IT is easy to extol freedom, to praise it as a noble idea without which human life is no better than a brutish existence. We are all “freedom lovers”—until we hear someone say something that truly irritates us and we realize that deep in our hearts we believe that the offending person should not have the freedom to vent his imbecilities. It is this sentiment that betrays the biases we hold ever so dearly, and one of its unfortunate results is the dogmatism that informs much of the political correctness prevalent in most universities and colleges in the U.S. where the “defense of freedom” usually entails censorship and other totalitarian niceties.
“Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party—however numerous that may be—is no freedom at all,” says Marxist Rosa Luxemburg in her damning critique of Lenin’s methods. “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical conception of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic; and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.”
Freedom, in other words, ALSO belongs to those who disagree with us, but again this is easier said than done.
Last week, Variety reported that Rep. Pete Castro introduced a legislative initiative that would bar non-locals from seeking public office in the CNMI. There is one irredeemable problem with this proposal. The CNMI is part of the U.S. which does not allow voting restrictions based on religion, sex, personal biases, economic status and race. Moreover, those who are aware of America’s not-so immaculate history and the kind of thinking that underlies this legislative initiative also know that it could lead to unspeakable horrors. Hence the righteous indignation of some of the proposal’s critics. Most of them, I suppose, find it appalling to realize that at this time and age there are still elected officials on U.S. soil that can introduce something as undemocratic and racist as this legislative initiative without being aware that it is undemocratic and racist.
But let’s face it. Despite the overwhelming ratification of the Covenant that made the islands part of the U.S., most locals still consider themselves Carolinians or Chamorros who are U.S. citizens—but not “Americans.” They are also easily irritated by “meddling” statesiders who, for their part, believe that locals are “ingrates.”
A statesider once asked me this question: When will the locals fully accept the notion that they are Americans, too? I said the examples of Puerto Rico and Guam, which have been under the U.S. flag for more than a century, are not exactly a source of optimism either. More than half of the Puerto Ricans who participated in their most recent political status plebiscite rejected statehood. On Guam, Chamoru advocates for independence or free association remain a vocal and potent political force.
I still believe, however, in America’s ability to accommodate even the most vehement dissenters and allow them to peacefully air their concerns. The American Idea, after all, is not based on race or religion but on a creed that upholds human liberty. And yet it took mainland Americans themselves more than a century to fully realize this…
There is, in any case, no freedom without pluralism and there is no pluralism without tolerance for the most odious notions ever conceptualized on this planet. Freedom thrives on a VARIETY of opinions and this is why I’m convinced that seeking ideas that do not necessarily validate our beliefs can only be intellectually beneficial. We say we believe in freedom? Then we should judge any opinion based on its merits—and not on the race or sex or religion, etc.—of the person who holds it. We don’t even need to respect the opinions of other people—we just have to realize that they can subscribe to such opinions.
With freedom comes the “inconvenience” of having to listen to disagreeable beliefs of disagreeable persons. We can’t have one without the other. Even the enemies of freedom can rant for as long as they want to (as long as they do not resort to illegal acts, that is). But it is also our obligation to vigorously attack their ideas. They must be exposed to relentless ridicule and withering criticism.
