Americans have long understood that any attempt to abridge or infringe on your right to express yourself is inherently immoral, and the current state of American politics should have people worried.
Free speech, the ability for citizens to voice their opinions without fear of punishment by the government, has upset others to the point where many are reading political banter as bigoted or hateful speech. With this in mind, one could also claim that any attempt to take away any element of the First Amendment is cause for alarm or agitation amongst American citizens.
However, it’s become clear that people would rather have a utopian society, where there is only one common voice, as opposed to what America stands for: a discourse of views, values and opinions. A recent example to understand this issue better could be seen in discussions surrounding an investigation spurred by the Department of Justice into Rep. Cori Bush’s (D-Mo.) campaign spending for security services. More importantly, the investigation comes as Bush married Cortney Merrits, her longtime security guard, in 2023, an act which raises questions as Bush spent $627,088 on security-related expenses between August 2020 and February 2023.
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) recently came under fire after criticizing Rep. Cori Bush and her alleged improper use of campaign funds to bankroll personal security services. “She doesn’t even support the police,” Nehls stated, “But the idea to pay her thug money to try to help protect her this and that, for what?” Given the circumstances, Nehls called to light how Bush’s behavior and outspoken views, if dialed back, might help alleviate any potential threats she gets while reversing and preventing further investigations into Bush over any issues relating to campaign fund use for security. However, Democrats on Capitol Hill are upset at one word that Nehls used when discussing Bush’s husband: “thug.” So much so, Bush’s fellow “squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called the verbiage a racist attack and said that Nehls was echoing the stereotype of the “loud black woman trope.” Since then, the narrative has shifted away from the investigation into Bush, and onto Nehls.
However, this is only one side of the story, and it would be helpful to examine Bush’s rhetoric that built up to that moment. In the past, Bush has been an advocate for “defunding the police” and was a leading proponent of the idea all while funding her personal security detail. Nehls was most likely trying to build upon Republican criticism of Bush, as the party had criticized her heavily in the 2022 midterms for the hypocrisy of her statements to defund the police while having a private detail. Nonetheless, it upset people, and Nehls should have been better with his words and avoided the trap of making statements that lacked decorum to score political points.
What Nehls did by calling out Bush was practicing his right to express his views and calling to light the hypocrisy surrounding Bush and her decision to ensure her own safety while removing officers from the streets. Further, asking Nehls to retract his statements is a push to limit the voice that the people of Texas sent to Congress, in the form of Nehls. Despite many in the Democratic Party calling for apologies from Nehls for his statements, too many people are quick to get upset at a Republican for saying things that they deem controversial while failing to recognize fueled language that Bush has also said.
Bush has repeatedly defended her upsetting stances and language relating to Israel and the Oct. 7 attack. She has previously stated, “The people of St. Louis did not send me to Congress to pacify people and to make people feel comfortable.” Because of this, many of Bush’s constituents are mad at her, with one constituent saying, “I think what I would say to those who have traditionally supported Cori Bush, is that I believe you probably supported her because you believed that she held moral positions.” This example of some of Bush’s ongoing controversies further support that she can dish it out while not being able to take it when it comes to criticism. Joseph Pinion, a Republican strategist, supported this idea in a segment on CNN where he stated, “She should also be examining her own rhetoric when it comes to just making sure that we have civility in the public square.”
It is very easy to claim that Bush needs to get a thicker skin. However, that would be unproductive and only further stoke the flames relating to these respective issues. What America must learn from this recent example is that you need to step back, see the entire picture in front of you and then make assessments for why people are saying the things that they are. This is advice that many congressional leaders should take and should learn. Thomas Jefferson put it best: “An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy.”
Michael Duke, GSB ’26, is undecided from Scottsdale, Ariz.
