The Existential Threat to Our Democracy

 

From a friend who happens to be a particularly shrewd observer:

I find it telling that is the past couple of weeks two of the so-called “moderate” Democrats (Bloomberg and Buttigieg) have referred to Donald Trump as an “existential threat” to democracy. Well, consider that. Trump has been in office for 3 years. The country held perfectly free and open elections a year ago, which Trump opponents largely won. Ditto, on a much smaller scale, a few weeks ago. If Trump attempted to use the apparatus of the Federal government to interfere in any of those elections, or to prevent any of his opponents from being seated, I must have missed those stories. Print, broadcast, and electronic media in this country have been overwhelmingly critical of Trump every day of the past 3 years. To the best of my knowledge, Rachel Maddow, Jim Acosta, Chuck Todd, and hundreds and hundreds like them are still free as birds, and still writing and speaking whatever they want. Every single week, even the briefest scan of Apple News reveals scores of entertainers, business leaders, elected officials, academics, and other high-status individuals offering everything from sharp criticism to unhinged invective against Trump. If any of those individuals have suffered any measurable personal or professional harm as a result, I am unaware of it. Jack Dorsey still runs Twitter; Robert De Niro is still a mega-celebrity; Ilhan Omar is still in Congress. And on and on.

(I am reminded of an anecdote Tom Wolfe wrote about many years ago. He was part of a panel discussion at, I think, Princeton in the 1960s, on some topic I’ve forgotten. The gist of the discussion was essentially, “America is becoming a fascist state!” and most of the panelists seemed to accept this as self-evident. But at one point, one of the panelists, Gunter Grass, a German left-wing writer who had actually grown up under Hitler, stood up and said, in effect, “What on earth are you talking about? Where are the Gestapo? Where are the men with the machine guns? In a real fascist state, the guards would have come through those doors long before now, and we would all be sitting in prison cells. Or shot.”)

But…. Heather MacDonald and scores and scores of others who do not toe the so-called “social justice” line have been prevented from speaking or removed from Twitter or YouTube. Brendan Eich, James Damore, Kevin Williamson, and others have been fired from jobs for having the “wrong” opinions or saying the “wrong” thing. Journalists and elected officials have been harassed in public. A prominent black Harvard Law professor was removed from one of his positions at the university for having the courage to assist in the defense of the “wrong” client. The list goes on, and on, and on. And these visible, high-profile examples — long as the list is — are not even the worst of it. The worst of it is the unknowable but much longer list of speakers who are not invited in the first place, people who are not hired, opinions that are not voiced, all out of fear of retribution on the part of the “social justice” bullies.

Unfortunately, most well-meaning people (especially including well-meaning liberals) are inclined to dismiss all of this as pretty much just a well-yeah-there-are-some-kooky-folks-at-the-universities thing. But it’s not. “Social justice” bullying is a cancer that has spread well beyond the universities. Never mind the arts and philanthropy, which are basically just extensions of the universities. Mainstream journalism has become riddled with it. The entire tech sector is riddled with it. The HR departments — and increasingly marketing departments — of a huge number of traditional corporations are riddled with it. Local school boards — mainly through the influence of teachers unions — even in otherwise “centrist” districts are riddled with it. Wall Street may (we will see) stand up to a Liz Warren or a Bernie Sanders, but if you dare to suggest openly that there’s something not right about a “trans woman” with biologically male levels of testosterone, lung capacity, and muscle mass competing in athletic events against women without those things, I’m pretty sure there’s no opening for you at Goldman Sachs.

There is indeed an “existential threat” to the freedom of thought, conscience, and expression which are indispensable to our democracy, but it does not come from Donald Trump, however much of an obnoxious, egotistical ass he may be.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 76 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    I suspect a lot of people who use the word ‘existential threat’ really like the sound of it, but don’t quite understand that it means ‘threat to existence’. Like bellwether, sea-change, gravitas, and synergy, it’s more about mouth-feel and street cred than judgement and consideration.

    A word is dropped from the lips of a few professional newsreaders and suddenly normal non-nabobs cannot wait to natter it, because it gives them gravitas or possibly synergywether.

     

    Wow. That was nicely said.

    (especially to the portion of your readership who remember Agnew.)

     

    But are they nattering about it negatively?

