My concern is that as America divides into various differentiated groups, the members of the group limit conversation enough to within the group, resulting in the deepening of their conviction that they are right and other groups are wrong. It is important to differentiate oneself from others, a sign of maturity at every level. It is also important to have a vision of concern for human flourishing through rational action. This involves the simple recognition that if you want your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, you must tolerate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the other (David Rubin). What hinders that concern and rationality is that the tendency today is to marginalize the groups that differ significantly from them in their thinking, and if they get cultural, economic, or political power, they use it to marginalize any opposition to their group.
Among the more dangerous signs of our times is the growing number of individuals and groups who believe that no one can disagree with them for any honest reason (Thomas Sowell). People just do not talk truly anymore — and in the dark silence within, they are lost. As 1960s songwriter Paul Simon put it, in words familiar to anyone of the baby boomer generation:
And in the naked light I saw,
Ten thousand people, maybe more —
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening;
And their words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed in the wells of silence.
The authoritarian instinct is strong, for power corrupts. Simply put, thinking is difficult, which is why most people prefer to judge (Carl Jung). I am arguing that this process diminishes us all. It undercuts what might be good in the ideas and actions of other groups, and it undercuts what might be good in your own group. To put the concern in political terms, whether the target is to the right or to the left makes no difference to the dangers of such language and actions. We need to recover the simple wisdom that no one heals oneself by wounding another (St. Ambrose). Tearing to shreds people from other groups is by its nature a destructive practice, but it is usually an inaccurate picture of the other groups as well. There are no signs of either side acknowledging the common ground they share (Philip Clayton, Transforming Christian Theology Page 90 · Location 1765, Page 120 · Location 2284).
Language involving fascism and insurrection are good examples. Such language expresses a deep anger toward political opponents. It also stimulates anger in the group at the receiving end of such language. Whether from the Left or Right, fascism receives condemnation. The 50 million deaths that were the result of fascist policies ought to be enough to convince us that no one, whether George W. Bush, Barak Obama, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden, deserves this label. As I would put it, history is not repeating itself in this regard today, nor is it even rhyming. The accusation tells me more about the one making it than the target of the accusation. It tells me you have an anger toward your opponent. It is your way of making the political other so irrational or evil that the other does not deserve either respect or rational engagement. This opens the door for a pure power struggle. It is also a way to stir up anger, which Jesus said is the place in the heart from which violence emerges.
In 1877, Frederick Douglass met with his former slave owner, Thomas Auld. The health of Auld was failing. The two wept as they discussed the past before parting ways cordially. For any nation to move forward in its history, it must leave behind vengeance and resentment regarding past wrongs. Every generation will have its sins for which it will need forgiveness from future generations. Moving confidently toward the future will need forgiveness, which always means acknowledging that something wrong has taken place. Harboring resentments, whether by individuals or by the various groups in a culture, will always result in harming oneself.
Elements on both sides see their political opponents more as evil than as wrong. That is the true danger for America. This distinction is illustrated by comments made about conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by two of the left’s biggest stars: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and former first lady Hillary Clinton. Sotomayor might be the most liberal Supreme Court justice. Yet, when speaking about Thomas in front of a liberal activist audience, she said:
I suspect I have probably disagreed with him more than with any other justice, that we have not joined each other’s opinions more than anybody else. … He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there. … I think we share a common understanding about people and kindness toward them. That’s why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battle over our difference of opinions in cases.
Hillary Clinton also talked about Thomas. Contrast her take with Sotomayor: “I went to law school with him. He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I’ve known him. Resentment, grievance, anger.” To Clinton, Thomas is just an angry black man.
Such thinking leads to identity politics and cancel culture, challenging free speech and threatening to silence Americans. As I would see it, Americans need to protect language or ‘be rendered speechless.’ It seems like progressives have siloed themselves to the point where their views are uncontroversial and thus the other side does not exist. If their side is not popular, they want to ban or cancel an opposing view. The idea is that by pretending opposition to your ideas does not exist, you can mainstream those ideas. But what if everybody does not believe such propositions? What if there are millions of Americans, even if not a majority, who believe precisely the opposite? Then the only option is to reinforce denial with censorship. It seems like the progressive is on a messianic mission that views anything not advancing its agenda as a menace. Which is why former President Barack Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer went on the air at MSNBC to declare the very popularity of any conservative viewpoint is a threat to democracy.
A curious example is involved with Salman Rushdie. The fatwa pronounced upon him was a battle within the war for free speech. His Satanic Verses continues to be published. However, it has become common to attack anyone who says political Islam is illiberal as morally unacceptable because it causes offense to Islam. We might think of this as censorship by fear. Yet, for saying it here, some would label me as Islamophobic. I am okay with offending Islamic theocrats and will not self-censor, but those within the progressive movement seem to want to cancel such views. Purging divergent views from digital platforms, targeting average conservative organizations, users, and speech, is part of the push this direction. Such secret algorithms conceal shadow-banning and bottlenecking. We are dealing with an infringement upon free speech. It feels like a danger to the entire notion of a free public square in which we can explore ideas. The fact that Facebook and Twitter, as well as other businesses, have embedded themselves in progressive ideology that advances a political agenda of one political party is a real and present danger.
