By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, August 13, 2017
The argument for free trade was won by Richard Cobden and
the Anti-Corn Law League in the 1840s. But winning the argument is something
different from winning the fight, and the campaign for free trade continues,
against the headwinds of bigotry and ignorance, to this day. The argument for
free speech has had a similar career. John Milton delivered the knockout punch
for freedom of expression in 1644, in a famous speech known as “Areopagitica.”
But the war on the private mind and its public expression is never-ending.
Milton did not have the advantage of having heard the
arguments of Cobden et al., and so he assumed the permanence (and desirability)
of licensure and regulation in trading commodities. But the truth, he insisted,
is no mere commodity:
Truth and understanding are not
such wares as to be monopoliz’d and traded in by tickets and statutes, and
standards. We must not think to make a staple commodity of all the knowledge in
the Land, to mark and licence it like our broad cloath, and our wooll packs.
What is it but a servitude like that impos’d by the Philistims, not to be
allow’d the sharpning of our own axes and coulters, but we must repair from all
quarters to twenty licencing forges.
Milton possessed the greatest literary mind of his time,
and his argument was packed with erudition ranging from Biblical principles to
a deep knowledge of the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers, and all of that heavy
learning was leavened by a deeply humane, generous, and liberal spirit, one
finely attuned to the limitations of mere men and their institutions.
Naturally, he was ignored.
And he continues to be ignored, most recently and
prominently by Representative Kathleen Rice, a batty New York congressman —
and, significantly, a former prosecutor — who has called upon the U.S.
government to designate the National Rifle Association and its public faces,
including Dana Loesch, “domestic security threats.” This demand comes in
response to the NRA’s having shown a recruiting video in which Loesch
criticizes sundry progressive bogeymen (the media, Hollywood, etc.) and calls
upon like-minded allies to “fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist
of truth.” It was immediately denounced by the usual opportunistic nincompoops
as a call to violence and sedition, even a call to overthrow the government.
It is of course no such thing. It’s a dopey bit of cheap
PR hackery from an increasingly partisan NRA that has made the lamentable
decision to branch out from what it is good at — its enormously successful and
historically bipartisan campaign of agitation for gun rights — and go all-in
with Trump (a fickle friend of the Second Amendment) and the kulturkampf associated with his
movement. None of that adds up to “domestic security threat” or anything like a
domestic security threat. The only thing the NRA or Loesch have done violence
to is a decent respect for the limitations of metaphor.
“Domestic security threat” is a term without legal
meaning, being a conflation of two terms that Democrats like to employ against
their critics: “national-security threat” and “domestic terrorists.” That
should give us some idea of what Representative Rice would like to see done in
response to the “domestic security threat” she imagines. Recent precedent here
is not particularly inspiring: The Obama administration assassinated an
American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, for the grave offense of being “the Osama
bin Laden of Facebook,” a phrase that would be hard to say without laughing in
a context other than the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen.
Gun owners and gun enthusiasts have been targeted for
some time by Democrats, who have insisted, among other things, that the federal
government ought to suspend the constitutional rights of people put on a secret
blacklist by the federal government with no due process and no course of
appeal. Democrats dream of registries, property seizure, and other invasive
measures reminiscent of the totalitarian excesses of the 20th century — so long
as those tools of tyranny are used on their political enemies.
What are the possible offenses of the NRA? It is an
organization that does nothing more aggressive than political organization and
political communication. Its efforts are labor-intensive: Contrary to the
ignorant assumptions that inform our political discourse, the NRA is a
relatively small spender when it comes to campaign donations and lobbying,
being at the moment the 460th-largest campaign donor and the
156th-highest-spending lobbyist. The NRA has long excelled at its core mission
because it excels at arguing its case in public and at delivering the votes,
particularly in tight House races. And it is for this — for ordinary political
activism of precisely the sort that the First Amendment exists to protect —
that Representative Rice and others seek to have the NRA punished as a criminal
organization, or as a terrorist organization. That these authoritarian measures
are cheered by people who still call themselves “liberals” suggests a
widespread moral and intellectual failure among a significant portion of the
American public.
It is not only the NRA and its political activism that
are targeted for suppression. California has laws protecting employees from
retaliation for their political views and activism, while both state and
federal law protect the right of employees to criticize their companies’ labor
practices, but no one in power — no one with the responsibility to enforce the
law — is going to lift a finger on behalf of that Google employee fired for the
offense of expressing unpopular views critical of his company in a forum
designated by his company for that very purpose. Democratic activists such as
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have for years been calling for the prosecution of people
holding nonconformist ideas about climate change as criminals, and Democratic
attorneys general from New York to California have obliged. Every Democrat in
the Senate joined Harry Reid in a vote to repeal the First Amendment in order
to permit the federal licensure of political speech and the federal prohibition
of certain kinds of political speech.
Representative Rice proposes to use the police powers of
the state to punish her political opponents for their successful communication
of their views — a gross abuse of her high office and the awesome power that
goes along with it. The House of Representatives should take such matters
seriously, and should move to formally censure her. But while they carry
important symbolic weight, such official actions are limited in their
usefulness. What is needed is an American public with the moral cultivation and
civic self-respect to be able to say: “I do not like that video very much, but
the idea that the people who made it should be treated as criminals or
terrorists for having done so is horrifyingly stupid, deeply un-American, and
far more dangerous to the health of our democratic institutions than anything
the NRA could plausibly be accused of.”
It is worth appreciating that Milton made his famous
defense of political dissent while his country was engaged in a civil war, and
while he himself was held in some suspicion for his advocacy of certain
disreputable liberal ideas. He was not entirely disinterested when he counseled
his countrymen to “be wary what persecution we raise against the living labours
of publick men.” Having the wrong opinions at that time was dangerous, as
Milton knew, a fact that was less fitted to the enlightened civilization of
England than it was to the “barbarick pride of a Hunnish and Norwegian
statelines,” and he put it. Norway used to be pretty rough.
We are not at war, the best efforts of the black-shirted
barbarians at Berkeley and the would-be assassins of congressional Republicans
notwithstanding. We have peace — peace enough that people on both sides of the
debate on the regulation of guns in these United States ought to be allowed to
speak their minds in public in safety, without the threat of state violence
being deployed against them by elected officials. And though the question of
private toleration is distinct from the question of official persecution,
perhaps we even have enough peace that the good people of Silicon Valley can
endure to have in their midst an engineer with unpopular opinions.
Representative Rice believes that her constituents are
emotionally incontinent children who can be manipulated with dishonest rhetoric
and cheap emotional ploys. It is up to them to prove her wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment