« Ding, Dong The Witch Is Dead! | Main | A Modest Proposal – 277 Years Later »
August 15, 2006
Free Speech As Private Property
In his autobiography Blinded By The Right, David Brock stated he started his drift to the right when he was a student at University of California / Berkeley. I won’t minimize his experiences by attributing this drift to one single event, but Brock notes the time when then-president Ronald Reagan’s UN ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, was viscously shouted down by a bevy of lefties when she showed up for a scheduled appearance in the school’s Jefferson Lectures series. Unable to make herself heard over the din and with her safely in jeopardy, she was denied the opportunity to speak at the very birthplace of the Free Speech Movement.
Gotta love the irony.
Shouting people down has become quite the spectator sport, and is by no means the property of the left. It has long been a major communications medium. Check out nearly any right-wing talk show (except, interestingly, G. Gordon Liddy’s) and you’ll hear the host stomp all over callers with opposing views, routinely disconnecting those who they cannot best in debate. People on the extremes of any popular issue – and there are a lot more of them than you might expect – are so polarized that any exception to their narrowly defined views makes one subject to ceaseless harassment, caterwauling, and name-calling.
The most current incarnation of this phenomenon is right here on the Internet, where people routinely get quoted, misquoted, partially quoted and quoted out of contest. Oftentimes this misinformation finds its way into the “Wikipedia,” an online disinformation source where anybody can post any lies and deceits they want which will stay there until the victim discovers the problem and figures out how to correct it. By then, of course, damage already has been done. Old time reporters, even those who grew up in the traditions of Pulitzer and Hearst, consider this an abomination – nothing more than organized mudslinging. McLuhanists recognize its inevitability.
I say this because a friend of mine dared to challenge the conventional lefty wisdom of our nation’s attitudes towards militaristic Moslem fundamentalists. Mike Baron wrote a piece called Manifesto for a blog called The Conservative Voice (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16827.html). Now with a name like that, you might think it would be unlikely for Mike to be advocating the Jews be driven into the Mediterranean, and you’d be right. Occasionally he indulges in techniques common to this admittedly left-wing blog, but he puts forth some interesting arguments that deserve to be heard and considered by anybody who is short of being a close-minded absolutist.
I might disagree with some or much of what Mike says, but I try to take at least one step back from being a close-minded absolutist. Please make no mistake about this: Mike Baron is one of the most intelligent and well-reasoned people I know. There are references in his work that amaze and astonish me.
Since Mike writes a lot of comic books (co-creator of Nexus, creator of The Badger, first writer on the original Punisher monthly), his comments hit the Newsarama blog (http://blog.newsarama.com/2006/08/10/mike-barons-manifesto/) and the predictable assaults were launched: Right-wing nut. A hateful, spoiled child. A sickness. Good to have a name to avoid.
That last one’s great for promoting free speech, isn’t it? Let’s avoid people with whom we disagree. Holy Ann Coulter, Batman!
Like I said, I don’t agree with everything Mike said, not half of it, and I strongly disagree with his use of the phrase “Fox ‘News’” without quotes around the latter word. But if you cut through the flippancy – the same demand I make of my readers – there are some interesting points of view here, beginning with the evaluation of the all-too-serious threat of religious fundamentalism of all stripes. That’s hardly a right-wing pro-Bush statement, as the threat Christian fundamentalists have represented ever since the First Crusade is all too serious as well.
I strongly suspect some of these same people were deeply offended when people like Neal Boorz and Bill O’Reilly brand those who disagree with them as traitors, a word synonymous in their lexicon with the words “liberal,” “democrat” and “Communist.” That, too, is ironic. These people do not understand a phenomenon that, in a fair and equitable world, is as profound as gravity.
Free speech cannot be the exclusive property of one point of view. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think Uncle $crooge said that.
Posted by Mike Gold at August 15, 2006 05:24 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4638
Comments
Mike, I was pretty much nodding my head as I read your entire post. I've also gotten frustrated at some of the ways the left has shouted down dissent (not that it doesn't happen on all sides, but I find myself more offended when it happens in my own political backyard). And, like many comics fans, I've long given up on the comment sections at Newsarama, CBR, etc.
Then I read Mike Baron's piece.
It is, frankly, utter bigotry, based entirely on the notion that Islam, as a whole, is the enemy, ignoring the fact that fundamentalism is the true culprit. Statements like "Islam is incapable of dealing in good faith," and, "Islam is intolerant," aren't exactly ambiguous in their meaning. And frankly, I'm not sure I see the attack on fundamentalism in general that you seem to spot. This essay is all about Islam, and the media that's filled with "bias."
That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate points beneath the bile (the treatment of women in many Islamic countries, for example), but I wonder if your reaction to this piece would have been to even dignify it with a glance if it hadn't been written by a friend and colleague.
That said, the Newsarama commenters could probably stand a glance at this essay by John Scalzi, which explains better than I could hope to why I'll still be buying Nexus if another series ever comes out.
