From time to time, I have used a simple but effective object lesson with children and adults who insist on acting like children. Take an ordinary bubble wand and soap, and blow a few bubbles. Pause, and ask the assembled crowd: "Those are pretty neat, aren't they?"
And when they ooh and aah and agree, ask them to put the bubbles back in the jar. The obvious moral: choose your words carefully, because like bubbles, they're mighty difficult to put back once you've sent them out into the world.
I had thought that the controversy over Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen's presence on John Edwards' staff roster was done once he issued a statement refusing to fire them. But apparently, having gotten past the immediate crisis, the blogosphere needs to chew the issue over some more. I don't know that I can adequately characterize all the different viewpoints that have been tossed in the ring so far, but I think people are coming back to variations on the same couple of themes: what is the best response to such attacks? And should religion be given a special exemption from criticism in the super-heated atmosphere of presidential politics?
The response to both those questions, it seems to me, is the phrase I used as the title of this post: "the solution to 'bad' speech is not limits, but more speech." That was the motto of an academic friend, and he repeated it every time the inevitable free speech debate came up on campus. In fact, he was an Afro-American Studies professor and former radical activist who'd dealt with intimidation campaigns, death threats, and Klan sympathizers in his class, among other things. This guy was hard-core about not limiting speech.
His point was again fairly simple. While it's tempting to tell people to STFU, it doesn't help put those bubbles back in the jar. In fact, nothing was going to undo what someone had said in a moment of stupidity or malice. But locking into a endless bickering match isn't very productive, either. So, the most helpful thing to do is not try to silence others, but to add your perspective.
At first glance, that approach might seem to depend on a naive trust in common decency, but it doesn't, really. The point is that what we consider bad speech can only dominate the public square if it is left unchallenged. So if you don't like what somebody's saying, don't tell them to shut up - that's not a challenge. Instead, take away its power by supplying additional speech, so that it has to compete against something.
If you stop to think about it, this is the organizing principle of the blogosphere. Every time we challenge the veracity of the media narrative, every time we expose Presidents Bush and Cheney for the lying sacks of crap they are, every time we develop new frames for progressive arguments, every time we research and suggest alternatives to the current political structures of our nation, we are replacing bad speech with more speech. To the extent that conservative ideologues can no longer claim sole possession of national discourse, then, we've been successful.
Applying that to the specific case of Amanda and Shakes, I think the MyDD-spearheaded campaign of writing to the journalists who take transcription from people like Bill Donohue is exactly the right response. Make them tell the rest of the story: that Donohue is a loathsome individual and a political hack, not a neutral defender of Catholic values. (Oh, and let's not forget Michelle Malkin, either. My, my, no, let's not forget Malkin.) Rapid response works, and I hope the netroots continue to hone their skills in this area.
I also like the idea of encouraging pro-choice Catholics speak up, as Catholics for a Free Choice does. Another way to add to the response would be for bloggers to appear over at Edwards' site to put in their two cents. IIRC, it has space for citizen diaries. Why shouldn't people use them to agree or disagree with Marcotte and McEwen?
Edwards could have invited this kind of conversation in his response. I wish he had. It would have been a way of moving the conversation forward, instead of letting it remain a territorial pissing match.
I've been catching a bit of flak at my own site for sticking up for Amanda and Shakes. Some people feel - and not without justification - that what they had to say was mean-spirited and offensive. But again, limiting their speech is not as productive as adding our own speech. If religious people think that they could have done better, then they should say so. The same is actually true for those of you who think that they had a real point. If there is a case to be made for their perspective, then by all means, make it.
Jesse Lava at Faithful Democrats (link above) says that:
(W)e progressives would be foolish to simply accept disturbing comments such as those that Marcotte and McEwan seem to make a regular part of their blogging routine. If their slimy remarks had been directed at African-Americans, gays, Muslims, or other minority groups, progressives would be (rightly) up in arms. For both moral and strategic reasons, the progressive coalition should welcome -- enthusiastically -- a diversity of religious views.
I agree with that last sentence, but I think it cuts both ways. If we're to accept a diversity of religious views, then we ought to accept the a-religious and even anti-religious perspectives as well. As frustrating as I find some atheist rants to be, I understand that politics is a big world, and we're trying to build a big tent movement. We're not always going to get along. That's as true of religious discourse as any other kind: Jesus, as I recall, had some fairly harsh things to say about the Pharisees, and Paul actually invites some of his opponents to go castrate themselves in his letter to the Galatians. Rough stuff abounds. I plan on inviting those members of my site who were insulted by Amanda and Shakes to state their case, and don't forget the juicy details.
To bring this post at long last to my basic point, it seems to me that any faith or belief that experiences any criticism - no matter how harsh - as a life-threatening attack on the community is disastrously weak. Let me be very careful in explaining what I mean. There are times when people say things that are simply hateful and focused on people, not ideas, and we should all be held accountable for our words. I'll still troll-rate your ass if you cross the line, on religion as on any other subject.
But if I let your intemperate remarks lead to my own, whose fault is that? And if I let your nasty, filthy, bastardly comments throw me off the life to which I have been called, and which I have chosen freely, who will be held accountable for that? The great lie in Donohue's statements is that somehow these feminist nobodies* prevent him from being fully a Catholic. They don't. Neither does my presence on Daily Kos prevent anyone there from being an atheist, nor does the presence of atheists on Daily Kos prevent me from being a Christian.
In fact, there are times when I am with my congregation, sharing a meal or a good story or just a simple hug with one of the little old ladies, when I realize that I have it pretty good, and that is in some sense the best revenge. That's not to be nasty about it, but simply to say that the best speech isn't in fact always speech. It's deeds. And in the life that I take part in - the good one, the one that I help create and keep going - I get the last word by virtue of always having options available to me.
Bill Donohue can kiss my ass, then. Anybody who hates my religion or me can kiss my ass. Anybody who takes part in scurrilous personal abuse of somebody else for political gain can kiss my ass. I've got better things to do, like adding to the great living conversation I have going with the people I know and love, and I assure you, so do you.
*I'm a nobody too. Just about everybody in the blogosphere is.