EDITORIAL: DFL WANTED TO SHUT DOWN POLITICAL SPEECH IT FOUND UNPLEASANT
Editorial: Pro-war commercials require a DFL response
The DFL Party has a mistaken belief that less political speech is better than more. It is a backward notion that rank-and-file DFLers should reject.
In fact, the opposite is true. When a person or, in this case, a political party disagrees with the facts or opinion of a political claim, the best answer is a better argument. More discussion is the answer to wrong ideas.
This past week, television advertisements that made dubious claims of successful U.S. efforts in Iraq were carried by stations across the state.
The segments feature military personnel implying that naysayers who suggest the Iraq war is not going well are unpatriotic and at the very least hurting the war effort.
The advertisements are wrong on many levels. First, the war is not going well. Second, dissenters who speak out are proving by their actions that they are engaged citizens.
Yet, instead of answering the ads with a better message, the DFL called on stations to pull the ads.
The DFL chose not to engage in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, it wanted to shut down political speech the party found unpleasant.
Rank-and-file DFLers should be upset with the party's decision-makers on this issue. Source: Rochester Post-Bulletin, February 20, 2006
The DFL Party has a mistaken belief that less political speech is better than more. It is a backward notion that rank-and-file DFLers should reject.
In fact, the opposite is true. When a person or, in this case, a political party disagrees with the facts or opinion of a political claim, the best answer is a better argument. More discussion is the answer to wrong ideas.
This past week, television advertisements that made dubious claims of successful U.S. efforts in Iraq were carried by stations across the state.
The segments feature military personnel implying that naysayers who suggest the Iraq war is not going well are unpatriotic and at the very least hurting the war effort.
The advertisements are wrong on many levels. First, the war is not going well. Second, dissenters who speak out are proving by their actions that they are engaged citizens.
Yet, instead of answering the ads with a better message, the DFL called on stations to pull the ads.
The DFL chose not to engage in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, it wanted to shut down political speech the party found unpleasant.
Rank-and-file DFLers should be upset with the party's decision-makers on this issue. Source: Rochester Post-Bulletin, February 20, 2006
3 Comments:
Naysayers are hurting the war effort. I watched a The History Channel documentary on Vietnam last week and it featured people saying that the Vietnamese knew that the more Americans they could turn against the war the better their own chances of winning. Clearly al Qaeda is doing the same thing.
Shorter the party opposite: DEBATE IS UNPATRIOTIC!
You had to watch the History Channel for that? How old are you?
Going into a war without a thorough plan and properly equipped troops is what can lead to what you would consider a loss.
Where the hell was your voice when we were debating the pros and cons on going to war? Oh yeah- that 'speech' was squashed. There wasn't a formal discussion on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home