Here is an ethical exercise that involves placing yourself in the shoes of the other. If you are a progressive, imagine a world in which Big Tech acted like true capitalists and resisted government intrusion into their affairs. Imagine further that they supported the party that promotes free enterprise. Imagine the outrage on the Left of the alliance between wealthy elites and the GOP, especially if during elections Big Tech did all it could to limit access to the ideas of the Left. You know the outrage that occur on the Left.
My point is that social media began as providing a platform for people to freely engage with others. Those who started it became wealthy on that basis. They were a place where free speech reigned. It operated under the reasonable assumption that free speech is its own regulator. Truth will eventually drown out falsehood. The best way to combat falsehood is not to ban it but allow it to be opposed with the truth. They were not entities of the government, so they could have begun with any rules they wished. Once the originators became wealthy and devoted to the progressive political cause, they decided to act in harmony with the Democrat Party to do what they could to defeat conservatives. They are hypocrites, a common human trait. A significant transformation occurred in social media. They have created platforms that have grown to be so pervasive that they are more like common carriers or utilities. The massive monopoly they have in social media demands that they receive different treatment under the law, given that genuine competition will not be possible as a protection against their possession of monopolistic power. They have as much right to demote or censor viewpoints as does a telephone company. They should serve everyone equally. If they do not, political action needs to be action to ensure they do so. The response of progressive to the Musk takeover of Twitter reveals that they thought of the media outlet as belonging to them. Opening it up so that it treats all people equally was not part of their plan. Apple has provided me with many worthwhile products and I am now completely within their system, so it dismayed me that they started down this path, even though they have since backed down.
Related to cancel culture is doxing, the push to reveal those who contribute to political campaigns. It involves making someone’s confidential information public. It is against the law to do so, but I want to be clear that it would limit free speech to change the law. Some claim to want to know who is contributing to political campaigns, claiming their concern for the corrupting influence of money. That sounds innocent enough until one considers the political climate of anger that would express itself in multiple ways, including shaming, abusing the family, and boycotting. My deeper concern is that money does not corrupt anyone. However, the love of money is the root of all kind of evil (I Timothy 6:10). The issue is not the financial contribution but the person who is receiving it. If the people we elect are both devoted to a cause and persons of integrity, then there is not issue. We have to be discerning voters in that regard. Doxing reveals home addresses, phone numbers, financial histories, medical records—anything that one can find in the endless databases available to canny hackers. Doxing can be a drive-by prank on most anyone who draws attention. But more often its targets are singled out for humiliation and ridicule. Doxing is extreme and rare. But it marks the limit of a trend that affects every one of us: aspects of our lives that were once private and fleeting can now be publicly, and permanently, exposed. Embarrassing events that were once limited to whoever was there, if caught on a smart phone, can live with us forever. The fact that we are not obliged to publicly attach our names to all political donations is endlessly frustrating to those intent on smearing and intimidating their political opponents. Anonymous speech is as much a part of “democracy” as marching in the streets or writing a newspaper column. In a healthy liberal media environment, reporters would be demanding answers from those abusing power, not working with them to inhibit political speech (David Harsanyi).
Related to these matters is the label of fake news. The concern for disinformation is valid, but too often, those who claim to have this concern become its biggest promoters. The point is that free speech is its own regulator. Dependence on canceling or censoring obstructions the circulation of facts. It prevents any worthwhile exchange of ideas. If you need to silence your opposition, then your ideas do not persuade. If you cannot accept that, you have an authoritarian impulse that with which you need to deal.
Americans today have inherited a rich tradition of debate and reform that they are in danger of squandering through rage, anger, and bitterness. This country has an intellectual heritage that includes a mixture of Enlightenment thought (Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel) and theology (Deism of Kant, evangelicalism of Whitfield and Edwards) that helped shape the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the first ten amendments to it. We can be thankful for a political process that allows for reform of its political, economic, and cultural institutions. Cutting ourselves off from the positive benefits of gratitude runs the risk of drowning us in a sea of anger.
The first amendment is dear to the hearts of most Americans because it allows us to see where we are located (Roger Rosenblatt, Fall Special Issue of Life Magazine, 1991, p. 9). Huck Fin spoke his piece and discovered who he was. All that happened in a single famous passage with Huck, in anguish because he is harboring the runaway slave Jim, thinks his problem through. He knows that he is breaking the rules of society, and he is sure that God disapproves. He writes to Miss Watson, the owner of Jim, to turn in Jim, but he cannot bring himself to mail the letter, as he recalls their adventures on the river and the kindnesses Jim showed him. Certain he will be damned forever, he tears up the letter and says to himself: “All right, then, I’ll go to hell.” Such a passage is both a beautiful example of free expression and a demonstration of why free expression matters. It matters and is invaluable because it encourages character to develop. Huck had no idea what he really thought about human equality until he let his mind travel, as on a river, into the problem. He learned who he was because he was free to find out. Where this journey of self-discovery should lead, if we are doing it right, is away from self-interest and toward some common benefit. Huck risks damnation solely because he acknowledges the equal work of another person.
And free means completely free. The hope is that eventually individual freedoms will produce more decent people rather than scoundrels. The first amendment is based on this hope that citizens, left to their own rafts and rivers, will behave well toward each other. The belief in potential human virtue underlies the idea of the Bill of Rights. The document is a tough guardian of that belief. Having rights is not doing what is right, but they are connected. The words of the First Amendment gird Americans to the free expression and exercise of ideas, civil and religious, in speech and in print, and through peaceful demonstrations. The point is that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. America is the experiment of whether such a hope is valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment