I understand and respect passion in a person holding to a political position and supporting a candidate—especially in a Presidential contest.

Barack Obama, I believe, could possibly bring about the change he pledges, lead in giving this nation a new birth of freedom, help us restore our commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and get us to join in a national agreement consonant with the final words of the Declaration of Independence:

“We mutually pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

With so much at stake, why shouldn’t we be willing to fight fire with fire, to propagandize and to use the attack bite to do it?

The answer is we should not—because it would be horrible for us individually and as a nation if we waged a Civil War, even one on the Internet.

Propaganda, I believe, is no more justified when it is “ours” than if it is “theirs.”

Almost 50 years ago, I made a decision not to tolerate or in any way encourage propaganda—theirs or ours.

I made a personal commitment to challenge it because I had discovered that propaganda can stick in the back of your memory no matter how firm your own beliefs are, how much you know about the subject or how many other you have with which to confront it.

In 1959, I was a reporter for The Wage Earner, a small Catholic labor newspaper in Detroit. I was writing a series of articles about the unemployed in the city—300,000, at the time.

My interviews told the stories of unemployed factory workers, some of whom had turned to pushing junk carts throughout the city, others of whom were working for $1 a day at carwashes, hundreds of whom daily hustled their services as laborers along 8 Mile Road and one man who sold peanuts on a 95-degree day outside Briggs Stadium from a Good Humor pushcart. Sadly, he could not afford to buy the dry ice that would have enabled him to peddle the more lucrative product, ice cream.

Almost no one else was covering the jobless and their plight. Only the Communist newspaper, The Worker, was. Rehashing my articles one-by-one. The editors thereupon, inserted any “facts” they could fabricate to serve their purpose.

Out of curiosity, I began reading the paper to follow what they had done to my pieces. I was stunned when a friend challenged me on a “fact” I had read in The Worker, and then echoed without my remembering, much less citing the source.

I was embarrassed and, in reaction, did more than stop reading or listening to propaganda, I also determined to challenge unsubstantiated facts and assertions, whether they were favorable or unfavorable to my cause.

My resolution included not only avoiding the others’ propaganda, but also any written for positions, which I support.
I believe it especially important for me to stand up against unsubstantiated or mean-spirited propaganda against Senator McCain or any other candidate not my own. And I would hope that, upon reflection those people of integrity who support McCain or splinter party candidate would say or attempt to do something about the spurious attacks on Barack Obama.

Some 20 years ago, I became friends with a man who walked on the other side of the political street than I do. He had shared my respect for the truth and disdain for political propaganda I have. His name was Henry Regnery, a conservative book publisher. His obituary in the New York Times called him “the father of the modern conservative movement in America.”

We did not always agree on where the line of propaganda lay and tried on various occasions to “educate” each other; but it was ultimately respect and friendship—not loud voices or harsh words—that won the day.
One of the greatest compliments I have received in my life came from his wife, Eleanor. I once confided to her that I bragged to my friends about the friendship that Henry and I had.

“What do you think he does?” She responded.

Read Part 1 of Being Anti-Propaganda ______________________________________________

Kenan Heise, a former Chicago Tribune editor, is a regular columnist for The Chicago Daily Observer.