    • #31
  2. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    I started out as very much opposed to Trump, but with an understanding that he couldn’t be worse than Hillary Clinton.  After three years of the left criticizing every last thing he does, I’ve become a Trump supporter.  Why?  Because I realize their criticism of him are really their criticisms of us.  And every criticism they make is a grotesque caricature of whatever it is he has done.  Take Mona’s recent piece in the National Review as a prefect example.  Phrases suggesting that Trump’s decisions weaken our moral fiber, or “…Trump’s latest assault on America’s moral standing…” are over the top criticisms that render anything she writes unreadable to me.  

    What is different now versus say 24 months ago?  I might have agreed with her then.  Well, three years in all I can say, which is what I have been saying, is “He’s just not that bad.”  A friend of Ricochet and friend of mine asked me “Was it the abuse of power in Ukraine or the pardoning of war criminals that makes you think he isn’t that bad?”  My answer?  The fact that every criticism has to be blown up, magnified, stretched, and drawn out to mean anything beyond “Yeah, just like every politician.”  That’s what makes me think he isn’t that bad.

    • #32
  3. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Duplicate post.

    • #33
  4. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Duplicate post.

    Only a nabob would duplicate his post.  

    • #34
  5. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member
    Misthiocracy grudgingly
    @Misthiocracy

    Peter Robinson: But…. Heather MacDonald and scores and scores of others who do not toe the so-called “social justice” line have been prevented from speaking or removed from Twitter or YouTube. Brendan Eich, James Damore, Kevin Williamson, and others have been fired from jobs for having the “wrong” opinions or saying the “wrong” thing.

    Ricochet tasks volunteer “moderators” to enforce the CoC.  I don’t see any fundamental difference between Ricochet and those other examples, except in terms of scale.

    • #35
  6. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    Peter Robinson: But…. Heather MacDonald and scores and scores of others who do not toe the so-called “social justice” line have been prevented from speaking or removed from Twitter or YouTube. Brendan Eich, James Damore, Kevin Williamson, and others have been fired from jobs for having the “wrong” opinions or saying the “wrong” thing.

    Ricochet tasks volunteer “moderators” to enforce the CoC. I don’t see any fundamental difference between Ricochet and those other examples, except in terms of scale.

    Ricochet is much more fair than the Atlantic. I’ve written pro-abortion posts and comments and I’ve never been censored as long as I didn’t curse at anybody. Social justice warriors don’t do that for the other side. 

    • #36
  7. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    Peter Robinson: But…. Heather MacDonald and scores and scores of others who do not toe the so-called “social justice” line have been prevented from speaking or removed from Twitter or YouTube. Brendan Eich, James Damore, Kevin Williamson, and others have been fired from jobs for having the “wrong” opinions or saying the “wrong” thing.

    Ricochet tasks volunteer “moderators” to enforce the CoC. I don’t see any fundamental difference between Ricochet and those other examples, except in terms of scale.

    A written CoC is one of the differences. 

    • #37
  8. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    Peter Robinson: …fired from jobs for having the “wrong” opinions or saying the “wrong” thing.

    Ricochet tasks volunteer “moderators” to enforce the CoC. I don’t see any fundamental difference between Ricochet and those other examples…

    (Emph. mine)

    I do. 

    See the emphasized text to understand the fundamental difference which

    • I think that I see, and
    • you say that don’t see. 

    Mg, this sounds exactly like a comment I’d expect from a certain faction of members, but never from you.  I mention that by way of asking, “What were you thinking?”

    • #38
  9. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

     There is no middle ground where that twitter person and I could work together. I agree that Trump is merely the avatar for all of us and their feelings for him are also their feelings for us. All one has to do now to be evil is defeat them in elections or discussions.

    If you can’t read the words in the picture, he is the string:

    Me: “Dems are pushing the Marxist ideology. Trump has been tougher on Russians than Obama.”

    He: “You don’t know what Marxism is, and I know that because none of you mouth breathers ever uses it correctly when you toss it in a sentence to sound politically with it. Explain Marxism. Be precise.”

    Me:”So I don’t know what it is and you do, shouldn’t you be the one explaining it? Just saying….”

    He:”Oh no, my poor deluded friend, this variant of “of course I know what it is, you tell me to see if you know what it is” just won’t fly. Poor deflection attempt. Answer the question: what’s Marxism?”

