Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Intimidation Game: We’re on the Losing Side
“Then it was the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: ‘Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.’”
This was the lead-in anecdote to Kimberley Strassel’s article in the latest issue of Imprimis from Hillsdale College. She was having a conversation with her children about free speech, and her five-year-old basically mimicked the words of the Left. Fortunately, she has time to grow out of it!
In Strassel’s piece called, “The Left’s War on Free Speech,” she focuses on the origins of the current assaults on free speech and the destructiveness of the Left. (She also has a book called The Intimidation Game on this topic.) She traces the drastic assaults on free speech to the Citizen’s United case in 2010. Although the Right saw this ruling as a victory, the Left doubled down to use every trick in the book to destroy free speech. As Strassel says:
In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents, it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass and intimidate its opponents out of participation. It would send a message: conservatives choosing to exercise their constitutional rights will pay a political and personal price.
And they’ve made good on their promise.
Strassel cites the harassment by the IRS of around 400 conservative organizations. She also reminds us of the shocking pursuit by prosecutors, called John Doe probes, particularly in Wisconsin:
In one terrifying instance, the target of such a raid was on an out-of-town trip with his wife, and their teen-age son was home alone. Law enforcement came into the house and sequestered the boy, refusing to allow him to call a lawyer or even his grandparents, who lived down the road. They hauled items out of the house, and as they left they told the boy that he too was subject to the gag order—that if he told anyone what had happened to him, he could go to jail.
A lawsuit and the Wisconsin Supreme Court eventually shut down the probe.
In her last example, Strassel described the intimidation tactic against corporations and non-profits. Referring to the attack on the American Legislative Exchange Council, which played a small role in writing the “Stand Your Ground” laws, the organization lost half its donors in just a few months. .
For those of you who think that there is nothing the Right can do to change this assault on free speech, I ask you to re-think your position. When Donald Trump was elected to drain the swamp, some of us might have been tempted to sit back, wait for him to transform the country, and meanwhile put in our earplugs to block out the Left’s diatribes. I think Strassel would disagree with this approach. She makes the following points:
- These attacks are strategic and there is no end in sight. We need to cut the size of federal and state bureaucracies. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are both conducting major reviews to eliminate or reduce boards, committees, and other entities. It’s a limited effort but it’s a start.)
- We need regular reviews of agencies’ use of powers to ensure they aren’t overreaching and violating citizens’ rights. Like the IRS, for one.
- Corporations need to “get a backbone,” push back and defend their rights to free speech.
- Disclosure laws need significant modifications to defend the privacy of organizations and their members.
- We need to publicly and loudly call out intimidation whenever and wherever it happens.
I say it’s time for all of us to be creative and assertive in finding new ways to protect free speech. For example, if an organization on the right is holding a demonstration, local police or sheriff departments should not only be informed, but should be consulted to ensure the group’s protection against violence. If law enforcement does not step in, media outlets should be told that they stood back and watched. We need to empower law enforcement as our partners in protecting free speech.
I’d also like to see a creative venture that either uses YouTube or even television to promote a regular show. It could be called “To Tell the Truth” or “Truth or Consequences.” (Get it?) It would be a weekly program that showed videos of those on the left telling lies, then have a celebrity (country-western singers, conservative actors, retired but respected politicians – I’m thinking of Joe Lieberman) — who immediately follow the “untruth teller” with the truth. The responses would be honest and respectful. The producer, corporate investors, and everyone involved will have to put up with a lot, but eventually the production will start gaining attention. (If you don’t like this idea, rather than attacking it, improve upon it!)
There are probably lots of things that we can do and that our politicians can do to stop the intimidation. Kimberley Strassel says one last thing in her piece that I think is important:
Finally, Conservatives need to tamp down any impulse to practice such intimidation [against the Left] themselves. Our country is best when it is engaging in vigorous debate. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a multiplicity of interests that would argue their way to a common good. We succeed with more voices, not fewer, and we should have enough confidence in our arguments to hear out our opponents.
Let’s have some fun and be creative folks! What are your ideas to stop the intimidation and the attacks on free speech?
Published in Politics
Thanks, Jason! It’s more than a matter of principle, as you point out; the impacts cross over and through the social spectrum, including economics. Thanks for telling us about Australia. All countries are at risk from the Left.
Outstanding, BTN! What a fine young man! And I appreciate that NR gave him a forum to explain what happened. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I agree–everyone should read his article linked in your comment.
Excellent, fidelio102! I was thinking on my morning walk that we must demonstrate our commitment for a number of reasons: to feed our own courage; to tell the Left that they aren’t going to get away with their illegal and hysterical tactics; and to all those in this country who are watching what’s going on and wondering what to think. At election time, there may be a lot of undecided people; they need to know that we are the ones who stand up for principle, for getting things done, and are fearless in those pursuits. Those watching need to be convinced that we want them on our side!
Interesting point, RA. I’ve seen a couple of commercials where I think the advertiser is intentionally being vague about the relationships, especially when two women are together: are they friends? Are they lovers? Are they mother and daughter? There’s just enough intimacy to suggest they can be whatever you wish. Am I being paranoid?
This! Bless you, Judithann.
I’m intrigued, Joe. How do you see our being able to do this? Not challenging you, very interested.
Thank you for shining an even brighter light on these actions, Larry. I believe there were 17 other state AGs who did the same kind of thing. It is horrible. Maybe once things quiet down (will they?) there can be a focus on what happened and how it is illegal and unconscionable.
Stop being like YAF and running away.
And the SJWs call Trump a fascist.
