The Media Aren't the Enemy in Iraq

[Culpeper]

marct

No, you're not sounding like a leftie. Sedition as described in the Sedition Act of 1918 is not illegal today. But in my mind, it is a distinction or a line in the sand where dissent should end and something else should begin. This something else is not healthy for any democracy fighting any sort of armed conflict whether it is a declared war or not. It is an opportunity cost of a democracy. I don't advocate sending people to prison because they continually cross this invisible line of dissent. But it should be labeled accordingly. Sedition today and starting back about the time of the escalation of the Vietnam Conflict has always been labeled as simple dissension. As for counterinsurgency warfare, the free press and others unknowingly aid the opposition by exploiting our freedoms while at the same time the opposition controls their own media. Freedom of expression is a double edged sword for a democracy at war. Poor Abraham Lincoln got blistered by the press during one of the worst periods of America's history. There were times where the Union's chances of victory literally laid in the balance largely due to a press that was unwittingly buying time for the Confederacy. The opportunity cost being a prolonged conflict with unnecessary casualties, illness, and so forth in the field.

As for the Sedition Act of 1918. My grandfather served as an infantryman with the 44th Infantry Division in France during 1918. He was gassed and suffered pulmonary disease for the rest of his life. But he never had a bad word to say about Woodrow Wilson or America. He was grateful that Wilson was able to get America into the fight and back home as soon as possible with a victory. He never had a good thing to say about war. Something he rarely spoke about. The Sedition Act of 1918 was a tool that allowed the President to get the job done as soon as possible. The war may have been prolonged had dissent not been curtailed during that war and there is a good possibility that I would have never been born.

Please excuse my poor grammar. I'm waiting to hear from the vet. I may have to put down my best friend today and I'm trying to stay busy. The ol' girl appears to have suffered cardiac failure yesterday while protecting her yard from a squirrel. It doesn't look good.

[marct]

Hi Culpeper,

No, you're not sounding like a leftie. Sedition as described in the Sedition Act of 1918 is not illegal today. But in my mind, it is a distinction or a line in the sand where dissent should end and something else should begin. This something else is not healthy for any democracy fighting any sort of armed conflict whether it is a declared war or not. It is an opportunity cost of a democracy. I don't advocate sending people to prison because they continually cross this invisible line of dissent. But it should be labeled accordingly.

Hmmm, I think I like that phrase - "and opportunity cost of democracy". Actually, I suspect that we agree more than we disagree. Dissent against a government policy should always have some cost attached to it if it is to be taken as "real" rather than soi disant posturing. The Tommy Douglas speach I mentioned earlier, and his entire position, basically ment that the CCF would never be the government but, rather, the consciounces of the nation. They forgot that later on after they became the NDP, but I remember talks I had with Tommy Douglas in the parliamentary cafeteria years ago. He paid the price for a politician dissenting from what was "popular" and never became Prime Minister. He was, however, the only man ever granted a permanent seat in the commons with the right of Voice outside of membership.

I think we run up against a wall in many democratic systems where the very nature of democracy, "rule of the people" as it were, operates against the "best interests" of the nation as a whole; an "opportunity cost" as you say. I also think that we do need some way of punishing those who disagree with the state, but I hesitate to use the term "sedition". Maybe this is because I tend to think of this in terms of noblesse oblige, whether it is by an aristocrat or by a rural preacher. Taking a stand that has no penalties is not risk or test of a person and their commitment to their principles.

Sedition today and starting back about the time of the escalation of the Vietnam Conflict has always been labeled as simple dissension. As for counterinsurgency warfare, the free press and others unknowingly aid the opposition by exploiting our freedoms while at the same time the opposition controls their own media.

Quite true but, as you said, an opporunity cost of democracy. I don't like the idea of their being no cost to attacking a government position (hey, I'm a monarchist ). There is, to my mind, another line in the sand - "how much are you willing to pay to achieve your goals?" One of the reasons I admire the American Republic is that you were ready to stand up against what you perceived as the Tyranny of the Crown. I don't necessarly agree with the actions of those colonial leaders, and I know my ancestors didn't, but I certainly respect that position. And you paid the price for it. As one of your founding fathers said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thos. Hefferson).

To my mind, that was a recognition that rights and responsabilities are complementary and equal in any sane and reasonable system, regardless of its form. In many ways, a "right" that is won without blood spilt and without struggle and an acceptance of the concommitant responsability is not a rght.

Freedom of expression is a double edged sword for a democracy at war. Poor Abraham Lincoln got blistered by the press during one of the worst periods of America's history. There were times where the Union's chances of victory literally laid in the balance largely due to a press that was unwittingly buying time for the Confederacy. The opportunity cost being a prolonged conflict with unnecessary casualties, illness, and so forth in the field.

Yup. I must say hat I have always found the current version of PC history on your civil war to be both humorous and ridiculous. Probably more than half of the people who went to war for the South believed in the principle of Staes Rights, something that Lincoln trammeled into the ground. On a purely personal level, I find the current justfication of the war as a war to end slavery (that's what is taught at most universities) as BS. Most of the Southern troops didn't own slaves. Even Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation kept slavery alive in the Union (e.g. Maryland). This was, to my mind, a war between Federalists and Republicans in the early 19th century meaning of those terms (Steve, feel free to step in and tell me I am full of it ).

