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 Peril of Avoiding the Unfamiliar
“John,” a teammate of mine in college, always struck me as a decent enough guy even though he had two significant flaws: He was a dim bulb who had never had an original thought in his life, and he was a bigot. “John” was the most openly and comprehensively racist person I had ever encountered. His ability to avert his eyes from reality was astonishing.
According to him, every white person wished we were back in the days of slavery, and every black person was a tower of virtue who struggled against the impossible odds of white racism every day. The fact that “John” grew up in a wealthy white neighborhood and went to a wealthy white school for which he would never have qualified without affirmative action seemed odd to me at the time, but in retrospect that probably exaggerated his racist tendencies. In the ’80s, “John’s” visceral and open hatred of whites was somewhat unusual. On a college campus today, his views would be mainstream – even moderate.
Anyway, I ran across “John” on the internet today. He blogs. In one of his pieces, he discussed the rebel flag. He made a genuine effort to acknowledge that the “supporters” of the Confederate flag may sincerely view it as simply a non-racist symbol with a complex historical background, but then he pointed out that he takes a different view. He explained that if you showed a Jew a Swastika, the Jew would have a strong emotional response, and understandably so. Likewise, as a black American, he had a strong emotional response to the Confederate flag, whether other people find it racist or not. It was a fairly well-reasoned essay, I thought. And it got me to thinking about free speech.
Let’s suppose that Ben Shapiro gets dis-invited from a college campus because something he might say might be offensive to somebody. Now remember “John’s” point – his speech may not be offensive to everybody, but it will probably offend someone. So the rioting fourth-year sophomore Sociology majors wisely deduce that the only way to be sure that Mr. Shapiro doesn’t offend anyone is to see to it that he doesn’t say anything to anyone. Which means that if I’m not allowed to engage in offensive speech, I’m not allowed to talk at all. This reinforces the common argument that you don’t need to protect popular speech. We only need Constitutional protections for unpopular speech. Because if unpopular speech is not allowed, then really no speech is allowed whatsoever.
Oddly, “John” often proudly proclaims that “the man” is never going to shut him up. He will continue to speak truth to power. He is not the only voice on the left to voice such sentiments. Hillary Clinton said that protest is the highest form of patriotism. This is the part I don’t understand.
Are these people listening to what they are saying? I’m not pointing out hypocrisy on the left – that’s almost no fun anymore. I’m simply wondering what these people think is going to happen when we finally agree that speech should be regulated. They will be the first to be confined in the prison that they built. This is not just hypocrisy. This is intellectual suicide. And it’s blindingly obvious – you don’t need to be George Orwell to see what is happening here.
People have a natural fear of the unfamiliar. We even sometimes vote for tyrants because they offer security. Conservative speech in media, entertainment, and academia has become so rare as to become startling, and unfamiliar. It is natural for people to try to protect themselves from the unfamiliar – this is a recurring theme in human history.
This is why the concept of God-given, inalienable rights is important. This is why the Bill of Rights is important. Our Founders set certain things beyond debate. They knew that at some point, government would try to take the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and so on. Why else would they have specifically forbidden government from restricting those rights? They knew what was coming. They declared that those rights are granted by God, and not by government, and thus government has no authority to restrict those rights in the first place. There are some things that we will not debate in Congress, that we will make no law to restrict. They had read the great philosophers. They had read Shakespeare. They had lived full lives outside of politics. They understood people. They knew.
This, to me, is one of the glaring differences between the right and left today. If you listen to the left, it would seem that they have never met an actual person. While it is true that many conservatives, including myself, tend to take a dim view of human nature, I think even our critics would grudgingly acknowledge that we have at least considered human nature.
So the left calls for bans on offensive speech. And then they wear pussy hats and call white people Nazis. And next, they will pretend to be surprised when they are jailed for exceeding “reasonable” limits on free speech. “John” will wonder (or pretend to wonder) what on earth happened from his jail cell in his new, free, and open society which protects him from offensive speech.
Somewhere, George Orwell is laughing.
I’m not.
Published in General
The lack of self-awareness is stunning. Calling people who disagree with them “Fascists” while they are the ones in black masks, breaking windows and setting things on fire.
