Ironic irony
By John Machado

December 6, 2001—I'm amazed by the general stupor being displayed by many people who were normal, or nearly so, just a few months ago. Along with common sense, reason and a few of our civil liberties, genuine debate is out of fashion right now. The wholly American concept of dissent is now un-American, even, to some, treasonous. Is that ironic, or what?

Without leaving my own daily circle, the reminders flow like a babbling brook, forcing a stare of awe, disbelief and wonder. It's real and it doesn't stop. In and of itself, it doesn't seem to be harmful in any way; just a hypnotic drone. Fascinating and powerful, it's irony in motion.

One of our popular talk show hosts thought it was just awful that professors in major schools from coast to coast are "teaching our young people that the reason many people around the world hate us may well be our own fault. Can anyone believe this?" he moans. "Do these professors forget that they live in this great country that provides the freedom to say things like that? These guys should be fired."

Ironic, indeed. The country provides these freedoms and we should be proud of that, but, if anyone uses them, he or she should be fired. We can assume that "deported," "shot" or "hanged" might also be suitable. One local teacher responded: we need T-shirts that say: "You have free speech. Shut up." Teachers usually side with professors, leaving talk show hosts to defend the nation on their own. How ironic is that?

How could criticism be patriotic, especially in times like these? The question does come up since the framers of the Constitution apparently sought not only to protect dissenters, but to practically invite dissent. Somehow, those wild and crazy guys actually thought the charter they put together—the foundation they were building for the nation—would be strengthened by the actions of its critics. They managed to think things through without benefit of radio talk shows. Imagine the irony.

Many people want to put politics aside and "get behind the troops" or demonstrate their support for the administration's policies. Flying the flag doesn't really send a clear message. Perhaps a neon sign would help. It was Trent Lott, senator from Missouri, who said: "we can support the troops without supporting the president." Is there irony in that?

I asked one lady who had a brand new, Chinese-made American flag on her SUV if she wanted me to drive her son to the Armed Forces recruiting office. "No. I'm hoping he never has to go," she said. "But, you're so gung-ho," said I. "I'm really confused. Is your enthusiasm only valid if my nephew is in harm's way, even if the cause and the objective are vague and marginal?" She left, quite confused and a bit upset. The flag waved briskly.

Very often, those who are "behind the troops" are way, way behind the troops. It's so much easier to wave the flag than to read, understand and defend the Constitution, that set of rules that talks about "a well regulated militia . . ." and such.

One gentleman, convinced that I am here to infiltrate elementary schools and teach Marxism, asked if I favored an amendment to protect the flag from those who would burn it. "Absolutely not" was my quick response. "Why would anyone who understands the meaning of the word, 'respect,' want such an amendment?"

That which cannot be disrespected cannot be respected, just as that which cannot be hated, cannot be loved. Passion must be free to move in all directions or it has no value, other than to put on a questionable show. Ironic, is it not? That which represents freedom some would make the cornerstone of a movement to restrict freedom, failing to realize that 99.9 percent of a free people choosing not to burn a flag is far more emphatic, dramatic and glorious than 100 percent of a highly restricted population never burning a flag.

People who don't want such an amendment, according to my partner in discussion, should move to another country. Ironic, isn't it?

According to that plan, those of us who are content with the Constitution as it is should leave. Those who want it changed, which, I presume, means they aren't happy with it as it is, should stay. Pardon me, but the irony is overwhelming. When I suggested he, not I, should consider packing and moving to . . . oh, say . . . China or Cuba, where they have such laws, he became, well, appropriately stupid-looking. The irony continues: Mr. Bush, for example, says he's "tired of the world being manipulated by persons who were not properly elected in their respective countries." Oh, dear. Should we break it to him gently? "Elected" is not a word that fits the picture in the White House right now. That, by the way, is not a state secret. The world, minus a few million Americans, is well aware of it.

If we were paying attention to detail, we might wish that persons acting on our behalf had never tinkered with elections in Chile, or elections in Iran. If only the chasing of one man in Panama, one man made in the U.S.A., hadn't caused the loss of so many innocent lives. We might, in fact, wish that we had had more critics in those times and, one day down the road, we might come to wish there had been more critics today.

Isn't that ironic?

© 2001 John Machado. All rights reserved.