Monday, September 11, 2006
Undiscussables
Last week Tammy Bruce did a two-hour interview on C-Span. Interesting from start to finish, because she's one of the few genuinely independent thinkers in the public realm. One small point, though, made a tremendous impression. It's an idea I've never heard before.
Discussing the importance of free speech, she mentioned that Germany has made all discussions of Nazism illegal. Why is this a problem? Not just because it drives such discussions underground; that effect is well-known.
Bruce's new point: the prohibition prevents Germans from knowing whether they have actually changed their mind.
If an idea is no longer heard, there are two possible causes: either the culture has truly abandoned the idea, or the culture punishes such discussion. If the silence is caused by legal or cultural prohibition, there's no external way to determine whether this idea has actually gone out of common currency. This is a recipe for unpleasant surprises when the idea gets re-ignited.
Starting with the McCarthy hearings, our Leninist masters have succeeded in turning off discussion of a wide range of subjects. Not quite punishable by law, but certainly punishable by loss of career and credibility. Using Bruce's logic plus a bit of engineering mentality, this is a severe problem because a representative system needs to have good feedback about what the people are thinking. You can't really tell whether your laws are working if entire segments of the world are undiscussable.
As long as such prohibitions are only cultural (as they are in America) they can be broken by a rare courageous public figure, who may end his career but won't end up in jail. For instance, Newt broke the prohibition on discussing how welfare ruins black lives. He paid a heavy price for breaking the rule, but his truth led to a real change in laws and thus to a real improvement in black lives. More recently, Tom Tancredo broke the prohibition on discussing illegal immigration. It remains to be seen whether this new discussion will lead to any action. ¶ 8:30 AM
Discussing the importance of free speech, she mentioned that Germany has made all discussions of Nazism illegal. Why is this a problem? Not just because it drives such discussions underground; that effect is well-known.
Bruce's new point: the prohibition prevents Germans from knowing whether they have actually changed their mind.
If an idea is no longer heard, there are two possible causes: either the culture has truly abandoned the idea, or the culture punishes such discussion. If the silence is caused by legal or cultural prohibition, there's no external way to determine whether this idea has actually gone out of common currency. This is a recipe for unpleasant surprises when the idea gets re-ignited.
Starting with the McCarthy hearings, our Leninist masters have succeeded in turning off discussion of a wide range of subjects. Not quite punishable by law, but certainly punishable by loss of career and credibility. Using Bruce's logic plus a bit of engineering mentality, this is a severe problem because a representative system needs to have good feedback about what the people are thinking. You can't really tell whether your laws are working if entire segments of the world are undiscussable.
As long as such prohibitions are only cultural (as they are in America) they can be broken by a rare courageous public figure, who may end his career but won't end up in jail. For instance, Newt broke the prohibition on discussing how welfare ruins black lives. He paid a heavy price for breaking the rule, but his truth led to a real change in laws and thus to a real improvement in black lives. More recently, Tom Tancredo broke the prohibition on discussing illegal immigration. It remains to be seen whether this new discussion will lead to any action. ¶ 8:30 AM
