About that ‘public square’…
I’m tired of right-wing hypocrisy, and so called liberal enablement of it. So I’m going to have a rant. Here we go.
Freedom of speech is the rallying cry of our times, occupying many lines of outraged comment, dominating our media both above and below the line. The lines of engagement are fairly clearly defined - and war is on us. And yet…the bases of this battle are simplistic and often lazy. We can do better.
The simple version of this - expanded below - is presented as a left wing which seeks to control everything even down to what people think and say, versus a right wing (who frequently describe themselves as ‘liberal’) presenting personal freedom as being at risk. I hold that both of these are entirely erroneous (in fact backwards) and are part of an agenda to move the so called Overton Window. Recognising that much more can be done by changing what is acceptable than through rallies, direct action and the like, many political movements now focus on that with stunningly Machiavellian tactics.
Why bother getting supporters out to demonstrate when a simple article in the popular press is so much more effective? Why bother making an evidence-based argument, when you can just issue some slogans and lie effectively about your opponents to far greater effect? So controlling the medium of the narrative has become the biggest goal in town (ie ownership of the press and control of social media) - nothing new there - and in this the proponents of ‘free speech’ have won and continue to do so, convincingly. Unfortunately the immense suffering that this facilitates is rampant, ignored and largely unreported by our new not-actually-liberal-at-all free speech warriors. And we all seem to fail to notice that the only freedom here is for the already unbelievably, historically uniquely free powerful and their willing lackeys, who have adopted the most extraordinarily inpenetrtable mantle of victimhood. And to cap it all, the stock in trade is to accuse those who reputation you need to trash of the very things in which you yourselve are so spectacularly guilty. The Tory party accusing Jeremy Corbyn of anti-semtimism anyone?
An immediate problem is that those who are happy to prioritise their end game over normal values (honesty, integrity) have an immediate advantage. If you really do not care about those basic values - you just care about winning politically - then you have already gained a huge advantage. Having a few standards is an expensive load to carry. In a world where Jacob Rees-Mogg (and co) can emerge from attacking others as ‘elite’ and still have (often increased) support, is not a world where those pointing out hypcorisy will ever prosper. And the utter disgust which many (myself included) feel for such outrages, is ineffective and counter productive: such emotive response though is the window onto where our hearts, values decency now lie. If I can listen to the utterly brutal Pritti Patel lying about immgirants and think, ‘well, maybe she has a point there’ - then a sickness has entered and taken hold, which is killing my humanity.
The dichotomy is that I need both to remain outraged, while recognising that my outrage (especially if uncontrolled) is at best unhelpful - and potentially, seriously counter productive in achieving a fairer world, where Jacob and co are held to account for their words and actions.
I see this debate as the visceral one of our times: the divide between individualism with self enrichment versus (and very much versus) collectivism, cooperation, collaboration and societal improvemement. It was at the heart of the Brexit war. And I start to wonder whether Blairite-type efforts somehow to marry the two are what has laid fertile soil for the re-emergence of fascism across Europe, the Americas and Asia. While liberal economics allows the few to eat all the pies, those greedy few continue to use their wealth to stir victimhood among the many, and point the finger at any arch villain they choose. Immigrants, those dastardly European bureaucrats, the ‘chavs’, trans people, teachers, liberals: the list is as long as it needs to be to feed the rapacious Paul Dacre (and his ilk) in his quest to ‘give the British people something new to be outraged by each day’ (I paraphrase, but not much).
And so we find ourselves with hatred rampant on all sides, with attrocity committed and planned against the vulnerable and minority groups a staple tactic of the right. And ‘free speech’ has been adopted as the battle cry in the new war against ‘cancel culture’ - a fig leaf to cover grotesque self-enrichment and power grabbing manouvres where worried celebrities wring their hands and voice their shrill angst at those refusing to give quarter to the newly emergent hard right. But what are they protecting? Why don’t they look a little deeper?
The CEO founder of the Parler app, recently wrote:
“Now seems like the right time to remind you all — both lovers and haters — why we started this platform,” the note read.
“We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both.”
It sounds so reasonable. Who could possibly object? Well, I for one: I object to this simplicity - acting as it does as the thinnest of veneers for fascism, ignoring the reality of what this actually means in lives lived in fear (and - ironically - silence) as thugs insist on their own version of truth, and brutalise the world via their occupation of the public discourse. This sick portrayal of the public square as some robust and efficient way of sorting out ideas is a helpful myth to those who want to speak without consequence - and who are unaffected by the silencing of large groups of dissenting voices. This is not to say that there are no counter-voices: there are. And some of them are hugely impressive. I’m looking at you Amanda Marcotte, Owen Jones. But they are in a tiny minority, and are almost never heard on national platforms. When they are they have to fight against the new doctribne of balance, where truth is ‘balanced’ by outright lies. Why didn’t the
The issue with ‘free speech’: no negative consequences
The Missouri Senator, Josh Hawley, is angry that his ‘free speech’ is being infringed because Simon and Schuster have decided they will not now publish his book - ostensibly because they do not want to be associated with a man himself so closely associated with the rawest of fascist mobs. Others might see this as pure commerciality - and perhaps ask, why they would want to publish such a man in any event (it’s not as though his views were in any way unclear). And as those in the know point out: Simon and Schuster remain happy to disibute the books of the new publisher. Which makes this all look a bit…something…
What Senator Hawley wants though is the right to say anything he likes without negative consequence. It’s a safe position, because he doesn’t mind granting the same rights - broadly - to those he disgrees with precisely because his side controls the public square and because it gives him plausible complaint when the consequences of his actions are pointed out and he can scream ‘cancel culture’!
The Hill, a right wing political web site got it perfectly wrong:
“And while Hawley's argument that his First Amendment rights were being violated by the publisher was laughable (it's a private company and can do what it pleases, after all), his contention that he is a walking example of being cancelled was not”
This is the essential lie: where the first of the sentence half notes the (blindingly) obvious fact that no First Amendment rights were abused here (do the Hill’s readers really need this explaining?), it is being asked to carry a lot of weight for the very weak second half. A company made a (very) commercial decision not to publish a guy who is toxic because of the damage to their reputation. If such decisions are ‘cancel culture’ then Conversatives are the culture kings. But they won’t own it. And as ever, want to tar tothers with their own crimes. It’s almost as though they are experts on the things they accuse others of…
How does the author, Joe Concha, fail to note the masive levels of cancelling done by the likes of Josh Hawley? Why is he only worried about the ‘cancelling’ of voices which all look and sound just like Josh Hawley? Hard right wing, well-platformed, fascist-tendencied, almost exclusively white people. But the voices of the Trans community? Not so important to the righteous Joe. The voices of immigrants? Not on Joe’s agenda. The voices of those with no health care? The voices of black people living with daily police violence? These somehow don’t seem to be on his radar. But he is massaively worried about people who are sick and tired of fascist impacts, being able to say: no more - I will not participate in their lies and destruction. He abuses companies for making commercial descisions (we can be very certain it was not a deeply moral decision after all: if only it had been) but never gets round to meaningfully criticising fascism. Of course he doesn’t because totalitarianism (ie the ultimate in cancel culture) coupled with outrage against those who point it out, is in fact the stock in trade here.
So his outrage and ‘matrydom’ have a very restricted scope - and to be entirely unbalanced by thoughts of what happens when we allow bad actors such overwhelmingly and disproportionately loud voices. Funny that.
And what of the consequences of Josh and his gang so successfully occupying the ‘public square’ as they do? The re-emergence of fascist violence on the streets, the protection of brutal, racist police fromthe consequences of their actions. The amplification of lies about Black Lives Matter? (‘Marxist’, ‘violent’, ‘communist’ etc: obvious and stupid simplifications or straight lies are this voice that the right are so desparate to protect). The tacit support and comfort blanket provided to and by QANON.
A more balanced view - fairer, equitable, with justice at its heart - must include an understanding of consequences. We could at least have a conversation with the ‘free speech’ brigade if they acknowledged that their public square has been over run by bad actors. But while they continue to squeal myopically about ‘cancel culture’, there’s no meeting ground, no common place from which to start the conversation. Worryingly, many of us have no interest in it either - given that we find those who indulge themselves in such fantasy are at best lazy, and often just seem morally defunct. While I can hear and understand the calls from experts to engage and listen to the grievances of the other side, there is an exceptionmally strong moral case to refuse to indulge them in such a way. Not only have those who scream ‘free speech’ while doing so much to deny it to anyone who they disagree with (“Patriotic History lessons” anyone?) not earned such a gentle approach, I think it looks like weakness - and they will just trample on such attempts. Efforts to engage with fascism need to stop being based on the premise that fascists (and their enablers) are in any way engageable or reasonable: they aren’t.
So what now?
Demands for unity across political lines from those in the centre and centre right, seem facile while attrocities remain unaddressed. Boris can demand that we all move on, but while the lies and devastation of Brexit remain unacknowledged, what is the basis for this unity? His treachery cannot go unanswered: the lives of some many have been utterly screwed for his own political gain, and the financial gain of his cabal. Moving on is really not an option while they remain resolute in their theft. South Africa had to have acknowledgement via their truth and reconciliation commission, before any attempts to ‘move on’ were credible. Our route would need to be similarly public and acknowledgd. As this is not an option for hard right, unity and dialogue cannot happen. Let’s be honest: we are completely fractured - and there is no middle ground. One side commits grave crimes against democracy, decency, the poor and vulnerable with total impunity. This is not a moment to ‘move on’.
And this is where it all falls down: where I am do worry aboout the cosnequences of having Twitter decide who gets to tweet, the free speech brigade give no thought whatsoever to the consequences of their ‘free speech’. Why don’t they worry about the rise of fascism which is so spectacularly aided by their free speech war? Why don’t they seem to care that some voices are silenced in their not-so-public-after-all square? What is their solution to the global rise of totalitarianism, so very well enabled by their ‘free speech’ defense? Somehow they seem to be very quiet here. Or their answer of ‘more free speech’ is just not credible.
The irony of course, is that analysis like this post are in fact part of the problem. My reaction to the horrorshow of populist brutality, is to analyse it in thought out, nuanced arguments: a guaranteed receipe for no change. Multitudes of others have done a much better job than me already. So I have to recongise that this is at best cathartic. But new direect methods are needed - perhaps starting with insisting (at the ballot box) that any time a non-fascist is in power, they MUST act to restrict the methods of fascism and thereby protect our collective future. Our freedom of speeech is at serious risk, if we adopt the simplicity of the new free speech brigada - and their tacit (sometimes not so tacit) protection for fascists who believe not one jot in anyone elses freedom to speak freely.