Standing opposed to something is easy, standing FOR something is more difficult.

The website Poynter, which specializes in journalism news and education, published a selection of excerpts of various editorials curated together from several newspapers across the country.  The curation had a theme: opposition to President Trump. 

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

The website Poynter, which specializes in journalism news and education, published a selection of excerpts of various editorials curated together from several newspapers across the country.  The curation had a theme: opposition to President Trump.

Click the image below to be redirected to the curation.

Screenshot_2018-08-16 America, help The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write
David Beard, “America, help!  The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write,” Poynter (2018).”

Newspapers should be oppositional to governments because opposition and dissent is fundamental to the concept of free speech, but opposition should not be the sole purpose of an organization.  Standing opposed to something is easy, standing for something is usually more difficult.

Chicago Sun Times: “We are the enemy of societal failings.”

What does that mean?  What societal failings?  Can newspapers decide what makes a society fail?

I don’t think news organizations should not be proselytizing a particular ideology, they should simply be outlets for truth (facts only).

The “enemy of racism?”

There will always be racism and bigotry in any society, that is a part of human nature.  To hate is a part of being human.  To fight against racism is to fight against a part of humanity.  Ideologues with a utopian vision of a so-called “perfect society” fight against their view of evil by fighting against the darker sides of human nature in an attempt to mold humans into a tool for their utopia.  Instead of moralizing about human emotions, we need to accept the positive aspects of our humanity with the more negative aspects and live with a decent balance.

Americans live under multiple governments.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

It seems like most of the corporate media’s focus is on the dealings of the national government, the federal government.  CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC provide 24-hour coverage on what is happening with various national politicians.  It is too be expected since those organizations brand themselves as national news outlets but what about the states in which they are based?  The state governments that those organizations operate under have more of an effect on them than the national government.

A key component of a democratic-republic is its federalist structure (a separation of powers).  The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution give the national government ultimate authority in conflicting areas of interest between the national government and the state governments, but the state governments have their own authority within their own respective territories; the states can stand up to the national government in particular instances. Scholars of constitutionalism refer to American states as “laboratories of democracy” because elected officials in each state (and, by extension, their respective municipalities) can tailor their government to their particular populations.

I have yet to see a news program that focuses on the legislative processes of all the governments under which Americans live.

Free speech is the foundation for civility.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

There is a rising ideology in America today, fostered by the political spectrum’s left-wing, that is antithetical to the values that Western Civilization has held dear for centuries.  This ideology is commonly referred to as “Progressivism,” although it is anything but progressive.  It seems to have been born out of a desire to give minority populations a stronger voice in political discourse but it is taken to such an extreme that it idolizes victimization and demonizes any position of privilege.  Some proponents of this ideology have driven it to an extent of advocating for dismantling Western political and judicial institutions on the basis that Western Civilization is founded on exploitations and subversions of alternative cultures.  Never mind that individuals in the West today enjoy a relatively peaceful society as well as longer lifespans and substantial freedom (Freedom House and Economic Intelligence Unit) compared to the rest of the world, many contemporary leftists focus on the negative aspects of Western civilization like institutionalized slavery and its subsequent repercussions, extreme poverty as a byproduct of excessive capitalism, the tendency of unregulated capitalism to move toward monopolies and corporate oligarchies, etc.  These new leftists either fail to recognize or simply ignore the benefits that Western civilization has brought its people like mass production of clothing, development of modern medical practices and medicinal remedies, personal empowerment through entrepreneurship, rising standards of living for all economic classes, etc.  The new leftists see the world through an extremely narrow and simplistic scope of oppressors and the oppressed with no middle ground.

Western civilization is not perfect, of course; no human society is perfect because humans are not perfect.  Human history has no shortage of prejudiced individuals and violent actions.  However; any honest scholar of human history will recognize that some of the worst atrocities have been committed in the pursuit of an utopian ideal.  A pragmatic and humanistic leader will help to govern his society based on how humans are, not how we ought to be.

Contemporary leftists are indeed pushing an idealistic and utopian agenda, one that seems eerily reminiscent of the old Marxist rhetoric which culminated in the Russian Revolution.  These new “cultural Marxists” seem be driven by a desire for a utopia in which prejudice is non-existent and they are more evident on college campuses.  The problem with this utopian ideology, as well-intentioned as it may be, is that it creates an “in-group” mentality among its proponents, which ironically fosters exclusiveness in pursuit of inclusiveness; in pursuit of an all-inclusive society, these neo-Communists fight to silence any rhetoric that may be labelled as hateful.  Never mind freedom of speech/expression for individuals, whatever speech that can be labelled as “hate speech” will not be tolerated by the neo-Communists.  This pro-censorship stance is antithetical to liberalism and an open marketplace of ideas.

Recent examples of these neo-Communists revealed themselves during Milo Yiannopolous‘ tour through American colleges, his “Dangerous Faggot Tour.”  During this multi-stop travelling experience,  Yiannopolous spoke publicly at privately scheduled events on the campuses of various colleges and universities.  Yiannopolous being a provocateur, often saying incendiary and inflammatory things, was met with much resistance in the form of protests.  Although, these protesters did not attempt to debate Yiannopolous intellectually and respectfully, they instead made a show of their opposition to him in attempts to disrupt and shut down his events.  Interruption, disruption, and (ultimately) censorship are the tactics of the neo-Communists because they seem to think that their ideology is above criticism and anyone who dares to question them must be a racist or a sexist or a homophobe and therefore do not deserve to be engaged with intellectually.  This “in-group” mentality is dangerous because it inculcates the people inside this ideology from any reasonable debate; the ideologues foster their beliefs inside an echo chamber and they become self-righteous.  Yiannopolous may say some insensitive things but he still has the political right to free speech and expression.  Debate is the appropriate response to controversy, not censorship.

Conservatives such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Lauren Southern have now taken up the mantle for free speech, but free speech as a political issue should be a basic unifying principle in any civilized society.  The ability to argue with each other without resorting to violent reactions, even if no consensus is reached, is what separates us from more barabaric societies.