We’re having a useful yet painful argument in this nation of ours about who we want to be and how we should be governed. People voted for change in 2016, again in 2018, and will do so again in 2020 and beyond. Part of that process necessarily involves criticism of a sitting President, both in terms of policies and character. (Obama came in for a lot of harsh criticism by his political opponents, although Pres. Trump believes that the media ––one he claims to be “the enemy of the people”––has been much more unfair to him than any previous President.)
Following the President’s lead that critics of his person and policies should “go back to their own country,” because they “hate America,” there are many supporters who clearly approve this message, regardless of whether you see it as racist or not. A church in Appomattox, Virginia, for example, used its standard sign to post the phrase America: Love it or Leave it.
There’s a woeful contradiction in this message: on the one hand, it’s an example of the kind of free speech that’s very much protected in this country. The genius of the founding fathers was to recognize that without free speech, the Republic cannot represent the people, all the people.
From the National Review, a long-standing conservative-minded publication:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/james-madison-free-speech-rights-must-be-absolute-nearly/
On the other hand, by telling those whom we disagree with to leave this arena of free political speech, we say that there are things we just don’t want to hear. This is contrary to the Founding Fathers’ views on free speech and Republicanism; see the above link from the National Review. By insisting that our critics “agree or leave,” we buy into some very common personal and corporate failures to self-reflect and to learn from our mistakes. Many of my students over the years have had bosses that don’t want to hear any criticism, constructive or otherwise. Judging from the last set of papers turned in by our Executive MBAs, there are still “bosses” that do not or cannot see themselves as flawed in any way. More than a handful of our students have actually been told “It’s my way or the highway” by their so-called leaders.
On the Appomattox sign, the minister explained “People that feel hard about our president and want to down the president and down the country and everything, they ought to go over there and live in these other countries for a little while.” This overlooks the strident criticism that Obama got from right wing talk radio and many political opponents, including Mr. Trump, who built political capital by questioning whether Obama was born in America. It also overlooks the fact that the “Squad” has been exercising the right of free speech as the founding fathers would have expected in a vigorous debate over how the nation should be governed. Note to conservatives who are now embracing “nationalism” as Mr. Trump sees it: “My Country, Right or Wrong” is not a healthy way to sustain a Republic. That was a popular bumper sticker in the 1960s when students and others were active in protesting the Vietnam War.
Note: In retrospect, critics of the war were hardly “wrong”: the consequences of that long engagement were mostly negative for the United States. See https://thevietnamwar.info/how-vietnam-war-affect-america/
See also Neil Sheehan’s book about the Vietnam War, A Bright Shining Lie.
The “credibility gap” between government and the governed became a yawning chasm as a result of public officials trying to manage the news about how the war was going.
By making extravagant claims for political purposes, all politicians, of whatever stripe or ideology, create major credibility gaps and risk losing the hearts and minds of thoughtful citizens. Healing our political differences will take mature self-reflection, not partisan reactivity and labeling critics as “others” who don’t belong. The Squad doesn’t hate either America (the United States, that is) or free speech, despite accounts to the contrary. See, for example, a strongly worded piece from Newsweek:
“The Squad, as they have nicknamed themselves, is deliberately attempting to replace 250 years of successful Americanism with the utter failure of Marxism. They know exactly what they are doing, and judging by the recent Trump-bashing-cycle impact, they are taking ground.”
https://www.newsweek.com/you-can-disagree-his-language-trump-right-about-squad-opinion-1449766
It’s certainly fair free speech to characterize these Congressional Representative’s political positions as “Marxist.” (It is probably also simplistic and meant to end rational policy discussion!) But it’s also fair free speech to suggest that current version of “free market capitalism” has left many people in this nation behind, and to propose alternative economic approaches.
The Washington Post, a newspaper that Mr. Trump detests (President Nixon didn’t like it much, either),published an editorial on this matter recently:
“The right to disagree with the government in strong, even hyperbolic terms is one of the most cherished of American values. As congressional Republicans who savagely attacked President Barack Obama for eight years should recognize, conflating lack of admiration for one particular president, his administration, his policies or his party with disrespect for the United States itself violates the nation’s founding principles. Loyalty to the country does not demand taking an uncritical eye to its history or its present; all it requires is a commitment to the nation’s well being. Though we disagree strongly with some of the statements and policies these congresswomen have advanced, we do not question their essential allegiance; we welcome the debate they foster.”
Amen to that, whether you approve of the Washington Post’s general editorial outlook or not. We are free to disagree. Let us engage in questions of policy and not assume we know what’s best for the United States as a collective enterprise, founded on the proposition that all men ––and women–– were created equal, and have important things to say to us all.