OK, let’s talk about dissent

October 13, 2006

Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting item today for the Wall Street Journal about the role of dissent in public discourse. Apparently, Noonan believes the left isn’t nearly tolerant enough of competing views, and pointed to four specific examples.

* A student protest shut down a speech at Columbia University from Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, an anti-immigration group.

* Brian Rohrbough, who lost a child during the Columbine massacre, delivered a speech on the CBS Evening News. Because the network censored anti-religious speech while promoting religious speech, some (including me) criticized the segment.

* Barbra Streisand was heckled during a recent show at Madison Square Garden, and responded by cursing the critic.

* And Rosie O’Donnell argued on “The View” with someone about gun control.

Tying these four together, Noonan believes “there’s a pattern.”

It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail. It is about something so obvious it is almost embarrassing to state. Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This — listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity — is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing.

We all know this, at least in the abstract. Why are so many forgetting it in the particular?

That’s a pretty good question. For that matter, I’m certainly inclined to agree with the sentiment about diversity of thought. But as long as Noonan brings up the subject of free speech and tolerance for competing ideas, let’s explore it a bit further.

If Noonan believes it’s important for Americans to listen “with respect and forbearance” to those with competing ideas, perhaps she could comment on the Bush White House’s approach to the diversity of thought.

Perhaps Noonan could explain why a man was recently arrested for telling the Vice President how displeased he is with the administration’s war policy. Perhaps this champion of free speech could tell us her thoughts on three law-abiding Americans being removed from a public event because a White House staffer didn’t like their bumper sticker. Maybe this advocate of allowing people to articulate views with which others may disagree could comment on the arrest of a couple in West Virginia who wore T-shirts criticizing the president — on the 4th of July, no less — to a Bush event and were taken away in handcuffs. Perhaps Noonan could share her perspective on the loyalty oaths Americans were asked to sign in order to see their Vice President in person.

Noonan has picked odd targets for her scorn. Some misguided college kids? A couple of celebrities? If she were genuinely concerned about promoting diversity of thought, she might want to start at the top — namely, a president who equates disagreement with disloyalty, and has surrounded himself in a bubble to make sure those competing voices are locked out.

The left is closed to competing ideas? I had no idea Noonan had such a dry sense of humor.

Will the WSJ be offering the Dixie Chicks some op-ed space for their take on the state of free speech for celebrities?

  • CB, you’re absolutely right to slam Noonan for selective perception on this one (also known as “hypocrisy”), and I agree that the equation of dissent with disloyalty by the highest officials in the land outweighs Barbra Streisland acting like the jerky prima donna she evidently is.

    But Noonan is on target (damn, it feels weird and awful to write that) in equating fervent belief with certitude and outrage that anyone might disagree. And we on the left are as bad as, possibly worse than, the other side in this regard. This is why, just to give one example, I was bummed to hear that Warner dropped out of the race yesterday. The guy is more to the right than I am on a wide range of cultural and foreign policy issues… but so what? I thought he was smart on (IMO) the biggest things–education and economic competitiveness–and I can live with him being more conservative than me on abortion, the war, and some other subjects. Who’s to say that I’m absolutely right on these questions?

  • Yes it has been the lefties who have been equating disagreement on the Iraq war with treason and lack of patriotism.

    And it has been the lefties who have been leaving the righties out of any and all debate on bills to be presented to a vote by the House and Senate. And the lefties who refuse to allow righties to propose amendments to legislation.

    It is the lefties, not Rush Limbaugh, who refuse to allow opposing ideas to be voiced on their radio shows.

    One can go on and on and on about how the lefties have been stifling speech these past 12 years or so.

  • It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail.

    It’s funny, but that’s exactly how I feel about right-wingers. They’re right, from their point of view. The thing is their point of view is less well informed.

  • Noonan needs to get out more and stop using FOX News as her major information source.

    Of course, the same can be said for a lot of people, but still.

  • Only a right-winger will look you in the eyes and tell you he’s not racist, but not really mean it. Liberals at least acknowledge try to deal with unconscious racism.

    With the right-wingers, the few ones in the party who may not be that way are in the minority. They’re not in control and won’t challenge the ones who are. So you’ve got a whole bunch of people trying to write off the interests of a whole huge portion of our population trying to tell us who can speak and when and what they can say.

