Do Not Block The Way Of Inquiry*

One of the things the Bush administration will be known for is questions. Specifically, the lack of tangible answers to them and the general hostility to the questioner. Asking questions of this administration has been the equivalence of hearsay or a traitorous act. It is "un-American" to question this administration and its actions, even when those very actions lead to yet more difficult questions than the initial question the action was designed to answer and the more intelligent or probing the question, the more traitorous the questioner.

For example, I was taken to task for asking, very early on, where exactly these weapons of mass destruction were, for clearly if they had existed, the US military would have made a show of them and they would be item one in every newspaper in the Western world. As we now know, they never existed. Along those same lines, I have asked, if the United States was so worried about these weapons (and worse) and the "axis of evil," why did they not invade North Korea, which is clearly just as dangerous (I would argue that it is more so)? Which, of course, only begs yet another question, that being, how long can this administration continue to hide behind the facade that this is a war on terrorism and not a land grab for control of oil production? Just today, the President’s advisors admitted that one of their problems is tying the war in Iraq to the war on terrorism. It is a problem because the two are not, cannot and should not every be related to each other.

These questions raise even more questions about the rights of the Citizenry to question the elected leadership and the leadership’s responsibility to answer these questions openly and honestly, instead of reacting defensively. The Bush administration is not the first, nor will it be the last democratic government to be riled by people questioning it. Currently, I am reading a book called Socrates Cafe, a look at returning to, or maybe more correctly, rediscovering the ancient art of asking questions to arrive at a truth. The author says this of the Socratic Method: "[it] examines what common sense is. [It] asks: Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this potential? [SC 19]."

Some would argue, rightly, that it is our responsibility, as citizens, to question our government and what they are doing in our name. So let us all begin asking the questions and see if the answers we receive are acceptable and if the lead to more, and more difficult, questions, we should not be afraid to ask them as well. Some would argue, rightly, that it is our responsibility, as citizens, to question our government and what they are doing in our name. So let us all begin asking the questions and see if the answers we receive are acceptable and if the lead to more and more difficult questions, we should not be afraid to ask them as well.

To that end then, let us ask a fundamental question about the current conflict. Is it a tenable position that troops were and have been deployed to fight terrorism? The argument on the one side might run that "those responsible for acts of terrorism, specifically the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damage to the Pentagon, along with the associated loss of life should be punished." A fair statement to a point, but it can also be argued that those responsible were punished (with a couple of exceptions) because they perished in the act. So, that leads to the question of who is the greater terrorist threat, Al-Qaeda or the government of the United States? Ponder that and begin to ask the questions.

"Often it seems that fear prevents people from asking questions of themselves and others [SC28]." So is it fear that is keeping people from questioning the government about is actions, especially those that seem increasingly illogical or morally or ethically questionable. What sort of moral grounding is there in laying waste to not one but two and possibly three (including the US itself) countries? Even "punishment" seems a bit of a stretch any more, even if the public was willing to accept it initially. Is the public still willing to accept it as a valid reason to keep families apart an in harms way?

Moreover, what I am afraid is happening is that the Republican party and their mouthpieces are becoming more and more like modern day Sophists, those that would complain that the constant probing and questioning is a roadblock to the truth rather than an open pathway. This describes a large amount of the vitriol that is coming out of the mouths of some of the more vocal of the pundits, but even more so, we are seeing that they parading before us a catalog of their “belief systems” and helping us identify our own among them and maybe encouraging us to replace them with something more “up-to-date” while hiding their real agenda in smoke and mirrors terms like maintaining freedom, while removing our rights (Patriot Act) or striving to improve democracy, while violating the laws (wiretapping) or creating out of whole cloth new structures to meet their own needs, while ignoring the existing treaties and rules (Gitmo, military tribunals and secret evidence).

Regrettably, few are willing to stand up and ask some of the basic questions that need to be asked and need to be answered. If we can no longer trust our government to do the right thing, and this current administration is showing time and again that they cannot and should not be trusted to do the right thing, then at what point can we? If the label of subversive and un-American is what is hung around the necks of those who ask the question then so be it, because it should be argued vehemently that there is nothing more American than to question the leaders of the country and demand satisfactory answers, now and always.

*Charles Sanders Peirce as quoted in SC [51]