Politics

Rand Paul, Joe Miller and the Right Wing’s Constitutional Crisis

Joe Miller’s Senate campaign received unwanted national attention after the Tea Party candidate’s security detail detained a journalist over the weekend. Miller’s actions, as well as fellow Republican Rand Paul’s exemplify the right wing’s contempt for the constitution, free press and democratic discourse.

Republicans have always had a serious problem with the press, which some, like Sarah Palin, deride as the “lamestream” media. And this year’s election cycle has seen a string of candidates, including Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, avoiding the press for fear of bad coverage. Now Miller appears to be joining their ranks.

According to Miller’s campaign, the journalist, Tony Hopfinger, was unruly and violent while asking about past political reprimands, an issue Miller has made clear he doesn’t want to discuss. So, to protect Miller, security had to handcuff Hopfinger.

In Hopfinger’s telling, however, Miller was dodging the free press, and he was under fire: “[I was] surrounded by a bunch of security guard types and Miller supporters,” he said. “I figure I’m at a public school and they are telling me I’m trespassing… I’m challenging this trespass issue and the next thing you know they got me detained and I’m in handcuffs and they put me in another corridor of the building.”

Considering his political peers’ history with the press, I’m more inclined to believe Miller wanted to avoid an uncomfortable situation, rather than a potentially dangerous altercation. What he doesn’t realize, however, is that his actions neuter the entire right wing agenda.

Miller, Angle, Palin and the rest claim they’re out there defending the constitution. Rand Paul, another Tea Party darling, himself told me, “I’m a strict constructionist. I believe in a federal government that operates under the enumerated powers of the constitution.” Why, then, do these people continue to undermine the constitution?

As anyone can tell you our nation’s forefathers are quite clear in the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Conservative attacks of or avoidance of the “media,” then, are actually attacks on free press, a constitutional ideal they claim they want to protect. Their refusal to deal with or derision of the press curtails not only our founding document, but any meaningful democratic discourse.

A true democracy cannot thrive without discourse. And to have discourse, we need the press. We also need debates, and, sadly, Rand Paul may not participate in the next one. Nor will Rob Wittman, the Congressman running for reelection in Virginia who refused to debate his opponent, Krystal Ball.

So how can these men, how can this party, claim to stand for American ideals? How, if they refuse to engage the press and the people, can they insist they have the nation’s best interest at heart?

The reality is, however, that such tactics don’t only hurt the constitution, they hurt these candidates. If you don’t speak with the press or the public, who will listen to what you have to say?

  1. October 18, 2010 at 11:16 pm, George Dance said:

    Choosing what media one speaks to, and when and with whom one debates, are “attacks on free speech”? This is a joke, right?

    Reply

  2. October 18, 2010 at 11:42 pm, 74894587 said:

    “As anyone can tell you our nation’s forefathers are quite clear in the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Conservative attacks of or avoidance of the “media,” then, are actually attacks on free press, a constitutional ideal they claim they want to protect.”

    That's a non-sequitur if I've ever read one. So questioning, ignoring, or otherwise objecting to the media in either a general or specific sense constitutes an “attack” on the freedom of press and the Constitution? I hope you don't think questioning the government constitutes treason, too.

    So if a story comes out about you that you're a terrorist, and all of the TV and newspaper ads are calling you a terrorist, or just insinuating that you hate America, don't dare disagree them or turn away the mob of reporters at your door, because that means you object to the free press! Have you considered, perhaps, that you can believe in the freedom of the press 100% but simply DISAGREE with what individual or collective members of the media say or do? Must we agree to all, most, or some other portion of what the media says or does to qualify as a defender of the constitutional right to a free press in your eyes?

    Simply put, believing in the freedom of press in no way requires agreement or cooperation with any member of it. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press so that we can speak and publish freely, and to imply that this necessitates agreement or cooperation is patently against the idea of free speech and press.

    Reply

    • October 20, 2010 at 12:23 am, andrewbelonsky said:

      Thanks for the comment. It seems to me, though, that if someone's running for public office, they shouldn't pick and choose media outlets based on coverage or political angle. It's their responsibility to give access and guarantee that all sides of a story be explored by the free press who, often thanklessly, help uphold our essential public discourse.

