Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(72,014 posts)
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 11:45 AM Oct 2013

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing opposition, it has only one way to go"

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

Harry S Truman, August 8, 1950
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13576#axzz2iHFt91TZ
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing opposition, it has only one way to go" (Original Post) kpete Oct 2013 OP
k&r for Harry S (the S stands for nothing) Truman. n/t Laelth Oct 2013 #1
We are already on that road. RC Oct 2013 #2
Thank you HST! Scuba Oct 2013 #3
K&R. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #4
The old-line libs always had something to say. K&R. Eleanors38 Oct 2013 #5
Well, then why did he initiate the CIA and sign N.S.C. 68? factsarenotfair Oct 2013 #6
Because he probably had a different definition of "opposition." Igel Oct 2013 #8
Thank you for taking the time to post a thoughtful response. factsarenotfair Oct 2013 #9
I do believe that is a decision Mr Truman later regretted. roamer65 Oct 2013 #10
"Once the opposition is committed to the principle of eliminating govt, it has only one way to go" grahamhgreen Oct 2013 #7
He is correct Marblehead Oct 2013 #11
"Free speech zones" Enthusiast Oct 2013 #12

Igel

(35,356 posts)
8. Because he probably had a different definition of "opposition."
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 02:57 PM
Oct 2013

There are political opponents. Then there are people who divulge state secrets.

Egypt is busily silencing political opponents. Some here call for the same.

Obama is busily silencing those who dig into the bureaucracy, find stuff that may or may not be in context, and then reveal it because ... well, for various reasons. We usually assume that their reasons are the ones that we idealistically would have. In some cases the dissent is political; sometimes it's pathological.

You have to go to a rather extreme degree of abstraction before those start to look the same. At that point even Obama and Hitler start to appear similar--both warm blooded, oxygen breathing, have melanin in their skin and hair and eyes; both sport Y chromosomes and use silverware when eating, have a language with recursion and anaphoric referencing (both even spoke Germanic languages!). Etc.

The two kinds of suppression find merger in places like the PRC and USSR, where everything that's not officially vetted for public dissemination is a state secret. A plane crashes? State secret. Suicide rates? State secret. The number of tractors that broke and couldn't be replaced on state farms this year? State secret.

The opposite of this is not absolute freedom of speech but reasoned freedom of speech--there has to be a clear metric, one that we can debate but when settled upon with input from all parties and due compromises is stuck to. So blogging takeoff times of bombers from an airbase with estimated times of arrival at their destinations given a "secret informant" would generally be considered a bad thing and illegal, even if you disagreed with the war. The US government would properly pitch a fit if access codes and routing instructions were posted for targetting and launching nuclear weapons--even if this is, strictly speaking, information held by a government of the people and by the people, and "we" are "the people." Hiss's providing of atomic bomb plans to Uncle Joe was probably a bad thing, unless you really think that the US was going to use atomic and a balance of power between the Great Satan and the Bringer of a Shining Future was necessary. Posting "here's an easy way to grow castor beans and make your own ricin, with a special appendix on weaponizing anthrax for fun and profit" would also be frowned upon.

factsarenotfair

(910 posts)
9. Thank you for taking the time to post a thoughtful response.
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 03:05 PM
Oct 2013

I purchased a book on Harry Truman about ten years ago and haven't read it yet, but when I do I think I'll be more informed.

roamer65

(36,747 posts)
10. I do believe that is a decision Mr Truman later regretted.
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 03:36 PM
Oct 2013

Especially when President Kennedy was assassinated.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
7. "Once the opposition is committed to the principle of eliminating govt, it has only one way to go"
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 02:52 PM
Oct 2013

Perhaps this is true as well

Marblehead

(1,268 posts)
11. He is correct
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 03:43 PM
Oct 2013

and history proves it. Governments always push for less freedom and more power for them...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Once a government i...