Protests And Patriotism

February 8, 1991

Two predictable events happen when our nation goes to war: first, there will be protests, marches, and demonstrations; second, there will be angry reactions by those who believe that to protest a war is both unpatriotic and damaging to the morale of our service men and women. In the climate of such conflicting passions, an observation by Oscar Wilde started my reflections on this division in our nation, “The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

The protesters do not comprise a united movement with the same goals and motives. Some are pacifists who strongly believe any war is wrong. Some who may not be pacifists are motivated by the conviction that Desert Storm was premature because persistent diplomatic efforts and continued sanctions could have reached a solution without war. Some protesters are “anti-establishment” who believe our government has been wrong in many declared and undeclared wars, including the present war with Iraq. Others hold that the reasons stated for war with Iraq are blurred and vague. Still others believe this is a war for oil – its price, distribution, and profits; and not worth the blood and suffering of international conflict.

Those who resent and condemn protesters are a majority; there is little question about that. War spirit always captures most Americans. Serious doubts and searching questions are both ignored and condemned. To raise issues is considered a “slap in the face” of our armed forces who confront death and destruction in a far-away land. One person wrote that such protests and demonstrations are “trashing the soldiers.”

What seems to be overlooked is the common ground shared by these two factions. Both earnestly seek that our service men and women come home without heavy casualties and free from a burden of guilt, to resume their normal lives in safety. The methods so differ, however, the majority would approve limiting the speech of the anti-war protesters and their freedom to assemble peacefully to publicize their anti-war convictions.

But basic to our Constitution is the right of a minority to state opinions contrary to the majority and voice opposition to official government policies and actions.

Many people are familiar with Lord Acton’s dictum about “power.” Less well-known, but equally true, is what he wrote about “liberty” (in his essay “History of Freedom in Antiquity”):

“By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, customs and opinions.... The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.”

What can we possibly win if we lose that liberty?