Posted by: Adam Lipkin at August 15, 2006 09:23 PM
Well, to be honest Adam, no I wouldn't have responded because it wouldn't have been brought to my attention (by Glenn Hauman; take a bow, Glenn!) in the first place.
The nature of his comments is not the issue -- the trademark on free speech is the issue. And bile is in the mind of the beholder. I am pro-abortion, and therefore have been called a baby killer, the anti-Christ, a bigot out to deny Christians their rights, and my all-time favorite, a dirty Jew. Bile? Sure, but I can take it. And when there is a point that is being made, I try to see past the bile and look into the situation itself. Mike raised issues worthy of debate, and I think it's pretty easy to see past the dressings.
Posted by: Mike Gold at August 15, 2006 09:58 PM
Mike, you know that I love the other Mike like a brother -- but his screed (a term which he might interpret as a compliment) was not exactly original or particularly insightful -- at least not to me.
I harbor no illusions about Islam as a happy, sunny, tolerant religion. It's second only to Christianity in the history of aggressively intolerant religions. Both would rather see the globe a smoldering ruin than allow contradictory beliefs to flourish.
For a brief period, Christianity seemed to be mellowing out a bit, but it's now reverting to form -- at least in this country.
Right now I'm a tad more concerned about the Christianofascists in Washington than the Islamofascists in the middle east. The latter may be trying to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, but the former already have a formidable stockpile.
The Christian right isn't supporting Israel because they love the Jews, or even tolerate them, or even simply see Judaism as slightly less odious than Islam. They're supporting Israel because Israel's survival is a necessary prerequisite to Armageddon and the Rapture. You know, that happy, happy time when the small band of true believers ascend bodily to heaven and the vast majority of the human race is cast into the eternal fiery pits of hell.
Posted by: Rick Oliver at August 15, 2006 10:44 PM
Although I agree with almost everything you say, I have to admit that I boycott some people who have offended me past the point of no return. Years ago, when Ronald Lauder was runninng for some political office or another, he aired the most hideously racist advertising. I decided, then and there, never to buy any Estee Lauder cosmetics (or MAC, or Origins, or any of the other brans) because there was no way I would in any way add to the man's wealth so he could continue to run ads like that.
Posted by: Martha Thomases at August 16, 2006 09:58 AM
The problem I have with communications from the right are an overreliance on simplification to control the language of discourse, concepts that reside in the past, as though no changes had occurred since they were first thought up (e.g., tax-and-spend Democrats), and a tolerance for hate language from its so-called representatives (e.g., Dick Cheney called people who didn't vote his way "supporters of Al Quaida").
The left can be just as bad, but rarely do they get the official sanctioning of media and religious organizations that would put their concepts into the mainstream.
Posted by: Marilyn at August 16, 2006 12:49 PM
Yep, the right has done a much better job of controlling the debate, including establishing the basic premises. Mike Baron's piece is based on the false premise that all liberals (or at least most) are uninformed idealists. The only possible explanation for our lack of support for the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq, and Israel's invasion of Lebanon is our utter failure to comprehend the dark side of Islam. We think everyone can just coexist in a happy, loving, multicultural paradise -- because we're idiots. Alternatively, we hate America because it's strong and successful, and we hate anything that's strong and successful -- because we're evil idiots.
It's not possible that we oppose these actions because we think they are short-sighted and ill-conceived, with a high probability of failure, accompanied by a high probability of making the situation worse.
Posted by: Rick Oliver at August 16, 2006 03:10 PM
The basis of Mike's deliberation, IMHO, is not whether the article in question is bigotted, but whether drowning out dissent is truly an exclusive atribute of Faux News, Bill O'Really, and their ilk.
As a Canadian truck driver, I get to hear the debate as an outsider. Although both sides have their share of "drown 'em out" screamers, I have noted a few things:
1)The screamers from the right seem to drown out not only dissent, but any fact that does not fit their pet version of reality. I listened to Rush Limbaugh cherry pick his way through stories to make anyone slightly to the left of Nathan Bedford Forrest into the reincarnation of Stalin.
2)The screamers from the left tend to come from the extreme margin of the left, the right wingers almost tend to come from the mainstream of the right.
3)The right wing screamers seem to have an almost Goebbels like ability to either twist facts to their agenda, ignore facts, or create "facts" as necessary. For example, during the boycott of France after their refusal to support the invasion of Iraq, Bill O'Really, during an interview with a Canadian journalist in which he threatened a boycott of Canada for not supporting the invasion, quoted a "Paris Business Review" statistic which stated that France had lost BILLIONS of dollars in trade to the boycott. Not only was the article a figment of O'Really's imagination, so is the "Paris Business Review". The magazine does not exist.
4)The left is willing to shoot at Democrats. The right will only shoot at Republicans if that is the way the wind is blowing.
Just some long winded thoughts.
Posted by: Manny at August 18, 2006 04:09 PM
The basis of Mike's deliberation, IMHO, is not whether the article in question is bigotted, but whether drowning out dissent is truly an exclusive atribute of Faux News, Bill O'Really, and their ilk.