Judging by some of the comments I’ve seen on the internet with regard to conservatives who have been shut down by Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, I’m afraid many of our young people have a pretty flawed grasp of the First Amendment. I’ve seen some of them write that it makes perfect sense to them to censor conservatives (who are always called “the alt-right” in order to make us all seem like the Aryan Brotherhood) because nobody has the right to voice “hate speech.” Well for one thing, yes, actually they do have that right, but for another, in a very short time, it seems that any opinion that varies one degree from the Leftist agenda is now routinely labeled “hate speech” and deemed not to fall under the First Amendment. I’ve never been more worried. These people seem to think 1984 was meant to be an instruction manual.
Ten years ago, I would have debated that Huxley was the more prescient author.
Today, he and Orwell are tied, in a battle in which all us are losers.
I’ve been down that exact same path. I’m starting to view Orwell as a prophet. And that’s horrible.
I think Orwell would agree…
The most dangerous thing about this situation, including the students who shut down opposing views and the press aiding and abetting them, is that you can’t shame them because they’re patting themselves on the back every time they do it. They believe their cause is a noble one and that they have the moral high ground. And you’ll never convince them otherwise.
A great post.
I think the one thing Huxley grokked (hey, I’m a geek) is that a non-insignificant amount of mind-altering drugs (and I’m talking Soma, er, Prozac, here) and a complete lack of education about the past would put once-free people on the road to sheep.
Since Huxley was around what John Dewey was proposing his takeover of education, and probably knew more than his fair share of opium addicts, while Orwell saw communism up close and personal (first rule: always say it’s only the first step on the long path to Utopia… and never state that “Utopia” means “Nowhere”) it’s no surprise that they each got it right.
The real question is, how do we stop it, or do we do as Heinlein’s “Friday ” does and bug out? (reading the novel now. It’s uneven, but prophetic in a lot of specifics.) And if so, to where?
Nothing will improve unless we restore the school systems to what they were before the hippies came of age and took their places as teachers. The trouble dates from when Carter created the Dept of Education, which should be abolished. And the training of teachers must be completely overhauled. It no longer matters where you live as far as your children’s schools go. You can live in the most conservative town in the country, and your child’s teachers will still have Self-Esteem Hour and and an Earth Day curriculum that would curl your hair.
The signs of Huxley came first, because once you’ve infantilized the population with freedom from responsibility, the Orwell part is a lot easier to implement.
John Dewey is perhaps my least favorite person ever, for that reason. It’s one thing to kill someone. It’s another to turn their children, and all the children, against them. Forever.
Yes! My most irritating leftist relative will say something idiotic like “well, what every ghetto child really wants for Christmas is his very own chocolate santa…” as if the South Side of Chicago was a scene from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or maybe Dickens; big eyed orphans saying “thank you, o’ thank you!” while clutching Hershey bars to their breasts with cries of joy…
She says this with complete confidence. Does she know any actual people? Does she look out the window when she drives through big cities? Has she ever…
Never mind. It’s weird. Really, really weird.
I had the blissful experience today of “presenting” to a whole room full of chaplains—mostly hospital and hospice, a couple of police chaplains too; male and female, black and white and brown and whatever, all denominations: each and every one of them intimately familiar with actual people. Can I skip speaking truth to power, and just talk to actual human beings?
This is what bothers me about that trite statement you here over and over now, “not everyone should go to college.” Why can’t you go somewhere where you can skip overpriced credentialism and the non-existent “job signaling” and just get educated in this sense at a fair price? How do you stop the left’s stupid ideas without doing this? Wouldn’t you be able to interpret reality and manage yourself better if you did that? It doesn’t even have to be that hard if you ask me; if everyone’s sincerely interested in this type of improvement. The thinking about higher education needs to be completely atomized.
I swear the best thing ever would be to have Charles C.W. Cook, Kevin Williamson, Mises.org, Camille Paglia, and Dennis Prager pick out all of your books. Then get training in a job that can’t be outsourced.
