Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: We all must speak out

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 | 9:56 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

THERE ARE over 250 million Americans with the freedom to think and say what they please.

That means, at a minimum, there are more than 250 million opinions about the way the United States is conducting its foreign policy, its domestic agenda and everything in between. Assuming every citizen of this great nation has a brain, some knowledge and the inclination to link the two together, that is a lot of input for politicians and policymakers looking to do the best job they can.

Naturally, I qualified the number of opinion-makers by requiring a connection between what we learn and what we think but the message should be clear. It is difficult, at best, to please everyone when it comes to the kinds of decisions that cannot be seen in black and white. Even if everyone were playing on the same field!

I am mindful of the vast assortment of people who think about the weightier subjects of the day on practically a daily basis. Some make their views known via talk radio and other shout fests. Most, however, choose the safety of remaining silent for any number of good and valid reasons. It is the people who don't speak out -- choosing, instead, to let more vocal minorities rule the day -- who threaten the stability of this great democracy of ours.

I listened to a speech given Monday by former President Bill Clinton at Paris Las Vegas that caused me to wonder about the future vibrancy of our two-party system. The speech was given to the Laborers International Union of North America and, as you can understand, it was greeted with the kind of enthusiasm and warmth that one might expect for a former president of the United States. Did I mention these were union folks and Clinton is a Democrat?

So, naturally, there would be applause. Naturally, there would be the kind of respectful attentiveness that people give to their own. And, naturally, it was a speech not invited to be made to a vastly different audience even though that is exactly where it should have been given.

My point is that President Clinton's speech should have and would have been just as welcome at a meeting of business types as it was in the room full of working men and women. It was that good and that thoughtful. In fact, I may quote liberally from it one of these days so that I can give flight to some of his ideas in the hope that they will spark some action amongst a citizenry too often lulled into complacency.

For today, though, it should be enough to suggest that each of us too often allows the bullying tactics of those with opposing views to silence us when we should and must be speaking out.

If my letter file is any indication, it certainly appears to me that people are willing to speak out on an individual basis in, say, a letter to the editor where they might not be able to find their voices in a crowd, which may not be so accepting of their ideas.

To that I ask: Why? Why are people cowed into silence at a time when voices -- of agreement and dissent -- need to be heard?

What is it about America in the beginning of the 21st century that makes speaking up an act of some kind of defiance of the proper order of things? Why are people, ordinary citizens, made to feel unpatriotic or, at least, not helpful when they give voice to an opinion not shared by the majority?

What I heard from President Clinton was the kind of message -- albeit one that at times had a definite partisan tinge to it -- that could have and should have been shared with people of all political stripes. His was a message of ideas, not ideology. And, as such, it must be shared, especially with those who think they disagree so that they will know for certain how they feel once they are faced with the facts.

This is not a one-way street. There are good ideas on all sides of these very difficult issues that challenge us every day. We should be listening to all of them. Unfortunately, much of our media has tilted rightward -- and, to some slight extent, to the left -- to the point that rational thought gets crowded out.

That is not the way that democracy survives. It is, however, a recipe for the kind of disasters that befall democracies in which only one side ever gets aired.

We are nowhere near that point in the United States and I doubt we will ever get there. But, if we are not careful, if we are not open to the ideas of those who wear different political jerseys, and if we refuse to respect the ideas of those with whom we disagree, we could start heading down that wrong road in spite of every inclination not to do so.

So, express yourselves all you want. But, as you do, encourage those who disagree with you to speak out, too. Two hundred and fifty million opinions sounds pretty messy in a repesentative democracy. But it is far more preferable to no opinions at all.