Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

Hate is not new to 2009. And negative campaigning, either against presidents or their policy prescriptions, is not a recent innovation in U.S. politics. The first excessively partisan presidential campaign in U.S. history – that is to say, an election featuring discourse that was vicious and personally nasty – was the first one that did not feature George Washington as a candidate.

But 1796! Now there was an election year not for the faint of heart. A victory by the Jeffersonians, warned the Federalists, would induce in the new country "the teaching of murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest."

Then, as now, scare tactics worked for an incumbent and his party, especially when accompanied by a strong economy. Trade was gangbusters that year, and the Federalists' candidate, Vice President John Adams, prevailed. Adams liked power, and wanted to keep it. To that end, his party passed The Sedition Act to punish the very kind of speech his followers used against Thomas Jefferson. It didn't matter. The 1800 election was calmer, but Jefferson won anyway.

The Sedition Act made a crime – punishable by up to two years in prison – of uttering or publishing "any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent ... to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States." This patently unconstitutional law expired at the end of Adams' single term in office, and by Jefferson's second year as president, the very sort of personal invective that epitomizes today's political discourse was in full swing – against him.

Not least among its practitioners was one James T. Callender, an erstwhile Jefferson ally, who'd been imprisoned in the Adams era, and who turned his poison pen on his former friend in ways that are still being felt today. (Yes, Callender was the man who first spread the rumors about Jefferson and a slave girl named Sally Hemings). Callender's rhetorical imagery had a brutal tone to it that would be right at home on the message boards of any of a thousand political websites today – or at one of this summer's health care town hall meetings: It would have been advantageous to Jefferson's reputation, Callender wrote on September 15, 1802, if Jefferson's head had been cut off five minutes before his inauguration speech.

This year has brought any number of modern day Callenders to the fore. Most disturbing, their fantasy is not merely the electoral defeat of those with whom they have policy disagreements: No, it's the death of those with whom they disagree.

Last week, on the grass outside a town hall meeting in Hagerstown, Md., hosted by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, organized labor was out in force. Its members chanted slogans in support of universal health insurance. Conservative picketers responded with such charming slogans as "Get a Job!" And "Union Thugs Go Home!" That seemed rude, but certainly within the bounds of legitimate protest, but the man who sported the sign "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" unnerved the crowd and someone called the cops. The holder of the offensive sign, unidentified by authorities, was detained by sheriff's officers and turned over to the U.S. Secret Service for questioning. It is, after all, illegal to threaten the life of a president.

It's easy to dismiss the guy as an obvious nut, but that's not really the point. Here's the point: Unhinged political extremists can be galvanized into action by the words of others; they can arm themselves; and they can act on their delusions. It's happened twice recently, once in a Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas, where George Tiller, a physician who performed abortions, was murdered on May 31 during Sunday services; and less than two weeks later at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, which a virulent 88-year-old white supremacist visited with mass murder on his mind. He shot and killed Stephen Tyrone Johns, a heroic and quick-thinking African American security guard.

The question that inevitably arises after such events is what part was played by less loony (but irresponsible) political players who egged them on. Bill Clinton tried to pin the devastating 1995 Oklahoma City bombing on Rush Limbaugh and his medium, which the president denounced as "hate-talk radio." Its denizens, the president said, are "purveyors of hate and division" who "leave the impression, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle chimed in that when Limbaugh and his imitators verbally blast those in public life, some of their listeners "aren't satisfied just to listen" – thereby insinuating a clear connection between rhetoric critical of public officials and violence. Democrats are stressing that very theme again this summer, but this time with a twist: They are using similar language – language, in fact, that is often identical, and sometimes even more incendiary, than their opponents – all while complaining that such words create a combustible environment. Ironic, yes, but irony – along with wit, tolerance, and humor – seems in short supply this summer.

When organized groups of conservatives began packing the house at town hall meetings to protest the president's push for universal health insurance, Democrats went ballistic. Some of the protestors' tactics were appalling, to be sure, including the man with the creepy smirk who showed up at a recent town hall in Salisbury, Md., with an effigy depicting the hanging of Maryland Democratic congressman Frank M. Kratovil. Democrats are justifiably angered, and rattled. Not so explicable, however, is how quickly the nation's leading Democrats are resorting to violent word images of their own.

The Democratic National Committee has been running television spots essentially accusing the protestors of being anarchists, or worse still, one step above Tony Soprano and his crew. The DNC ad speaks about how Republicans, in their zeal to "destroy President Obama," are "organizing angry mobs."

