I wish people would adopt this credo: There are highly intelligent and knowledgeable people who disagree with me on the issues. They are not misinformed; they just have different opinions.
In a democracy, we have to reason together.
Jake seems to think that free speech means others have some duty to listen and not disagree.
Does he also think one person's right to bear arms means that everyone else should buy them a gun? I suspect not.
So, do you think Howard Schultz was being literal? Or are you just treating him as if he was and holding Jake Tapper to that standard?
When I think of awkward–>aggressive–>disatastful–>rude–>incitement-adjacent examples that drive people to their worst from the recent past, resentment of the haves is pretty low on the list. I don't think that can fairly be claimed to be the reason for Charlottesville, or its counter-protests, for any campus speaker issues, for confrontations while people are dining in public, etc.
Maybe you think that would have been Tapper's response had Schultz referenced any of the above examples. We can disagree on that, but Schultz used the example that he did, and it seems clear to me that in that context, he was using hyperbole.
So, do you think Howard Schultz was being literal?
I'm not sure that's true, but I definitely think you have a contender. I don't see the relevance.
I'm making a simple point: to criticize someone who's verbally attacking you, even if you exaggerate the attack, is not to challenge whether they should be free to speak or free to associate.
In terms of properly understanding freedom (the subject implied by the title of your post), you zero in on this part of Schultz's statement–"if you're successful, you're bad (if your success is great enough) and we are going to be punitive"–and find fault with Tapper's response.
Do you think Schultz is objecting to 1) people holding such beliefs, 2) expressing such beliefs, 3) voting in a way that would make it likelier that such beliefs will become law, 4) other?
Which ones do you think are inconsistent with freedom?
I think Schultz used language that implied, at least, unruliness, and he's expressing free speech/freedom arguments when he should be using policy language. And I think the same is true of your comment. The "from the rafters part" as you acknowledge was just hyperbole; it's the policy implications that you (and Schultz) oppose.
Schultz can object to all three and still defend freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Of course he can. However, you made clear that the core issue was about what was said (resenting success and seeking to affect the law in line with such resentment), not how it was said (yelling from the rafters), the latter which you acknowledged to be hyperbole.
So setting hyperbole aside, then there's not really a free speech issue here. The issue is that Schultz, and you, disagree with their beliefs and what they intend to do about them.
If there's a free speech issue, it would seem to include the part you deemed hyperbole (the "from the rafters" bit), in which case I return to the point I made in my first post, for which you saw no relevance.
I like this discussion because it illustrates an important point: if I plan to move from a domain in which I know the rules to a domain in which, if there are any rules, I don't know them, I had better be prepared for a few speed bumps at best. If I move from the world of business, where the measures of success relate to customer satisfaction, employee morale, product and service quality, and generally reflect leadership, mutual respect, and appreciation of markets, I may or may not be prepared to swim with the sharks of politics.
In business, personal attacks are unlikely to be a key component of building strong teams. As part of the Darwinian processes of free markets, where cooperation yields the competitive edge, authoritarian leaders and disrespectful workers tend to be filtered out, usually sooner than later.
In politics, insults, innuendos, epithets, and sweeping generalizations are the coin of the realm. Progress is generally measured by the degree to which I can belittle and diminish my opponent in the eyes of observers, claim credit for sunny days, and assign blame for droughts and blizzards. Debates become 9 parts Jerry Springer and 0 or 1 part William Buckley. Issues, such as fiscal responsibility, free trade, personal freedoms, and mutual respect are drowned out by the melodrama of personal attacks and counter attacks.
Coming from the business world to the political realm, I am astonished to learn that the only qualifications to become the POTUS are that I be born in this country and that I have achieved a certain age. Come one, come all, no prior experience in management, leadership, or basic knowledge of the law or economics required. Fortunately, term limits on the POTUS, a loosely shared consensus that the founders were right about the balance of power, and a second amendment which raises the perceived cost of military takeover, have thus far – with some very glaring exceptions – saved us from our most self-destructive instincts.
Chris above seems to get the point but still thinks he's arguing with me. He says correctly "there's not really a free speech issue here." Exactly. And there's not a freedom of association issue here either. That's my point. Tapper thinks Schultz is criticizing or attacking freedom of speech and freedom of association. He's not.
Your correct as far as you go, but we seem to disagree on how the source of the free speech misunderstanding. You seem to think that Tapper willfully distorted things. I think it's Schultz's doing.
We agree that Schultz engaged in hyperbole. If he had just said. "There are people who resent success, who are looking to be punitive with their vote. And I think that goes against what American stands for," he would have been much better off. However, he used language that tried to slough off some of the argumentative–or, at least, persuasive–weight onto an exaggerated description of those he opposed (mood affiliation?), which, I think we can agree, is not good form.
You seem to think that Tapper willfully distorted things.
No, I think, as I said in my original post above, that Tapper doesn't understand freedom. He is accusing Schultz of criticizing freedom of speech and freedom of association. Schultz did no such thing.
Yes, and that's a very strong conclusion to reach, especially because it is largely based on the part of Schultz's statement that is mere hyperbole. If Schultz were more direct and less political, it would have been a much clearer case.