Yes, But, However!

I don’t feel terribly sorry for the GOP at this point, and consider their recent losses a direct result of their ideas and their implementation of them. To watch the battles of ideology and positioning taking place within the Grand Old Party brings a smirk to many on the left, and a wince of recognition for the rest. While my years in the wilderness left me hoping to see a day where the party of George W Bush might eat its own, I can’t say the actuality has been what I’d hoped. Revenge fantasies rarely play out satisfactorily.

I have watched with some sadness the plight of radio host Michael Savage, who finds himself banned from entering the UK by the head of their Home Office, Jacqui Smith under the pretext that he represents a threat to the peace of her country for his incendiary rhetoric. Without question, Dr. Savage represents the red meat wing of right wing talk radio, and many of his ideas are either beyond the pale for me, or are expressed in ways that would make many who agree with him wince. Most people of good will would likely find themselves bristling from at least something on the Savage Nation if they listened long enough, and if one focused solely on the extremes of his program, it isn’t a total surprise that he’s found himself in trouble on this scale.

What’s surprising is the degree to which Savage has been hung out to dry by many high profile thought leaders of the right. From an industry almost totally united in a preemptive campaign to head off the re-imposition of a Fairness Doctrine – under the guise that it is just punishment for the success of their rhetoric – the silence of the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys at Dr. Savage’s plight seems, at minimum, hypocritical. To not even go after the Obama administration for not defending political discourse against the chilling effect of such a ban is also a little surprising, and ultimately, short-sighted.

This story has been out there long enough for professional competitors with political sympathy to find a way to reach out and support Savage without being seen as too soft on a direct competitor; and yet, there’s nothing. Indeed, the build of silence on the right is deafening, and it has not gone unnoticed. On the left, Huffington Post, for example, has granted headline real estate to the Savage-UK story, but they have done so largely within the wider context of simple GOP-infighting. This is not as surprising, but it is ultimately short-sighted.  The Drudge Report has also followed the story.

As has been pointed out by opposition members in the British Parliament, what Savage has been accused of are things which are also illegal here in the US; and yet, Dr. Savage has never been charged, let alone convicted, here or there. Dr. Savage has made many enemies with his rhetoric in this country, and many who may have been called “vermin” or likened to Stalin by him might see in his predicament a good comeuppance, but I think very few of them would be as willing to call it justice. I could easily forgive anyone, let alone a Home Secretary for America’s greatest ally, for not wanting to have Dr. Savage to dinner, or to allow them to date their daughter, but to punish him for the manner in which he has expressed his ideas is quite a different thing.

The Savage Nation isn’t a shortwave missive sent at random times from a trailer compound in the woods somewhere – it is one of the biggest shows on the public airwaves, and it enjoys the support of many mainstream advertisers and supporters. Many in the US have disputed things said by Michael Savage, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has seriously claimed he had no right to say it or that in saying it, he was guilty of a crime. His ideas, however repugnant to many, are also cheered by many. Savage does not broadcast from the fringe to the fringe. If he is guilty for speaking his words, are his millions of listeners equally guilty for nodding along?

Personally, I am bothered at how mainstream many of his ideas are, but I can’t say that they are not something I have heard elsewhere, and often. In other contexts, most of his ideas on gays, Islamic Fundamentalism, and (his broadcast home) San Francisco enjoy wide acceptance and expression. Perhaps if he was broadcasting only his most outrageous sentiments from a trailer in the woods, with an audience more like that of the average blog, we might not have an issue here at all.

There are several precedents here that are quite dangerous, and were they being established by actions of the American government, I have to hope that there would be much greater concern about what is happening. The UK can choose to allow or disallow anyone into their country that they please. It very well may be that Michael Savage’s presence in the UK would be a source of disruption so significant as to give the UK a fig leaf of legitimacy for preventing him from entering their country. That is not for me to say, and my feelings of reservation aren’t really about British immigration policy. My concern is that through either apathy or antipathy (self-interest either way) we here can allow such a precedent to be established so easily.

Ultimately, I choose to be an optimist and believe that this wouldn’t happen if it were a domestic issue, or at least that if this was happening here, defense of Savage’s rights would more vocal and principled. I imagine Dr. Savage would say this doesn’t make me an optimist, but simply shows what a lib Utopian-type I am. At this point, it would be a relief to me if I could believe he would be right in saying so.