The seduction of silence
Posted in Carolinus by R Lee Wrights on January 18th, 2009 by R. Lee Wrights
“Silence is a text easy to misread.”
- A. A. Attanasio, The Eagle and the Sword
I can never remember who coined the phrase, “Silence is golden,” but it must have been a politician. That is probably why it has also been said, “Sometimes silence is not golden–just yellow;” and, I am reminded that Robert Louis Stevenson said, “The cruelest lies are often told in silence.” In our previous posting we have seen how troubling silence can be when it is used to shield evil from justice; how it can become a sin when innocent individuals are harmed from others’ unwillingness to speak. Seduced by the notion that others will do something, we often remain silent and do nothing at all. It is a dangerous road we traverse when we succumb to such seduction. Silence only means one thing to a would-be tyrant. Silence is indeed as good as gold to the “wannabe rulers” of the world, for to all of them silence means consent.
“Silence gives consent.”
- Pope Boniface VIII
If indeed silence is such a dangerous text so easily misread, what then makes the embrace of “golden” silence so seductive? How does it become so easy to remain silent in the face of practically any situation mankind could ever imagine or conjure? Convenience is at the top of the list, I suspect. It is simply the easiest course of action to stay quiet and not “get involved.” People seem almost petrified sometimes by the very thought of becoming “involved,” or making waves, particularly if the situation is perceived as stressful, dangerous or distasteful. It becomes easy to convince ourselves that seductive silence is acceptable because “silence is golden.” Besides, we hope others will handle everything just fine. Sadly, in the process we give away our power to fight corruption by consenting to it with our silence.
Convenience may indeed be the main quality that makes silence so seductive, but it is surely not the only one. Sometimes the allure of silence can be more nefarious. Secrecy is necessary anytime a small group of people try to control or influence a larger body of individuals. And of course, secrecy cannot exist without the silence of those who are “in the know.” Down through the ages, passed on from generation to generation, secrecy married to seductive silence breeds oppression. Unfortunately, even basically “good” people give their support to oppression by simply staying quiet about it.
“Oppression can only survive through silence.”
- Carmen de Monteflores
Whether we remain silent out of mere convenience or simply to avoid criticism from our peers, it almost always looks like we are trying to “get away with something.” This is exemplified perfectly by a situation we face right now on the Libertarian National Committee. You see, we have a national Treasurer who is refusing to release the details of the budget recently passed by the committee unless those of us seeking the information promise not to forward it to anyone, including other committee members. He has even gone so far as to refuse to obey several direct requests from our national Chair to forward the budget. A document that was shown, debated, and voted upon in open session is now being treated as though it were some sort of State secret! Why, I ask, why?!
The answer from our Treasurer is that he doesn’t want to be criticized for his work. Apparently, there is something in the budget that frightens him. Something about it has him worried; and, he believes if it gets out into the public eye that people may be critical of what he has done. Now personally, I don’t think he really has that much to worry about. I mean, after all, each of us on the committee, as national leaders, must naturally expect that not everyone is going to be pleased with what we are doing. Criticism comes with the job. What the Treasurer obviously does not realize is by trying to avoid critical analysis of his work product, he is inviting the worst type of criticism. The first question on most folks’ mind when they hear about this is, “What is Aaron Starr trying to hide?”
Is our Treasurer trying to hide something? Well frankly, I cannot say yes or no. I am not allowed to see the budget details since I refuse to agree to Mr. Starr’s unreasonable demand for silence. What I do know are ridiculous circumstances when I come upon them. What I can tell you is there is a huge problem when board members cannot get such information from committee officers even after we have voted on it and made it our “spending authority.”
What is Mr. Starr trying to hide? Perhaps nothing at all. But how are we to know unless he allows us to take a look at the details of the budget and discuss it among ourselves? I dare say few organizations, if any, would stand for such arrogance from a national officer who refuses to supply fellow committee members with information they are entitled to, information that, in fact, belongs to them! Hopefully at the next national convention the Libertarian Party will elect a Treasurer who believes in openness and transparency. Perhaps we can find someone who will not be swayed by fear of the criticism that is inherent in the job.
Now, I have taken more than a little heat from some of my more dignified friends with whom I serve, or have served with over the years, for being too vocal at times. I make some of them uncomfortable when I speak against what may be perceived as some small or unpleasant aspect of actions we are considering. The problem is silence has allowed would-be rulers to gain the necessary confidence to move on to larger and even more distasteful pursuits. Our silence has been their consent so they believe they can do just as they please.
The problems we face today are not new ones. Many of the internal problems within our party, or any party/club/organization for that matter, have been around for decades. We just never talk about them! When someone tries to talk about our problems, they are immediately labeled a troublemaker and shunned by the leadership. The first thing you must do to fix any problem is identify and admit to it.
Only through a trust built upon adherence to our founding principles, free and open debate, and honest, transparent internal affairs will we build a healthier party that is inviting and appealing to freedom lovers from both ends of the political spectrum. We cannot allow ourselves to be seduced by the sin of silence, just for the sake of “going along to get along.” It is time to address our problems and begin searching for the solutions that our members expect and feel are long over due. So, if someone speaks out and you know they are right, speak up and support them! There really is strength in numbers, and remember, a quiet wheel rarely gets greased. Silence should never be so seductive that it becomes the answer to the question, “Should I say what is right?”