  • “And we on the left are as bad as, possibly worse than, the other side in this regard.” dajafi

    Maybe right now. But look at what we have put up with for the past 5 years. Sometimes our public officials need beating over the head with some of this certainty and outrage. But if you think back to Clinton’s presidency and all the grief he received from the right’s certainty and outrage you would have arrived at the opposite conclusion then. As the political pendulum swings so will the certainty and outrage.

    But, on the other hand, weigh the left’s collective outrage against the certainty and outrage of those on the right who have the tools of mass communications to reach more ears, the scale still tips heavily toward the right.

  • Do Left wing types have problems with dissent? Of course we do and I think we’d be fools to say otherwise. I’ve seen it enough times at university with various protesters. However, Noonan forgets that most of the protesters are disadvantaged and poorly connected.

    On the other hand, I’ve never heard of a Prez holding pre screened town halls with only Kool Aid Drinkers till Bush came to power. I’ve never seen Bill O’Reilly allow a Liberal guest to argue with him very far, and if they get in a few good shots, he goes to commercials. I’ve heard Rush hang up on callers who are Liberals. I’ve seen Diznee refuse to distribute films that “offend” right wingers like Farenheit 9/11. Or seen RW blogs kick off users posts because they smack too much like the other guy’s talking points.

    This is just another example of transferance or in school ground parlance, “I know what you are, but what am I?”

  • And what about the fact that Streisand was merely addressing a heckler that was upset at HER freedom of speech. She was doing a lame comedy routine making fun of Bush and some in the audience got upset about that. And she returned fire. But again, they were the ones disrupting HER show, not vice versa. That’d be like attack Minuteman Jim Gilchrist for having been upset at people disrupting his speech.

    For conservatives, freedom of speech seems to be a one-way street.

  • “And we on the left are as bad as, possibly worse than, the other side in this regard.”

    No, we’re not. And I feel EXTREMELY strongly about that.

    I’d add to Bubba’s examples the completely Orwellian, fenced in, “Free Speech Zones” miles away from Bush speeches and Republican Converntions.

  • Wasn’t there a parable about a speck in your neighbor’s eye and a boulder in your own? Seems Noonan and her friends missed that one.

  • No, it was not Bab’s show. The show was for the hapless crowd who selled out big bucks – up to $750 – to hear her “sing” in her farewell appearance. If they want politics crammed down their throats there are plenty of places to get that. They paid to hear music, so-called, not Bab’s thoughts, so-called.

    Anybody that pisses away that kind of money on that kind of talent deserves to get screwed, but you can at least see why someone might heckle her.

  • I read this oped this am, and my first thought was that if Noonan was critical of both sides, her op ed would have been so much more credible.

    I did like this line though:
    “Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This —listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity…”

    Funny, sometimes I feel like some of those attributes have been missing when folks like the great Tom Cleaver respond to my commentary on this site.

  • Every time a conservative writes something like this they spit on the sacrifice of all the soldiers who fought the Nazis in WWII, who fought in the Revolutionary War, and who fought on the right, correct side in the Civil War, all opposing tyranny. That’s about freedom. Putting your fingers in your ears every time someone have something to say that you don’t like isn’t.

  • lou, N.Wells and others: I should have been clearer in what I wrote. The actions of the Right are far worse, because they are carried out not within right-wing web sites or paid political events, but with the support of the full federal government and on the dime of all taxpayers.

    But I do think that within our bailiwicks, we’re at least equally dismissive of those who disagree. When I went on Daily Kos last year to write about why I would be voting for Mike Bloomberg in the NYC mayoral race, I took criticism that was more vicious and strident than anything I’ve gotten from right-wingers on “neutral” sites. So maybe I’m over-extrapolating from my experience, but it was real and ugly.

    We’re all Americans and we all have to figure out a way to not just share this country, but work together to solve its problems.

  • That Noonen, what a character. Once again a conservative trying to tell liberals how to be liberals.

    When it all comes down to it, if you refuse to listen to half the country than you are President for only half the country. Boy George II is way down, and Dick Cheney is even worse. They abuse our rights by being this way in office.

    As for our not listening to dissenting voices, I’d say Noonen has serious mispreceptions.