"Call the Republican Party," the narrator intones, "Tell them you've had enough of the Mob." To Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the nay-sayers were "evil-mongers." Indiana Democratic Rep. Baron Hill called them "political terrorists," and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused them of carrying swastikas. (One swastika was seen at a rally, but it had a line through it. The protestor wasn't identifying with Nazism, he was...well, who knows what he was saying?). Hitler allusions have become ubiquitous – Rep. Brian Baird, D-Washington, accused the town hallers of "brown-shirt tactics" – and so has the practice of impugning the worst possible motives to one's political opponents.
"Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot," liberal radio man Ed Schultz said recently. "I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out. They fear socialism. They fear Marxism."

Pelosi, along with Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House, penned an op-ed article decrying those who disrupt debate at town hall meetings, saying that such behavior is "un-American." Three years ago, however, when her party was in the minority, Pelosi told a group of anti-war protestors: "I'm a fan of disruptors. There's nothing more articulate, more eloquent for a member of Congress than the voice of constituents."

The juxtaposition of these two statements begins to reveal the problem. The trouble is a partisanship so entrenched that it's reflexive, and unreasoning. The hate-tinged sniping at "red America" by "blue America" and vice versa more resembles the turf wars of the L.A.-based street gangs the Crips (blue bandanas) and the Bloods (red bandanas) than any kind of deeply principled philosophical difference of opinion. Anything bad said about my homeys is a blood libel. Anything bad said about the other guy is obvious truth, or free speech or, you know, just satire. Lighten up, dude.

A couple of weeks before last November's election, a man in West Hollywood, Calif., sported a display outside his home of a mannequin dressed to look like Sarah Palin hanging by a noose around her neck. A likeness of John McCain appeared to be emerging from a fake fire. "It should be seen as art," the homeowner explained pithily. "It's Halloween."

Earlier this year, actress Wanda Sykes, the entertainer at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, worked herself into a lather over Rush Limbaugh's statement that he hopes the Obama administration "fails." Sykes, billed as a comedian, called that sentiment "treason," equated Limbaugh with Osama bin Laden, and then screeched: "Rush Limbaugh? I hope the country fails? I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?"

Yes, how about it? It wasn't funny; it wasn't really supposed to be. And apparently, this kind of talk has become common on the left sided of the political spectrum. Another "liberal" radio talk show host, Mike Malloy, said on the air that he hoped Limbaugh would "choke to death." Malloy also claimed to have "violence fantasies" about former Bush administration White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, and recently asserted that he wants Fox television talker Glenn Beck to blow his brains out. On camera. Here are his exact words:

I have good news to report: Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide. I'm hoping that he does it on camera. Suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies toward self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months.

What on earth has Beck said to earn the wrath of Democrats? Plenty. For one thing, Beck claimed that the nation's first African American president is "a racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred of white people or the white culture." That's a truly odd, not to mention hateful, thing to say, especially considering that this implies that Barack Obama hated his own mother. But among those whose preferred method of discourse is the diatribe, logic is rarely the common currency. And the most extreme practitioner is probably a right-wing blogger from New Jersey named Hal Turner.

Here is an individual who makes James Callender look like a piker. In June, Turner was arrested by Connecticut's Capitol Police after he incited residents of the "Constitution State" against two state legislators who introduced a bill to give lay Catholic parishioners more control of their church's finances. Wrote Turner on his blog: "It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die...If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too."

Out on bail for those charges – and mounting a First Amendment defense – Turner struck again in a blog post. In a rage over the refusal of three federal appellate judges to overturn a handgun ban in the Chicago area, Turner wrote. "Let me be the first to say this publicly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions."

The judges he had in mind – Turner named them – were Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and William Bauer – all members of the 7^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in Chicago. As it happens, this isn't just any circuit. Four years ago, in Chicago the husband and mother of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow were murdered by a deranged plaintiff. The U.S. Attorney in Chicago these days is legendary hard-ass Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Inevitably, for those who know Fitzgerald, Hal Turner was arrested and charged with a felony. Turner is now in jail, adjudged too dangerous to be released on bail.

His lawyer, predictably, is saying there was no intent to actually bring harm to the three judges. "He did not say, 'Go out and kill.' This is political hyperbole, nothing more," the lawyer said. "He's a shock jock."

Perhaps that's true. Certainly, his line about the judges' blood being needed to "replenish the tree of liberty" is devilishly subversive, even clever – it's borrowed from Thomas Jefferson. ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," Jefferson wrote to a friend in November of 1787. "It is its natural manure.") Unlike Jefferson, however, Hal Turner followed his amorphous philosophical threat with a chillingly specific one: he posted pictures of the three judges, accompanied by a map of the Chicago courthouse that holds their chambers – and, most ominously, the placement of "anti-truck bomb barriers."

Before a truck bomb took out the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Turner might have been dismissed as a crank. Before the killing of Judge Lefkow's family, prosecutors would have been reluctant to act. Now, after the deaths of George Tiller and Stephen Johns, they act as though they must take action. We should all do the same.