Senator Daschle and the commitment to a robust public discourse evidencing the diversity which is the only principle on which America was founded.

Driving back from Sacto last night, I heard Senator Daschle's singularly amazing views on conservative talk radio. If you missed it, here is one quote from ABCNEWS.com:

"What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life is that people aren't satisfied just to listen," Daschle, D-S.D., told reporters Wednesday. "They want to act because they get emotionally invested. And so, you know, the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically, on our families and on us, in a way that's very disconcerting."

And here is the money shot from NewsMax.com:

"You know, we see it in foreign countries and we think, 'Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?' Well, it's that same shrill rhetoric, it's that same shrill power that motivates. Somebody says something and then it becomes a little more shrill the next time. And then more shrill the next time. And pretty soon it's a foment that becomes physical in addition to just verbal. And that's happening in this country."

If you have been popping in here from time to time, you know that I have expressed a concern that the New Class has abandoned its traditional commitment to free speech. One of the vehicles in this process appears to be part of the law relating to "threats." As I observd in that earlier post, the decision in the Plannned Parenthood decision was noteworthy for its cavalier treatement of First Amendment issues in a case where there was no evidence that the defendants had any ability or intent to carry out the alleged threat.

Now comes Daschle's comments. The Machievellian attempt to paint the voters who returned control of the Senate to the Republicans as narrow minded religious bigots is obvious. The hypocrisy of this comment in the face of the Democrats' commitment to preserving the Constitutional right to burn the flag, which might be viewed as threatening to some parts of the population, is noteworthy. The naked power grab of a leader of a party that in the guise of campaign finance reform has sought to limit the ability of Americans to discuss political issues during political campaigns requires more comment. The ignorance of painting Rush Limbaugh as a theocrat is stupifying. The silence of the ACLU which vibrates with offense whenever a creche nears a public square but has nothing to say when a leader of government expresses open hostility to a religion is deafening. Sen. Daschle's comments in the light of the political statements made against Lincoln, Jefferson and Adams suggests a person with limited historical knowledge, which would be a reason in itself for his constituency to retire him from public life.

But, frankly, most alarming is the use of the language of "threats" to describe his opposition. I don't think it's an accident. The Left has spent nearly three decades practicing mind control by describing conservative speech as threatening or the equivalent of verbal violence. Some in the Critical Legal Studies movement such as my old "Biotechnology and the Law" Prof. Richard Delgado are quite open in their view that the First Amendment should not protect racist or sexist speech. One assumes by analogy that "threatening" religious speech - such as that found on Rush Limbaugh's show - would also be put beyond the pale. [Side note on the use of Rush Limbaugh as a litmus test for mind control. I once had a person contact me about suing her boss for racial harassment. She was convinced that he was a racist because one time he told her to move her car from his parking place, she was African-American and he listened to Rush Limbaugh. Of course, we didn't take the case, but the point is instructive. There is a segment of the population that really thinks people should be punished for what they presume other people are thinking based upon what those people read or listen to.]

Senator Daschle's comments are serious because they are highly indicative of a current that is flowing in his party, which may some day find itself enshrined in the Constitution if certain kinds of judges are appointed.