My previous historical blog concerning causes of the Revolution dealt with name calling - a tactic often used to derail the opponents’ arguments and put the focus on an emotional label, with the name caller hoping to sidestep addressing the premises of an argument directly, and instead clouding the debate with an accusation putting the opponent on the defensive. England relied heavily on labeling those opposing tyranny as “disloyal,” and thereby avoiding the responsibility of upholding the American colonists‘ (mostly British citizens) rights as guaranteed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights.
In addition to casting aspersions attempting to discredit the discontented colonists, another tactic employed by England was to simply silence the voices of dissent. As covered earlier, royal governors of colonies had it within their power to dismiss colonial assemblies - the lawmaking body of the colony. If the governor felt that what was being discussed presented a form of treason to the Crown, he could simply shut down the congregation of the body and forbid them to meet. This, indeed, was a tactic employed.
What of the Press? Locally printed newspapers were a lifeblood of communicating actions taken both on a local level, as well as news from “across the pond” (the Atlantic). Proclamations by King George and the discussions of Parliament were followed closely during this time. Newspapers being what they are, written by mere mortals, reflect the temperament of the authors. That being the case, if a newspaper tended to editorialize the Crown and Parliament in a disloyal manner, they were labeled as seditious (tending toward disorder and insurrection against the prevailing government). Such acts of sedition led to newspapers being banned and shut down, as dangerous, incendiary instruments of malcontents bent on rebellion.
Interestingly, our dependency on the belief that “truth is an absolute defense” stems from a court case in 1735, some 40 years prior to the first shots of the Revolution. A publisher, Peter Zenger, openly criticized a new royal governor of New York, William Cosby, for running a puppet court seeking to expedite Cosby’s own form of justice. Zenger was brought up on charges of sedition, but eventually acquitted as his lawyer, Alexander Hamilton, argued that telling the truth did not cause governments to fail; rather, abuse of power accomplished that end. Zenger was acquitted, and since that time, Americans hold fast to the argument that truth is an absolute defense - irrespective of it offending the government.
As can be seen, declaring the principles of the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, and precedent in court was not getting the discontented Americans much traction. Pressure was applied to various colonies, and England systematically shut down colonial press based on claims of sedition. In response, citizen groups formed to avoid the classic strategy of divide and conquer. Without radio, telephone, or even telegraph, word was slow to spread. The British hoped to sequester the troublesome areas of the Colonies - most notably Boston, bring them under submission, while the other colonies remained ignorant of the disciplinary actions taken against the disloyal protestors.
Following the Boston Tea Party of 1773, Parliament passed a series of Acts (laws) known in England as the Coercive Acts, but re-labeled as the Intolerable Acts in Massachusetts. For their insolence, the Bostonians would be faced with the following punishments: the destroyed tea (worth a fortune) would be paid for, the assembly was disbanded and military rule would replace colonial government, the dreaded Quartering Act (private homes being used for the housing of British officers and troops) would be continued and increased, officers accused of a crime against a colonist could return to England to stand trial (a de facto method of acquittal as colonists were not allowed to leave Boston), and the harbor of Boston (the lifeblood of Boston being trade and ship building) would be shut down until Boston met the terms of submission. Without television or radio coverage, how would the plight of Boston be realized on an ongoing basis?
Colonists in opposition to the government formed organizations known as Committees of Correspondence. The existence of this type of correspondence pre-dated the 1770s, but during the British occupation of Boston, the committees earned most historical attention. The purpose of the Committee was to carry message of political happenings in one colonial area to another, so that remaining colonies were aware of British behavior - realizing that what was happening in Boston could just as well happen in Charleston, Williamsburg, or any other city that happened to cross England. Messages were conveyed afoot, on horseback, and by means of water routes. Not surprisingly, in attempt to squash this form of communication which threatened England’s strategy of divide and conquer, the Committees were officially banned.
How does this relate to today? Earlier this week, I interrupted my historical blogging to post my discouragement with the the “mainstream” media’s failure to report on important topics surrounding our government. The administration rewards reporters who ask appropriate questions with further attention during press conferences. Those in favor are invited on Air Force One, to wine and dine with the President - enjoying lobster flown in from Maine while touring Yellowstone National Park. Those in the media who toe the party line will be invited to social occasions, and may expect those in the administration to grace their talk shows with their presence, wherein all can enjoy lighthearted banter about socks and such.
The bigger concern? Hopefully, you’ve heard of the Fairness Doctrine, which had its origins in 1949. The goal behind the doctrine was to ensure fair and balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints throughout the media. Like most doctrines or laws, the intentions sound good, but over time the application of the doctrine may take an unanticipated direction. To keep this fairly short, the debate over the application of the Fairness Doctrine has become heated. Some propose that conservative talk show is much too influential - to the point of being dangerous. Further, that broadcasters of these shows have a public duty to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints - on their dime. Cable news networks, such as FOX, advocates argue, must provide air time, minute for minute, which provides countering views to Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. The eventual impact? Broadcasters would not be able to afford this, sponsors would leave the market, and the voices of the conservatives raising questions would be killed. The altruistic argument is “balance” but the strategy behind the argument is to silence the voices of dissenting opinion. Please note: Conservatives are not insisting on government interference for balance with MSNBC, Larry King, NPR, Dave Lettermen, The View, et al to provide equal time; the pressure for this comes from the Left.
Equally disturbing is President Obama’s desire to have unilateral control over the internet for “national security” (Senate Bill 773). Cybersecurity, supposedly, would give the President power “...to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.” What other purposes? Exert control over the free flow of information, such as this blog? Alarmist? Consider this in context with Obama’s admonishment directed at “patriotic” Americans to send names and addresses to the White House of those spreading misinformation about the health care bill. For what purpose? Where are all the people who were screaming about selective wire tapping allowed under the Patriot Act? I don’t hear them speaking out.
England tried, unsuccessfully, to silence the voices of dissent. Voices that raised defining questions concerning the rights of the People. Keep in mind, those who identified with the Patriot movement represented barely 30% of the colonial population. Although substantial, it is erroneous to imagine all colonists standing up against the government. Fully 30% remained loyal to England, which leaves 40% who either didn’t care or would leave the concerns up to others to solve. While the tactics are not exact matches, the strategy is the same today - silence the voices of dissent. My question is, what is the measure of our resolve? How far down this path will we be taken? And once there, is it even possible to go back?
No comments:
Post a Comment