The Silencing of the Lambs

As a sequel to my last musing, "When Rattlesnakes Don't Rattle Anymore", (Nov. 2015, one year before the 2016 election)  the metaphor  derived from that last missive has struck a much louder chord to me now more than ever  as we witness the great division in a country  once touted as the great universal example of what happens when people unite and so well deserved to inhabit a nation called The United States. This is not to disparage or condemn one or the other even as each is so well entrenched in opposing sides of the political track, but as a cautionary herald to all. The danger is that we may find ourselves not wanting to cross the tracks any longer as time goes on as to forget that there used to be a much greater bond and an indestructible link between all people beyond pettiness and trivial squabbles.

The risk of a political and societal journey that each side may take that has no return ticket is so grave that this country may find itself passing the point of no return. All in so short a period of time compared to the over two and half centuries  of history, only to potentially become historical footnotes no different from those that describe empires of long ago - gone and forgotten except as mere reminders of what could happen when the strength and stamina of a nation are sapped from within.

Going back to the biological narrative described from that last musing:

"Now then, when do rattlesnakes no longer rattle?  The story may surprise you.  Naturalists just recently discovered that in places where rattlers are heavily hunted, i.e. for the round up, there was eerie silence instead of the familiar sounds that typically betray the presence of the snakes.  Needless to say, the pickings were slim at these places but there was evidence that rattle snakes were present.  What rattle snakes they caught by sight had fused rattlers that no longer rattle.  The rattles are ring-like keratin tissues (similar material like finger nails or claws) that develop at their tails every time the snake sheds its skin. The rings are connected loosely to each other and when the snake shakes its tail we would hear the familiar rattle.  Some of the rattlers have these appendage atrophied because of a genetic mutation.  The snakes that do not rattle escape detection from the hunters and collectors and there lies the multiplying effect.  As the loud rattlers get caught the silent ones thrive and go on to pass their genes that are inherited by subsequent generations.  Soon we have silent venomous snakes".

Now we have a moral lesson – a metaphor of a sort in social and political discourse.  One of democracy’s most important attribute is freedom of speech.  It is because a democracy works when all sides are heard, discussed and decided upon by the people.  

The irony about all of these is that once one side is silenced the victory achieved by the other is a hollow one. Whatever the means to silence one voice - be it through the media, social media in particular, or by acclimation from the loudest of voices over the silent ones, the muffling effect is real: either by over-rattling one point  of view, shouting down opposing opinions or flat out shutting off the pipeline of alternative views from those they do not agree with. Worse of all is the rush to release news that later turned out to be untrue or flat out made up. The waiting period to verify sources or check out the veracity of an event or quotation has been shortened to the briefest amount of time possible. The time honored rule of reporting the news has been subjugated by changing the role of reporters from fair reporting to influence peddling and hyping news stories for commercial values instead of disbursing the truth.

"La plume est plus forte que l'epee."

Though popularly attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, (quotation in French notwithstanding), "The pen is mightier than the sword"  was actually written in a play by Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839. Perhaps, and I am speculating here, the reason the quote is not attributed to Bulwer-Lytton is because this author is more well known for what is considered in English literature the worst opening line in a novel, "It was a dark and stormy night; the rain came in torrents.. Rightly or wrongly, that quote has not only become the cautionary example to would be writers on how not to begin a written piece, but also as a warning that the country may indeed be facing a "dark and stormy night".

Society should be careful when conditions become so dire that the cure every one wants to pursue is to silence one side in favor of another. The silencing of opposing views is akin to fusing the snake's rattlers.

The benefit of a one-sided media is at best temporary, worse is the boomerang effect. It will come back in a manner that is impossible to predict. 

What should be emphasized here is that a group that is silenced will only go underground; undetectable by polls. Democracy works when all points of views are heard because an informed citizenry will make informed choices that determine the kind of government it chooses. When one major group is silenced only one monolithic voice emerges.  That becomes the gateway to oligarchy where only one class of people exercises authority over others. The silencing of the lambs means that one majority group may no longer speak or express their minds. Their silence can be claimed by the oligarchy as victory but only for so long.

Suppressing the voice of one group, specially one overwhelming one as was the case in Tsarists Russia during the reign of the Romanov Dynasty gave birth to Communism when at last the silent lambs turned into wolves of revolutionaries. Ironically, the Communists did exactly the same thing when it started to suppress the opposition voices once they took power. By 1991 the Soviet Union broke up. Keep in mind it was less than a century since it was created. Today, not having learned the lesson, the Russian government is back to silencing the lambs once again. Another lesson is that of Mao's China. The last of imperial China ended with the Qing or the Manchu Dynasty whose rule stopped in 1912. But after WWII, Mao rose to power that culminated in the Cultural Revolution of the 60's. But again, suppression of alternative voices held the people in check. Although China's communism today is Communism in name only (CINO) its economic power is shaky if only for one reason: it conducts its business like a capitalist but rules its people like silenced lambs.

If one side succeeds in silencing the other, there will soon be an eerie silence but that will be short lived. The temporary dominant voice must understand that it is easier when opposing voices are heard – not just for the logical reasons – because that is the best way to understand and know them and perchance to work with them (one can only wish).  Worse than hearing the opposition is the silence that percolates underneath.  History teaches us that political power changes hands, dictatorships are toppled and ideologies change or evolve   even amidst every effort to silence the opposition.  Worse than hearing too much out of the political and sociological discourse is when one side no longer rattles.