RECLAIMING THE CULTURE.

I warned you.  "It seems so cathartic to deconstruct those bourgeois conventions, until decorum breaks down at the school board or city council, followed by governance itself."  Which is about where we find ourselves in national affairs, with Team Trump claiming the ongoing "threats to democracy" rhetoric is inspiring people to take shots at their candidate, and Team Harris claiming the ongoing "our cats are being eaten" rhetoric is inspiring people to threaten local schools.  Call attention to any of that, though, and it's free speech, but not for thee.

Tim Walz, Minnesota governor and Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, has received a lot of criticism for fudging details of his military service.

That’s definitely worthy of scrutiny, but something else that Walz said in an interview in late 2022 deserves attention, too.

“There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy,” he told MSNBC.

Walz is wrong. We do have a broad guarantee of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, and that includes misinformation and hate speech. Walz probably missed the irony, but his misinformation on free expression is protected speech.

While Walz has a right to spread misleading comments, it’s concerning that a governor and now vice presidential nominee seems confused about what protections we have under our First Amendment.

Unfortunately, Walz is not alone in his views. Many on the left – and some on the right – are turning to the government to regulate (or force, in the case of Florida and Texas laws) speech that some may find offensive.

That is antithetical to one of this country’s most important values.

That is, when public officials crack down on satire under the rubric of "disinformation," they miss the idea that laughter can be the best medicine.  So much for refuting the notion that Excessively Earnest political types are humorless scolds.  Campaign need not be limited to the contrived "joy" of Nikita Sergeyevich's campaign.  Columnist Ingrid Jacques asks the right question.  "Does satire have the ability to offend or make people uncomfortable? Sure. That’s the point. And to open it up to government oversight is a huge problem."

Exactly.  Perhaps if we had a proper understanding of civility, we'd be in a better place when somebody let loose with something satirical.

There is further room for improvement.  Consider rediscovering bourgeois norms.  "Old-fashioned morality is not popular these days, and few old virtues are more reviled than 'civility.'" Elective office, supposedly, is a High Calling.  So why do the seekers after elective office so revile each other?  Perhaps referring to the other fellow's voters pejoratively isn't such a good idea.  "A culture that sees humans as a curse is a culture where civility, including self-respect, is out of fashion."

Alternatively, perhaps the political discourse is so nasty because at the margin the stakes are so small.