I think Caitlin Flanagan called it right in her recent Atlantic article, what we are combatting here is Coercive Progressivism. This viewpoint is different than ordinary progressivism which seeks to influence within a democratic framework. Coercive Progressivism seeks to punish someone for words simply because they gave offense to somebody’s feelings, beliefs, or political views, and thus renders the concept of freedom of expression devoid of all meaning.
I do think Justice Brandeis said it best in 1927 (Whitney v California) “order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”
Because Coercive Progressivism seeks to repress through punishment, it shares elements of other totalitarian philosophical beliefs such as fascism, communism, authoritarianism and certain fundamental religions. Thus while steadfast in my absolutism about the primacy of freedom of belief and people are allowed to believe or say what they want in public discourse as long they do not cross the line which Brandenburg v Ohio set, I do not believe people who have totalitarian tendencies in their belief system should be anywhere near seats of power. If you need to coerce people into believing as you do, you do not have much faith in the basic truth of your philosophy. And if you start doing ad hominem attacks on your opponents, you betray the fact that you do not believe you have a fundamentally strong argument.
I say this as someone who is playing a small part in the current Culture War fight back which has engulfed the Society of Authors in the UK (it was recently reported on in the City Journal https://www.city-journal.org/the-woke-takeover-of-publishing ) Freedom of belief must include the right of dissent or else we stumble towards totalitarianism and the great American project of freedom and democracy for all ends.
I do think it is long past time that Salman Rushdie received a Nobel Prize and the free world stood up to coercive philosophies. The West's failure forty years ago has resulted in a poison seeping into the democratic system and it does threaten us all.
Keep fighting the good fight. It is time to lead the discussion back to that pathway of safety which Justice Brandeis spoke about.
I think Caitlin Flanagan called it right in her recent Atlantic article, what we are combatting here is Coercive Progressivism. This viewpoint is different than ordinary progressivism which seeks to influence within a democratic framework. Coercive Progressivism seeks to punish someone for words simply because they gave offense to somebody’s feelings, beliefs, or political views, and thus renders the concept of freedom of expression devoid of all meaning.
I do think Justice Brandeis said it best in 1927 (Whitney v California) “order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”
Because Coercive Progressivism seeks to repress through punishment, it shares elements of other totalitarian philosophical beliefs such as fascism, communism, authoritarianism and certain fundamental religions. Thus while steadfast in my absolutism about the primacy of freedom of belief and people are allowed to believe or say what they want in public discourse as long they do not cross the line which Brandenburg v Ohio set, I do not believe people who have totalitarian tendencies in their belief system should be anywhere near seats of power. If you need to coerce people into believing as you do, you do not have much faith in the basic truth of your philosophy. And if you start doing ad hominem attacks on your opponents, you betray the fact that you do not believe you have a fundamentally strong argument.
I say this as someone who is playing a small part in the current Culture War fight back which has engulfed the Society of Authors in the UK (it was recently reported on in the City Journal https://www.city-journal.org/the-woke-takeover-of-publishing ) Freedom of belief must include the right of dissent or else we stumble towards totalitarianism and the great American project of freedom and democracy for all ends.
I do think it is long past time that Salman Rushdie received a Nobel Prize and the free world stood up to coercive philosophies. The West's failure forty years ago has resulted in a poison seeping into the democratic system and it does threaten us all.
Keep fighting the good fight. It is time to lead the discussion back to that pathway of safety which Justice Brandeis spoke about.