Speaking for the People

It's not an original thought, but don't let people speak for you unless you really want them to.

I'll give you an example: if you're a Christian, don't let Pat Robertson speak for you if you disagree with him. And don't let some person who disagrees with him speak for you by default either. Because I disagree with Pat Robertson, but I'm not a Christian and I'm pretty sure I'd make a lousy spokesman for Christians everywhere. So don't let me speak for you either unless you want me to.

Most people just accept spokesmen (and women) by default; you don't have to do that. Just like you shouldn't accept a ruler by default, or a law by default, you shouldn't accept a spokesperson by default if you only sort of agree with them. Make some noise. Most positions aren't two absolutes; there's a lot of ground to be covered between the radical positions on both ends.

But as a country (the United States, although the world seems to be falling into the same trap at large) we have become too eager to let a powerful person present their views with our support even if we only kind-of agree with them. We rationalize it as being the lesser of two evils, or as solidarity in the face of something with which we definitely disagree, or as a vague agreement that doesn't carry as much weight in our minds as it does in reality. Or we're lazy. We just let it happen.

Well I'm here (with a lot of other people) to tell you that you don't need to be co-opted by a mouthpiece. If you agree with some things but not everything, you should let people know that. Don't support someone full-bore just because they're the best thing going. If you want to dissent from party line, you should, nay you must, do it.

This is addressed at everyone, politics notwithstanding. It's a major problem I have with our current political situation; the only options appear to be with or against. Why can't we be both? Why can't one support the Republican president on immigration while being against him on taxes? Why can't one support the War on Terror while being against Iraq? Why can't one support the war in Iraq while being against the erosion of our civil liberties? Why can't one be pro-Union and pro-life? What is it about certain views that they must be held together?

And why do all Independents have to flock together? If you're with neither big party, you're automatically lumped together with people who may have wildly divergent views from your own. For crying out loud, Nazis and Libertarians are both classified as Independent under that reckoning. And according to the media, Michael Bloomberg speaks for all of them. Horsehockey.

Think for yourself, speak for yourself. That's all I ask of anyone. Even if you support someone, you can speak out against them on issues where you differ. And even if you aren't big and powerful, at least you didn't accept someone else's view as your own by default.