Here at the Daily 49er, we believe in the power of truth. Our faith in this intangible concept allows us to adhere to such doctrines as democracy and freedom of expression — or free speech.
However, not everyone who champions these principles actually believes in the foundation for them — the supremacy of truth. These hypocrites include regular American citizens, politicians of all stripes and — most recently — one fiery political commentator.
Marc Thiessen, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, appeared Feb. 12 on the political talk-show Morning Show. He was promoting his new book, “Courting Disaster,” which discusses the belief that President Barack Obama is inviting the next terrorist attack.
At the heart of Thiessen’s charge against President Obama was his belief that the president “[had] eliminated the CIA’s interrogation program … the single most successful and important intelligence program we’ve had in the war on terror and possibly in the history of the CIA.”
The panel eventually let commentator Lawrence O’Donnell interview Thiessen. What was a calm discussion of conflicting ideas turned into a one-man intimidation trial, courtesy of O’Donnell.
The political analyst began his tirade by accusing Thiessen of lying about one of his claims. Getting much louder, O’Donnell then implied that, because of the oath of office Thiessen took to become a presidential speechwriter, he shouldn’t have written his book.
Not one to let Thiessen defend himself. O’Donnell made the brash accusation that the previous presidential administration invited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At this point Joe Scarborough, co-host of the show, tried to give Thiessen a chance to defend himself against these numerous accusations.
O’Donnell wouldn’t have it.
Ignoring Scarborough, O’Donnell continued his boisterous sermon. Even when Thiessen was responding, O’Donnell interrupted the former speechwriter by yelling even louder. O’Donnell then to raised his voice because the show had turned off his microphone due to his unruly behavior.
At that point Scarborough cut the show to a break, during which time we can only hope that he took O’Donnell behind the proverbial woodshed. As a result, O’Donnell was noticeably calmer, but even after the break he continued to interrupt people.
The question is not whether you agree with the views of either O’Donnell or Thiessen, but whether you agree with the doctrine of free speech. To better understand such a principle it is best that we look over one of the ancient arguments for this current American right.
In 16th century England, censorship was practiced via a licensing system for printers. Some people wrote arguments in favor of freedom of expression. One of them was John Milton, who wrote, “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”
In other words, if you don’t believe in the freedom of speech, then you don’t believe that people will choose truth over lies.. If you don’t believe that the people can discern trutth then you really don’t believe that humans can rightly govern themselves.
It is this elitist doubt of the power to discern truth and the ability of humanity’s reasoning, that gives credence to arguments that call for the suppression of voting rights. Even in the United States we have seen elitists use their doubt of people’s ability to discern truth to justify them limiting the right to vote.
It was not until the civil rights movement of the 1960s and into the ‘70s did America profess its faith in the supremacy of truth and the ability of its people. In fact, you can say that the civil rights movement demonstrates the validity of Milton’s argument.
However, when people like O’Donnell resort to quieting their opposition via intimidation, accusations, interruptions or plain out yelling, then such people betray their doubts. This is an insult to the American people since O’Donnell’s actions illustrates his doubt in their ability to find the truth in debate.
By Scarborough allowing the other side to speak, we heard that President Obama ended an interrogation program. Whether we agree with the program and its elimination is up to us and the rest of the American people to decide, not O’Donnell or anybody else.