Achieving freedom from governance by Britain after the Revolutionary War, Colonial leaders tried unifying the colonies by creating the United States, whereby the states would hopefully form a “more perfect union.”
They did this by instituting constitutional powers of government ensuring freedoms based on creator-endowed unalienable individual rights. But freedom can be a tricky business, especially regarding speech. It can be self-serving and idiosyncratic. Often, it is used to express opinion as factual and it is done with such strength and conviction as to appear intimidating, thus stifling if not precluding any chance for a two-way conversations.
Sadly, even familial bonds can be stretched to avoid certain topics during what could be celebratory events. Achieving a “more perfect union” based solely on one-sided arguments is not possible, nor was it originally intended. It has led to many conflicts in America today and they appear to be purposefully driven by some leaders and media outlets.
Intentional strategies fueled by power, frustration and a desire for disorder have created denial, disbelief and rejection of reliable information sources, the legitimacy of a presidential election, live images of insurrection on TV and the testimony of many political operatives interviewed by the Jan. 6 Congressional Committee. It may be that, even more than the intervention by leaders and media outlets, there is something deeper than political opinion, an unsaid discontent deep in the American belly that drives some Americans to counterproductive speech expressions.
Whatever it is, the legal best tool given us by the Founders to becoming a surviving community, becoming a “more perfect union,” is listening as well as speaking.
Frank Meneghini
Peterborough