While I am not one of those who believe in a monolithic liberal media, I do wonder whether Joseph Leiberman’s constitutional insensitivities would be so easily dismissed if he were running as a Republican.
While I am not one of those who believe in a monolithic liberal media, I do wonder whether Joseph Leiberman’s constitutional insensitivities would be so easily dismissed if he were running as a Republican.
Leiberman points a finger at the entertainment industry, demanding that Hollywood clean up its act. And certainly, there are valid complaints about marketing practices, not to mention the general level of tastelessness. But let’s get real, as my students might say. These companies are in business to make a profit. The day the American consumer stops buying sexually explicit or violent content is the day the industry stops producing them. Why isn’t Leiberman pointing his finger at his constituents?
More to the point, it is one thing for consumer groups to call upon the entertainment industry to exercise restraint, or even to self-censor. Such groups do not have the power of the government behind them. Whatever my personal opinion of Bill Bennett, for example, he is a private citizen and has every right to pontificate, threaten boycotts, and advocate for constitutional revisionism. He is not the five-hundred-pound gorilla. Government is, and when United States Senators resort to veiled threats, it is a significantly different matter. When Republican officeholders have indulged in such antics, the pundits haven’t hesitated to point this out. They need to hold Leiberman to a similar standard.
And then there is the pass the media has given him on his casual approach to First Amendment religious freedoms. Leiberman has been quoted on several occasions to the effect that Americans have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion. I don’t know what they teach at Yale Law School, but the last time I looked up the word “freedom,” it clearly implied a right to accept or reject, not simply a right to choose between alternatives. Freedom of conscience is not like a Chinese menu, where you can choose one from column A or one from column B. Authentic belief cannot be compelled, and if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government cannot force people to “choose” a religion, any more than it can bar religious expression from the public square. Such slogans do nothing to advance serious discussion of the connections—proper and improper—between religion and public life. Instead, the effect is to create an “us” versus “them” distinction between believers and nonbelievers. When fundamentalist Christians have made such distinctions, they have been appropriately criticized. To date, only the Anti-Defamation League has publicly chastised Leiberman.
Elections authorize people to exercise the power of the state. We need to be reassured that they understand the role of that state and the limitations of its power. The issue isn’t whether Hollywood produces trash, or whether people should be religious. The issue is whether government gets to control our access to entertainment and compel our beliefs. When candidates do not appear to understand that critical distinction, the pundits need to remind them. Even when they are Democrats.