In wake of Politico story, no elephants, no donkeys, just a lot of pigs
By Alfred P. Doblin
Language matters. As I understand some of the legal arguments made defending the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, there is constitutionally no such thing as hate speech. It’s a complicated argument, like how “many angels fit on the head of a pin.” Sadly, I’m not a Jesuit.
In my limited comprehension, it comes down to there is no “hate speech,” but there is hateful speech, and that is legally permissible. When speech incites violence, it crosses a legal line. Again, because lawyers will argue what that means, the “line” drawn is a line drawn in the sand. Despite the common use of that phrase meaning something is set forever, I simply point to the tide that rushes in with regularity and laugh.
This week, Politico broke a story revealing that a sizable group of young Republicans engaged in vile discourse in an online chat thread; nearly 3,000 pages of racist, homophobic, and disturbing comments.
There’s been blowback, of course. Democrats are incensed. Some Republicans are incensed. But mostly folks have retreated to their corners of the sandbox. I use that analogy because the only way to understand discourse in America is recognize that most adults who have power, want power, or delusionally believe they have power, are emotionally 5- and 6-years old.
However, the disturbing comments, which included professing love for Hitler, were not written by children, but by adults. And even if it were the former, we all should be greatly concerned.
In response to questions regarding the Politico story, Vice President J. D. Vance said, “I refuse to join the pearl clutching when powerful people call for political violence.” He was referring to once-private texts made several years ago by the now-Democratic candidate for Attorney General in Virginia saying the then-Republican leader in his state should be shot and his children should die. Those comments are despicable. There is no excuse for that and if that ruins Democrats’ chances in Virginia, someone should have done a little opposition research before jumping on the campaign bus.
But Vance isn’t out of the clear, either, because while I find his allusion to “pearl clutching” Dame Edna-worthy, one person’s despicable act does not excuse another person’s. More to my point, it does not excuse our action of not taking any action against what is obviously abhorrent.
Saint Augustine wrote, “He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent.” I take that to mean, we have to own-up to what we do and do not do, and unless we acknowledge our responsibility for the consequences of those actions or inactions, we cannot expect to receive the blessing of God.
Instead, what I am reading from Republicans and Democrats, alike, are words less profound: “I know you are, but what am I?”
That’s not St. Augustine. It’s Pee-wee Herman.
The Politico story is important whether you think the information is a gamechanger for societal discourse – which of course, it’s not – or you think it’s just a cheap, political hit job – which I don’t think it is, either. It’s just reporting.
We all should be disturbed that anyone is saying these things. Let’s not get diverted by red herrings and think someone is saying it’s a crime to be a bigoted, racist, homophobe. The Constitution protects the entire spectrum. But the American people should be protecting the dignity of all Americans. That means standing up and calling a pig a pig.
If it oinks like a pig, grunts like a pig, and likes rolling around in muck, it’s a pig.
All people of good faith should be outraged by anyone saying they love Hitler or use demeaning phrases to describe Black men or gay men or any person. It doesn’t matter if someone from an opposing political view said something worse. It’s not a contest. Both sides are losers.
This is not about politics. This is about the soul of America.
The framers of the Constitution wrote, what at times seems to be, a somewhat vague document because they believed in the underlying goodness of people. They were not fools. They put up guardrails. And they put up some that needed to be taken down since 1788, when the Constitution was ratified. But they did not spell everything out. They wanted to allow future generations to fill in the grey areas. As an aside, that grey area has guaranteed lawyers an income for perpetuity.
People disagree. People say horrible things. And when they do, we need to say unequivocally that it is horrible, that hateful speech is not acceptable. If we are so self-impressed that we believe everything we say has value, then everything we say has consequences.
“I know you are, but what am I?” is not the response of an adult. It’s time to get out of the sandbox.
Until next time, Alfred with a P