    Me:”Haha. Figured you would punt.”

    He: “What is Marxism?”

    • #39
  10. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    EHerring (View Comment):

    There is no middle ground where that twitter person and I could work together. I agree that Trump is merely the avatar for all of us and their feelings for him are also their feelings for us. All one has to do now to be evil is defeat them in elections or discussions.

    If you can’t read the words in the picture, he is the string:

    Me: “Dems are pushing the Marxist ideology. Trump has been tougher on Russians than Obama.”

    He: “You don’t know what Marxism is, and I know that because none of you mouth breathers ever uses it correctly when you toss it in a sentence to sound politically with it. Explain Marxism. Be precise.”

    Me:”So I don’t know what it is and you do, shouldn’t you be the one explaining it? Just saying….”

    He:”Oh no, my poor deluded friend, this variant of “of course I know what it is, you tell me to see if you know what it is” just won’t fly. Poor deflection attempt. Answer the question: what’s Marxism?”

    Me:”Haha. Figured you would punt.”

    He: “What is Marxism?”

    If you are talking to someone you don’t know, then stop.  There’s no point in it.  

    • #40
  11. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Spin (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    There is no middle ground where that twitter person and I could work together. I agree that Trump is merely the avatar for all of us and their feelings for him are also their feelings for us. All one has to do now to be evil is defeat them in elections or discussions.

    If you can’t read the words in the picture, he is the string:

    Me: “Dems are pushing the Marxist ideology. Trump has been tougher on Russians than Obama.”

    He: “You don’t know what Marxism is, and I know that because none of you mouth breathers ever uses it correctly when you toss it in a sentence to sound politically with it. Explain Marxism. Be precise.”

    Me:”So I don’t know what it is and you do, shouldn’t you be the one explaining it? Just saying….”

    He:”Oh no, my poor deluded friend, this variant of “of course I know what it is, you tell me to see if you know what it is” just won’t fly. Poor deflection attempt. Answer the question: what’s Marxism?”

    Me:”Haha. Figured you would punt.”

    He: “What is Marxism?”

    If you are talking to someone you don’t know, then stop. There’s no point in it.

    I did. You are right. They are so predictable. 

    • #41
  12. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Peter Robinson: There is indeed an “existential threat” to the freedom of thought, conscience, and expression which are indispensable to our democracy, but it does not come from Donald Trump, however much of an obnoxious, egotistical ass he may be.

    Peter,

    There appear to be real live concentration camps in Western China as we speak. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Thomas L. Friedman had something to say about this? Should we emulate China’s behavior in this too? Meanwhile, Iran has been murdering demonstrators and then hiding the bodies removing them from the morgues. This and attacking all of the other nations in the middle east plus extorting world shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz.

    The media appears to believe in the magical theory of Trump causation. Anything from hurricanes to global warming can be caused by a single Trump tweet. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the American people have finally caught on to this lunatic media act and realize that however crude Trump might be he isn’t a tyrant and has a rather decent record in defending the average person’s interests?

    Stay tuned. Don’t touch that dial. There is more in store.

    Regards,

    Jim

     

    When Trump leaves office, this deadly PC culture and silencing of free speech will continue because it didn’t start with him and it won’t end with him. Have you seen the movie trailer called ‘No Safe Space’?  This is where we are and I am very interested in the origins of it because vast areas of society have dramatically changed, almost overnight.  I believe that the Obama administration hit the gas pedal on it, but the Pandora’s Box was planned and opened some time ago. 

    • #42
  13. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    There is no middle ground where that twitter person and I could work together. I agree that Trump is merely the avatar for all of us and their feelings for him are also their feelings for us. All one has to do now to be evil is defeat them in elections or discussions.

    If you can’t read the words in the picture, he is the string:

    Me: “Dems are pushing the Marxist ideology. Trump has been tougher on Russians than Obama.”

    He: “You don’t know what Marxism is, and I know that because none of you mouth breathers ever uses it correctly when you toss it in a sentence to sound politically with it. Explain Marxism. Be precise.”

    Me:”So I don’t know what it is and you do, shouldn’t you be the one explaining it? Just saying….”

    He:”Oh no, my poor deluded friend, this variant of “of course I know what it is, you tell me to see if you know what it is” just won’t fly. Poor deflection attempt. Answer the question: what’s Marxism?”

    Me:”Haha. Figured you would punt.”

    He: “What is Marxism?”

    If you are talking to someone you don’t know, then stop. There’s no point in it.

    I did. You are right. They are so predictable.

    I have new rule outside of Ricochet:  I never argue politics with someone I don’t know.  The reason?  You can’t trust someone you don’t know.  And if you are going to argue about politics, you need to trust the other person to take your opinions in good faith, and you need to be able to trust that they are also arguing in good faith.  

    • #43
  14. Ammo.com Member
    Ammo.com
    @ammodotcom

    Dissenting voices should speak up more, when they do they distribute the costs among all dissenters which reduces the cost to any one individual. Self censorship is a forfeiture and has probably done more harm than anything else. 

    • #44
  15. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Spin (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Of course, so would I.

    I wouldn’t.

    Yeah you would. Don’t even try it…we all would.

    Actually, I think a lot of people would skip to the “retire to the French Riviera with loot” stage of dictatorship as opposed to actually governing.

    • #45
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Ammo.com (View Comment):
    Dissenting voices should speak up more, when they do they distribute the costs among all dissenters which reduces the cost to any one individual.

    But the individual who loses his job for speaking up doesn’t distribute the costs among all dissenters. He pays that price himself. And that’s why many choose silence. Not because they’re cowards (as David French insists) but because they are not in any position to risk the ability to provide for and care for their families.

     

    • #46
  17. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Of course, so would I.

    I wouldn’t.

    Yeah you would. Don’t even try it…we all would.

    Actually, I think a lot of people would skip to the “retire to the French Riviera with loot” stage of dictatorship as opposed to actually governing.

    I think what would happen for most people is they’d find themselves with the ability to “make things right” and they’d institute rules about this or that, thinking they were doing good.  People would bristle, and then the newly minted dictator would send out the thugs.  

    • #47
  18. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    Ammo.com (View Comment):
    Dissenting voices should speak up more, when they do they distribute the costs among all dissenters which reduces the cost to any one individual.

    But the individual who loses his job for speaking up doesn’t distribute the costs among all dissenters. He pays that price himself. And that’s why many choose silence. Not because they’re cowards (as David French insists) but because they are not in any position to risk the ability to provide for and care for their families.

     

    Right.  

    For example, in our state we just passed a law via initiative to reduce the car registration costs.  The liberals in Seattle don’t like it, and I read they’ve managed to get a judge to issue an injunction.  So now supporters of the initiative are calling for a boycott of car registration fees.  I thought “Ok…but who is going to pay my ticket when I get it?”  The idea that the costs are distributed is fine, but that just means more money for the state.

    • #48
  19. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Spin (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Of course, so would I.

    I wouldn’t.

    Yeah you would. Don’t even try it…we all would.

    Actually, I think a lot of people would skip to the “retire to the French Riviera with loot” stage of dictatorship as opposed to actually governing.

    I think what would happen for most people is they’d find themselves with the ability to “make things right” and they’d institute rules about this or that, thinking they were doing good. People would bristle, and then the newly minted dictator would send out the thugs.

    Not me.

    I think, maybe.

    Maybe me.

    • #49
  20. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Of course, so would I.

    I wouldn’t.

    Yeah you would. Don’t even try it…we all would.

    Actually, I think a lot of people would skip to the “retire to the French Riviera with loot” stage of dictatorship as opposed to actually governing.

    I think what would happen for most people is they’d find themselves with the ability to “make things right” and they’d institute rules about this or that, thinking they were doing good. People would bristle, and then the newly minted dictator would send out the thugs.

    Not me.

    I think, maybe.

    Maybe me.

    I think power corrupts.  And I think all of us would be corrupted by it.  

    • #50
  21. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chris Cam… Coolidge
    MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chris Cam…
    @ChrisCampion

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    Ammo.com (View Comment):
    Dissenting voices should speak up more, when they do they distribute the costs among all dissenters which reduces the cost to any one individual.

    But the individual who loses his job for speaking up doesn’t distribute the costs among all dissenters. He pays that price himself. And that’s why many choose silence. Not because they’re cowards (as David French insists) but because they are not in any position to risk the ability to provide for and care for their families.

     

    Accurate.  And I’d be happy to explain that concern to giant brain-pan guys like David French, face-to-face, so he can really understand what I mean when I say it.

