Um ... OK, that's ... surprising, to say the least.
Even recognizing that, yes, perhaps US policy could stand some re-examination, and that, yes, the Israeli authorities do torture Palestinians (one or two of whom, you know, throw the occasional bomb or go on the odd shooting spree) ... why in the name of heaven would a US Representative say any such thing to him? Dunning him for money? Any organization guided by a person with even one functioning brain cell would conclude that it simply wouldn't be worth the horrendous publicity. Any politician -- representing an Atlanta suburb, for heaven's sake -- giving it any thought at all would conclude that the response to such a letter would be brutal and, if she's not in a safe district (and I don't believe she is) would hand your future opponent an issue that would almost certainly lose you your seat.
And, yes, some of the criticism in Atlanta has been both pointed and acid. And, yes, some Atlantans think we should examine our Middle East policy ... but that's not quite the same thing, is it? (Why on earth is Philadelphia's paper looking at Atlanta's opinions?) And, yes, a recent "Letters" column in the Atlanta Journal Constitution had a few letters showing some support for McKinney [waaaay down there at the bottom, down past the one equating her opinions with support for the Klan, yes] ... although, for the most part, the support is remarkably specific: about her right to say what she said -- which is, of course, unquestioned; anyone has the right to make a fool of themselves in public -- and the fact that US policy in the Middle East needs examination. To be sure, there is that one person who says that we should be looking to McKinney and people like her for guidance. (Um ... No. Thanks, but, you know, no. If I need to, I can alienate a great many people on my own; I don't need an object lesson. Although, to be sure, she's a very good one.)
Representative McKinney's initial letter and her response to the criticism are quite ... interesting, in their own peculiar way. She displays a positively Clintonian talent for shading the facts here and there. For example, in her letter, she says, "Whether he agreed with you or not I think [Giuliani] should have recognized your right to speak and make observations about a part of the world which you know so well." Well, he didn't deny the prince a right to speak, did he? The prince spoke loud and clear. What Giuliani said was that he and his council found those words repugnant, and for that reason, they were returning the check; surely if the prince has the right to speak, New York has the right to respond to it. In her response, instead of the various minority issues she cites in her original letter, she talks about the families of the rescue workers who were killed in the attack, and the small businesses devastated by it. Now, let's just be real, shall we? Given the circumstances, the organizations trying to serve those people would be damn near apoplectic at the very thought of accepting the prince's money, and she did rather just pull them out of a hat, didn't she? She said not one single word about those people or businesses in her original message.
She says "my point was simply that the $10 million donation should have been accepted whether or not we, as Americans, agree with every position taken by the Prince." Leaving aside the fact that this is not precisely what she said -- she apparently equates giving money with speech, as if the prince were a candidate and this were a political campaign; the prince managed to express himself quite thoroughly, I thought -- I don't understand how Representative McKinney does not see that sometimes, money, however much it may be needed, comes with strings you don't want pulled or prices you don't want to pay. Surely she has declined a campaign donation on principle, as opposed to simply on political considerations, once or twice in her day. (If she hasn't ... that might explain a great deal.) They may not be her strings or her price ... but they were apparently New York's.
There are some things that even the prince's billions can't buy. And there are some things even a well-intentioned member of Congress can't sell.
Replies: 1 Comment
Representative McKinney unquestionably has the right of free speech. And the voters in her district unquestionably have the right to evaluate what she says when they decide on their votes in the next election.
The constitutional purpose of Free Speech is precisely to allow the voters easy access to information so that they can vote wisely. It is not a violation of Representative McKinney's right of free speech for the voters of her district to refuse to reelect her next time.
Posted by Steven C. Den Beste @ 10/24/2001 03:30 PM CST
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!