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 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-
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
But are they nattering about it negatively?
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.
Duplicate post.
Only a nabob would duplicate his post.
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.
A written CoC is one of the differences.
(Emph. mine)
I do.
See the emphasized text to understand the fundamental difference which
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not me.
I think, maybe.
Maybe me.
I think power corrupts. And I think all of us would be corrupted by it.
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.
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.
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.
Stop nattering.
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.
Irrelevant to my point but sadly true.
It would be hard not to wait around at least long enough for the more obnoxious intellectuals to be rounded up and shot.
I hope they can recall the judge.