Free Speech Abused, but Still Free!

For many years, I have wondered why people who have diverse opinions and loyalties find it necessary to badmouth people who disagree with them. I like chocolate but you don’t; therefore, obviously, you must be an idiot. I enjoy folk music, buy you prefer country; without a doubt, your mother dropped you on your head as a child. Many have regarded politics and religion as controversial, even too contentious for polite social society, but that doesn’t explain name-calling as an alternative to reasoned conversation.

The latest case is Bill Maher (Beware, his rant is nasty!). Why does he feel it necessary to speak crudely about a group of people who, for the most part, are guilty of the sin of loving the United States? His offensive generalization reminds me of those who think flag-burning is a legitimate form of protest against the current government or a particular policy. I think it comes close to what I consider to be treason. He seems to place himself in the class of people who object to the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Personally, I rarely wear a lapel pin or put bumper stickers on my car. They aren’t my thing. I prefer to verbalize my opinions, but I respect those who have fewer words to say and choose to visualize rather than verbalize their opinions. An American flag is a symbol of “the republic for which it stands,” and displaying a flag shows support for this “one nation.” Berating such people and disrespecting the flag indicates anti-American attitudes, not anti-Bush or anti-Republican views. Mahr’s remark implies that only those who disagree with him sport lapel pin flags, even though he admits to wearing them, previously.

Mahr’s remarks suggest he prefers to discuss issues, but his very words discourage reasoned debate. He sites a litany of anti-Bush offenses and makes the assumption that anyone wearing a pin is a mindless Bush supporter. First of all, in the republic represented by the flag, people have the right to support the President, any or all of his policies, and those who carry them out, particularly troops on the battlefield. Flags have often been so displayed. Flags drape the coffins of those who die carrying out the will of the people as indicated by their election of a President, in this case a President who was re-elected after the beginning of the war Mahr opposes.

Apparently, one spark the ignited Mahr’s diatribe was a reporter asking why Barack Obama no longer wears a flag pin. Unlike myself, he had worn such a pin, as have all the other Presidential contenders, and stopped. By doing so, he was making a statement, in this case about the war in Iraq, which he strongly opposes. He’s a candidate, and no one should find the reactions surprising. Obama’s response was civil, even if I don’t agree with him. Mahr’s was not.

Many on the political Left share Mahr’s opinion and manner. They seem to want to have it both ways: “We hate the war and Bush, but we support the troops.” However, they are often people who advocate subverting U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, the U.S. Constitution to international opinion and America’s future to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, and Hugo Chavez. They even seem to have a begrudging admiration for tyrants like Fidel Castro, for the good old days of communism, and for the “religion of peace” of Osama bin Laden.

Bill Mahr has the privilege of a forum that this President is working to protect. Our enemies would not tolerate him; there is little opposition opinion or humor in repressive governments led by tyrants. Sharia, as imposed on populations by Islamic governments, would deal harshly with the likes of Mahr, Rosie O’Donnell, Hillary Clinton, and others; they have little tolerance for scatological humor, homosexuals, or women in leadership or even in public, although Bill Clinton might get a pass, as long as he preyed on non-Muslim women. Free speech, free media, free religious expression, and freedom from oppression if you’re black, gay, female, Jewish, Christian, or anything except a strictly observant Muslim simply wouldn’t exist. Communists and extreme Socialists are not much better, certainly as it relates to freedom of expression.

My original question still begs to be answered: “Why do people who have diverse opinions and loyalties find it necessary to badmouth people who disagree with them?” This is not uniquely an attitude of the Left, but it’s a counter-productive method, no matter what the opinions of its practitioners. Mahr is an entertainer as much as a commentator; perhaps he does it to amuse his audience. Personally, it encourages me not to watch him. More fundamentally, I suspect people use names, epithets, and crudity when they have little reason to offer, whether from lack of reasoning ability, from the lack of credible reasons, or merely faith that their reasons will hold up under scrutiny.

Cheap shots and name-calling tend to silence people, and that is their intent. The progressive Left is hell-bent on silencing its critics on talk radio with the Fairness doctrine, from the Senate floor, and endless through its mainstream media allies, whether the New York Times or Bill Mahr. The desire to silence disagreement is not merely on political issues; critics of global-warming orthodoxy or of evolution get similar treatment by the scientific community, who often also support a Leftist ideology. Animal rights activists, environmentalists, and the food police often use similar tactics in trying to silence the opposition rather than debate them openly.

In the end, those seeming to support and certainly enjoying the privilege of free speech prefer to reserve to themselves the right and to silence their adversaries and critics. They will use any means to prevent rational debate and impose their agenda. Mahr’s remarks on those who wear lapel pins is symptomatic of the larger attitude, one that is definitely not patriotic or American.