Submitted to a Candid World

Since her speech to the Republican National Convention, I have never respected Sarah Palin – and I respect John McCain even less for essentially putting her at the top of the ticket. Now, though, I’m having trouble even taking her seriously.

Recall that a favorite line of argument among the religious right is to equate disagreement and defeat in the marketplace of ideas with “censorship.” Some examples (watch the hands!). Through South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, America’s growing acceptance of homosexuality becomes “censorship” of homophobia. And through Conservapedia’s “article” on the subject, we learn that “the [private] rejection of pro-life advertisements” and the removal of intelligent design materials from the classroom are both – you guessed it – censorship.

Hint: it’s only censorship if speech is stopped by an authority figure for non-objective reasons. Understanding seventh grade civics: FAIL.

Sadly, though, the conservative tactic of crying “censorship!” works.  By delegitimizing and “blaming the victor” for their triumph in the marketplace of ideas, phony cries of “censorship” effectively “muddy the waters” and create sufficient doubt (it doesn’t even have to be reasonable doubt) to allow True Believers to cling to discredited ideas, and potentially score a few sympathy points among moderates.

Nowhere is this strategy more common, and more effective, than in the field of science: how many of us have heard otherwise reasonable people lament the “censorship” of creationism from high school classrooms? “Why not just present both sides?” Easy: because objectivity is not neutrality. Some ideas are just wrong, and that’s okay. Whining about an exclusion just because it’s exclusion isn’t philosophically sound – though it is, at times, effective.

But the victory comes at the price of watering down the meaning of the word “censorship,” and trivializing the struggles of our forefathers, who fought and died to stop real censorship.  Imagine my dismay, if not my surprise, then, to hear Sarah Palin play this far-right trump card, in defense of her style of negative campaigning.

[audio:Palin.mp3]

If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

Apparently, to be criticized for a line of attack is tantamount to censorship. NO. Disagreement, debate, and even defeat in a fair fight, are not the same as censorship. Palin would wield “censorship” as a talisman against anyone questioning her, a defense that (it seems to me) bites its own tail. Isn’t that, itself, closer to censorship, at least under her definition?

Perhaps Palin would be right to criticize the state of the mainstream media. Though we may disagree to what degree it’s in trouble, I will agree with Palin that the media is, in fact, in dire need of repair. But not because they’re willing to call a spade a spade. And not because they rightly question a candidate’s tactics.

Time and again, Governor Palin has proved that she treats her opposition with either sneering disdain and illegitimately blames others for her own failures. That’s not healthy for an individual, and it’s certainly not healthy for a country.