Mental Pluff Mud

How do we process the accusation of “sedition — almost” [my term] tossed out by Joe Klein April 18^th?

“I did a little bit of research just before this show – it’s on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious.”

I don’t know about anyone else but I, proud Tea Party Enfant, agree with Mr. Klein on the “rub right up close” bit.  At least in a general – “rub right up close” kinda way.  And, again, perhaps just me, but I find that particular turn of phrase somewhat – salacious.  “Salacious Sedition“… it has a pleasingly concordant ring to it, especially in my symmetry loving, overly fond of alliteration, mind.

But back to my topic:

I’m new to the Tea Party movement, though I’ve been a staunch Libertarian for a couple of decades now.  And, I admit, I have a wee bit of the rebellious Anarchist deep down in my soul that peaks out every now and again, usually when my government presumes to be able to disallow me something or otherwise infringes upon my Unalienable Right of my pursuit of happiness.

One of those “pursuits of happiness” I hold precious is my Right of Free Speech, and I tend to get right het up about any — and all — attempts at curbing that constitutionally guaranteed Right.  Even speech I find infuriating in all its “wrong-headedness.”  That said, I also have a well developed appreciation for that decades old Rushism – “words have meaning.”

Some of the rhetoric being tossed casually about does “rub right up close to being seditious” in my very non-expert opinion.  But “rubbing right up close” is not the same thing as being seditious.  And until it is seditious, it’s constitutionally guaranteed Free Speech.

To belabor the point: I always cringe internally when I hear or read the phrase “the world can support [insert any of various figures from 500,000 to 2 billion] people.”  Turn that phrase around and it means we have X number of excess people for the world to be “healthy.”  The reason I cringe internally is because I’ve long worried that one day some environmental nut-job is going to attempt to rid the earth of the “excess” 4 billion+ people.

Does the concern that there might be some environmental nut-job out there mean that we should demand, and legally enforce, that all speech on over population cease?  Should we have banned Professor James Lovelock and his beliefs, protecting the fringe nut-jobs from his potentially dangerous beliefs?  Let me be presumptuous and answer that: No.

Galileo was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day.  Gandhi was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day.  The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day.  I’m not saying that the Tea Party is equal to these great men of history.  I’m saying that perspective can be nothing more than a reflection of the needs of the authorities, or those who feel compelled to protect the authorities.

But we, the Grand Collective We, are not here to serve the needs of the authorities, despite what they may think to the contrary.  They are here to serve us, despite what they may think to the contrary.

And when the Grand Collective We are unhappy with their service, we are constitutionally protected in our right to passionately express our displeasure and disagreement.  Even former First Lady, former Senator, current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton agrees with me…

Senator Hillary Clinton 2003: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’ “  [My thanks to Rush Limbaugh]

American politics can be “a bit raucous” at times, and always has been.  Frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Thomas Jefferson once said that lethargy was the forerunner of the death of public liberty.  True when Senator Clinton spoke the above words back in 2003 and true today.

So, while I actually do agree with Mr. Klein’s general point, it’s a point we freedom loving, constitutionally protected, Americans live with.  The fact that dissent is sometimes dangerous is nothing new.  If we took the coward’s way out in an attempt to protect us from the potential of inflaming the nut-jobs we would just repeal the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It was the “taking the coward’s way out” that our Founding Fathers specifically and purposely unambiguously protected against in the First Amendment.  It is also probably not a casual happenstance that freedom of speech is within the First Amendment.  They knew that free speech can be a dangerous thing and all too tempting a thing for a government [in the hazy future of all those years ago] to want to disallow.

Of course, there is always the Jaded Snark in me who is quietly wondering if this is simply a tactic change up because the “Racist, homophobic, misogynist, ignorant, hate-filled” tactic has been so roundly demonstrated as false.   I pat that internal Jaded Snark within on the head and remind her, gently, that I too invoked [elsewhere on the net] the memory of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in my defense of the FBI’s raid on the Hutaree the day after it occurred, long before President Clinton made the public connection.

“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing,” he [President Clinton] said. “But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”

Unlike some who stand in opposition to the current Democratic agenda and the direction President Obama is taking this country, I believe it’s a valid and natural connection… and reminder.  But what do I know… I also believe Professor Lovelock’s statements should come with a “Nut-job disclaimer.”