Saturday, August 18, 2012
Heckling, for Socialist Revolution...or Just to be Annoying
Okay, I get it. Scream questions or provocative statements at an elected official...for a minute or two. But, I see no reason why a speaker of any position in any venue should tolerate being shouted down, silenced, or attacked by rabid clowns whose only real position on any issue is to eliminate other views from being heard.
In the age of the internet, anyone can find or conjure a forum to express their viewpoint. What exactly is the rational justification for the verbal assaults - and more - that have become a staple of Jacobin "disagreement?"
People boycotting Dixie Chicks' music (as had been the case during the Bush administration) is not "censoring freedom of speech." Preventing a planned speech, lecture, or rally from taking place most assuredly is censorship...not to mention laying out one's credentials as a bona fide idiot. Such intrusion on the free play of ideas is regular fare on college campuses for speakers like Ann Coulter. Generally speaking, conservatives appear to be better behaved when it comes audience etiquette. There are plenty of radical popular leftists that get regular hearings in venues across America and I've never heard of a contingent of young republicans or like-minded people shouting them down. I can't imagine trying to shout them down while they're speaking. I definitely wouldn't throw a pie at them or climb on the stage to shout in their face - not because I'm particularly noble but because...who wants to publicly display them self as a blatant asshole?
As stated before, I reluctantly understand the idea of a word or sentence of disagreement being shouted out to an elected official in an informal setting (an official who is clearly in a position of power and is perceived to be intruding on one's life in some way). It's rude to be sure but I suppose most politicians understand that it goes with the territory.
What I don't get is aggressive or provocative attempts to disrupt a candidate before an election. This man or woman is not yet acting with the authority they seek (through legitimate election). They're not imposing anything on you beyond the possibility that ideas you do not favor may win out in the public forum. They're stating their beliefs so that others may choose to vote for them. The way to protest against them is to vote for the other guy or, if you really want to be aggressive, give his or her opponent money and volunteer to help defeat the things you claim to despise. If you really think that the candidate wants to push old ladies in wheelchairs off of cliffs, great! Hold up a sign stating your opposition to throwing ladies off of cliffs (in that instance, you should consider the possibility that you may be exaggerating things a bit).
In the current election, the Jacobins are out in force, and their shrill attacks will no doubt increase in number and aggressiveness. What exactly is the point of shouting down Paul Ryan when he's addressing a crowd of mostly interested followers? Do you really find it to be a preamble to a dark night of fascism that someone wants to address the issue of the country's excessive debt? But then again...didn't Romney give some woman cancer, or eat babies or something like that?
I wouldn't begin to claim that the left's darlings haven't also been heckled (equally stupid and annoying) but when it comes to strategic Alinsky-style disruption, the left has the genuine professional side-show for nonsense. Remember, they want their "revolution" (leftist authoritarian bureau-state) and they want it now!
'You don't like Romney or Paul Ryan?...fine, don't vote for them. Knock yourself out and knock on doors for "hope and change" again but, sit down and shut up when someone is offering another view.
"Occupy"...your head, with something other than obsessions to muzzle opponents.