It Seems Like 1988
when, as you'll recall, GHW Bush used the Pledge of Allegiance to make Michael Dukakis look un-American. Now the forces of the right are using the First Amendment to similar purpose. I'm not sure I can recall the recent use of a Senatorial resolution to condemn an advertisement engaged in the kind of political speech that the First Amendment was designed specifically to protect. This is the sort of thing one expected in the 1830s, when Congress frequently condemned the speech of abolitionists. Neither party thought it could present itself as "soft" on abolitionism, of course. And in the 1950s you'd find this sort of thing directed against Communists. But please, abolitionists and Communists were crazies, by the standards of their times. MoveOn.org? Not in the same league. So what gives?
Ahmedinejad, on the other hand, is, by the standards of our times, a crazy. But still, he's a head of state, and if he wants to lay a wreath at ground zero, well, why not? Because he's an Arab, that's why not. Only, of course, he's not an Arab, as Iranians speak Farsi. The argument goes that Ahmedinejad sponsors anti-US terrorism, and is waging a proxy war against the US in Iraq. Does this somehow tie him in with the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center? And has he ever contemplated abetting an attack against the US in the US? While, of course, the US has continually been contemplating an attack on Iran.
But Ground Zero aside, why not let him speak at Columbia? Lee Bollinger--by the way, one of the nation's most intelligent commentators on the First Amendment--was heroic in withstanding pressure to withdraw the invitation, and was equally impressive in giving such a naughty introduction. I'm grateful that he showed such fortitude. I wish the Senate understood the tradition of free speech nearly as well. Especially the Republicans, who style themselves the party of freedom and get all lathered up at "political correctness."
when, as you'll recall, GHW Bush used the Pledge of Allegiance to make Michael Dukakis look un-American. Now the forces of the right are using the First Amendment to similar purpose. I'm not sure I can recall the recent use of a Senatorial resolution to condemn an advertisement engaged in the kind of political speech that the First Amendment was designed specifically to protect. This is the sort of thing one expected in the 1830s, when Congress frequently condemned the speech of abolitionists. Neither party thought it could present itself as "soft" on abolitionism, of course. And in the 1950s you'd find this sort of thing directed against Communists. But please, abolitionists and Communists were crazies, by the standards of their times. MoveOn.org? Not in the same league. So what gives?
Ahmedinejad, on the other hand, is, by the standards of our times, a crazy. But still, he's a head of state, and if he wants to lay a wreath at ground zero, well, why not? Because he's an Arab, that's why not. Only, of course, he's not an Arab, as Iranians speak Farsi. The argument goes that Ahmedinejad sponsors anti-US terrorism, and is waging a proxy war against the US in Iraq. Does this somehow tie him in with the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center? And has he ever contemplated abetting an attack against the US in the US? While, of course, the US has continually been contemplating an attack on Iran.
But Ground Zero aside, why not let him speak at Columbia? Lee Bollinger--by the way, one of the nation's most intelligent commentators on the First Amendment--was heroic in withstanding pressure to withdraw the invitation, and was equally impressive in giving such a naughty introduction. I'm grateful that he showed such fortitude. I wish the Senate understood the tradition of free speech nearly as well. Especially the Republicans, who style themselves the party of freedom and get all lathered up at "political correctness."
posted by jnerone at 4:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home