The Washington Post - USA (2020-08-02)

B6 EZ BD THEWASHINGTONPOST.SUNDAY,AUGUST 2 , 2020

BookWorld

five points:“Don’t assumethatyour own

understandingof the meaningof wordsand

phrases is universallyshared.”For the speaker

who has offendedsomeone,she has abox

titled“GoodApologies.”PointNo.5:“Focuson

regretfor actions committed: Rather than

saying you’resorryfor how someonefelt or

anotherresultof your actions,sayyou’resorry

for whatyou did.”

Will Nossel’s guideposts resonate with po-

larized speakers?It’s impossible to know

whether the tips throughoutthe bookwill

facilitatemorerefineddebateoracceptanceof

otherviewpoints.Readersmayfind someof

the advicebanal,thoughwell-intentioned.

Can asincere, thoughtfulbookwith some

nuggetsofpracticaladviceresolveourinfinite

wars over free speechthatsometimesdevolve

from juvenilename-callingto actual violence?

“Dareto Speak”addsanothervoiceto the

cacophony. Nossel reiterates our long-stand-

ing commitmentto free speechand offers

somewholesomeadvice,whichmaybejust

whatweneed. Instead of less debate, we need

wide conversation to lead us towardthe truth

in the marketplaceof ideas.As Justice Louis

Brandeisexplainedin responseto powerof

negative speech:“If therebe timeto expose

throughdiscussion,the falsehoodsand falla-

cies, to avertthe evil by the processof educa-

tion, the remedyto be appliedis morespeech,

not enforcedsilence.”

RoyS.Guttermanis an associateprofessorand

directorof the Tully Centerfor Free Speechat the

NewhouseSchool at SyracuseUniversity.

objectivelydeterminable.”

Sosocietymustrelyonajudgmentelaborat-

ed by Justice OliverWendellHolmes Jr.inhis

notionof a“marketplaceof ideas.”Ina1919

dissent, Holmesdefended the free-speech

rightsof agroup of socialist-anarchists, argu-

ing,“Theultimate good desiredis better

reachedby the free trade in ideas—thatthe

besttestoftruthis thepowerof thethoughtto

getitself acceptedin the competitionof the

market.”

Holmes’sperceptionwas revolutionaryat

the time,but as Nossel tells us, his vigorous

protection of speechregardlessof the view-

point“becamean anchorof Americanjuris-

prudenceand is amongthe elementsthat

distinguishtheUnitedStates’approachtofree

speechprotectionsastheworld’s mostrobust.”

Suchhistoryilluminates her pages, but

Nossel never losessightof her chiefaim:to

providearoad map for navigating and safe-

guardingfree-speechrightsin our multifacet-

ed, multicultural democracy. “This book,”she

writes,“suggestsguidelinesthatcan protect

ideasand opinionsfrom suppressionand also

widenthe circleof thosewho stand readyto

defend free expression.”

“Dareto Speak”offers principlesfor speak-

ing,for listening,for debating free speechand

for consideringspeech-related policies.Better

debate, Nossel suggests, rests on individuals’

sensitivityand consideration whenspeaking

in the publicarena.She highlightsher points

in brieftips and how-toboxes. In one short

section titled“How to be aConscientious

Speaker,” for instance,she advises,amongher

bookis intendedfor all who seekto voice

controversialviewpoints,hear themout from

others,and keep theirboardrooms, class-

rooms,dormitories,and diningtablesopento

fruitfulconversationsbetween peoplewhose

beliefs differ,” she writes.

Whilemostpeoplebelieve thatthe Consti-

tution holdsall the answersto conflicts over

free speech,Nossel explainsthatthe First

Amendment’s influence is limitedbecauseits

purviewisconfined to infringementsby the

government.She notesthat“the FirstAmend-

mentis silenton manyofthe free speech

conflicts of our time,”addingthatitdoes not

have an “answerto the censoriouspowerof

onlinemobs,”orguidanceon curbing“the

detrimentaleffects of hateful speech,”orad-

vice on how to knowwhen“contentis too

vitriolic,bigoted,deceitful,ormisleadingtobe

sharedonline.”

Thoughbigoted and hateful rhetoric often

stirs the sharpestargumentsover who should

be allowedto speak,Nossel contendsthatthe

principleof free speechis strengthenedby the

airingof unpleasantviews. She quotesaline

attributedto the FrenchphilosopherVoltaire

thatamplysupports free expression,however

offensive:“I disapproveof whatyou say, but I

will defend to the death your right to sayit.”

Socialtabooswill keep mostpeoplefrom

utteringoffensivelanguage, but sometimesit

is impossibleto keep ugly speechout of the

publicrealm.It is also impossible, in many

people’s view, to clearlyidentifyit. “Much of

the time,no such definitivejudgmentis possi-

ble,”Nosselnotes.“Offensivenessisnotalways

MATTMCCLAIN/THEWASHINGTONPOST

DARE TO

SPEAK

DefendingFree

Speechfor All

By Suzanne

Nossel

Dey Street.

304 pp. $28.99

I

nlateMay,asprotests ragedthroughout

the countryand the coronaviruspan-

demicspread,PresidentTrump signeda

directive titled“ExecutiveOrderon Pre-

ventingOnlineCensorship.”Itcontains

magnanimouspronouncementsabouttheim-

portanceof free speechand FirstAmendment

protections.Theopeningreadslikethekindof

declaration thatshouldend up on aparch-

mentscrollor the baseof astatute:“Free

speechis the bedrockof Americandemocracy.

Our FoundingFathersprotected this sacred

right with the FirstAmendmentto the Consti-

tution.Thefreedom to expressand debate

ideasis the foundation for all of our rightsas a

free people.”

There is something ironic, if not Kaf-

kaesqueor Orwellian, aboutan executive

order,imbuedwithlanguageextollingfree

speech,thatproposesan oppositeeffectby

also callingon the federal governmentto

monitorand regulate Internetand socialme-

dia platforms.It isn’t clearhow the govern-

mentwouldregulatedigitalplatforms,butthe

suggestion runscounterto the wide-open

nature of free speechthatfacilitates all forms

of discussiononline—the hallmarkof the

Internetsince it becamecommercialand ac-

cessibleby ordinarypeoplein the 1990s.

Thepresident’s contradictoryexecutiveor-

der highlightsthe dizzying world of free

speechin Americatoday. Trump has trampled

on FirstAmendmentand free-speechrights

morevigorouslythananypresidentbefore

him.Beyondthe WhiteHouse, free-speech

battles are beingwaged acrossthe country, on

collegecampuses,socialmediaand the air-

waves, amongvoicesfromboth the rightand

theleft.Ourincreasinglyfractiousdebatesare

pullingat thefabricof our free-speechprotec-

tions,whichensurethatall —eventhose with

viewsoffensivetoothers—havetherighttobe

heard.

Now, into the fray comesSuzanneNossel,

the chiefexecutiveof PENAmerica,witha

warningand asteadyvoiceof experienceand

eruditionon how to preserve and expandfree

expression.“The stateofdiscoursein America

todayraisesatroublingquestion of whether

the principleof free speechcan survive intact

in our diverse,digitized,and dividedculture,”

Nosselwritesinhernewbook,“DaretoSpeak:

DefendingFree Speechfor All.” Whileshe

acknowledges thatthere arenoeasy answers,

she hopesto spur“dialogueaboutwhyfree

speechmatters and how it can be protected

withoutrunningroughshodovervalues of

equality.”

Nosselstressestheroleandresponsibilityof

the individualin maintainingour free-speech

principles,rather than the impositionof rules

onsocialmedia,universitiesandotherinstitu-

tionswherepublicdiscourseoccurs. “This

RIGHTS REVIEWBY ROY S. GUTTERMAN

Advice for individuals,

not governments, to

safeguard free speech

Signs in support of

the Black Lives

Matter movement

aredisplayed on a

fence around

LafayetteSquare

nearthe White

HouseonJune9.

Isupposethereisvalueincompilingallthis

vile stuff. There will be first-timevotersin

2020whoweren’tevenbornwhenBillClinton

was president,and theyshouldknowwhere

the Trumpistwing-nutterycame from.Forthe

restofus, though,thereis alarger question,

unasked in this book:In theend, whatare we

to makeofBilland HillaryClinton—not just

as“magical”scapegoatsbutaspublicservants.

They are not in verygood standingnow:

Bill, laid low by the #MeToo movement;Hil-

lary, by her ineffective campaign against

Trump.But Bill Clintonwas an admirable and

substantivepresident(except for his personal

life). He taxed the rich, balancedthe budget,

reformedwelfareand passedascad of laws to

benefitthe workingpoor.Hedidn’t pursue

silly wars overseas.Whentherewas trouble—

liketheOklahomaCityterroristbombing—he

couldsootheand lead the country.

HillaryClinton’s legacyismore complicat-

ed.D’Antonio’s assessmentissaintly,although

he does allowthatshe has atemper.Hedoes

not mentionthatitwas Hillarywho nixedThe

Washington Post’s offertogothroughthe

Whitewater materials,no matter how long it

took —asessionthatmight have prevented

the explosionof thatnon-scandal.Herstrict,

defensivequality, reinforced by astaunch

senseof moral superiority, didher greatdam-

ageattimes,cripplingher efforts to produce

universalhealthcare and renderingher presi-

dentialcampaignajoylessdeath march.Suc-

cessfulpresidentsrequireagreatnessofspirit,

aprevailingsenseofoptimism,alighttouch,a

certain lyricism.She had noneof those.At

least, not for publicconsumption.

But was she afailure?Idon’t think so. She

was an excellentsenator fromNewYork. I

watchedher master the intricaciesof defense

policyafter the terroristattacks of 9/11. When

David Petraeus was asked, in 2006,whether

therewereanyDemocratic presidentialaspi-

rants who understood how his mindworked,

he said:“You mean,asidefromHillary?” She

representedthe United States brilliantlyas

secretaryofstate, especiallywhenit cameto

public diplomacy. She cultivated, overthe

years,asmartanddedicatedstaff—noinsider

ever wroteatell-allabouther.The realityof

HillaryClintonwas always moretraditional,

more Methodistthanradical, than the

trumped-upfantasiesabouther.

In theend,atruescapegoatsacrificetellsus

moreaboutthe sins of the society in question

than aboutthe goat.The “Huntingof Hillary”

was always moreaboutus than it was about

her.

Joe Kleinisthe authorof sevenbooks,including

“PrimaryColors” and, mostrecently,“CharlieMike.”

There are RupertMurdoch andRush Lim-

baughand all the right-wingfake-news pro-

moters.And thereare the mainstreamjour-

nalists —WilliamSafire, MichaelIsikoff, oth-

ers —who pasteurizedthe poisonfor public

consumption.Icouldgo on; D’Antoniocer-

tainlydoes.Clinton-hating was, and remains,

alasciviousphenomenon.

There are occasionalrevelations—orredis-

coveries—along the way. GeorgeConway, the

currentTrump scourgeand husbandof Kelly-

anne,makesaspecialguestappearanceasone

of the “Elves,”the lawyersrepresentingPaula

Jones againstBillClinton: “[Conway] was so

virulentlyanti-Clintonthathetypically re-

ferredto the presidentnot by namebut by the

termscumbagand literally jumpedfor joy”

whenhe sawaTVreportofnew sexual

allegations.And then there’s futureSupreme

Courtjustice Brett Kavanaugh,workingfor

Starr,who seemeddemonicallyfixed on Fos-

ter’s suicideand “persuaded”Starr to reopen

the caseas amurderinvestigation, which

lasted threeyearsand cost$2million.“Mem-

bers of Foster’s familywere interviewed again

and again,resentedthe interference,but Ka-

vanaughpressedon,”D’Antonioclaims,“and

even sent FBI agents to collectasampleof

Foster’s daughter’s hair.”

correctly,thattheywere beingmanipulated.”

D’Antonioproducesoccasionalnuggetslike

thatone throughout“The Huntingof Hillary,”

whichraisethehopeofamoreinsightfulbook

than the one he has produced.But his aim is

simple:to layout,indetail, the often lunatic

40-yearcampaignto destroy HillaryClinton.

