Americans have long valued their right to speak freely. Free speech is expressly stated in the First Amendment for a reason. Freedom of speech provides the bedrock on which a free society functions. Without it, there is no democracy. The inability to speak freely and express our own opinions is a proud tradition in the U.S.
Across generations, once radical ideas were freely voiced, often they ultimately turned out to be correct. One man’s or woman’s opinion is precisely that; their own. But the new progressive ideology doesn’t believe this. The left is fine with free speech, as long as what is said agrees with their predetermined talking points.
Quite obviously, that’s the exact opposite of free speech. It’s censorship. When it comes to certain types of government policies, such as wars, free speech has always been a critical part of American discourse. During the 1960s, free speech helped Americans realize that our government had embroiled the nation in an unwinnable conflict.
But for the divisions that it created in the country, free speech during the Vietnam War was the thread that helped stitch the nation back together. Without the ability to speak freely, the devastation that the war in Southeast Asia caused would have been magnified 100-fold. But lost in today’s America seem to be the historical lessons Vietnam taught us.
When Vladimir Putin invaded neighboring Ukraine, Americans were rightfully angered. Invading a sovereign nation is wrong. But how can the United States address such a violation of societal norms without becoming fully embroiled in another unwinnable war? America should support the Ukrainians defense of their homeland.
Maybe we should provide assistance as well. However, at what level does the U.S. assist another country at the risk of putting our own nation in grave peril? More so, how should those who do not agree with the policy of supporting an authoritarian type of government be treated? Shouldn’t an American have the right to speak out against U.S. involvement?
To prove just how far removed from a true democracy that Ukraine is, we need only look at the viewpoints of its leader. Many have hailed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a Winston Churchill-type hero. But who is he really? If Zelenskyy were truly the champion of democracy that he claims to be, he would welcome contrary opinions about the war.
However, Zelenskyy says he feels the exact opposite. In fact, the Ukraine president says that anyone with an opinion different from his is a propagandist stooge for Russia. In other words, everyone either agrees with the U.S. shipping cargo ships full of money and weapons to his nation, or they’re a communist sympathizer.
The truth is the opposite. Anyone who feels free to express a different opinion is a true believer in democracy. It’s the American way. To propose that such a demeaning label be applied to someone who disagrees with your point of view is totalitarian. Zelenskyy likes democratic values as long as they don’t contradict his ability to suck money and arms out of other countries.
Zelenskyy is taking a page out of an old U.S. political playbook. He’s revitalized a new type of McCarthyism. Ukraine’s president has issued a blacklist of any politician who voices criticism about how his country is essentially being handed a blank check. Zelenskyy says these men and women are promoting Russian propaganda. They’re not.
Many just want to know where the billions upon billions in financing are going. They want to know how a nation can suffer so many devastating casualties, while supposedly winning the war. It’s the job of these lawmakers to ask these questions.
Americans should be extra suspicious of an elected official who is not asking them. Furthermore, we should be extremely suspicious of a leader who calls anyone who disagrees with him a communist sympathizer. Hasn’t America heard that narrative before?
Leave a Comment