The commitment to individual freedom of expression has been tested for all of us on dKos this week, as the passion of campaigning spilled over into acrimony and angry words.
I had my own test as an Obama supporter when I received this comment from an ardent feminist and fellow Kossack:
Many of us feel so strongly that it's Hillary's time and if the little schmuck walks in and takes it from her - we feel betrayed.
I had to bite back the anger at any putative Democrat who would call my (Democratic, brilliant, gifted) candidate a "little schmuck." Even more so, at anyone who thought that Clinton was so entitled to the nomination that anybody could "take it from her." But it really got me to thinking about lifelong feminists who have worked so hard for this moment, and what it means to them to see a viable female candidate for the presidency at last. It made me understand her anger in a very different way. Not in a way that would make me change my mind about whom to support--she wasn't even trying to make that case--but as a fellow voter.
I have had a lot of scorn for single-issue voters in the past, but I have to admit: this fellow-Kossack's reasoning is not legitimate for me, but it is perfectly legitimate for her. I was able to couch my response in far more civil terms than I would have been able to do if I hadn't really tried to see this from her point of view.
Granny Doc is completely within her rights to be incensed at fellow voters who don't do any research, who offer their unschooled opinions as if they were worth as much as those of people who work hard to understand the issues and to participate in politics with a sense of responsibility to all. That's what discourse is for, to work these differences out; in this case, to give GrannyDoc the opportunity to try to persuade everyone to use his vote wisely and in a principled way.
But if we claim to honor all individuals equally--and as Democrats, we do--then the most ignorant, foul-mouthed person in the world is owed the same respect as the most learned and kind. It's easy to be civil to those who agree with us, but more important to be civil to those who do not. When we sneer at the ignorant, we fail to make our own case.
To put this another way: a commitment to freedom of speech means a commitment to Fred Phelps's freedom of speech. In the same way, a commitment to the right of each person to make up his own mind in his own way necessarily means a defense of those who refuse to educate themselves. At that point, maybe we can try to persuade people to educate themselves, but we shouldn't ever just put them down as worthless.