We’veread mostofthisbefore. D’Antoniois a

workmanlikecompilerof otherpeople’s re-

porting and insights—heproducesanew

bookeveryyear or so —and his intentionsare

good.Butthereisnoarttoit.Indeed,quitethe

opposite: Thebook plods along through

Whitewater and Lewinskyand Benghaziand

the emailnon-scandals,and ahostofothers.

There is the familiarcastoftwisted charac-

ters: RichardMellon Scaife,who fundsascad

of hit groupsto “investigate”the Clintons,and

then winds up votingfor Hillaryagainst

DonaldTrump;CongressmanDanBurton,

whoshotameloninhisbackyardtoprovethat

Clinton’s closefriendVinceFoster didn’tcom-

mit suicidebut was murdered(by the Clin-

tons,of course);the eternal“investigator”

DavidBossie,whoturnedconspiracy-monger-

ing into millions;specialprosecutor Kenneth

Starr,who took aweirdlysalaciousinterest—

worthyofascapegoatsacrifice —inBill

Clinton’s relationshipwith Monica Lewinsky.

I

nthe introduction to this exhausting

book,MichaelD’Antonioraisesthepossi-

bilitythatHillaryClintonhas achieved

mythic status, and not in agood way. He

comparesher to the ancient“ghosts and

goblins and devils”whoare “unconscious

projectionsof the insecurities... of their

creators. ‘They’ are heapedwith our sins and

shortcomingsso that‘we’can feel pure.”

D’Antonioletsitgoatthat,butthenotionof

scapegoatsacrifice deserves

more thoughtful explora-

tion. In the ancientworld,it

was adeath sentence.It was

the mostprofoundand sa-

credof all ritualsbecause

the scapegoatwas always

guilty. It was anecessary

expiation, asymbolic

cleansingofsociety’s ills.“In

Greekmythology, thescape-

goat is never wrongfullyac-

cused,”René Girard, the au-

thorof “Violenceand the

Sacred,”oncetold me. “But

he is always magical.He has

the capacitytorelieve the

burdenof guilt fromasoci-

ety. This seemsabasic hu-

man impulse. There is a

need to consume scape-

goats.”(TheJewscivilized

the ritualby replacinghu-

manswith actual goats.)

This maybethe bestanthropologicalexpla-

nation for the dementedand relentless“hunt-

ing”ofClintonand her husband.They are

perfectscapegoatsforthecaricaturedexcesses

of the babyboomgeneration. They represent

the permissiveness—sexual for him, feminist

for her —thatterrified and entranced,and

tempted,their opponents.

TheClintons were also stupendouslyguilty

of the more subtle failingsof their (my)

generation, the solipsistic idealismand sense

of entitlement;the beliefthattheycould cut

corners—fly free on privateplanes,give

speechesfor fabuloussums,indulgeininsider

stock trades —for the greater good. Earlyon,

D’Antonioproducesaquote fromthe revered

Arkansasliberal Dale Bumpers, wholater

defendedPresidentBill Clintonin his im-

peachmenttrial:“Clintonoughtto be most

grateful ...buthenever is.You can never do

quiteenoughfor him and Hillary. ...They are

the mostmanic obsessedpeopleIhaveever

knownin my life, andperhapseven the most

insensitiveto everybodyelse’s feelings.Every-

thingcentersaroundthemand theirambi-

tions.ItispreciselythereasonBillgotbeat[for

governorofArkansas]in1980.Peoplefelt,and

POLITICS REVIEWBY JOE KLEIN

Why have so many tried to take down Hillary? She’s America’s scapegoat.

THE HUNTING

OF HILLARY

TheForty-Year

Campaignto

DestroyHillary

Clinton

By Michael

D’Antonio

ThomasDunne.

338 pp. $29.99

MATTMCCLAIN/THEWASHINGTONPOST

Alongsideher

husband, Bill

Clinton,and

runningmate,Tim

Kaine,Hillary

Clintonspeaksin

NewYork on Nov.

9, 2016, theday

after losing the

presidential

election to Donald

Trump.