I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience - to reject all progress - all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.
-- Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union (1860)
I agree. One "opinion" that still holds true is that ultimately "sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records," nor do they supply a satisfactory defense against their violation. Ultimately, and the Federalist Papers reaffirms the sentiment repeatedly, this is left to the spirit of the people themselves. For "the republic for which [the flag] stands" ultimately relies on the people who reside in it.
There are certain basic liberties that even a majority vote cannot rightfully overwhelm (surely not the will of one man), but ultimately this is but verbiage if the people do not respect the principle. Glenn Greenwald, whose book on how a true patriot should act has received remarkable success via mainly online sales/promotion, becries the few dissenters to the nomination of Gen. Hayden, who though apparently quite competent, is not too gung ho on the rule of law, surely not as understood outside of self-checks by the executive department. GG laments:
Yet again, Senate Democrats show that they have no more concern for the rule of law and for the excesses of this administration than Senate Republicans do. Due to their really pitiful passivity, they are every bit as much to blame for the excesses and abuses of the administration as the compliant Republicans are.
But, put aside politicians. Let us look at the people themselves. We need not look at grand things here, since often somewhat minor matters are quite telling. This is not to say that grand things can be mentioned, or little things added up in great detail, but sometimes a smallish move can be quite symbolic on its own. I speak of the Dixie Chicks:
"Just so you know, we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas," lead singer Natalie Maines told a British audience on March 14, 2003, and those 16 words turned the Chicks' career pretty much upside down.
Their first three CDs sold some 25 million copies, more than any female group ever.
"Taking the Long Way" will be lucky to sell a million. Country radio has all but fed it to the hogs, and its solid country-rock sound isn't selling at pop radio these days, either.
Now it wouldn't have sold like the others anyhow, because the music has moved away from cruising anthems like "Wide Open Spaces" and great heartbreak dramas like "Travelin' Soldier" to more personal songs, like one about infertility.
Remember when Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys stopped writing about girls, cars and surfing and turned to vegetables?
But "Taking the Long Way" is also about something else: the Chicks' - including Martie Maguire and Emily Robison - decision to stand up.
After "the incident," they said they were sorry for disrespecting the office of the President. But that wasn't enough. Country stations made dropping Chicks records into a declaration of patriotism. Radio hosts made them poster girls for un-American conduct. Diane Sawyer hammered them like a school principal demanding an explanation.
Finally the Chicks said, "Screw this" ...
Or, to quote a new song, "I know you said / Can't you just get over it" but "I'm not ready to make nice / I'm not ready to back down." Anyway, the basic sentiment they had to face is foreign to my personal belief system. One I dare say fits into a basic ethos in a healthy society. Consider. Right before a war now deemed by many to be a horrible mistake, after an election many now deem corrupt, and a lot more under that bridge, a singer makes a personal sentiment known -- she is "ashamed" of the President.
One shared by many, even without the war issue, which was about to come to a boil. Americans are allowed to speak their minds. She did. In return, she and her group is vilified, boycotted, and so forth. I put aside their [legal] "right" to so reply. I want to address the mind-set: criticism of the President is deemed almost traitorous, especially if done outside the country. This is not just a matter of bad-mouthing a friend, a rather personal thing. Britain also is not really "enemy territory," especially on the subject of the upcoming war. But, she cannot say that. So simply wrong. So wrong that she and her group needs to pay.
This is America? It is not like a group that wrote songs about killing wife abusers shocked people by making a controversial comment. One so problematic that even an apology is not enough to redeem themselves. An apology they really should have had no reason to make. America ... land of the free ... land where being "ashamed" of your President must be kept under wraps. A small sign of what is wrong is that this is apparently not a crazy sentiment in many people's eyes.
We should not just be concerned with certain government officials or residers of executive office. The true promise is a certain mindset, a certain lack of basic principles, that allows too many to accept what should be deemed insane things. This includes those who might in some vague way be somewhat concerned, but willing to look away, since other things are deemed more important. Surely, not something to get real excited about to the degree some are about what is going on these days.
Until the people overall say "enough," true change will not come. New faces might temper things some, but watch out:
Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved.