Strange how that "not insightful" (interesting Goldsbergese) air-sucking, space-filling claim almost always follows another equally vapid one saying that Cindy Sheehan doesn't have a right to criticize the president. If I were setting out to make a point while being dishonest, I'd criticize the response as if it always arrived out of the ether without form or pretext. If I were setting out to make a point while pretending to care about the quality of the discussion, I'd make a juvenile, smarmy comment that the response doesn't have a nutritional value higher than that of Styrofoam.

That's what I'd do if I were disinterested in carrying on a real discussion. And I'd expect my supporters to nod approvingly when I did so.

Goldberg

We see this same thing in comments here, and in ostensibly intellectual discussions all the time. When someone's opinions are being hammered by someone and they appear unable to defend them rationally, it's almost inevitable that someone will pop up and say, "Well they have a right to their opinion too." It's quite annoying and Goldberg is right to point out that it has no content whatsoever.

Nash,

Just as an intellectual experiment, can you find me one or two links to any credible publication citing any credible pro-war pundit, newsmaker, or politician suggesting that Cindy Sheehan does not have the constitutional right to criticize the President?

Since this statement "always follows" the one Goldberg combats, I figure it would be great to stick it to Goldberg and create a whole list of these statements by Bush, Rumsfeld, Condi, Powell, Lott, Frist, Limbaugh, Goldberg himself, or anyone else to show how much the right opposes Cindy Sheehan's free speech. Do you have any of those quotes?

Goldberg's argument relies on one rather large assumption: it assumes that political arguments are capable of being resolved through rational discussion. It assumes that one can be "right" or "wrong" about political questions.

But maybe the point of having a political discussion is not to get to a "right" answer - after all, hundreds of years of philosophy, intellectual inquiry and political debate have yet to produce a single uncontroversial "right" answer about anything of political substance; instead, maybe the point of having a political discussion is to let people express themselves, and in so doing to let them see if other people in the room resonate to their arguments. Because if political questions aren't rational questions, if they are instead emotive or psychological questions, then resonance is the only measure of "truth" we have. Then there is no capital-T political truth as such - there is only "overlapping consensus".

In such a case, and given the fact that very few of us will ever directly and significantly influence policy or the political process, then saying that "she has a right to be heard" is, in fact, a valid argument. You're presenting the public (or the guests of your dinner party) with the widest possible variety of opinions, and seeing which one sort of opinion them the closest to where they live.

OK, fine. But the opposite side has plenty of intellectual equivalents -- they go like this.

"How DARE you criticize the President!"

A. You're depressing our brave soldiers!
B. You're making our enemies bolder!
C. He has to do SOMETHING to fight terrorism!
D. If we leave Iraq NOW, it'll almost certainly get worse!

All of the above are equally "true but beside the point" arguments that are obviously impossible to dispute head-on, but lend absolutely nothing to a thoughtful discussion. They're 90 percent of what I hear when I turn on Fox news. Over and freaking over again.

"All of the above are equally "true but beside the point""

Well, they're at least beside the point.

And if I were called on my dishonesty, I'd continue pretending that because Jonah Goldberg went down the "it's silly to say that one has a right to criticize the president," because as anyone who doesn't seek nourishment from Styrofoam knows, there is no !!!!!CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! prohibition against criticizing the president. By doing so, I could easily continue to misdirect and pretend that the important part of the discussion is actually about !!!!!CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!!! rather than acknowledge the truth, which is that Mr. Goldberg is scoring cheap juvenile and dishonest debating points by acting like only one side of the divide argues whether it is acceptable to criticize the president.

I'd do something else as well, were I seeking to be a dishonest hack. I'd change the meaning of my opponent's words by selectively editing out his words and then I'd argue with the resulting quote. As an example, I'd take my opponent's "almost always follows," dishonestly change this to "always follows," and then argue with that.

Then I'd set my opponent a challenge that had nothing to do with the true question (the one that Mr. Goldberg so effectively ignores).

I'd insist that my opponent provide examples of "any credible publication citing any credible pro-war pundit, newsmaker, or politician suggesting that Cindy Sheehan does not have the constitutional right to criticize the President?"

If I had a sudden and unexpected bout of honesty, I'd have asked instead after "any credible publication citing any credible pro-war pundit, newsmaker, or politician suggesting that Cindy Sheehan does not have the constitutional right to criticize the President?"

And I'd have acknowledged that NRO and Fox News have had on a "credible pro-war pundit, newsmaker, or politician" a time or two in the past week who have said the Cindy Sheehan does not have a right to criticize the president, without referring to her constitutional rights.

And with that, my bout with the subjunctive ends for the day.

"Phil this isn't a "side" thing. It's not something that liberals are conservatives say more than others. It's simply a pointless statement made by people of all stripes. Goldberg was just using a recent example in Cindy Sheehan."

You are making a mistake, Joshua. This is very much a "side" thing--can you honestly say that the right have been arguing "I have a right to criticize [name your government entity]?"

Goldberg is notorious for exactly this type of rhetorical device--to seem to make a point about something that doesn't "have a side" when all "points" to be scored accrue to exactly one side. And it's usually something as cheap as this. In my opinion, you've been had by Goldberg.

Why not also spend a post complaining (correctly) about all the silliness to be found in the statement "I can do what I want, it's a free country?"

Why now, Joshua, and why with this specific topic?

Should have been: If I had a sudden and unexpected bout of honesty, I'd have asked instead after "any credible publication citing any credible pro-war pundit, newsmaker, or politician suggesting that Cindy Sheehan does not have the right to criticize the President?"

I don't have a constitutional right to continue to make mistakes in these comments, so I will leave off.

JC, I agree completely with your statement that "It's not something that liberals are conservatives say more than others. It's simply a pointless statement made by people of all stripes." However, I don't think that it accurately reflects the contents of Goldberg's column to say that he thinks it's an error that afflicts all points on the political spectrum equally. The column that you linked to overwhelmingly takes its targets to be "liberals" and "the Left", with barely any recognition that this is a pan-political malady. So Phil & Nash are pretty much right on in their criticisms of Goldberg's post, though I don't think that what they are saying need be taken as criticisms of JC's inital post (except perhaps for his not noticing the vicious partisan spin that Goldberg was attempting).

(And except I think that Nash messed up something cut-and-paste wise in his last comment; or, at least, I can't tell what he meant by the two identical "any credible publication..." quotes.)

I might agree in a larger context except for the 1) long history of law enforcement and some politicians use of surveillance and record keeping regarding non-violent people who are simply criticizing goverment actions 2) the long history of firebombings and other intimidations against civil rights workers, news reporters, etc. 3) the fact that significant numbers of Americans don't seem to believe in unfettered free speech quite apart from slander/libel laws and yelling fire in a crowded theater and 4) attempts by some academic institutions to inhibit speech on the basis of "conduct" codes that go way beyond conduct.

So there are times when people do need to be reminded that someone has the right to an opinion.

And then maybe there are some things a person ought not have the right to say. Pat Robertson has recently called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Can one imagine the uproar if a prominent religious leader from, say Mexico, called for the assassination of President Bush?

Well,she may have the right to dissent,but others have the DUTY to put her in her place,out of the public eye.