Among many constitutionally protected rights, two stand out and they are contradictory: freedom of speech; and the right to remain silent. No one can prevent you from speaking. No one can force you to speak. There is a constant chorus respecting the freedom of speech. Little is heard respecting the right to remain silent. But many more Americans remain silent than speak.
There are more reasons than we can count for the decision to remain silent. Nobody cares what I think. I don't really understand the issues. I'm confused by all the noise. I'm not smart enough. I'm too busy. And so it goes. All of which is fine, except silence conveys assent. Assent for the status quo. Assent for the majority opinion. Assent for the loudest voices and largest megaphones. Silent people are either happy people, or people who don't care, or people so angry they can't form a statement.
Richard Nixon's political strategy focused on something he called "the silent majority." Most people were silent and his assumption was they were silent because they agreed with him and didn't care to let anyone know it. Why they had strong Nixonian opinions and didn't voice them was never clear.
Sometimes people are silent because they know their opinions would meet with disapproval from those whose opinions are respected.
In the political arena, the most vocal groups and causes get the attention from media and politicians alike. A few journalists still knock on doors and conduct their own polls in silent living rooms. But these are rare, random, and anecdotal. They rarely crack the code of the silent majority.
And then there are those who have very strong opinions that they do not express because they can't make the pieces fit together. They want lower taxes, less government spending and balanced budgets. But they also want the government programs that benefit them to remain untouched. And when challenged to work out the numbers, they can't go beyond the simplistic slogans. So they are happy to let the media figures who say what they want to hear speak for them.
Americans fight and die for principles such as freedom of speech. Few of them think of dying for the right to remain silent.
"And in the naked light I saw ten thousand people, maybe more,
People talking without speaking. People hearing without listening. People writing songs that voices never share.
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence."
Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart
The local college kids protested "No war for oil" by blocking a main thoroughfare and of course when it was over they all drove home. I have yet to see anyone protest the most outrageous war which is the war on American citizens better known as The War on Drugs. That war Richard Nixon kickstarted I would guess in an effort to draw attention away from his crimes and his disdain for liberals. Remember when "liberal" meant liberal? I also did a few years in corporate clothes, General Services Coordinator at a Savings and Loan and those "men" where they whiniest bunch of Sallys I ever saw.
Than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
More Coffee...
R/ PRONESE
The third sound of silence is the voting booth, where the ballot box and paper ballot represent the opportunity for even the quietest of us to speak up.
Unfortunately, even in the booth, the computer vote and/or vote tabulator, while quite silent, invalidates your chance to have your voice register. The only way around that is for us to swamp the polling places and make the vote overwhelm the programmers' margin of voting theft.
The drug war was used to attack those who were not silent and intimidate everyone else into remaining so.
The drug war spread fear, suspicion and division in the community and worked perfectly to fracture the community and prevent grassroots political activities from gaining ground.
End the drug war and remove the space between us.
Evidence shows that speaking up often does work. The challenge is engaging and sustaining voices in authentically relevant ways.
ie: Preaching to the choir doesn't always work; but engaging the choirs voices can.
The repetitive and replicated outcomes of such efforts reveal two things:
1. Hidden humanity. Parties learn they are more similar than different.
2. Hidden reality. Parties learn how their fears and concerns are no different than others. And that this shared reality belies what is publically believed.
Engaging and sustaining such conversations while continually inviting more into them via whatever means and venues are possible is critical. And can catalyze social contagions that infiltrate culture to neutralize practiced political rhetoric.
Think of a choir. A pastor may preside with all power from the pulpit. If a few voices beginning singing above his voice, others, will naturally join. The pastor bluster to recapture attention. But, if the singers keep singing, and invite all to join in -- including ushers and others who serve the pastor, the singing will continue. The pastor will adapt by leaving, accommodating, or, best yet, joining them.
This method of "positive agitation" must be intentionally, energetically sustained. Not because negative efforts don't work, but because shared positivity nurtures co-achieved integrity that's more constructive, long term. And, counters polarizing efforts that widen already shaky gulfs.
On that note, I'm going to engage others. Starting with choir leaders Simon and Garfunkle’s voices.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini
http://dynamicshift.org