Invisible Means Nonexistent to Bush

Last night on a news spot, someone asked Bush about the anger of american voters. His response was something to the effect of "I've been going all over the country and I don't see any anger, just thousands of people waving and smiling." Such is the effect of the "free speech zones" which keeps dissenting voices far out of site of both Bush and the cameras.

One of my original (and ongoing) concerns about the implementation of the "free speech zones" has been that they shield Bush and his representatives from any acknowledgement that there may be a question regarding administration policies. Further, since the corporate media largely follows the big name, the images that show up on TV are of unilateral public support for those policies. Some have argued that the "free speech zones" make sense as a security measure. However, speech is not free if it can be condoned off and placed under a heavy guard. That becomes "managed" and "controlled" speech.

The zone was also used at the FTAA (Free Trade Act of the Americas) meeting in Florida. Demonstrators were kept far away from the delegates and the meeting. This not only allowed unimpeded access for delegates, but slanted the information of the proposed FTAA. If people don't see others raising issues, the assumption is that few have a problem with them. The implementation of the zone subtly shapes public opinion and also allows Bush to make outrageous comments that fly in the face of reality.

I was outraged that the Democrats didn't make a big deal about the zone at the Convention. They went right along with its use. If I had been a speaker at the convention, I would have given my speech from the "free speech zone." But, the DNC, like Bush, chose to let this affront to our rights go (largely) unchallenged. The truly odd thing in the case of the Democrat's playing along was that most of the demonstrators were pro-Democrat and pro-Kerry. They were pushing for broader and harsher acknowledgement of issues and actions than the Dem leaders thought was palatable for the "swing" vote.

In a day when the "average" American gets her/his information from the corporate media, out of sight truly is out of mind. If dissent is invisible and muzzled, then the assumption is that dissent is limited and without merit. This is not what democracy looks like.