Are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh Seditious?

Time Magazine Columnist Joe Klein suggested in an interview on The Chris Matthews Show that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh's statements about the current administration could be considered sedition. According to the NewsBuster's article, "the legal definition of sedition is 'a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.'"

Sedition was declared a felony by the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, yet the Declaration of Independence states: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Also, according to the article, Klein charges that the only reason this is happening is because President Obama is African-American, his middle name is Hussein, and people are scared of the economy.

If a citizen believes that Congress has ignored the will of the people is it sedition to encourage the rest of the citizens to follow the Declaration of Independence? Does Joe Klein have a point or is this another example of people who disagree with the president being called racist?

Scott Hinkley:

Joe Klein appears to be picking a fight with American citizens he will never win. For any of you who have read my past political rantings, I am far from a fan of the Tea Party leaders and other right-wing politicians and media-celebrities. Having read several descriptions of the Tea Party's psudo-doctrine, I can't help but feel that the overall direction is small-minded, petty, and ignorant of the majority of problems facing most of our nation.

Having made my position clear, I think that Mr. Klein is a fool for entering into the name-calling and chest-thumping game. I think that along with so many other traditions in our young country, American's hold great reverence for the "power-of-the-people." This poorly defined and often misrepresented vision of independence and personal authority is none-the-less a critical representation of the insurance police America was forced to extend to it's future citizens in order to achieve an union of states and territories, in the first place.

I can't believe that educated taunting of Mr. Klein's ideological opponents will do anything to change the problems he is complaining about. Of course people are afraid that Obama has dark skin, of course they are afraid of his religious convictions, and of course, some of the people who feel this way are horrible racists trying nothing more that to undermine progress and preserve their personal pride at the cost of all other rights, but who wins now.

All Mr. Klein has achieved by these callous remarks is a spot on future protest posters as an example of another elite do-gooder ruining our nation. In my opinion, Sarah Palin has every right to sink her fangs deep into the xenophobic veins of her followers, and it is up to the rest of us citizens to hold strong against her well-laid (maybe?) plans. If you don't like the politics, join the cause of the opposition, but sitting judgement on television and declaring your opposition as essentially un-American, sounds like a page right out of the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh book.

I wish someone with a brain, AND a heart could manage to speak about these issues without thumbing their noses at hard working Americans. Don't win them over, don't crush them underfoot, just keep moving and make them keep up to survive. Speak to people with kindness and acceptance, and they just might listen.

David Loftus:

Technically speaking, and even philosophically, I think Klein has a point, but probably not a legal one; and I suspect he’s not really urging these loudmouths be taken to court. I read his statements as a strong hint to people who listen to Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh to stop and think a moment about the ugly, vehement, over-the-top language that these talking heads indulge in; and to consider whether it’s wise, dignified, or good citizenship to repeat everything they say to one’s friends and neighbors as if it were gospel truth (or even sensible). Palin is trying to pursue a career as a politician (I think), and I predict that she will never be elected to national office. Beck and Limbaugh are “unelected officials,” however, and they try to have it both ways: they want to be taken seriously as political thinkers, but the minute they got caught in a lie or realize they’ve overstepped the bounds of taste or dignity, they’ll say, oh, but I’m an entertainer, what I’m doing is satire.

The real point here is that opponents of the current administration are being hypocritical: they can dish it out but they can’t take it. Nobody ever openly and publicly wished for President Bush to fail, as Limbaugh has about Obama; we were merely unsurprised that he didn’t succeed. Nobody ever gave Bush a hard time for pretending to be as much of a Texan as he was a New England Yalie, let alone questioned his citizenship altogether. I don’t recall that anyone ever questioned President Bush’s patriotism, either; we merely disagreed with him on how best to express it.

More to the point, I strongly suspect many of the right-wingers who invoke First Amendment free speech rights today are precisely the ones who wanted to deny it to others in the past. I’ll give you better than even odds that many of them favored prosecution of flag burning, and lobbied not only to yank NEA funding from controversial artists but wanted them prosecuted for obscenity. Most telling of all, if you showed them the passage from the Declaration of Independence above (“it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it”), without telling them where it comes from, they not only wouldn’t recognize it but a majority of them wouldn’t endorse it. I know, because it’s been done before. In 1976, shortly before the Bicentennial, a survey did just that, and a good 75 percent of people questioned on the street thought the passage was un-American, “commie crap.”

I don’t see any way to account for the fierce opposition to the current elected President (who clearly attained office on a greater popular- and electoral-vote basis than President Bush for either of his terms) than at least partly because of racism. Hilary Clinton suffered similarly ugly attacks when her husband was president, because a good segment of the population is uncomfortable with women in or close to power, and they could deflect their discomfort with Bill Clinton’s policies onto her -- because they thought he was likable. I don’t really care whether you could make a case for sedition against the enemies of the President; what matters to me is that they’re being disrespectful to the office of the President; to their fellow citizens, a majority of whom elected Obama to that office; and yes, ultimately to their country. They do not, in fact, seem to know how to be good American citizens.