Yes, that’s a different tactic. One culprit is the Ad Council. Their newest features John Cena, of all people, lecturing us that we can all love whoever we want to, and that “love has no labels.” I mean what is the point of these brainwashing PSAs?? Never mind, I know what the point is. I happen to be a person who has always tended to be sympathetic to gay issues, but the trans thing is a bridge too far, and they’re losing people like me who are sick of being clubbed over the head with this agenda.
When I read stories like this (about Target promoting “gay pride” products), I’m reminded that only one side realizes that there are no sidelines in the culture war. Businesses are in it, whether they want to be or not. Few conservative CEOs provide balance to stuff like this.
You’re going to suffer one way or another for your beliefs. You can suffer in silence as the culture turns against them or you can be boldly honest in public life.
If I were an ad agency right now, I’d be looking at pets for the characters in my commercials.
Richard, you are absolutely correct. I work for a large corporation; “Diversity and Inclusion” is one of the company’s top “values.” (I thought that making a decent return for its shareholders would be the top value. Shows what I know.)
@susanquinn, you ask:
I think we need to fight in the same way the left does. I know: you believe this will be counterproductive. But like you, I grew up in a country where while we acknowledged that the 1st Amendment applied to the government, we generally agreed we had a “1st Amendment culture.” That is, discussion and debate were encouraged, speakers were not to be shouted down, etc.
The Left has changed the rules. And the rules cannot apply to only one side. That is a recipe for defeat and disaster.
I understand what you’re saying. But it’s up to us to re-write the rules they’ve changed. When people recognize a bully as a bully, they are rarely impressed. They realize how pathetic they are (meaning the mainstream recognizing the Left as bullies). I think we can find ways to fight back that are powerful and impactful. We’ve seen some intriguing suggestions right in this post. I appreciate your input!
This is an important point, Aaron. I think one of our main goals (often subconscious) is to avoid suffering. That’s why we’ve remained silent–who wants to get beaten up by a bully! I’m realizing that I’d rather suffer by taking action rather than sitting miserably in silence. I just have to figure out what that means for me.
Help me out here, Marci. We could use pets because they’re so adorable? If so, I like it!
Edit: Oh, you mean to avoid the gender stuff!
I agree with you Susan, but the Left needs to be willing to change the rules back. I believe we must make them live under their rules. The Left shouts down conservative speakers? Conservatives need to shout down leftists, ideally by chanting something like “This is how the Left treats us!” (I forget where I saw this idea…might have been here on Ricochet.) Right-wings students/student groups being targeted? Get FIRE.org involved. Target leftist student groups. Make use of gofundme and paetron as suggested above.
It does us no good to re-write the changed rules if the Left sticks to their (new) rules. Make them feel (figurative) pain, and they’ll come to the table. All else is futile.
Actually, danok1 I think we are more in agreement than different. I don’t like the idea of shouting down someone from the Left–they won’t care or they’ll beat me up, and of course I would be shutting down their right to free speech. I like your idea of getting FIRE.org involved–that is a positive and powerful step. And using the funding sources is great. I guess my point is that I’m not willing to behave badly to make my point; they don’t self-reflect so they won’t understand that we are doing exactly what they do. But maybe that’s just me.
And ethnicity.
I agree, I think it’s important to be a good example to contrast the left’s bad example. The Tea Party groups did this by leaving any protest site cleaner than they found it. They didn’t engage in violence or overt rudeness, despite still unsubstantiated reports to the contrary. When the typical undecided voter sees crazy liberals shutting down roads, setting fire to buildings, and shouting obscenities the undecideds are turned off.
To paraphrase Gen. Mattis, when you see a crazy liberal, be polite, be professional and have a plan to defend yourself.
I was thinking about the Tea Party groups, too! If not a formal organization, some kind of coordinated effort to get out our message would be great!
I think we’re more in agreement than not as well. I’d rather not shout down speakers. I don’t want to target someone’s employment. I loathe the idea of these action. I really do. But that’s not the world we’re in now. We want debate. The Left wants (more) power.
I agree. I want to be a good example. But what did being a good example get the Tea Party groups? The IRS targeted them, the press calls them “hate groups,” members are denounced as racists. Loons. Violent extremists.
The only way the Right can delegitimize Lefty tactics is to use them, at which point they’ll become The Worst Things Ever Done By Man. Start using Leftist tactics against members of Leftist Institutions: “This is what you ordered. Eat it.”
-Dan
Hey, that’s what I’m talking about!
All that did happen, Dan. But that’s not what destroyed them. They made a number of mistakes that compromised their ability to make a difference. All those people and groups made life hell for them, but ultimately, from what I understand, it appears they imploded. Actually I’ve heard a number of people on the right that what happened may never be entirely clear. (I hope you’re enjoying this discussion as much as I am!)
Do exactly what they did before they had the dominant cultural position. Pick a couple of things to focus on, and make TV that focuses on those things. You make those things acceptable, or at least have characters on television who make those ideas not automatically demonic. Or you vilify the other team; instead of having the big corporate executive be the bad guy, have it be the inept bureaucrat. Play exactly the sort of same incremental game they’ve been running since the sixties.
If you want a practical example, Star Trek was a vehicle for letting Gene Roddenberry express opinions about modern day issues that he wouldn’t have been able to get past network censors on a show set in the then-present 1960’s. He had things he wanted to say; diversity is good, the Soviets are bad, fighting Soviets in some ways can be worse than others, pacificism doesn’t work even though it’s noble, racism is bad, etc.
Except you shouldn’t even have to be that coy anymore. Thanks to disintermediation, you don’t need to make a broadly appealing show to be financially successful. You just need to capture target markets and do OK with them. And you don’t even need to do it on one of the big three networks or cable, thanks to the internet. But, that would require writers interested in doing it.
Wow. That makes perfect sense. Just wow. Thank you for expanding on the thought. And I learned a new word: disintermediation!