As a Canadian truck driver, I get to hear the debate as an outsider. Although both sides have their share of "drown 'em out" screamers, I have noted a few things:
1)The screamers from the right seem to drown out not only dissent, but any fact that does not fit their pet version of reality. I listened to Rush Limbaugh cherry pick his way through stories to make anyone slightly to the left of Nathan Bedford Forrest into the reincarnation of Stalin.
2)The screamers from the left tend to come from the extreme margin of the left, the right wingers almost tend to come from the mainstream of the right.
3)The right wing screamers seem to have an almost Goebbels like ability to either twist facts to their agenda, ignore facts, or create "facts" as necessary. For example, during the boycott of France after their refusal to support the invasion of Iraq, Bill O'Really, during an interview with a Canadian journalist in which he threatened a boycott of Canada for not supporting the invasion, quoted a "Paris Business Review" statistic which stated that France had lost BILLIONS of dollars in trade to the boycott. Not only was the article a figment of O'Really's imagination, so is the "Paris Business Review". The magazine does not exist.
4)The left is willing to shoot at Democrats. The right will only shoot at Republicans if that is the way the wind is blowing.
Just some long winded thoughts.
Posted by: Manny at August 18, 2006 04:15 PM
The basis of Mike's deliberation, IMHO, is not whether the article in question is bigotted, but whether drowning out dissent is truly an exclusive atribute of Faux News, Bill O'Really, and their ilk.
As a Canadian truck driver, I get to hear the debate as an outsider. Although both sides have their share of "drown 'em out" screamers, I have noted a few things:
1)The screamers from the right seem to drown out not only dissent, but any fact that does not fit their pet version of reality. I listened to Rush Limbaugh cherry pick his way through stories to make anyone slightly to the left of Nathan Bedford Forrest into the reincarnation of Stalin.
2)The screamers from the left tend to come from the extreme margin of the left, the right wingers almost tend to come from the mainstream of the right.
3)The right wing screamers seem to have an almost Goebbels like ability to either twist facts to their agenda, ignore facts, or create "facts" as necessary. For example, during the boycott of France after their refusal to support the invasion of Iraq, Bill O'Really, during an interview with a Canadian journalist in which he threatened a boycott of Canada for not supporting the invasion, quoted a "Paris Business Review" statistic which stated that France had lost BILLIONS of dollars in trade to the boycott. Not only was the article a figment of O'Really's imagination, so is the "Paris Business Review". The magazine does not exist.
4)The left is willing to shoot at Democrats. The right will only shoot at Republicans if that is the way the wind is blowing.
Just some long winded thoughts.
Posted by: Manny at August 18, 2006 04:16 PM
What really upset me about the comments to Mike's rant was the number of people who dismissed his talent at writing fiction because they disagreed with his politics. There is a weird mentality with people, starting on the right, but now sweeping into all discussion where polics comes up that creators need to agree with a person's political views in order to be "worth reading."
I STRONGLY disagree on politics with some of the novelists I read, and other than a couple of silly comments they put in their books, I don't care. All I care about is if the story is any good. Mike Baron can believe that terrorists are stealing his breakfast cereal for all I care, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone with his beliefs and his stories are good.
All that being said, when did it become a sign of stupidity to be an idealist?
Posted by: Cory!! Strode at August 19, 2006 03:43 AM
re: "When did it become a sign of stupidity to be an idealist?"
Note that I included the qualifier "uninformed" -- although I suspect many would consider that redundant. Calling your opponent an "idealist" is a polite way to imply that he is, at best, naive. In fact, look up synonyms for idealistic, and you'll get naive, impractical, and unrealistic. Conversely, under antoynms you'll get realistic.
So much for the English refresher course. Now back to the main topic.
Personally, I think it's perfectly reasonable to choose not to give your money to someone whose public actions or statements offend you. I choose not to give my money to Walmart. I won't buy Ayn Rand novels (but that's not just because I think her philosophy is stupid; I also think she's a terrible writer).
Mike Baron is entitled to his opinions -- but once he airs them in a public forum, he should be prepared to accept the consequences. I wouldn't let Mike's comments stop me from buying Nexus, but I can understand why someone else would. The article basically proposed a public relations campaign to whip up international hatred of Islam, under the guise of educating the poor misguided liberal idealists. As I stated earlier, I'm no fan of Islam, but Mike cherry-picked the facts to suit his agenda. I could easily do the same for a worldwide campaign against Christianity.
Given the long, sordid history of religious conflict, these are not exactly harmless proposals -- nor, IMHO, are they productive.
Posted by: Rick Oliver at August 19, 2006 11:52 AM
ionolsen17 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!http://www_3_2.gmail.com/
http://www_3_3.gmail.com/
http://www_3_4.gmail.com/
http://www_3_5.gmail.com/
http://www_3_6.gmail.com/
http://www_3_7.gmail.com/
http://www_3_8.gmail.com/
http://www_3_9.gmail.com/
http://www_3_10.gmail.com/
http://www_3_11.gmail.com/
Posted by: topicstarter at October 13, 2006 09:06 PM