When free speech means life or death
Posted in Dangerous Politics by R Lee Wrights on August 26th, 2009 by Jessica Peck Corry
Free speech can be complicated, as evidenced by the call from U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Fort Collins) for “civility” in the passionate debate over President Barack Obama’s plan to socialize American health care.
At town hall meetings and through online campaigns, millions of Americans have expressed heated opposition to Obama’s proposal.
Markey, justifiably nervous about the response she’ll face at her own upcoming meetings, plans to provide attendees copies of George Washington’s “Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company.”
The Denver Post’s Monte Whaley writes that “if voters angry over (Obama’s) attempts to overhaul the nation’s health care system don’t heed her plea, maybe they’ll listen to the father of our country.”
Markey emphasizes Washington’s first rule: “Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.” Markey implores participants to “respect one another. Don’t yell at people. Don’t hold a sign in front of someone’s face. You may not agree with what they say, but everybody deserves a right to speak.”
However, invoking Washington in America’s current debate yields new questions. Would America’s first president encourage respectful debate or call for a revolution against expanded government control?
According to Washington expert Joseph C. Smith, the analysis is complicated. While Washington encouraged political civility, he recognized the necessity to fight against oppression.
“He obviously did not believe that civility was more important than freedom,” Smith said. “Otherwise he would have condemned the notoriously uncivil Boston Tea Party, which he did not.”
As Smith notes, Washington backed a resolution in the Virginia House of Burgesses expressing solidarity with Bostonians and calling for a day of prayer and fasting. When Virginia’s colonial governor responded by dissolving the chamber, Washington still observed the day, a move Smith calls an “in your face” gesture.
At critical moments, Washington believed the need for civil discourse was outweighed by the call for freedom. While history books will define whether this is one of those moments, recent events have certainly put Democrats in a tough position. Having remained silent as liberal radicals repeatedly have silenced the speech of others, they now proclaim the First Amendment’s necessity.
Democrats are mum every October as radicals make their annual Denver pilgrimage to shut down the city’s Columbus Day Parade. They said nothing as protest ringleader and ousted University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill waged his censorship campaign on the Boulder campus, shouting down countless political opponents, including David Horowitz.
Democrats failed to condemn paid CU staffers who welcomed former University of California Regent Ward Connerly to campus years ago by donning faux Klu Klux Klan garb and holding signs calling Connerly “a puppet for the White man.”
There was no voice of outrage after students, during a taxpayer-funded lobbying trip to Washington, D.C., interrupted a congressman with, “Education is a right! Not just for the rich and white!”
Certainly, America’s health care debate, and the debate over how it should proceed, will continue. There have been some on both sides of the political aisle guilty of attempting to silence opposition.
But to understand where Obama’s opponents are coming from, look to the words of patriot Patrick Henry, who, in 1775, famously proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Ultimately, for families facing serious health problems — resistant to any suggestion of rationed care — this is about fighting for the freedom to choose life over death.
This article originally appeared in the Colorado Daily, August 24th, 2009.
Jessica Peck Corry (Jessica@i2i.org) serves as director of the Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project.
