RUTGERS v. IMUS: SENATOR CLINTON FLUNKS OUT

Senator Clinton spoke at Rutgers on April 20, 2007. The speech was broadcast by C-span and its video may be played at the Senator’s website. The issue is whether Senator Clinton’s remarks rise above any personal animus towards Imus and show a solid consideration of the issues raised by his comment. Towards that end the speech is summarized as follows.

Senator Clinton calls on students everywhere to turn, what she believes to be, our culture of degradation into a culture of empowerment. While she grants it as given that we must protect freedom of expression, we cannot allow it to be used as a license or excuse to demean or humiliate our fellow citizens. The reason such speech must be stopped is those with power use it to marginalize those with less power. Individuals or groups “are pushed to the margins socially, politically and economically, as if their actions, accomplishments, very lives become invisible – they just don’t matter.”

Senator Clinton calls on the audience for active participation because involvement shifts the debate. By questioning, challenging and confronting such conduct a critical mass will eventually be reached and a change in culture will be the result. Thus, we must “confront the use and abuse of power by individuals who use their status or station to demean others, to exploit our common values for profit or political gain.” Moreover, we must deny powerful institutions the same license or excuse. Senator Clinton notes we “live at a time when the biggest institutions, from government to media to major corporations have the power to shape and reshape our attitudes towards each other, our images of each other and our very values themselves.”

To accomplish this goal Senator Clinton calls upon the audience to work for the passage of laws that end discrimination, i.e. equal pay for equal work, and the organizing of a collective social voice against marginalizing, and hence discriminating, rhetoric, without government involvement, that creates an environment that will “change attitudes to do the right thing.”

All in all then, it might appear at first glance that the Senator advocates change consistent with the values of free expression. No one can argue that unchecked power is subject to usurpation and abuse. Furthermore, no one can argue that institutions and people with power will not seek to maintain and expand its scope. The obvious tension is that those who are trivialized by such power will increasingly organize and find ways to express the view that “enough is enough.”

At second glance, however, Senator Clinton does not support free speech. The objective result of her program to bring about change is to forbid self-declared bad speech as opposed to overcoming it with good speech. Senator Clinton has decided, and is asking her base to accept or reaffirm, that her speech is not only good speech, but correct speech. And, therefore, it may be imposed by the mob like creation of social norming as opposed to the persuasion that results from full, open and uninhibited public conversation. If Senator Clinton wanted to overcome bad speech with good speech she would have moved to expand the access of those who are marginalized by the government, the media and corporations to the various platforms for expression. She would rebuke those who pay for her campaign.

Senator Clinton, however, appears to forget that effective free speech is not necessarily nice (the Senator is a lawyer). The civil rights - anti-war - free people movement of the 1960’s was rude, crude, and shocking - thus it evoked similar calls for censorship. Some movement slogans were: (1) “Power to the people, off the pig!” (2) “Killing for peace is like fucking for chastity!”, (3) “Pull out like your father should have!”, (4) “When we say the right is impotent, we mean it!”, (5)”Make love, not war.”, (6) “Up against the wall, mother-fucker!”, and (7) “You’re either with us or against us!”

If one thinks about the 1950’s it’s easy to understand how such thoughts and words were incendiary to the “Leave it to Beaver” generation. And, groups like the “Moral Majority” took notice and actively joined the debate. This is exactly why the movement’s words were so powerful. They pushed people to think, to debate, to decide and to act. Sound like Imus?

It isn’t Imus fault that leaders such as Gwen Ifill didn’t have, pardon the expression, the balls to get in his face. So too, the 1960’s “liberals”, now re-branded as “progressives” were dragged kicking and screaming into the national debate. After it had become fashionable, after it had become safe. On the backs of others. But the movement of the 1960’s, for all its imperfections, wasn’t naive, and the liberals entry soon gave rise to a new slogan – “Liberals make the best fascists!”

This is what Senator Clinton’s speech objectively seems to embody. She does not challenge the power of government, the media and corporations to enlarge access and expand debate. Rather she seeks a deal with them to exercise reputation management and repackage their approach, to prohibit expression of the views she believes are incorrect. Senator Clinton does not preserve or call for fundamental change; rather she seeks a concession, a deal with the devil, if you will, to leave power undisturbed as long as it is nice. She stirs and appeases those who practice fundamental attribution analysis. And, in the end, the oppressed become the oppressor.

Oh, well. Flag it mom. Cause here we go again. Up against the wall, mother-fucker . . . .