[The following excerpt was published in 1952 during the height of the McCarthy era and remains timely and familiar more than 50 years later. William O. Douglas served as a Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1939 until he retired in 1975.]
There is an ominous trend in this nation. We are developing
tolerance only for the orthodox point of view on world affairs,
intolerance for new or different approaches. We have over the
years swung from tolerance to intolerance and back again. There
have been years of intolerance when the views of minorities have
been suppressed. But there probably has not been a period of greater
intolerance than we witness today. 7
To understand this, I think one has to leave the country, go into
the back regions of the world, lose himself there, and become
absorbed in the problems of the peoples of different civilizations.
When he returns to America after a few months he probably will
be shocked. He will be shocked not at the intentions or purposes
or ideals of the American people. He will be shocked at the arrogance
and intolerance of great segments of the American press, at the
arrogance and intolerance of many leaders in public office, at
the arrogance and intolerance reflected in many of our attitudes
toward Asia. He will find that thought is being standardized,
that the permissible area for calm discussion is being narrowed,
that the range of ideas is being limited, that many minds are
closed . . .
This is alarming to one who loves his country. It means that the philosophy of strength through free speech is being forsaken for the philosophy of fear through repression.
That choice in Russia is conscious. Under Lenin the ministers
and officials were encouraged to debate, to advance new ideas
and criticisms. Once the debate was over, however, no dissension
or disagreement was permitted. But even that small degree of tolerance
for free discussion that Lenin permitted disappeared under Stalin.
Stalin maintains a tight system of control, permitting no free
speech, no real clash in ideas, even in the inner circle. We are,
of course, not emulating either Lenin or Stalin. But we are drifting
in the direction of repression, drifting dangerously fast.
The drift goes back, I think, to the fact that we carried over
to days of peace the military approach to world affairs. Today
in Asia we are identified not with ideas of freedom, but with
guns. Today at home we are thinking less and less in terms of
defeating communism with ideas, more and more in terms of defeating
communism with military might.
The concentration on military means has helped to breed fear. It has bred fear and insecurity partly because of the horror of atomic war. But the real reason strikes deeper. In spite of our enormous expenditures, we see that Soviet imperialism continues to expand and that the expansion proceeds without the Soviets firing a shot. The free world continues to contract without a battle for its survival having been fought. It becomes apparent, as country after country falls to Soviet imperialistic ambitions, that military policy alone is a weak one, that military policy alone will end in political bankruptcy and futility. Thus fear mounts.
Fear has many manifestations. The Communist threat inside the country has been magnified and exalted far beyond its realities. Irresponsible talk by irresponsible people has fanned the flames of fear. Accusations have been loosely made. Character assassinations have become common. Suspicion has taken the place of goodwill. Once we could debate with impunity along a wide range of inquiry. Once we could safely explore to the edges of a problem, challenge orthodoxy without qualms, and run the gamut of ideas in search of solutions to perplexing problems. Once we had confidence in each other. Now there is suspicion. Innocent acts become telltale marks of disloyalty. The coincidence that an idea parallels Soviet Russia's policy for a moment of time settles an aura of suspicion around a person.
Suspicion grows until only the orthodox idea is the safe one. Suspicion grows until only the person who loudly proclaims that orthodox view, or who, once having been a Communist, has been converted, is trustworthy. Competition for embracing the new orthodoxy increases. Those who are unorthodox are suspect. Everyone who does not follow the military policymakers is suspect. Everyone who voices opposition to the trend away from diplomacy and away from political tactics takes a chance. Some who are opposed are indeed "subversive." Therefore, the thundering edict commands that all who are opposed are "subversive." Fear is fanned to a fury. Good and honest men are pilloried. Character is assassinated. Fear runs rampant.
Fear has driven more and more men and women in all walks of life either to silence or to the folds of the orthodox. Fear has mounted: fear of losing one's job, fear of being investigated, fear of being pilloried. This fear has stereotyped our thinking, narrowed the range of free public discussion, and driven many thoughtful people to despair. This fear has even entered universities, great citadels of our spiritual strength, and corrupted them. We have the spectacle of university officials lending themselves to one of the worst witch-hunts we have seen since early days.
This fear has affected the youngsters. Youth, like the opposition
party in a parliamentary system has served a powerful role. It
has cast doubts on our policies, challenged our inarticulate major
premises, put the light on our prejudices, and exposed our inconsistencies.
Youth has made each generation indulge in self-examination.
But a great change has taken place. Youth is still rebellious;
but it is largely holding its tongue. There is the fear of being
labeled a "subversive" if one departs from the orthodox
party line. That charge, if leveled against a young man or young
woman, may have profound effects. It may ruin a youngster's business
or professional career. No one wants a Communist in his organization
nor anyone who is suspect.
This pattern of orthodoxy that is shaping our thinking has dangerous implications. No one man, no one group can have the answer to the many perplexing problems that today confront the management of world affairs. The scene is a troubled and complicated one. The problems require the pooling of many ideas, the exposure of different points of view, the hammering out in public discussions of the pros and cons of this policy or of that.
The great danger of this period is not inflation, nor the national debt, nor atomic warfare. The great, the critical danger is that we will so limit or narrow the range of permissible discussion and permissible thought that we will become victims of the orthodox school. If we do, we will lose flexibility. We will lose the capacity for expert management. We will then become wedded to a few techniques, to a few devices. They will define our policy and at the same time limit our ability to alter or modify it. Once we narrow the range of thought and discussion, we will surrender a great deal of our power. We will become like the man on the toboggan who can ride it but who can neither steer it nor stop it.
The mind of man must always be free. The strong society is one that sanctions and encourages freedom of thought and expression. Our real power is our spiritual strength, and that spiritual strength stems from our civil liberties. If we are true to our traditions, if we are tolerant of a whole marketplace of ideas, we will always be strong. Our weakness grows when we become intolerant of opposing ideas, depart from our standards of civil liberties, and borrow the policeman's philosophy from the enemy we detest.
7 William O. Douglas, "The Black Silence of Fear," The New York Times Magazine, 13 January 1952 <http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/PVCC/mbase/docs/douglas.html>.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.