to suppress or extinguish summarily and completely
Yesterday I said the “impeachment” was a middle finger aimed at conservatives. But after following coverage, I think it is more insidious.
Let’s start with the host and Chuck Todd yesterday. Those two are typically quite reasonable in their exchange, but in this instance, Todd tried to simply declare the host wrong and dismiss what he was saying. It became quite animated. Todd simply did not want to hear what the host had to say.
The New York Times Magazine ran an interesting piece this morning, “How the Trump Era Broke the Sunday-Morning News Show.” The piece is fascinating in that it contends that the Sunday shows have become partisan, but it tries to blame radicalization of the right as to the reason why. I think the argument specious, but the point remains that even the now-obviously-left-leaning New York Times finds much coverage broken.
There is a delicious irony to any organ of the New York Times discussing “broken” media. Particularly considering this piece:
How Right-Wing Radio Stoked Anger Before the Capitol Siege
Shows hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other talk radio stars promoted debunked claims of a stolen election and urged listeners to “fight back.”
So here is what is happening. The media is attempting to make it look like the right is defined by the radical right; that the people that invaded the capital building are typical conservatives. Then they wish to make the case that because of that apparently violent radicalization, they are disqualified from speaking because violence must be punished.
To make this case they must first fail to differentiate between a call to conduct a dispute by legal and non-violent means and an actual call to violence. But then that differentiation would keep them from reaching their ultimate goal which is to quash right-leaning voices.
And therein lies the real issue. In a nation where the freedom of speech is foundational, we quash violence – not speech. This fact is why the threshold for incitement is very high. You can say whatever you want up until you can draw a very straight, very bold line from an utterance to actual violence.
What is actually happening is to draw a very circuitous, dotted line between right-leaning, and sometimes wrong, opinions to violence.
Here’s where it gets quite treacherous. Were I to contend that we should “battle” this trend, would I be accused of incitement? If I were to argue that we must “fight” this trend, would I be cancelled?
Now we know what this current “impeachment” is really all about. In combination with coverage and arguments like these it is part of a greater effort to simply quash the right. Not satisfied with winning the election, they want to make sure the next one is uncontested.
Continue Reading at The Hugh Hewitt Show