    Considering how having the wrong opinion, now, is much easier to suss out than ever before, and people have lost jobs over it, you can bet that their families come first, and they’ll be quiet.  Or quieter.  Because they have to be, else they’ll be forced to go the stores where people like Bernie Sanders think it’s great to stand line for bread – government issued bread, which you’ll get issued, good and hard, and you’ll like it, and vote for more of it.

    Or else.

    • #51
  22. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    MACHO GRANDE' (aka – Chri… (View Comment):

    Considering how having the wrong opinion, now, is much easier to suss out than ever before, and people have lost jobs over it, you can bet that their families come first, and they’ll be quiet. Or quieter. Because they have to be, else they’ll be forced to go the stores where people like Bernie Sanders think it’s great to stand line for bread – government issued bread, which you’ll get issued, good and hard, and you’ll like it, and vote for more of it.

    Or else.

    I’m listening to The Road to Serfdom now.  Hayek makes the point several times that socialists find out too late that to achieve their goals, methods they abhor have to be used.  I’m not sure this is true.  I think that most (modern) socialists believe that you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs and that the end justifies the means.

    • #52
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Franco (View Comment):

    It makes perfect sense as long as you understand how they define “Democracy” – their personal ( and collective) right to rule as Progressive Globalists and squash any and all dissenting opinions.

     

     

     

    Where are they? I know we have at least a handful here at Ricochet who will argue that President Trump is just such a threat. Where are they?

    • #53
  24. DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    It makes perfect sense as long as you understand how they define “Democracy” – their personal ( and collective) right to rule as Progressive Globalists and squash any and all dissenting opinions.

    Where are they? I know we have at least a handful here at Ricochet who will argue that President Trump is just such a threat. Where are they?

    I’m guessing one of them doesn’t want to contradict Peter Robinson. Perhaps seeing Peter Robinson get “woke” to the threat from Democrats might cause at least one of them to likewise WAKE UP.

    Hope springs eternal.

     

    • #54
  25. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Spin (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Duplicate post.

    Only a nabob would duplicate his post.

    Stop nattering.

    • #55
  26. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):
    But the individual who loses his job for speaking up doesn’t distribute the costs among all dissenters. He pays that price himself. And that’s why many choose silence.

    Isaac Asimov defined academic freedom as “outside income”: When faced with a hostile dean he was not intimidated because he was already making more as a writer than as a professor. Few professors today are in that enviable position, and most administrators (and most humanities professors?) are hostile to anyone who contradicts leftist dogma.

    • #56
  27. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):
    But the individual who loses his job for speaking up doesn’t distribute the costs among all dissenters. He pays that price himself. And that’s why many choose silence.

    Isaac Asimov defined academic freedom as “outside income”: When faced with a hostile dean he was not intimidated because he was already making more as a writer than as a professor. Few professors today are in that enviable position, and most administrators (and most humanities professors?) are hostile to anyone who contradicts leftist dogma.

    Asimov never contradicted any leftist dogma.

    • #57
  28. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Randy Webster (View Comment):
    Asimov never contradicted any leftist dogma.

    Irrelevant to my point but sadly true.

    • #58
  29. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Of course, so would I.

    I wouldn’t.

    Yeah you would. Don’t even try it…we all would.

    Actually, I think a lot of people would skip to the “retire to the French Riviera with loot” stage of dictatorship as opposed to actually governing.

    It would be hard not to wait around at least long enough for the more obnoxious intellectuals to be rounded up and shot. 

    • #59
  30. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Spin (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    Ammo.com (View Comment):
    Dissenting voices should speak up more, when they do they distribute the costs among all dissenters which reduces the cost to any one individual.

    But the individual who loses his job for speaking up doesn’t distribute the costs among all dissenters. He pays that price himself. And that’s why many choose silence. Not because they’re cowards (as David French insists) but because they are not in any position to risk the ability to provide for and care for their families.

     

    Right.

    For example, in our state we just passed a law via initiative to reduce the car registration costs. The liberals in Seattle don’t like it, and I read they’ve managed to get a judge to issue an injunction. So now supporters of the initiative are calling for a boycott of car registration fees. I thought “Ok…but who is going to pay my ticket when I get it?” The idea that the costs are distributed is fine, but that just means more money for the state.

    I hope they can recall the judge. 

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.