers, including CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid and Kmart, said they would not sell the magazine edition in their stores.  This ladies and gentlemen is what censorship looks like in the 21^st century.  It’s actually quite sad too, because the underlying article appears to have very big motives in analyzing the factors that may drive someone to extremism.  While the aims of modern-day terrorists are many, one major desire is the attempt to silence an opinion that the terrorist organization vehemently opposes.  How ironic is it that we deem it necessary to censor an analysis of those who wish to censor us?  We can’t preach freedom of choice and opinion if we are going to intentionally block those ideas that we find distasteful or disagreeable.  I actually admire the Rolling Stone article’s purpose because I believe it asks a formidable question that we all need to consider: What motivates one to practice extremism, and how do we counteract the violence associated with this dangerous idea?  Ignoring the issue of extremism altogether is certainly not the answer to combatting its vicious effects.  When we analyze the problem of murders in our country, is it wise to simply invest all our resources in the process of investigation and holding murderers accountable?  Or is it beneficial to attack the problem at its root, seeking to be proactive in the battle against murders?  To express my point in an overtly colloquial manner, all things happen for a reason (or many reasons).  Happy people don’t kill other people, and thus, it is important to engage in the process of analyzing why people think and act in certain ways.  If we want to truly combat any issue, whether obesity, sexual assault, or terrorism, we have to implant ourselves in the minds of the obese, the pedophile, and the terrorist.  Not to offer too much credit to the magazine article, but I believe this conversation could serve as a major catalyst to societal progression, contrary to the inhibitive qualities of censorship.

So Mr. Menino, I sympathize with you in the devastating loss of three precious lives, and the physical and emotional injury of countless others.  But promoting the dismissal of a worthwhile discussion will not repair any of the harm done by these two extremists.  Quite to the contrary, your letter only serves to enrage and marginalize.  Rather than promoting one-sidedness, let us promote openness and serious dialogue.  And let us remember that where dialogue ends, conflict begins.  For the danger lies not in the idea, but in the preemptive dismissal of said idea.