I have a problem with this that has no solution. When a left-winger is a shrill irrational jerk, he might turn off people from voting. When there is a shrill right-winger jerk, he and his friends vote, and the rational republicans also vote for the same guy as the shrill jerk. No matter how much republicans are against shrill creeps, they still benefit from their actions.
If I haven’t been more explicit about my opposition to death threats, it shouldn’t be an implicit endorsement of them. Some things are so obviously wrong that condemnation should be understood.
And this is where I have perhaps erred with this thread. Not that I think people give assent with their silence, mind, but that I have assumed those that disrupt events might think so, and that it would embolden them further. Sometimes this might be the case. Other times it might not.
In any case, I think disruption of speaking events shouldn’t be encouraged, and that people should be reminded that freedom of speech means everybody gets a turn. In this way, we might return to a more civil public sphere.
I’ll continue to raise these topics in other threads, where appropriate. This subject is quite important to me.
The first post seemed to be suggesting (especially in the second-to-last paragraph) that leftists were a greater threat to civil discourse than rightists, and I was just making the point that civil discourse is threatened more by death threats than by salad dressing. But of course both types of threats are bad.
The solution, obviously, would be for people of left-of-center leanings to overcome their distaste for shrill irrational jerks and vote anyway. If we’re not doing so – I wonder what it is, that accounts for the difference between how lefties and righties react to such things?
And, since I’ve gone out of my way to criticize those on my side of the aisle who’re poisoning the well, I think it would be nice to see some similar criticism of those on the left who do so.
For that matter, why’s everyone so sure that the shoe thrower was a leftist?
There are, after all, plenty of reasons to object to Mr. Perle and his existence- moral reasons, patriotic reasons, law and order reasons, etc.
The man is surely scum, disloyal, unAmerican, war-profiteering scum.
Whence the impression that one must be leftist to oppose such a wrong-doer?
I agree in general principle that no person should be drowned out by noise, assaulted by foodstuffs, or otherwise interfered with in exercising his right to free speech to a willing audience.
But on rereading this thread, there’s one point made in the OP that I think everybody, including myself and Mr Moto (because he is a fair and honest man, albeit a conservative Republican, and doesn’t use bait-and-switch on people), missed.
The distinction between the incidents described in the OP and Mr. Bush is quite simple, and passed over, inadvertently I am sure, by Mr Moto and all who have responded to his topic.
Messrs. Perle, Buchanan, and Kristol were private citizens affiliated with the Republican Party who had agreed to speak either in its behalf or in support of its general agenda. This of course gives no license to anyone to douse them with either salad or dessert (or soup or an entrée either for that matter). But it does justify anyone wishing to close such speaking engagements to the party faithful if that is what is desired.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is President of the United States. He is as much my President and rjung’s and Left Hand of Dorkness’s president as he is Mr Moto’s or Bricker’s. It is not only unconscionable that his speeches as President (as opposed to ones he might make in his capacity as head of the Republican Party, which will from time to time occur) be restricted to Bush supporters, as it would be to grant access to the courts of law only to registered Republicans. And this not merely because of the rights of citizens to equal access to their President, but for his sake as well; he needs to know what the popular response to his programs and policies is, not be spoonfed what the party faithful want. He is responsible to all of us; he is functioning as Chief Executive for all of us; and it is his privilege if not his right to know what a cross section of all of us think.
Who can misbehave the worst, or who are Bush’s most loyal supporters, is not at issue. It’s the President of the United States, not the President of the Red States, or the President of the Republican Party, who speaks and who needs to gauge how his message is received. If he is sincere in wanting to be a healer and leader of all the citizenry. He should not ignore the Brutuses who have supported him; but neither should he ignore the Reeders who have opposed him. For they are all his constituents.
Not an apt example, Moto. The students in question aren’t trying to stifle speech as such, they’re trying throw a monkey wrench in the system. Just like anti-Vietnam-War protestors who tried to blockade access to Army recruiting stations – and were right to do so, under the circumstances. You could make an argument (not a good one, but an argument) that current circumstances are different; but the principle is the same.
Did you miss post #29 on rereading? The bait and switch in the OP wasn’t hidden as well as you imply. Mr. Moto could have responded when it was first mentioned. He chose not to.
I haven’t followed the SDMB arguments over it. Are there folks defending such behavior?
Absolutely. Trying to shout down a speaker that others came to see is indefensible. I have the right to attend the political events I want to, and so does everyone else, and they should not be taken over by screaming idiots.
Perhaps you don’t realize that the right does it too because you’re less likely to have attended political events with leftist speakers. (I couldn’t hazard a guess as to whether the media cover such issues in a fair way.) But I have attended quite a few lectures and speeches by various leftist figures. On my own campus (Michigan State University), I have yet to attend one that wasn’t disrupted at some point by right-wing hecklers. Our campus has one of the largest student Republican organizations in the nation, or so I’ve read, which means that of course the number of bad apples is higher.
The worst was when Howard Dean came to town, since I had the misfortune to be seated next to the assholes. They smuggled in signs and attempted to shout over Mr. Dean, but fortunately they saved it until the end of the program.
When I tried to see Noam Chomsky at the University of Michigan (a considerably more liberal campus), I saw no signs of hecklers, or even anyone hanging out outside the facility throwing a temper tantrum (which is de rigeur at MSU’s political events.) It was quite nice. Sad to say, the crowd was so large that I didn’t get a chance to see much of anything, though, so it’s possible there were loudmouthed jerks present.
Do you really, honestly believe that right-wingers don’t do this? I’d like to attend political events in peace as much as you would, but the right-wingers around here do a reliable job of ensuring that it doesn’t happen. I don’t know if lefties do the same at right-wing events; I should hope they don’t, but I’m not as blindly partisan as you, and so I’ll acknowledge that it seems likely. Still, strange that you have such a blindness to the actions of your own side.
And that makes it okay?
Not only do I think it casts the left in an awful light to have these jerks as our representatives in the media, but also, there is zero chance of it having any kind of positive impact. Assault with salad dressing will not make a politician realize the error of their ways. It’s not an act of speech, and it won’t help illustrate the wrongness of someone’s views to the rest of the world. All it does is make sure that civil political discourse is slightly more difficult in this country. That’s not something I support.
Very apt example. They could have expressed their displeasure with current military policy withour disrupting the fair for other people, or interfering with the recruiters.
Your defense of them puts you on the side of the rude and uncivil.