Crossing The Line

So where exactly is the line between free speech and destructive anti-Americanism? It's one of the questions that we've been trying as a nation to answer since the founding of the Republic.

It's a very fine line, really. To question the government, to call for a wholesale change of the members of the government, or to say that the government is flat out wrong - those are all acceptable forms of dissent. They can be extremely poorly timed, as were many of the statements made as we went to war, but they are not some proof of the evil that lives in the speaker.

But to actively work to change the form of the government, say to an oppressive dictatorship or a Soviet style government, well that's a different story.

For someone to whip up a negative opinion of the US is not crossing the line. If you believe that the US is evil and is run by some kind of vast world domination conspiracy, it's your right to think that and to try to convert others to your beliefs. It may be stupid, but you do have the right to be stupid and to say stupid things.

Bill Clinton thinks that the world will be better when the US isn't the dominant force in the world. Is that stupid? Yes, name any other nation that has done so much good for the world. But does Clinton have a right to believe that? Yes.

Howard Dean thinks that the US military should be weaker than other nations militaries. Is that stupid? Absolutely, it is our military strength that gives Dean the right to be a moron. Does Dean have a right to call for the deliberate weakening of our military? Absolutely. In fact, it is a good thing as it points out another reason why he is unfit to serve in the office he seeks.

Are we imperialistic as a nation? In the traditional sense, no. We don't invade other nations to take their land or resources. We're already working to turn Iraq over to an Iraqi civilian government. Afghanistan has already been turned over.

Chirac thinks that we shouldn't be sovereign superpower and that we should subjugate ourselves to the UN. What gives Jacques the right to make such offensive statements? The US Army did. That is an example of American Imperialism. We spread our ideas of freedom and liberty. We conquer the mind and soul, not the body and the land. Jacques can say such things because he knows that we won't have him assassinated or deposed.

I really believe that people who are spreading vile idiocy like these three are proving themselves morons unfit to lead, but they have not crossed the line. Clinton is a windbag and Chirac is irrelevant in America. They can talk all they want, but they won't really make too much a difference.

Dean could be another story. If he were elected, he could start to actually act on his beliefs and would consequently do great harm to the nation. That is when he would cross the line.

Talking anti-American talk is one thing; taking anti-American actions that are actually harmful is another.