In my 30-year Army career, one particular two-year tour was rewarding, challenging and enlightening: an assignment as an assistant Army attaché at the Defense Attaché Office. U.S. Embassy, Moscow, from 1976 until 1978. One aspect of that assignment was being able to experience life in a country and society which controlled all basic freedoms and contrast that environment with the basic freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of the United States.
Although priding themselves on the contents of the 1977 version of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) which proudly emphasized the freedoms of speech, assembly and religion, such freedoms were never provided in a controlled Soviet environment.
Of particular interest is what was advertised as a “free press.” With all elements of communication being controlled, in blatant and unrelenting reality, by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), there was never any public criticism allowed of Soviet government policies, programs or actions. To put it bluntly, the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech, assembly and religion were not worth the paper on which they were written.
The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment also possesses the same guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly and religion as that of the former Soviet Union.
But, in contrast to the former USSR, the United States, even though governments and administrations have come and gone for over 200 years, has been most fortunate in ensuring that our basic freedoms, especially, at this point in time, that of a free press, endures unhindered and unsullied. More to the point, is the question of a continued “free press,” starting on Jan. 20, 2017, under the presidency of Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump consistently challenged the questions put to him by what he considered to be a ”crooked media“ and a “hostile and unfair” press. Journalists were noted as “the worst people I’ve ever met.”
He has also publicly delivered ad hominem attacks against individual reporters.
When considering the performance of Mr. Trump during his successful quest for the presidency, one could consider his actions to be a form of defense mechanism cloaking a serious case of basic insecurity; an insecurity manifested by exhibiting a refusal to accept any criticism. His standard reaction — attack the source of the criticism.
But, will this same policy of basically trashing and denigrating any opponent, foreign or domestic, be a basic policy of the 45th President of the U.S.? If so, please consider the consequences.
On Jan. 20, 2017, Mr. Trump will be the President of the United States after taking the Oath of Office by raising his hand and declaring, “I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
By doing so he will be fully responsible for enforcing the entire Constitution, not just certain provisions. I mention this since during his many debates and interviews, while seeking the presidency, the provisions of the Constitution were usually couched in words describing simply the Second Amendment. His pledge was to never interfere with the “right to bear arms.”
Fine, but Mr. Trump should be fully aware that there are already, according to the FBI, over 300 million firearms owned by this country’s private citizens and there has not been any action by any Democratic member of Congress to take these arms from their lawful owners.
Although Mr. Trump receives thunderous applause from his event attendees when pledging to uphold the provisions of the Second Amendment, do you have any recollection of his same unbending pledge to fully enforce the details of the First Amendment?
Based on his previous actions and view of a “free press,” is it not conceivable that the “unofficial” official sources of policy proclamations, and any Trump administration provision of the transmittal of information to the American public, will be via those bastions of unfettered truth and total objectivity, Breitbart News and Fox News?
In summary, if President Trump interprets and enforces the provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as they refer to a “free press,” as he did during his election run pronouncements, this country may be facing a slowly evolving, and disastrous, interpretation of that cherished “right” of free speech — a Trump interpretation closer to that of the government of the USSR and their Constitution than to that of the first 44 Presidents of the United States.
Wade J. Williams
Colonel, USA (Ret)
Peachtree City, Ga.
