Thursday, September 23, 2004
The ACLU strikes again...
It is always a good thing to have friends on the opposite side of the political spectrum, even if in recent years that has become more difficult. If you overcome the obstacles of our current culture, you will find that an intelligent antagonist can help bring perspective to any argument.
Many years ago in a Temp, AZ used CD store, your humble author had an argument with a man of the Left named B. B was a businessman, investor, blues singer, concerned American, card carrying member of the ACLU, literally, and all around great guy. The argument revolved around the ACLU. B made the now clichéd statement “How can you be against an organization that exists to protect the Bill of Rights?” His reaction to the answer to this question is revealing.
When confronted with the idea that the ACLU is only defending one interpretation of the Bill of Rights, he reacted indignantly. When confronted with the idea that reasonable people can disagree on whether regulations on Campaign Financing are violations of Free Speech, he agreed in principle. Accepting these premises, and the fact that the ACLU has a specific opinion in support of Campaign Finance regulations, he agreed that the ACLU had a specific agenda in its cases regarding the Bill of Rights. But he stated that this agenda was one he agreed on.
This did not change his mind. But it changed the terms of the debate. Instead of the facile argument about defending the Bill of Rights, he would now have to argue more honestly about defending a specific reading of these rights. If you believe your argument is strong, a discussion based on true premises is to your advantage. And in the battle over Freedom, the advantage is to the Right.
Many years ago in a Temp, AZ used CD store, your humble author had an argument with a man of the Left named B. B was a businessman, investor, blues singer, concerned American, card carrying member of the ACLU, literally, and all around great guy. The argument revolved around the ACLU. B made the now clichéd statement “How can you be against an organization that exists to protect the Bill of Rights?” His reaction to the answer to this question is revealing.
When confronted with the idea that the ACLU is only defending one interpretation of the Bill of Rights, he reacted indignantly. When confronted with the idea that reasonable people can disagree on whether regulations on Campaign Financing are violations of Free Speech, he agreed in principle. Accepting these premises, and the fact that the ACLU has a specific opinion in support of Campaign Finance regulations, he agreed that the ACLU had a specific agenda in its cases regarding the Bill of Rights. But he stated that this agenda was one he agreed on.
This did not change his mind. But it changed the terms of the debate. Instead of the facile argument about defending the Bill of Rights, he would now have to argue more honestly about defending a specific reading of these rights. If you believe your argument is strong, a discussion based on true premises is to your advantage. And in the battle over Freedom, the advantage is to the Right.
