This afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 230 to 199 to strip outspoken and controversial Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments, effectively giving her nothing to do in Congress. The vote went along party lines with only 11 Republicans voting for her removal.
I feel ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I find her views deplorable - she has suggested that the Parkland and Stoneham school shooting were staged events and that no one really died, that 9/11, or at least the attack on the Pentagon that day, was similarly fake, and that (and I swear I'm not making this up) California wildfires were started by lasers in outer space controlled by the Jewish Rothschild family.
On the other hand, I'm also a First Amendment, ACLU-style progressive, and I feel anyone has a right to express their views, however deplorable or offensive, as long as they aren't physically hurting anyone. I also believe that the people of northwest Georgia (her district) have the right to freely elect the representative they want. If I protest when Texas sues to overturn the results of Georgia's presidential election because they apparently feel like we picked the "wrong" candidate, and if I protest when Ted Cruz objects to Georgia's electoral votes being counted in the Senate, then it would be hypocritical not to object to House Democrats trying to unseat a freely elected official, even if I disagree with her. If Greene were removed from her committees simply because others found her opinions objectionable, or that the people of northwest Georgia somehow voted "wrong," then that's a very dangerous path to start going down.
But it does go deeper than that. She also reportedly advocated for, or at least endorsed, violence against other Congressional members. That goes beyond mere holding of unpopular opinions. Specifically, she reportedly "liked" a Facebook post that said the best way to remove House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi from office would be to put a bullet in her head.
Well, that's different, but still, what exactly does it mean to "like" a post? Does it necessarily mean that you approve of everything it says, hold that opinion as your own, and will stand by it for years to come? I don't mean to defend Greene, but if that's what a "like" means, a lot of us are in some pretty big trouble.
Could a "like" not mean that you understand the person's anger and rage, and want to let them know they're being heard? Could it mean that you just got swept up in the emotion of the moment, and made a boneheaded click? Or as a political figure, could it mean that you want that person's attention, that you think that person might potentially vote for you, and you want to get on their radar screen?
The latter is similar to the controversy when some politician or another is photographed with someone objectionable. Most politicians pose for pictures with innumerable people in order to win support - it's part of campaigning, just like the proverbial kissing babies. Elizabeth Warren, who I strongly approve of, famously stayed as late as necessary after her campaign appearances until everyone who wanted a selfie with her got one. If you went through all of those pictures, could one of them have a criminal record? Could one have been a white supremacist? Or a pedophile? If so, does that mean that Warren approved their views or actions or whatever?
Of course nor. And if you scrolled through the browsing history of every member of Congress and cataloged all of their Facebook "likes," don't you think you'd find some thing, maybe not as bad as Greene's choice but still highly objectionable, on nearly every representative?
God damn it, I hate that I'm defending her! I find her reprehensible and repugnant - she's an asshole - but I think Congress made a mistake this time.
Worse yet, this will only feed into that paranoid, right-wing persecution complex. "They want to silence me," she's already claimed. That only builds up the support among her voters and all but reassures her a second term. Just what we didn't need . . .
It might have been better to just ignore her, marginalize her words and actions by condensation, like everyone did with her recent motion to impeach Joe Biden (I don't even know what the charges are). Everyone was like, "Oh, nice publicity stunt. Meanwhile . . . " and went back to the grown-up world of governing. That kind of action would have rendered her moot in no time at all.
One last point - there are members of Congress who, not without good reason, feared for their lives and safety with her in their midst. One congresswoman, Cori Bush of Missouri, had to request that her office be moved away from Greene's because she and her staff were harassing and intimidating Bush and her staff (I told you Greene was an asshole). She's a rabid gun enthusiast and has refused to go through the required metal detectors to enter Congress. Given her prior "likes" of posts about bullets in congressional heads and given the fact that she likely is armed, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.
So here's my final question - how does she get into Congress if she won't submit to a metal detector? Back in the day, I couldn't get into some concerts without passing through a metal detector. No one gets very far in an airport with getting scanned. Why doesn't Capitol security just do its job, and not let anyone in who hasn't first been screened?
No comments:
Post a Comment