Think of the consequences of having so much centralized government. This is why we need or we think we need to improve everything with politics and government. Everyone thinks that government force works for everything if we just try hard enough. The reality is everyone has to think about how to protect themselves from government or better yet, live off of it somehow. (Think about the dynamics of that last one.) Throw in central bank easy money, and it’s the feedback loop from hell. It’s not going to work. Look at the debt to GDP. Where does it ever improve? Look at the social problems. The political system at the top level has gone haywire. Same thing in Europe. Why can’t people make this connection?
Listen to the Whisky Politics interview of D.C. McAllister where she talks about centralization and populism. People get so judgmental about populism. Well, how did come to this? It makes me so angry when conservatives don’t see this connection and they go on and on about whatever. Spare me. Jonah Goldberg’s latest podcast with Tim Carney is similar, too. Must listen. Oh, and be sure to start another war the Ruling class has no idea how to finish. (Is the VA fixed yet? How’s the military suicide rate doing?)
Misplaced idealism in this sense is killing the whole West. It’s a scam that creates dependency, totalitarianism, and waste.
I am a realist/pessimist, world-class worrier. It is a rainy, overcast, stormy Saturday morning. I probably didn’t need to read this post as I entered the weekend.
You’re welcome. I’m here to help.
Well, you ARE a doctor, after all…
Bradbury certainly deserves a mention as well.
I don’t know his writing as well. I’ve tried a couple times, but lost interest. I probably chose the wrong books. If I wanted to explore his work, where would you suggest that I start?
I’ve always thought one of the biggest problems is the unbridled idealism that always goes hand in hand with leftism. That and their moral certitude are why reality never gets through to them. You can point out that socialism has never worked anywhere it’s ever been tried, and they’ll say it’s because they weren’t the ones trying it. This time it’ll work if only we care enough and learn from the past! Yes We Can! Oh spare me.
“Fahrenheit 451” is probably what Hank was referring, because that’s certainly Ray’s most obvious “social commentary”. My favorite is “The Martian Chronicles”. But I’ve always preferred Bradbury’s short stories.
What he said.
If you don’t know the plot I won’t spoil the reason for the book burning of 451, but it has many parallels with today’s free speech issues. And I don’t advocate putting Bradbury above or next to Huxley/Orwell in this context, but I think he deserves an honorable mention.
“So the left calls for bans on offensive speech. And then they wear pussy hats and call white people Nazis. And next, they will pretend to be surprised when they are jailed for exceeding “reasonable” limits on free speech. “John” will wonder (or pretend to wonder) what on earth happened from his jail cell in his new, free, and open society which protects him from offensive speech.”
I think it’s pretty obvious that the left expects that they are going to be the ones who determine what is “hate speech”, and that therefore nothing they say will be considered as such. And why shouldn’t they think this? It’s what happens right now.
Except there have already been cases of leftists with confused expressions on their faces after being banned from Facebook or Twitter for saying things like all men suck or white people are evil. Since those are identifiable groups, men and white people end up being covered by the rules they write. It’s always hilarious.
A lot of people confuse legal and illegal with right and wrong.
Unfortunately the other instruction manual seems to be “Animal Farm.”
OP:
I certainly think our dim view of human nature is why we opt for more freedom. We know better than to place total trust in a savior person or group of persons. We are willing to put up with idiocy in a free market so we aren’t ruled by idiocy.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson
What Orwell posited was a totalitarian state oppressing the populace. But what Huxley and Bradbury depicted was a populace that self-oppressed. That demanded government controls. That happily ceded its rights in exchange for a little 4-D TeeVee or some Soma.
Once the people start begging to have their rights taken away, it’s not much of a leap to totalitarianism.
Or as the Judge said:
Yup.
Maybe the reason these people haven’t considered that their own speech will be regulated or that they will be sent to jail is the same reason I wouldn’t have imagined that either: because it’s hard to imagine a conservative government regulating their speech or anyone else’s. Only people who agree with them would do that, and that means they’ll never be affected. Maybe that’s naïve, but really, under what scenario would they be the victims of speech regulation? Maybe when the revolution eats its own I suppose, but it’s hard to imagine now.
And Starbucks says “Hold my pumpkin spice grande latte….”
It always does. Every time.
And there’s always a Madame Defarge sitting knitting at the guillotine while it happens.