WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 (UPI) -- Normalcy, a word out of vogue since the days of Warren Harding, means "the state of being normal." Perhaps it should be revived.
Harding promised America a "return to normalcy" in his 1920 presidential campaign. Buffeted by "messy foreign entanglements" and a recession, the American people wanted to return to the simpler time before the war.
Today, normalcy is the status quo ante Sept. 11.
In a matter of hours, the national culture changed dramatically; changes so profound they may have pushed some otherwise reasonable people to take leave of their senses.
In the rush to be patriotic, some dissenting voices have been silenced.
According to Editor & Publisher magazine, two newspaper columnists were fired after authoring pieces critical of President Bush's Sept. 11 detour to Strategic Air Command headquarters in Omaha, Neb.
Bush, who was speaking to a group of Florida school children when the attacks occurred, went to SAC on the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney. At the time, it was not clear the attacks were over. The White House reportedly feared the presidential plane might have been in danger from a deliberate mid-air collision planned to assassinate him.
Going to Omaha, where the president would have all the tools necessary to oversee a military response at his disposal while in a secure environment, was the right thing to do.
However, that does not mean dissenting views, no matter how harshly phrased, cannot be expressed.
Dan Guthrie, who was fired from the Grants Pass, (Ore.) Daily Courier, wrote, "When the going gets tough, the tender turn tail." Tom Gutting was let go from his job as city editor of the Texas City (Texas) Sun for writing the president "was flying around the country like a scared child seeking refugee in his mother's bed after having a nightmare."
A person does not have to agree with Gutting and Guthrie in order to fully support their right to their opinions.
According to Editor & Publisher, neither newspaper would say if the columns led directly to the firings, but the magazine suggests strongly that they did.
Many readers reportedly found the columns offensive, and management was certainly within its right to discharge the authors, but this may be an overreaction of the worst sort.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, America experienced a period of no-holds-barred political commentary. Rough and tumble, the language was sometimes course, the words strong, and the depictions vivid. The more outrageous the punditry, the more attention it attracted.
That may have gone by the wayside on Sept. 11 with Americans largely unified and rallying around the president. Stinging words don't roll like water off a duck's back anymore. But, as long as people are prepared to take responsibility for their opinions and the flak that may result, their statements are fair game. To take away their platform is a subtle form of censorship of unpopular opinion, at least according to pop culture notions of the term.
Case in point: Bill Maher, creator and host of ABC's popular "Politically Incorrect" late night talk show.
When PI returned to the air after the Sept. 11 attack, Maher, in discussion with a guest, opined that the terrorists who perpetrated the attack were not cowards -- but that the United States, in its Clinton-led cruise-missiles-fired-from-a-distance reaction to bin Laden, was cowardly in the way it responded to his terrorism
For this, Maher was pilloried. Several advertisers pulled their support and his show taken off the air in several markets, including Washington, D.C.
Maher apologized, but the damage was done. Even the White House piled on, with presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer responding to a press briefing question about Maher, "Americans... need to watch what they say, watch what they do," adding "this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
Except that in America there is always time for such remarks.
We may disagree with Maher, but nothing he said was so far outside the boundaries of acceptable political discourse that he deserves to be punished as he has been.
When this whole affair began, it seemed to be a tempest in a teapot. Now it appears to be much more.
People who offer up strong but contrary opinions have been threatened, punished and, in the two cases cited earlier, lost their livelihood. This is not how America is supposed to work. Whatever happened to the maxim, "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"
In the rush to be supportive of the country, basic rights we cherish are in danger of being trampled. In a backhanded way, the terrorists are being handed a victory. Freedom of thought, a basic American tenet that has been under assault from the political correctness movement, is being challenged in a stark and dangerous way. In time of war, that same freedom is especially valuable to the health of our democracy.
These opinions, as much as some may not agree with them, are not the same as blowing up buildings, shutting down cities with protests and riots in the streets, or encouraging multitudes to "turn on, tune in, drop out." They are valuable expressions of the American mind, normal under better circumstances. They are part of the process of figuring out how the country moves beyond the collective horror of Sept. 11 and where we go. It is something we must endure on our trek back to normalcy.
(Peter Roff is UPI National Political Analyst and is a veteran of the electoral process.)
