RFK is a very difficult case. Not when it comes to what to do about his speech, I'm of the same mindset as you and I don't support the misinformation panic. But free expression people do need to be clear in recognizing that there are lots of people out there with poor critical-thinking faculties and a conspiracy-theorizing mindset. RFK is obviously such a person.
The complicating factor, of course, is that a critical mass of voters is equally bad or worse in these respects. (An important habit of mind for free speech absolutists is to work hard not to overestimate the electorate's critical thinking capabilities, which the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor encourages us to do.)
I think there is value in holding the line that says 5G conspiracy theories, vaccine/autism and GMO fearmongering and the like has no place in the halls of power. If the opponent were Nikki Haley, I'd be inclined to say that it's worth running a greater risk of losing in order to repudiate RFK. Given that the opponent was Trump, I think you're right that it was worth it to try to reach an understanding with him.
Bhattacharya, on the other hand, is a very serious person and I actually agree with many of his unorthodox views. I think it would be great to have him in a high position. But here there is a problem as well. If he works for Trump, that could end up further polarizing the response to his views--lots of folks will assume that he's a bad guy because he's willing to work with Trump (and RFK). It would be nice if the response was the one you hope for, but I'm not sure that's realistic.
Thank you for your comment, I mostly agree. But I don't feel I can decide who has a place in the halls of power and who does not. I have my own preferences, but if the voters decide that someone has a place, they belong there.
I see the force of that, although what I'm saying is that if it weren't for Trump, I'd support the Democrats saying "Part of our 'platform' is that RFK shouldn't have a place in government, voters can choose us or not on that basis." Which is what they did in the actual campaign against Trump.
But also I think it's fine for some things to be "undemocratic," in the sense of being outside the purview of the issues that candidates campaign on and voters get to register opinions on. Like no candidate ever runs on nuclear security issues these days even though policy still gets made in that domain.
Yes, totally fine for a political party or nominee to exclude someone and then live with the consequences if voters decide otherwise, though I think in this case it was a major strategic miscalculation. I felt in July last year (when I wrote the post on Kennedy) that for all his flaws, he could be a real asset to the party. I think folks like Golden and Booker see that now.
RFK is a very difficult case. Not when it comes to what to do about his speech, I'm of the same mindset as you and I don't support the misinformation panic. But free expression people do need to be clear in recognizing that there are lots of people out there with poor critical-thinking faculties and a conspiracy-theorizing mindset. RFK is obviously such a person.
The complicating factor, of course, is that a critical mass of voters is equally bad or worse in these respects. (An important habit of mind for free speech absolutists is to work hard not to overestimate the electorate's critical thinking capabilities, which the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor encourages us to do.)
I think there is value in holding the line that says 5G conspiracy theories, vaccine/autism and GMO fearmongering and the like has no place in the halls of power. If the opponent were Nikki Haley, I'd be inclined to say that it's worth running a greater risk of losing in order to repudiate RFK. Given that the opponent was Trump, I think you're right that it was worth it to try to reach an understanding with him.
Bhattacharya, on the other hand, is a very serious person and I actually agree with many of his unorthodox views. I think it would be great to have him in a high position. But here there is a problem as well. If he works for Trump, that could end up further polarizing the response to his views--lots of folks will assume that he's a bad guy because he's willing to work with Trump (and RFK). It would be nice if the response was the one you hope for, but I'm not sure that's realistic.
Thank you for your comment, I mostly agree. But I don't feel I can decide who has a place in the halls of power and who does not. I have my own preferences, but if the voters decide that someone has a place, they belong there.
I see the force of that, although what I'm saying is that if it weren't for Trump, I'd support the Democrats saying "Part of our 'platform' is that RFK shouldn't have a place in government, voters can choose us or not on that basis." Which is what they did in the actual campaign against Trump.
But also I think it's fine for some things to be "undemocratic," in the sense of being outside the purview of the issues that candidates campaign on and voters get to register opinions on. Like no candidate ever runs on nuclear security issues these days even though policy still gets made in that domain.
Yes, totally fine for a political party or nominee to exclude someone and then live with the consequences if voters decide otherwise, though I think in this case it was a major strategic miscalculation. I felt in July last year (when I wrote the post on Kennedy) that for all his flaws, he could be a real asset to the party. I think folks like Golden and Booker see that now.