One of the more disturbing political trends to me over the past few years has become the attacks on Free Speech. Not by the government, but by individuals, institutions, and organizations that have submitted to the concept that if someone is saying something that does not fit your personal beliefs, it is perfectly alright to; heckle, harass, shout down, or demonize that person simply because their views do not conform to your own. This has resulted in an atmosphere not of government censorship as restricted by the First Amendment, but a form of self-censorship by citizens who simply have grown weary of being verbally assaulted and harangued by others simply because of their views. I find it to be quite disingenuous of many who seek to silence those they do not agree with by using the very tactics so successfully used by authoritarians throughout the history of the last century and a half or more, as they loudly denounce speakers as “racist” or “fascist”. Whether those epithets have any basis in fact seems to be irrelevant. Or worse, such words are weaponized, knowing it is a quick and simple way to isolate a person they oppose in some way.
The tactics of this type of political movement seem bizarre and irrational at times. Claiming to be the champions of diversity and equity; they seem to support the diversity of appearance, but not of thought. The equity that seems to be so precious to them is not an equity of opportunity, giving every individual the same possibility of success as another person, but the equity of outcome where there is an equal representation of various groups in any specific segment of the population. They decry the fact that women do not account for 50% of software programmers for example, and then demand efforts be made to enforce an increase in the participation of that career field explaining that the reason for the disparity is some misogynistic ‘patriarchy’ keeping women from attaining equality. This same mindset is used to describe any segment of the population that does not have an equal share of whatever group the far left is attempting to be perceived as supporting.
We have seen the politically correct demands for change based on the feelings of some person or other being ‘offended’. Demands that images, monuments, even books be banned or destroyed. Many of those making these claims have only the words of others to explain to them why the things they are so loudly demanding be removed from the public consciousness. Even if those words have no real historical or factual basis. It is the perception that seems to be driving many of these claims of ‘offense’. One of the greatest things that so many on; the far left, the regressive left, the radical left, whatever you choose to call it, find so extremely offensive is the simple fact that you do not agree with them.
While claiming to be the champions of tolerance for people who form some minority of our citizenry; these same champions seem to be completely intolerant of anyone who simply holds a different political position than they do. What does their reaction to this person who does not agree totally with their position? In many cases it seems to be to try to publicly humiliate the person, by loudly talking over the individual who does not share their views. To proclaim in a loud and repetitive voice that this person is a racist, a misogynist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc. The idea of actually sitting down and having a fact based discussion looking at an issue from different perspectives, and coming to their own conclusions, actually debating the issue, seems to be the furthest from the minds of those intolerant champions of tolerance. All in an attempt to bully the person with the opposing viewpoint into submission, or make them seem to be some form of social pariah.
It is sad to realize that many of these ideas and concepts that seem so antithetical to the American way of life are coming from America’s colleges and universities. Once the exchange of ideas, and the concept of free and open discussion of those ideas was one of the purposes of a higher education. Today, it seems that in many colleges and universities the once classically liberal concepts of; civil liberties, the rule of law, and economic freedom have been replaced with a form of indoctrination that places a political agenda above civil liberties, the rule of law, and economic freedom. Part of that political agenda is to look at American history through the lens of today’s extreme leftist social values. Condemning a person of another era because they do not live up to modern leftist social standards is a common occurrence. As is leveraging the banning of classic American literature such as Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House on the Prairie because the female characters do not live by modern feminist standards, and thus offers a profoundly unhealthy role model for today’s young women. Banning books such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain because its perceived depictions of African Americans and women do not conform to the standards of today’s extreme left politically. Placing such standards on historical figures and literature of another era is reprehensible. Yet that is what is happening with the regressive left. It is also quite hypocritical as well. If it is alright to condemn someone from a century or more ago for not living in a manner conforming to the moral compass of today’s political left; how is it that Bill Clinton is not vociferously condemned as a misogynist, or anti-feminist for his sexual behavior with women during the 1980’s and 1990’s? Why is his wife Hilary Clinton not loudly proclaimed as an anti-feminist, or a traitor to her fellow women because of her standing by her husband when his behavior came to light? Could it be that to do so might require a little critical thinking?
How do we defend ourselves and our Nation against these attacks on not just our First Amendment, all of our civil rights? By holding firm, thinking for ourselves, and doing the research needed to find the facts to bolster our positions on issues. Freely discuss your ideas and thoughts with those who may make you work to prove your positions. If you find yourself unable to convince that person that your position is correct; learn from that discussion and do more and better research. You may even find that if your position is not strong enough that you may need to recalibrate your own thinking on the issue. There are many flaws in our political system in the United States. However, just take a moment and look at how many people are constantly attempting to immigrate to the US for a better life. Then try to find another Nation on Earth that has as many Americans trying to immigrate to for a better life. We aren’t perfect, but our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights makes America the best country on Earth in my opinion.
If you don’t agree, I won’t infringe on your First Amendment Right to counter my arguments. Will you offer me that same courtesy and respect?
