Yesterday I watched President Bush (oh, how I hate those two words in juxtaposition!) comment on the antiwar protestors in Crawford, Texas, by saying that he refused to meet with high-profile activist Cindy Sheehan, because she does not speak for the majority of families who have lost relatives in combat.

It seems to me that folks in high places have been quick to push an individual to the forefront as spokesperson when they espoused the official point of view, without a head count to see if they spoke for a majority or not of the group in question.

Since when do we stifle a viewpoint just because it comes from a minority of a group (if in fact Mrs. Sheehan is in the minority)? I thought the whole point of a representative democracy was that many differing ideas could find a platform of expression in safety and that the resolution of differences through compromise and negotiation was the strength of our polity.

Instead, I find that the "leader" of our country espouses suppression of minority viewpoints and won't even meet with someone who doesn't represent the majority or what he assumes is the majority. We used to point to totalitarian governments in scorn for that sort of behavior. My, how times have changed.