End the Extreme Political Rhetoric

As September 6th, the Opening Day of the Roberts nomination approaches, it is worth taking a step back to examine the state of political discourse in America in 2005.

While there will purportedly be a national debate on the merits of giving a certain distinguished lawyer a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, much of the discussion will be little more than ranting from the left. The word to watch is "extremist," and its variations "extreme" and "extremism." Unless the speaker is condemning a true extremist, someone like an Islamic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber, trust nothing the individual has to say. He or she is a demogague terrorizing our language.

In the war of words, the word "extremist" is the functional equivalent of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon. EMP speech generates a very short, intense soundbite producing a transient surge of thousands of emotional volts that kill logical thought. The use of the word "extreme" can damage the reputations of non-shielded individuals including practically any hard-working, decent human being within the effective range of the weapon.

The use of rhetorical weapons of mass destruction must be condemned. It is poisoning a free-flowing, open discussion on controversial issues in this country.

How can Americans find a compromise on the issue of abortion with groups like the National Abortion Federation and NARAL Pro-Choice America in our midst? NARAL was forced by public backlash to pull its ad earlier this month charging that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups" and "America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

NARAL, of course, did not mention the fact that Roberts filed that brief on behalf of the United States and won the support of six Justices of the Supreme Court. "As more light is shed on John Roberts' record, it becomes clear he has extreme views," said Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation. Under Ms. Saporta's ludicrious analysis, a majority of the Supreme Court must be "extreme" as well.

We can reclaim the national discussion by taking a broader view of what constitutes reasonable political beliefs. Judge Roberts is as mainstream as mom and apple pie. And so is liberal Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Likewise, Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only avowed socialist in the House of Representatives, should not have his views dismissed as "extreme." By the same token, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), who ran on the Libertarian Party ticket for president in 1988, is not "extreme" merely because he stands on principle for limited government, sometime in defiance of his party's leadership. And yes, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and the D.C. City Council should have their leftist ideas confronted and refuted without unnecessary hectoring (hopefully Norton will return the gesture).

Let us use the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment for the exchange of ideas rather than as a launching pad for EMP rhetoric designed to stop debate before it can begin.