The responsibilities of American freedom

Tuesday's elections provide a routine reminder of the freedom we enjoy as Americans. The campaigns, issues and developments leading up to the election also serve as reminders of the responsibilities freedom demands, one of those being tolerance of perspectives that may be different from our own.

Exhibit A: Death threats against officials in the League of Women Voters. Much has been said and written about the anger exploding into the public arena this election cycle, but never was it more apparent than in complaints from League of Women Voters representatives last week that they fear for their safety and their lives because of threats against them arising out of a controversy over the Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course, it is a contradiction of everything we value for any American to feel threatened because of his or her political or social beliefs. There is peculiar irony added when the people doing such threatening are acting in supposed defense of fundamental American values.

But there are some important ideas to remember from this particular controversy. For one, the individuals who made the threats are not representative of the people with whom they claim to ally themselves.

Many reasonable people may object to a League of Women Voters debate failing to open with the Pledge of Allegiance. Many of these may even become passionate and angry about the question. But none would encourage or support physically harming a League representative over the disagreement.

So, when Jan Czarnik, executive director of the Illinois League, asks, as she did in a story by Daily Herald reporter Bob Susnjara, “Who are these people?” the “these people” should not refer to the vast majority of League critics, but to the comparative handful of nitwits who can't control their vitriol, especially when provided an anonymous online forum. Indeed, such misguided zealots exist in all parties and ideologies.

Another point to remember out of all this, however, should weigh on the leaders of the political conversation politician or pundit, left, right or middle. For, when anger and rage overcome passion as the driving force for one's political ideals, the individual rights we all cherish are put at risk.

Radio, television and web commentators who've found that rage helps build audience share should remember that it doesn't always promote democratic values. Ditto for political leaders. The ultimate outlet for anyone's anger over the state of affairs in our country is not an online comment, a radio hotline or even a newspaper letter to the editor. It's the ballot box.

Reasonable Illinoisans have been expressing themselves there for weeks at early polling places. Millions more will finish the job Tuesday. There, we are reminded, we may express our outrage, as well as our hopes and expectations, with reckless abandon. There do we define our freedom and acknowledge respect for its responsibilities.