  • wow, Rosie argued with someone on TV about gun control. those damned arguments — just awful for free speech. i mean, how censorial can you get? when people argue they express their thou. . . oops. nevermind.

  • I read this crapola and I can’t help but think of the likes of Charles Krautheimer who regularly declares that those who espouse liberal or dissenting views against the war are insane or mentally unstable. When I see right wingers and GOPers actually address those who disagree with them on the ISSUES rather than via character assassination or deflection then maybe we can discuss whether or not Noonan’s point has merit. But until then – does Jean Schmidt calling John Murtha a “coward” because he dared disagree with Iraq policy really have anything to do with “respect or forbearance” or civility or anything else other than right wing intolerance of opposing viewpoints.

    Once again, the key word of the day is “Projection”

  • First let’s talk about Definitions and Ms. Noonan’s need for a Dictionary:

    The word Dissent as it is used by people with brains, applies to disagreement with established or official opinion. Therefore if I go to a march to protest the war in Iraq, that is dissent. If I get into an argument with a guy on the bus about the war in Iraq, that is not dissent. That’s just an argument.

    Second: Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with.

    Wrong. WRONG. WRONG! Why is it so fucking hard for people to understand this? Free speech means the government either through its laws or employees can’t tell you to shut up.

    Looking back at her examples, Noonan doesn’t have clue one what she’s talking about she’s just miffed that people aren’t playing nice (i.e. Quietly listening to any crap that comes out of any one’s pie hole).

    So, for example, if I’m out with a friend one evening and I see two greasy red-necks hanging up flyers promoting the KKK and I lose my temper and proceed to tear them new arseholes until they flee,* I have neither engaged in an act of dissent nor have I stifled their First Am rights. I have merely stated my opinion. Ain’t America grand?

    tAiO

    *This is of course just an example. I wouldn’t really threaten people with GBH.

  • The left can’t stand competing views. It views them as ilegitimate and views conservatives as mentally ill or evil. The right is used to being in the minority of elite opinion. The media and academia force feed their beliefs down Americans throughts, call those who disagree racisits and idiots. Clear pattern of who tolerates disent and who doesn’t. Just look at the sheep at Daily Kos for mandated group think and vitoral at anyone they disagree with. Lieberman and his supporters are one example of a man who is personally attacked called outrageous insults for standing up for his beliefs. The right believes the left is wrong nothing more than that. PC comes from the left not the right. A few episodes of South Park will show you who wants censorship in this country. it is the left ready to call all opposing views racist and homophobic.pathetic is what it is when you can not defend your views but need to insult your opponents.

  • pathetic is what it is when you can not defend your views but need to insult your opponents.

    as I said, the key word for today is “Projection”

  • Just wait until Bush’s income tax cuts on the rich are rescinded. This will set off all kinds of attacks from the right. This was the origin of a lot of Clinton’s problems.

  • “The right is used to being in the minority of elite opinion.” — me @ 27

    If by “elite opinion” you mean the most intelligent thinkers… Then, perhaps, there’s a reason for it? And, per chance, a lesson to be learnt (tip: think more, speak less)?

    Also, it seems to me that being “used to being in the minority of opinion ” (elite or not), hasn’t hampered the right in cramming their views down the throats of the majority, instead of listening to opposing views with “respect and forbearance”, as per Ms Noonan’s prescripition.

    “The media and academia force feed their beliefs down Americans throughts, call those who disagree racisits and idiots.” — ditto

    *Which* media, pray tell? And which examples of academia?

    I won’t call you racist, since you’ve given me no reason to do so. But you are an idiot. Or else your mind has frozen in the mid-70ties. Perhaps you should start signing your messages “Rip Van Winkle”?

  • To do my best Bill Frist impersonation, I read this post and came to the quick determination that this Pegy Noonan woman has the worst case of projection I’ve ever seen.

  • One should always remember that Peggy Noonan, were she around 230-some-years ago, would have had us singing “God Save the King” today….

  • “Lieberman and his supporters are one example of a man who is personally attacked called outrageous insults for standing up for his beliefs.” – me

    Well, I “attack” Lieberman because he has the gall to spout the Republican’t line that most Americans can’t talk about withdrawal from Iraq because that would be treasonous, but he can talk about it because he knows the “right time” to do it. That kind of sick behavior doesn’t deserve polite consideration.

    • Comments are closed.