Update: Wal-Mart and Totalitarianism

First of all, I want to say that I'd request that you not do what I did. I emailed the teacher and asked her about the incident Jimmy posted about earlier, and she really just wants to be left alone. She doesn't want all this attention, and wishes this would go away.

That said, I suppose that the Secret Service is as intimidating in real life as they are in the movies, because the impression I got is that they scared her to death.

How much the President can be blamed for this is problematic. This could be the work of an overzealous, overly sensitive Secret Service agent. My gut instinct, though, is to say that Presidents set procedure and tone for how their employees behave. If this administration really made it a point to value free expression, I doubt this would have happened.

At any rate, it should not go unnoticed. If agents of the government are allowed to engage in this type of intimidation, and we ignore it, then it's only a matter of time before it becomes an assumed power.

I try to be a balanced person. I try to believe that strong, central power can (and indeed, must) have a role in free republics. Things like this cause me to respond one of two ways, and I vacillate between the two: 1) We need to change the government systemically and take some of its power away. Attempts to control the voicing of opinions about the government should not be tolerated, and if that's how the government is going to use its authority, then maybe we need to make closer study of the words of Thomas Jefferson... and 2) There's no way to effectively diminish the government's power without some very negative consequences, and we, the electorate, need to decide to use better judgment about the type of people we allow to pull the reigns or resign ourselves to being controlled by an overbearing government. The hypocrisy evident in the fact that this is done by an administration that ran on the platform of decreasing the level of control the government had on individuals lives should not be lost on anyone.

At the same time, the other side doesn't come out of this squeaky clean, either. Apparently, in all of his righteous indignation, Matthew Rothschild didn't have any problems with lying to a teacher who didn't want to talk to the media in order to squeeze the story out of her. I guess, for those who put ideology above people, the ends really do justify the means. I suppose it's okay to manipulate people for the purpose of exploiting them as long as your goal is slaying the evil Republican dragon, eh, Matt? Of course, the hypocrisy on this side should be equally alarming. This group wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Those in the government should have all the power they ask for, as long as they use it toward good and noble ends, right? Nevermind that government power necessarily is the power to coerce. If you don't pay your taxes, they have the ability to make you pay them... with guns, if necessary. If you're going to hand over power to the government to force other people to give you a job, give you health care, and entitle you to a good life... if you're going to give the government that much power, then don't whine about the subsequent loss of freedom. I'm not saying that some of these things aren't necessary at times, but freedom and security are difficult to balance. Benjamin Franklin put it in much more direct terms: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
posted by Stephen at 7:14 PM | |