This morning Donna Brazile published an “opinion” piece in the Washington Post in which she repeats the Democrat mantra about “civility” in politics and calls for the abolition of punditry. You can read the piece here.
And here is my reply:
Dear Ms. Brazile,
Yes, I’m sure you would like to abolish punditry. That way it’s much harder to hear the voices that disagree with yours.
And besides, how exactly do you plan on abolishing it? We do have that troubling little document that we refer to as the Constitution… Have you ever heard of the first amendment?
Then there’s your point about “civility”: Was Rahm Emanuel being civil when he sent a dead fish to someone who had the temerity to oppose his views? Was President Obama being civil when he referred to tea party members as “teabaggers”—a term he must surely know inflames them? Was Speaker Pelosi being civil when she called those who disagreed with the health care monstrosity “Anti-American”? Or Chris Van Hollen who sent out a fund-raising e-mail calling conservatives “reptiles” and “fire-breathing tea party nut jobs”?
Is that the kind of civility you had in mind?
I don’t think you and your fellow leftists realize the political and electoral calamity that you have brought upon yourselves. The radical agenda that you all espouse—and are actively trying to impose upon the American people against their will—is not being received well. In fact, I suspect and hope that it is about to unleash a political tsunami upon leftists of both parties. (I digress, but one of the more obvious things that you all seem to miss about the backlash is that it’s not about partisan politics in the sense of Democrat Party vs. Republican Party; it’s something more akin to a massive rejection of the statist, leftist, and marxist agenda to which many politicians of both parties seem to subscribe.)
I have to admit that you have made me think about one point, though. Over the eighteen-or-so months since the last election season began, I don’t think my political views have changed or become more radical at all. But I do believe that I have become more activist, more willing to speak out against what I believe is an oppressive, tyrannical, statist, and leftist administration that seems bound on despoiling many of the things that are right with America, while studiously ignoring many of the things that are broken (exempla gratia the immigration issue along our southern border). (To digress again the Obama regime has spent much of its time and political capital extending the power of the Federal government into areas where it has previously not been a primary actor, but has consistently failed to address problems, specifically those involving defense and foreign policy, that are agreed and understood to be Federal responsibilities.)
You are, of course, entitled to your own views. But it seems to me that any attempt to “abolish punditry” is a direct challenge to my ability to speak my mind in whatever way I choose, providing it is within certain legal bounds. Your political philosophy seems to permit you to believe that you have the right (and the ability) to silence me, but you don’t. And you tamper with my freedom of expression at considerable political peril.