(3 of 3)
What is needed by both the dissenters and the dissented against is not more repression but more expression. "When a nation silences criticism and dissent," says Historian Henry Steele Commager, "it deprives itself of the power to correct its errors." Johnson likes to add that the need for correction cuts both ways. "We must guard every man's right to speak," he says, "but we must defend every man's right to answer." His point is well taken—as far as it goes. He too often seems to forget that without right answers, the right to answer is pure propaganda. And candor from Washington is perhaps the biggest shortage in the Viet Nam war.
Just as the Government should replace cant with candor, so the dissenters need a strong dose of realism and responsibility. Among the great legal lessons of the civil rights movement, for example, is the rule that a demonstration must be reasonably related to a specific target of protest. Demonstrators who glorify the Viet Cong, burn flags or draft cards, urge the world in general to "make love, not war," are indulging in dissent for dissent's sake. They are staging a mindless happening devoid of rational ideas.
"Get out of Viet Nam!" they cry, ignoring the how and when. No matter that power and politics are vital necessities in a troubled world. As they see it, the U.S. is evil if it uses violence—even to combat violence. Dropouts from the body politic—to say nothing of reality—they have been beguiled by constant reminders of their freedom to protest. The right to dissent is subtly reworked until any dissent becomes right. And any criticism of that dissent is exaggerated into a wrongheaded, repressive attack.
The argument is too important to be taken over by its extremists. Dissent is empty without the suggestion of practical alternatives. Candid answers and explanations are required from the policymakers who must make the decisions.