Tales Of Our Times
By JOHN BARTLIT
Los Alamos
Fans Of Either Party Are Threats To Our Democracy
A funny thing happened on the way to the news forum. I started out to write a column about the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA). Before I was too far along, I got tangled up in the political linguistics of our time. Such problems catch many of us unawares, and often, I suspect.
When Americans hear the term “pillars of democracy”, a big bunch of them might think of Democrats; another large bunch might think of Republicans. Democracy itself benefits most from more awareness of free speech and the Rule of Law. Both these pillars appear in parts of the U.S. Constitution. Parties are not in the Constitution.
We know that fierce politics is in the news every day. Each big party and its fans condemn the other side as a threat to democracy for misusing free speech and the Rule of Law. Don’t get me wrong: of course everyone knows free speech is a natural need of humans, also in court. Democracy thrives when the people know about these two forms of speech. The danger is we lose sight of how much they differ, reasons they differ, and why both are crucial.
Now’s a time to boost democracy. Here goes.
Suppose a columnist were to describe free speech as a vast, barren landscape, where freelance rogues carry the day with scurrilous phrasings. One may call this opinion right, wrong, or muddleheaded, yet it surely is free speech and is lawful. In kids’ terms, free speech is a free-for-all – anything goes. A gambler’s term is “crapshoot”.
Court reviews are different. In any trial or appeal process, no one is free to rant and rave rogue-style. That practice brings penalties for contempt of court and more losses. Courts have rules about the meaning of relevant evidence. More rules see to it that evidence is presented and questioned by qualified people on all sides. Rules call “halt” if someone deviates from the subject. Rules are enforced by more rules. Adverse decisions in court can be appealed to higher courts per rules. No system is perfect, but our Rule of Law has a long history of sorting out truths from phantoms.
Court procedures entail set forms to thwart the oddities of free speech. Free speech most often runs in circles and ends in no timely result.
Some clear cases of this whirligig are:
- In free speech, the accused will shunt aside questions from an accuser with counter accusations and other dodges. So courts demand that questions are relevant and must be answered.
- In free speech, each speaker picks his topic and changes it willy-nilly. So courts enforce rules that keep a firm rein on the topic of discussion.
- Free speech is likely to be heavy with exaggerations, ridicule, sarcasm, and slogans and be light on evidence. So the court system curtails free speech in court to focus on evidence.
Thus it is that court procedures demand a darn sight more exacting, purposeful language to find a darn sight more of the whole truth than happens with “free” speech. But outside the courtroom, people revert. Both sides misuse free speech to presume the outcomes (in all its fine points) of lawsuits long before, during, and after the proceedings. Each side keeps citing the other’s misuse of free speech and the Rule of Law to claim their foe is a threat to democracy. And each side claims its own actions help preserve free speech and the Rule of Law — those pillars of democracy.
These themes are features of constant electioneering. That’s political linguistics at work.
Note … I will bring more free speech to this site later. Watch for my column about the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, which I and others wrestled with firsthand.