Submitted to a Candid World

Below, a top ten list of Bush’s worst failures. In one of my favorite episodes of Futurama, one character defends his absurd profession by saying, “when push comes to shove, you gotta do what you love, even if it’s not a good idea.” That pretty much sums up George W. Bush’s entire presidency.

I’m dedicating this post to remembering some of the worst of the worst of Bush’s acts in office, misdeeds which made me greatly question the health of our nation and of our democracy. We need to remember that, if we vote for McCain, we may not be voting literally for Bush, but we’re voting for the same behind-the-scenes people that made him so awful. So, lest we forget, a top ten list, in no particular order:

1. Outing Valerie Plame Wilson: when State Department officer Joseph Wilson discovered that Bush’s State of the Union mention of “yellow cake uranium,” implying Iraqi nuclear capabilities, was not consistent with facts, he told the public. In an urgent effort to discredit Wilson, and shame him into secrecy, Karl Rove - exclaiming, “Wilson’s wife is fair game” - assisted various other press operatives in “outing” Valerie Plame Wilson as an undercover operative. A career ruined, intelligence blown, lives at risk, all for a political point. (more below the line…) (more…)

A disturbing trend in the media and political discourse, lately, is the conflation of disagreement with censorship. Free speech protects the right to disagreement and dissent, but to equate dissent which turns into action with censorship is to miss the point. Censorship refers to the use of government power against the individual in the marketplace of ideas. When one idea wins out in the unregulated marketplace, and accordingly edges another out of the marketplace, that’s not censorship. That’s free speech working to ensure that truth rises to the top.

An example: although more than one-third of the audience turned their backs on the travesty, “conservative” hatemonger Phyllis Schlafly was nevertheless honored this past week with an honorary PhD for her efforts, one can only assume, in urging other women to not pursue PhDs. How odd, hypocritical, and sad. Mrs. Margaret Bush Wilson, who apparently disagrees with most of Schlafly’s views, defended her receipt of the honor, equating the gift of the degree with “free speech,” impliedly labeling as censors those who asked the university to rescind the degree.

No. Wilson is using a tortured definition of free speech to suppress the free speech of those who opposed Schlafly. Free speech does not demand that all opinions be given equal weight, nor does it require that bad ideas receive some twisted sort of “affirmative action” to put them on par with good ideas. The point of the free speech, and the point of the marketplace of ideas, is to let good ideas beat bad ideas without government interference. While Schlafly has a right to speak her ideas, she does not have the right to have her ideas given a free forum beyond their merit, nor does she have the right to be free of disagreement and dissent. Free speech demands the exact opposite.

We see creationists using the same argument, accusing scientists of “censoring” creationism and intelligent design. What they’re really demanding is that their poor arguments be given equal treatment, regardless of merit: in effect, they’re asking for a “government handout.” But free speech countenances no interference with the marketplace, positive or negative, and the right to free speech is not a flag to be waved whenever someone faces opposition.