I liked most of this post, it’s soul-searching in the best way, and empathetic. But I think this in reference to Chick Fil-A is sorely mistaken:

To those people who viewed this not as a statement of solidarity with that man’s opinion, but his right to express it – and those people alone – I apologize for labeling you as a bigot. You were shoulder to shoulder with a lot of them that day, but if you genuinely believed that you were standing up for someone’s right to express an unpopular opinion, and you weren’t there because you were supporting that same person’s efforts to deny same-sex couples the rights heterosexual couples take for granted by spending the money you gave him on that day, I sincerely apologize for putting a label on you that was hurtful.

I agree that this isn’t bigotry, but I don’t think it’s commendable either. “Protecting” free speech in places where it isn’t really in question is really a pet peeve of mine, and it doesn’t fit here. The freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment pertains directly to government censorship, not to societal sanction. To the extent that some civil authorities have tried to block permits because they don’t like the views of the ownership of Chick Fil-A, it is a matter of censorship. But in the sense of, should a guy be insulated from blowback from the public for saying things that the public doesn’t agree with, then no. Increasingly, as actual right-wing views become less and less popular in the culture we see conservatives (most famously Sarah Palin) resorting to this kind of reading, that accurate criticism of genuinely held beliefs is in some way infringing on peoples’ rights. But ultimately government can’t enforce this sort of thing–in fact, the entire point of the First Amendment is to avoid the government taking sides in political debates. It is, in fact, the opposite of the intention of the First Amendment. And ultimately, trying to shield individuals and institutions from their actions on the basis of “they have a right to speak too” is an attempt to assert political correctness of a sort, if unknowingly. Increasingly, right-wing political correctness is the predominant, perhaps the only, sort of political correctness that still has any sort of juice.

So how did we get here? Eating at a restaurant or expressing solidarity with this concept on the basis of protecting someone’s right to express it is misguided at best. The right isn’t being threatened in any sort of legal way. What explains this is that old little-l liberal chestnut, the free marketplace of ideas (I’m pivoting off of Garry Wills’s basic concept here, expressed in Nixon Agonistes and elsewhere). A large part of American civil society and institutions are built around the idea that the best ideas are the ones that ultimately win out in the public debate, and that interfering with the expression of those ideas is simply morally wrong, if not undemocratic. The media is built on this principle. Academia is too, to some extent. The applications in politics seem self-evident. And it sounds good and sporting. Let the best idea win! Only the whole concept is a farce, and a destructive one. Climate change denial is a laughable idea, but it draws a lot more respect and credibility than it should. The Ryan Plan is a joke–a spending-slashing plan that actually raises the deficit!–but it gets treated warmly in the marketplace of ideas. These occur because of the particular biases of the gatekeepers of the marketplace of ideas, i.e. those institutions I mentioned earlier.

Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas is an idea that smacks of Enlightenment thinking in the worst way, the idea that humankind is essentially a reasonable creature deep down, and that people are fundamentally decent enough to use that reason to enrich themselves and others. Only that’s not true. Reason isn’t going to make James Inhofe reconsider his opposition to climate change, it certainly hasn’t yet. The reality is that, while reason can have this effect, it often tends toward self-justification. In my experience, one of the greatest revealers of character is how a person deals with loss, and the threat of loss. Not just of other people, but of reputation, of money, of status. When that stuff is threatened is most often where people behave like real monsters, so it’s not at all shocking that the real neanderthal behavior comes out during a recession. That the LBGT equality movement has spread as fast as it has in spite of a multiyear recession really is sort of an amazing accomplishment when you think about it–one wonders if it would have gone faster if we’d seen a quicker recovery, or if it’s just because the arguments coming out of the likes of Rick Santorum are so worn-out that they’ve been entirely unable to stem the tide.

My point is that, ultimately, if you disagree with someone’s point of view and see people piling on, the correct response is to jump on top of the pile and not to hide behind some contrarian impulse to defend their right to speak. That right, aside from in certain specific geographical areas, is not in question, and if you want to write Rahm Emanuel a letter, go on ahead. But this is one of those things that put the forces of progress at a disadvantage to the forces of reaction–the need to always take the high ground, to win on honorable terms. This is a big corporation we’re talking about here, not in any way representative of “the little guy.” Making political statements and donations makes someone a political actor, and if the money is coming from company coffers, then so is the company. Reacting with political action is appropriate, both for the people who support and oppose the issue. Much as this whole Huckabee business has annoyed me, I think the people making excuses and providing cover for the company are far worse.  At least Huckabee knows what he’s doing.