The fact that the press prolonged the conflict is, to my mind, a good thing since at least some of the press were talking about the political issue - "shall this be a United States of America or the United States of America?" I would also like to point to the role of the press in starting he war and in recasting it as a fight against slavery (cf. Frederick Douglass).

As for the Sedition Act of 1918. My grandfather served as an infantryman with the 44th Infantry Division in France during 1918. He was gassed and suffered pulmonary disease for the rest of his life. But he never had a bad word to say about Woodrow Wilson or America. He was grateful that Wilson was able to get America into the fight and back home as soon as possible with a victory. He never had a good thing to say about war. Something he rarely spoke about. The Sedition Act of 1918 was a tool that allowed the President to get the job done as soon as possible. The war may have been prolonged had dissent not been curtailed during that war and there is good possibility that I would have never been born.

Well, I wouldn't have wanted that - otherwise how could we engage in this debate . My Great-Uncle faught in that war as well (2nd BTN, RCHA). He started in 1914, and faught in pretty much every major engagement on the Western Front. He was gassed 3 times and, by the time I ken him, was down to one lung sack. As with your grandfather, he never had a bad word to say about the Americans, although he was the person who told me why your troops were called "Dough Boys".

I remember talking with him and a few of his cronies from the first world war in the '60's. We all had relatives in the German forces, and they were trading tales of the stupidity of family fights. You said that "The war may have been prolonged had dissent not been curtailed during that war" and I really have to disagree. That war ended because of dissent. It wasn't a miltary victory that "won" that war, it was the troops mutinying against an unjust war. I will certainly give Wilson kudos for his (very unpopular) stance at Versailles - he was right, there should have been no reparations.

Let me make an upopular couple of statement - your 1918 sedition act had little influence on WWI for the simple reason that the US played little role in the first world war. [Sorry, but I am about to rant] We, Canada, had almost 500,000 troops in that war out of a population of 8 million total. WE were the ones who broke the Germans at 2nd Vimy Ridge; not the Brits, not the Yanks, and not the French. The US had a total of 165,000 troops, of which less than 100,000 ever saw Europe. You (the US) came in at the end of the war - the "Dough Boys" so-called, because you were needed in 1914 but didn't rise until 1917. Let me remind you that Wilson was elected in 1916 on a promoise not to enter the war!

[end of ramt] Sorry about that, but I get really pissed by Americans claiming that they won World War I.

Please excuse my poor grammar. I'm waiting to hear from the vet. I may have to put down my best friend today and I'm trying to stay busy. The ol' girl appears to have suffered cardiac failure yesterday while protecting her yard from a squirrel. It doesn't look good.

Always! Blessing on you and her. I know how bad that can be - I have a cat who suffered a stroke a year ago. I really hope she gets better. Please don't take my rants as anything personal <wry grin>. If she makes it, please let me know and I will drink a toast to her health. If she doesn't make it. I will drink a toast to her memory. Friends, of any species, are too important.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Culpepr: Sorry to hear about your friend. Some of my best friends have fur and four legs, and my very best wishes go with you in this case.

Marc: You're correct in a way about the Civil War. I really hate to see the PC police going after this, because (like most historical things) it is really difficult to pare it down to "one right answer."

Lincoln was a Union man in the sense that he wanted to see the Union preserved no matter the cost. In this he was a product of his section of the country (the West, at the time). If you want an interesting look at how people from that part of the country viewed the war, get ahold of "Nothing but Victory," by Woodworth. It's a study of the Army of Tennessee, which was composed mostly of men from what would now be considered the Midwest. He shows quite well the changing attitudes of these men toward the motivation for the war, including their changing attitudes about slavery. As they were exposed more and more to the reality of slavery, and the attitudes of the Southern people they came into contact with (including non-slave holders), their attitudes changed and became more what we would call hard line today.

That said, the background of the Civil War was very much a "balance of power" issue within Congressional blocks, fed by a very vocal minority of Abolitionists who wanted to recast the political debate into their terms. Lincoln later grabbed onto that, both to create a level of motivation on the home front and (this is often missed) to isolate the Southern states from their European supporters. It would be (he assumed) much harder for the British to support the South if the war could be recast into one to bring an end to slavery. This does not mean that Lincoln supported slavery (as some might claim), but rather that ending (or preserving) it was not his primary goal. Saving the Union was his primary goal, and he would go to extraordinary lengths to do that.

Lincoln could also flex a great deal in terms of states' rights (and did so many times with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and others), but he was also capable of being very ruthless in the pursuit of his goal. Both he and Grant are, I feel, misunderstood and manipulated by would-be historians (and social scientists) with agendas. Too often we look at individuals without having an understanding of the times and places that created them and their attitudes.

And Marc, I'm aware of the contributions Canada made on the Western Front. I've always felt that Dominion troops were grossly misused by the British. Rule Britannia at its finest. And Wilson...for someone who has gone down as a "peace president" he sure made wide use of the military. His record in Central America is riddled with interventions and "gunboat diplomacy." But he tends to get a pass because he was a Democrat (IMO, anyhow).