Fifty years after the death of Martin Luther King Jr., the famed civil rights activist who preached tolerance and nonviolent resistance as a means of enacting positive change, Rep. Maxine Waters ,D-Calif., delivered her own message regarding interaction between two parties who may not share the same ideals.
“If you see anybody from [the Trump] Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” Waters remarked at a Families Belong Together rally in Los Angeles in late June.
Waters’ comment, viewed by some as an endorsement of heckling members of the Trump administration, is yet another disappointing example of an inflamed national dialogue where strong opinions often result in violent displays of passion and extreme polarization.
As more political leaders engage in riotous rhetoric as part of their latest publicity stunts, King’s message of peaceful discussion has been silenced beneath the roar of name-calling and finger-pointing with the intent of demonizing the opposing side. In a country where discourse serves as the bedrock of democracy, this transition poses a serious threat to the defining principles of the American institution.
The idea of free speech is essential to the perpetuation of America’s democratic political culture, a term coined by political theorist Robert Dahl to mean the collection of universally embraced values and beliefs among citizens. However, as the country continues to polarize when discussing controversial policy issues, the stability of that democratic culture is undermined.
In the era of meritocracy, self-glorification, and entitlement, most Americans exhibit a heightened awareness of their own First Amendment rights in the modern age. However, they often fail to consider the rights of those around them as certain sects of people will actively seek to strip opposing sides of their own constitutional rights in an effort to silence their message. This results in uncivil discourse that is making it harder for the country to communicate appropriately.
The lack of constructive conversation on the national stage reveals society’s tendency to dismiss ideas based on ill-placed preconceptions. Flamed tempers and the unyielding partisanship that plagues Congress prevents most civil discourse from reaching across the aisle, preventing the passage of critical legislation on such issues as immigration and national security.
College campuses have come to resemble what Attorney General Jeff Sessions has characterized as “echo chambers of political correctness and homogeneous thought.” Individuals are so certain of their own correctness that they refuse to converse with those who have conflicting opinions. Thus, utter disregard for listening to the words of others has replaced a reverence for rhetoric as a form of republicanism.
How do we tackle the problem of conversation if its very solution is the issue at hand? The answer lies in the constitutional underpinnings of free speech, which is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and was recognized by our Founding Fathers as the primary instrument by which to petition an oppressive body for a redress of grievances.
When discussing the role of deliberation in a functioning democracy, James Madison, president and Fouding Father, expounded his belief that free speech must be displayed as a “general intercourse of sentiments.” Over a century later, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes similarly explained, in his dissenting opinion to the landmark free speech case Abrams v. United States, that America must exist as a “marketplace of ideas.” In both writings, speech was seen as analogous to trade. Just as goods and services are exchanged, so should opinions be swapped so as to achieve a balanced transaction of words and ideas.
In an age where speech is so easily accessible on social media and other outlets, it’s easy for an individual to become enraged when they encounter a belief that is different from their own. Instead of verbally attacking the protester or blocking that commenter on Facebook, remember that conversation is a two-way street. Less talking and more listening will breed understanding so long as members of society utilize their own First Amendment rights, but also respect that those around them share the same constitutional right to exercise free speech.
Most importantly, don’t shy away from challenging conversations. Instead, engage with those who may think different than yourself to experience a new perspective in a civil manner.
In the words of King, “All we say to America is to be true to what you said on paper.” Only by staying true to the words of the First Amendment can America continue to be a country where civil discourse is able to defend democracy instead of catalyzing its demise.
