Protecting the Ecosystem of Free Expression
By Paul Greenberg, Safina Center Writer in Residence
Polling place. Photo by: Wasted Time R (Wikimedia Commons)
Whether opposing a massive salmon destroying project like Alaska’s Pebble Mine, raising awareness to the defunding of our fisheries management infrastructure or confronting how we can go about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, I have always chosen to voice my concerns for the nation’s ecosystems as a writer. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then a writer has to be a constant soldier, knowing that a well sharpened sentence has the potential to cut through paragraphs of lies. My thinking has always been that a well-reasoned argument can hew a path to common knowledge and truth.
But this year, for the first time in my life, I decided to put my pen aside for a moment and act as a voter protection volunteer in the state of Pennsylvania. Why? Because being a writer able to voice opinions required a stable ecosystem of its own. An ecosystem free from threat where the give and take between writer and subject adheres to a set of mutually agreed upon rules. A political action is taken. A writer responds. The officials or business people related to the original action may respond and the writer may then counter in kind. The idea is that in a democracy the soundest argument should win, not the loudest voice.
That things are not trending in this direction is obvious to anyone who flips between media organizations which have a formal factchecking and verification process and social media where false statements can go uncorrected, indefinitely self-amplifying irrespective of logic or argument. This process is now playing out in spheres outside of journalism. The present Administration’s repeated attempts to twist and convolute the rules of the 40+ year old Clean Water Act, again irrespective or any sound argument, is just one of many examples. The same behavior can be seen with respect to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, The Endangered Species Act and many other regulatory frameworks.
And so, I went to Pennsylvania. Arriving at my assigned post on Election Day before dawn I was struck by how orderly and calm the environment was. Voters lined up. Elections officials took their places. Republicans and Democrats voted. Issues came up. They were reported to elections officials. In some cases, elections officials ruled in favor of Republicans and in other cases, Democrats. In each case the decision was based on fact and rules on the ground. In each case there was no shouting, arguing or threats of violence. There were not tweets or Facebook posts. There were just humans clarifying the rules to other humans--people learning about and following the rules.
As I write this with the results of the election still unknown, I feel a certain gratitude and hope. The rule of law, as I observed it on Election Day, was still in place. Sure, it wasn’t writing. It was a lot less interesting than that. In fact, 14 hours of poll watching was pretty dull and tedious. But democracy shouldn’t be exciting. It should be quietly there for all: a background against which we can be the best and most innovative citizens we can be.