The Democratic Party seemed to rush to embrace its utter obsolescence in disrupting the censure process of Rep. Al Green (D., Tx.). After Green disrupted the joint session address of President Donald Trump, Democrats responded by refusing to clear the well and singing “We shall overcome” over the voice of Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) — forcing him to put the house in recess. Polling indicates that the Democrats have a great deal to overcome as a CNN poll shows 80 percent of Americans disapprove of Green’s conduct.
CNN polling also found that 69 percent had a very or somewhat positive view of Trump’s speech. Other polls showed the same result, including a CBS News/YouGov survey showing 76 percent approval and only 23 percent disapproval.
In many ways, the moment captured how adrift the Democratic Party has become in the current political environment. It is entirely untethered to the majority of voters on such issues. Only roughly 5 percent of Democratic members voted to censure Green for his outrageous conduct despite over 80 percent of the public opposing the conduct.
As if to drive home the point, Democrats joined a defiant Green in the well to sing over Johnson’s voice. Neither House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries nor the other leadership members condemned Green or the disruption of the censure process.
Some moderate Democrats sought later to distance themselves, but their rationales were pathetically transparent.
Rep. Jared Golden (D, Maine) insisted that “In today’s environment, censure tends only to give a greater platform to the censured legislator. So I tend to lean in favor of free speech unless a clear red line is crossed.”
Golden’s statement succeeded in not only assaulting the principles of free speech but also logic.
First, there was a formal censure vote so the attention element was going to be satisfied regardless of how Golden voted. The only question is whether Maine’s representative would join his more courageous colleagues in condemning Green or stick with party loyalty over principle.
More importantly, Golden did not support free speech. He voted to undermine it. As I have previously discussed in my book and columns, deplatforming is denying the right of others to speak or to hear opposing views.
As shown in higher education, the argument that stopping free speech is free speech is nothing more than a twisted rationalization. Protesting outside of an event is an act of free speech. Entering an event to shout down or “deplatform” speakers is the denial or disruption of free speech.
Golden’s effort to portray Green’s violation of the House rules as an exercise of free speech is a mere rationalization for lacking the courage to stand with the small number of Democrats condemning the conduct.
Rep. Josh Riley (D., N.Y.) did little better. While he did not try to cloak his vote as a defense of free speech, he simply argued (as did Jeffries) that they have more important things to do: “I wish we’d spent this morning focused on that instead of the drama and political theater in Washington.”
Again, the problem is that there was a vote regardless of his desire to avoid it. He had to cast a vote and, at that defining moment, voted not to condemn this conduct. He also chose party over principle.
As I stated on the air yesterday after the vote, I watched the vote and the later protest in the well with profound sadness for an institution that I truly love. I first worked in Congress as a 15-year-old Democrat page. I revered the House and respected the members who worked on that floor. There was a time when this vote would have been unanimous against Green. There was a time when there were still things that remained beyond the pale; that transcended the rage.
It will take much more for the Democrats to “overcome” this moment. In a flash, they formally became the party of Al Green. As voters watched them rally around this unhinged member, their colleagues were being shown in cringe-worthy social media postings or clips spewing profanity in hearing rooms.
They have become more of a parody than a party.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.