      Reply

      • October 20, 2010 at 6:10 pm, cantremember said:

        If you want to argue that candidates should be more willing to talk to the press collectively, or that they should agree to some decorum about access, that's all well and good. But that's a dramatically different claim than stating that not doing so is “attacking” the freedom of speech or press, or that it “exemplifies the right wing’s contempt for the constitution.” The legislative status quo is truly the contemptuous party, justifying every last usurpation of individual liberty under General Welfare and the Commerce Clause, which drowns the Constitution in a sea of meaninglessness. Id est, the kind of federal liberty-mangling that inspired Rand to run in the first place.

        Reply

  3. October 19, 2010 at 12:19 am, C.Wendt said:

    The Constitution commands that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; it certainly does not then issue an individual mandate that one must talk to said press or cannot criticize it!

    “I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.” –Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814.

    “As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers.” –Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806.

    “Advertisements… contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.” –Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819.

    “[I have seen] repeated instances of the publication of what has not been intended for the public eye, and the malignity with which political enemies torture every sentence from me into meanings imagined by their own wickedness only… Not fearing these political bull-dogs, I yet avoid putting myself in the way of being baited by them, and do not wish to volunteer away that portion of tranquillity, which a firm execution of my duties will permit me to enjoy.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807.

    This, from perhaps the strongest stalwart of all the Founding Fathers for freedom of speech! I suppose this displays Jefferson's “contempt for the Constitution,” eh?

    Reply

  4. October 19, 2010 at 3:43 pm, Chris Czernel said:

    This article is a joke. The Tea Party candidate's respect for the constitution is a principle driver for tea party enthusiasm.

    Reply

  5. October 19, 2010 at 3:54 pm, C.H. said:

    The right wing does not have contempt for the constitution, that would be the left wing. What do you think conservative means? Conserve the words of our forefathers. Progressive is just a sneaky word for socialism.

    Reply

  6. October 19, 2010 at 4:26 pm, Ryan Vest said:

    In what way is Rand Paul against the freedom of speech?

    Reply

  7. October 19, 2010 at 5:50 pm, Kevin said:

    Are you serious, Rand Paul is anti-constitution because he won't shake hands with a man he finds morally reprehensible?

    Reply

  8. October 19, 2010 at 6:18 pm, Mike said:

    This article is a joke. Nice try.

    Reply

  9. October 20, 2010 at 3:44 am, Dave said:

    We do indeed need debates. Rand Paul has already participated in 4 with Jack Conway, which is more than most politicians do in the first place.

    Reply

  10. October 20, 2010 at 5:42 am, Kyle Evans said:

    Rand Paul has called for his opponent to be struck from the ballot. Why? Because his opponent exercised his freedom of speech. He's all for free speech until someone says something he doesn't like. Then he's all for trying to shame the speaker into silence.

    Reply

    • October 22, 2010 at 4:47 pm, Patrick said:

      How is that going against freedom of speech?? He's not mandating a law that Jack Conway can't talk. He's just exercising his freedom to not talk to him. As has already been pointed out, the two have already had four debates… you know where each stands, by now. This article and comment are perhaps a little too dramatic to be taken seriously.

      Reply

  11. October 21, 2010 at 1:52 am, Elinor Miller said:

    Latest polls from Alaska show Murkowski and Miller tied; with the former's trend lines moving up and the latter's down. The KY, Col and Nev. races are all competitive. I think people are taking a second look at the Teaparty.

    Reply

  12. October 24, 2010 at 2:34 pm, ronnyg said:

    Oh, you know who will listen. Those who watch the “Fair” and “Balanced” media outlet to whom those candidates will speak.

    I do agree with others here that they are not obligated to speak with the press, but the idea that Palin and others spread about avoiding the press is really just avoiding questions they are afraid to answer candidly.

    Kudos to the republican party for their successful branding of the press as “liberal,” which of course it is not. The press are now afraid of that label and now feel the need to “balance” any comment that displays the cowardice and lies of republicans with anything they can find regarding Democrats. As if the parties are completely equal offenders in terms of say, members of their party who attack homosexuality and end up being caught in homosexual dalliances.

    Reply

  13. November 22, 2010 at 12:16 pm, White Powder, Threat Sent To Bristol Helps Palin Family | Death and Taxes said:

    [...] and her clan have long used victimology to make their case; whether it be the “lamestream media,” or Republican elitists like Karl Rove, the Palin crew portray themselves as being oppressed by [...]

    Reply

Add New Comment

Showing 16 comments
Subscribe by RSS