Now there is an attempt – a dishonest one, in my opinion – to blame Sarah Palin for death threats against Barack Obama. Some are resurrecting discredited claims of “a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling ‘terrorist’ and ‘kill him’” as examples of her misdeeds – despite the fact that the original source about the connection between Palin and the threats seems to go nowhere near that conclusion and makes a connection that seems rather tenuous.

Lest you think this sort of report and connection is mere coincidence, let me offer a parallel – the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995. That terrible act of violence was used and abused by liberals in the media and in public office in an attempt to quash conservative rhetoric that they claimed – quite incorrectly – was somehow responsible for that reprehensible act of terrorism. No less than Bill Clinton attempted to tag radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh and the newly elected GOP majority in Congress with responsibility. And I’d argue that we are seeing the same sort of effort today, in an attempt to delegitimize and suppress conservative criticism and dissent in the wake of Obama’s electoral victory and in advance of his assuming office. Criticism, we will likely hear, endangers the life of the nation’s first black President and must be delegitimized and eliminated. Indeed, the new refrain of the Left will be not that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” but that “dissent is incitement to murder.”

So let me speak clearly today, before this effort is in full swing. While I did not vote Barack Obama, I hope he has a successful presidency that leaves this country a better place than when his term begins. I wish him long life, and pray that he will see his two beautiful daughters marry and give him many grandchildren – and that he sees great-grandchildren and perhaps even the generation or two beyond. I hope that he gets to grow old with his wife Michelle, who he obviously loves. No person who loves this country should wish for anything less.

However, none of those wishes ought to supersede a fervent commitment to the First Amendment. The life of Barack Obama, or any president, is not more important than the right of Americans to engage in political speech free from government restraint. And if I as an individual am given a choice between that inalienable right and the life of any chief executive, I regret to say that the elected official loses every single time. Men and women have died for over two centuries to protect the liberties contained in the Constitution at the direction of many different presidents – as commander-in-chief, the holder of the presidency must accept that there is some element of risk to be taken in order to uphold his (or, one day, her) solemn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” – risk that comes from some individual drawing an illegitimate conclusion from the constitutionally protected political speech of Americans who disagree with his policy.

Should Americans speak in a manner that is responsible and temperate? Yes, they should. Should due consideration be given to the reasonably foreseeable results of one’s words? Again, the answer is yes. But to assign culpability to the speakers of legitimate political criticism (even if their rhetoric might be judged to be over-heated by some) for the actions of violent extremists is not merely an attack upon one’s opponents with illegitimate charges, it is no less than an assault upon the First Amendment itself and the bedrock principle it contains that every citizen has the right to speak out on matters of public concern. And as our nation has seen more than once, our system of government can survive the death of a president – what it cannot survive is the actual negation of an essential liberty of the citizenry in order to protect a president from the hypothetical violence of the extreme and the unstable.

And the key, of course, is that threats are never acceptable. I’ve stated that frequently here, even as I’ve defended the right of some truly awful human beings to engage in contemptible speech. But our founders intended that political speech be robust, boisterous and loud – one need only consider the elections of 1796 and 1800 (between such revered men as Jefferson and Adams) to recognize that attempts to silence even the most extreme political speech is not just dangerous – it is un-American and contrary to the intent of those who gave life and breath to the American experiment of liberty.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.