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 - 1968)
R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.
paulie said,
January 18, 2009 @ 10:46 am
We already have the budget posted online at IPR
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/lnc-financial-package-2008/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/draft-minutes-from-december-lnc-meeting/
Lee Wrights: ‘The seduction of silence’ said,
January 18, 2009 @ 11:20 am
[...] in Liberty for All, Libertarian National Committee member R. Lee Wrights says: Whether we remain silent out of mere convenience or simply to avoid criticism from our peers, it [...]
R Lee Wrights said,
January 18, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
No, what you have posted are only preliminary numbers from November. I, and several others, have been asking for the details we actually passed in San Diego in December. So far, I have not been allowed to see those numbers since I refuse to agree to Mr. Starr’s requirement of secrecy.
paulie said,
January 18, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
How could you have voted, or been asked to vote, for what you have not seen? Is that even remotely logical or bylaws-compliant? This is beyond ridiculous.
paulie said,
January 18, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
I don’t see how the details of the budget can logically be kept secret from any member who has paid dues, much the committee members that voted on it.
Michael Seebeck said,
January 18, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Seems to me that the LNC needs to exercise the oversight provision on the Bylaws so Starr stops playing his little games. It is outrageous that he’s pulling this crap!
I think he’s afraid of several things, first and foremost the bottom red line. It can be easily shown that his work as Treasurer has been a bust and that he has helped bankrupt the LP. The second is that he’ll be shown as the a$$clown that he is.
Libertarian National Committee budget controversy said,
January 18, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
[...] Lee Wrights: ‘The seduction of silence’, I quoted LNC member Lee Wrights saying that the LNC budget was being kept from him unless he signed a non-disclosure [...]
Tony Ryan said,
January 18, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
I’ve known Lee Wrights for several years, now (since we met during the fire alarm accentuated 2002 convention in Indianapolis).
While I don’t always agree with him (as I’m sure he doesn’t always agree with me) he is my very good friend (brother I never had) and I will always respect to the fullest measure his passion for freedom.
This budget thing is out of proportion. for now, that is all I’ll say - most of you can figure it out.
What I really want to say is that I stand with my friend on the issue of silence. I’ve tried the “diplomacy” route with good results much of the time, on this particular board it isn’t working.
I’ll still be gentlemanly, but there is far too much of the “golden silence” going on and I need to be less a part of it.
Thanks, brother, for reminding us all that, in reality, it has always been thus.
While the decent and innocent are quiet, those who have their own agendas run rampant unopposed.
TR
George Phillies said,
January 19, 2009 @ 12:05 am
Lee,
I believe that the numbers at IPR *are* the budget you passed, all dozen or so numbers. The huge pile of numbers that got put on the screen are not part of the budget and are not binding. The reason I say this is that after the budget was voted by iirc 11-6 you made a point of order that this was not 2/3 and the budget had been defeated. However, 2/3 only refers to new material. The Chair ruled that you had only been voting on the old material — the material on IPR — for which a simple majority sufficed to pass.
Having said that, you have the option of insisting that the full Treasurer report be placed in the minutes, and refusing to approve the minutes until this occurs.
Furthermore, if Treasurer’s report — all the more detailed numbers — are proprietary. They belong to the LNC for which the work was performed. Collect your property.
The more fundamental issue is that the budget spends almost no money on politics. For this reason, my state party has resolved to urge Libertarians not to invest money in National, where their money will be wasted on fancy real estate, and give instead to your state parties, where your money may get spent on real politics. For details, read TheDailyLiberty.com .
George
R Lee Wrights said,
January 19, 2009 @ 12:56 am
Dr. Phillies says:
“The reason I say this is that after the budget was voted by iirc 11-6 you made a point of order that this was not 2/3 and the budget had been defeated. However, 2/3 only refers to new material. The Chair ruled that you had only been voting on the old material — the material on IPR — for which a simple majority sufficed to pass.”
Lee replies:
Not exactly, George. I raised the point that we had voted on something not previously submitted in writing, which would have required a 2/3 vote. The Chair ruled that it had been submitted previously in writing and thereby only required a simple majority to pass.
In my opinion, what we have is a small group of “would-be rulers” that have determined they are in charge and the rest of us be damned. I am trying to make sure everyone remembers that all of us on the national committee are servants of the membership. I am hoping the members take notice of this unseemly behaviour by some of our officers and remember it in St. Louis come 2010.
Ken Prazak said,
January 19, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Seems to me, Lee, if what you say is true, –and I have no reason to believe otherwise, that this treasurer should be kicked out of the National Committee. The National LP is becoming more irrelevant every day.
what a sad situation.
Michael Seebeck said,
January 22, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Considering that at San Diego that same Treasurer attempted to tamper with my private property in the broadcasting equipment, only to be stopped by Angela in the act, yes, he should be tossed. Messing with someone else’s private property is indeed an initiation of force, a violation of the SoP, and clear grounds for removal.
Angela herself removed the webcam and got it to me later, and at one point she covered the cam for me while I was in the john. The difference is that she had by complete consent and blessings to do so. Starr never has and never will have such.
FWIW, the jumble of figures were not broadcast that day because the display was unreadable from screen glare and tiny fonts and horrible colors. Had that been distributed in advance I would have published a copy to accompany the broadcast, but that was not possible.
Liberty For All » Blog Archive » An analysis of the LNC 2009 budget said,
January 25, 2009 @ 1:01 am
[...] into quite the controversy. As reported by LNC At-Large Representative Lee Wrights in his article The Seduction of Silence, “…we have a national Treasurer who is refusing to release the details of the budget [...]