The theory behind freedom of speech was pretty simple: a robust consideration and debate of all ideas will lead to adoption of the better ones. When all points of view can be examined, people will opt for those that are best for that society.
The history of civil rights in the U.S. would seem to support that thesis; despite some pretty grim periods, the nation has consistently—if sometimes painfully– moved to a more inclusive, more humane interpretation of equality.
During the past several decades, however, the advent of an ever-more pervasive electronic media has facilitated spin and micro-targeting. As a result, political operatives have been able to target their respective base voters with messaging that rarely breaks through to the general public, depriving that public of the sort of arguments that free speech advocates believe are essential to good policy decisions.
Thanks to Barack Obama’s endorsement yesterday of same-sex marriage, however, we are going to have one of those truly public debates.
On the one hand, Obama has come out (no pun intended) for the equal protection of the laws, for a government that applies the same rules to GLBT folks that it applies to heterosexuals. On the other, Romney has endorsed a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and has personally contributed to anti-gay and anti-marriage equality organizations.
Perhaps more importantly, this stark difference of position comes at a time when those who do not follow politics closely are beginning to see just how radical the Republican base—to which Romney is in thrall—has become. Here in Indiana, the 2-1 defeat of Richard Lugar by a Tea Party yahoo has been a wake-up call. Despite being routinely characterized as a moderate, Lugar was a very conservative Senator (probably a great deal more conservative than many of his supporters realized). As E.J. Dionne noted this morning, he wasn’t “moderate”—he was civil. He actually engaged in conversation with people he disagreed with. To the rabid know-nothings who currently control the GOP, that was evidently sin enough.
Indiana is not alone, unfortunately; the radicalization of the once Grand Old Party has been proceeding for a long time now. But that radicalization has occurred largely out of view of the people who are simply going about their everyday business. What has been obvious to us political junkies is just now becoming obvious to the general public.
With Obama’s announcement, however, the “agendas” of base voters, Republican and Democrat alike, are receiving widespread attention. The choice is stark, and it isn’t limited to same-sex marriage.
If you think about it, positions on same-sex marriage are indicators of political and moral philosophies. People who favor civil liberties and equality for LBGT people tend to believe in separation of church and state, in women’s rights, in government neutrality and even-handedness. They value diversity.
People who are adamantly opposed to the extension of equal rights to gays and lesbians, on the other hand, tend to believe in authoritarian government, tend to support the GOP’s “war on women,” and tend to reject the principle of separation of church and state in favor of a belief in America as a “Christian nation.” Diversity makes them uncomfortable, and–let’s be honest—so does the presence of a black man in the White House.
Bottom line? Different positions on same-sex marriage are often proxies for dramatically different world-views.
What Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage has done is shine a very bright light on these differences. It was a decision to reject the continued micro-targeting of messages—the “wink-wink” approach favored by political operatives of both parties—in favor of the very public, very robust debate envisioned by the Founders.
It’s a debate well worth having. I just hope the Founders weren’t overly optimistic.
3 thoughts on “The Marketplace of Ideas”
We are not supposed to remember what Romney said before his quotes for today. We are, however, supposed to remember how he saved the auto industry in this country. Free speech doesn’t require truth; only someone to hear it and believe, no matter how ridiculous. As for Senator Lugar, he was a great help to my family in 1996 when CPS, Prosecutor’s Office and IPD refused to arrest the known young man who was molesting my young grandson. I wrote to Senator Lugar from my home in Florida; he was aware I would not be voting for him. Within a week he responded, telling me he had contacted all three authorities and if my family had no satisfaction quickly, to contact him again. Within 10 days the molester was arrested and later convicted. The afternoon after the trial I received phone calls in Florida from CPS and the Prosecutor’s Office telling me I should not have contacted Senator Lugar because he had no autority over this case. The following week I received a letter from the Chief of IPD making the same statements. For someone with no authority, they all took immediate action after being contacted by him. Senator Lugar went out of his way to protect my grandson; this is a man who believes in serving his community as he was elected to do. He will be missed.
Thanks to JoAnn Green for her comments! Thanks for Sen. Lugar and his application of pressure in the right places to get action. Senators and Representatives have much more authority than we realize. I hope that your grandson got the help he needed at such a difficult time in his life. Shame on CPS and IPD for ignoring the situation.
I am so happy that you’ve exercised your rights to get the Senator to step-up to the plate and put that Criminal where he belongs. As for the Prosecutor who acted as a bully- I’d like to know if she or he would ‘ve felt the same way if a young member of his family was molested?
God is good, and the corner of your grandson world is in his Hands:)
Comments are closed.