This is a revolutionary moment in American culture.
On one side, activists and employees are demanding fundamental change to overturn structural racism deeply embedded within institutions of journalism, education, and business. On the other, critics accuse the would-be revolutionaries of engaging in acts of illiberalism, including the silencing and firing of people who resist the proposed changes or even show insufficient zeal in enacting them.
So far, the fight between the two sides has generated far more heat than light. That's what makes Osita Nwanevu's essay in The New Republic, "The Willful Blindness of Reactionary Liberalism," such a welcome intervention.
In defending the activist side of the dispute, Nwanevu's tone is high-minded, his reasoning clear and thoughtful. While critics of the activists frequently call the latter a "mob" or describe it in explicitly religious terms, Nwanevu makes a careful, deliberate, complex argument designed to show that it's actually the critics who are acting and speaking impulsively, reacting to events without deep thinking, intentionally refusing to see the reality going on around them.
As one of those critics (unnamed in Nwanevu's essay), I disagree. But it's important to clarify exactly why to ensure that both sides keep the conversation going instead of merely talking past each other, with each side doing little more than bucking up allies and seeking to discredit opponents. In my view, Nwanevu is quite wrong to describe social justice activists as "expanding" the bounds of liberalism, since the aim of their reforms is a deliberate constriction of debate. It would therefore be more honest for him and his ideological allies to admit this and accept its illiberal implications.
I've been pointing to the illiberalism of the social-justice left since at least 2013. I backed off somewhat during the first couple years of the Trump administration, since it seemed a little peevish and an offense against proportionality to write frequently about the topic with the White House occupied by a man who regularly expresses contempt for civil liberties. But there have been events worth addressing over the past year or so. Roughly since the publication of the "1619 Project" in The New York Times last August, but especially since the newsroom rebellions began early last month, I've found myself led once again to call out the illiberalism of the activist left.
Yet as far as Nwanevu is concerned, those who hold my views are the ones guilty of illiberalism.
Part of the problem may be that Nwanevu is responding to weaker arguments made by some on my own side. He's right to note, for example, that the core issue has nothing much to do with "free speech" in constitutional terms, since no one is raising a threat of government censorship. But neither does it concern, as Nwanevu asserts, "freedom of association," including the freedom of a community civil society, a newspaper, a corporate workplace to establish its own standards, since no one is denying the legitimacy of that freedom.
As I've argued on other occasions, every community makes decisions about what ideas and attitudes to rule out of bounds to treat some ideas as worthy of debate and others as unacceptable and warranting cancellation. What's distinctive about the present moment is that groups of activists are demanding to be given the power to make this all-important decision within certain institutions and they are using this newfound power to shift (and often constrict) the lines of acceptable thought and discussion, ruling certain arguments (and the people who make them) out of bounds.
Why do I oppose this effort? It has nothing to do with public policy. I'm all for vigorous debate and personally support efforts to ensure that Black Americans and other minority groups receive equal treatment under the law and that police reforms address and rectify manifest injustices in law enforcement. But that's only a small (and peripheral) part of what Nwanevu discusses in his essay and what his activist allies are aiming for. What he and they are really concerned with is defending the view that American society is comprised of "intelligible, if often hidden, systems" of racial oppression, and rejecting the views of "reactionary liberal[s]" like myself, who see the country as "a jumble of bits and pieces a muddle that defies both systemic understanding and collective action."
That really is the nub of the issue, though I think this is a tendentious way to describe the difference between the two camps. My criticism of the "1619 Project," for example, was focused less on the details of the various contributions and more on the framing of the project as an effort to tell the definitive, "true" story of America, with the history of slavery and its legacy sitting at its very core, decisively shaping everything else.
This was an activist move an act of deliberate exaggeration, a flattening out of the complexity that Nwanevu dismisses as a "muddle" and a "jumble," a decision to focus monomaniacally on one (important) facet of the multifaceted American experience and warp everything else around it. It certainly wasn't an example of seeking to achieve what Nwanevu calls "parity" among various groups. It was an effort to make Black history the defining feature of the country.
The best one can say for the effort is that it's an act of intentional overcorrection: American history has for too long been told as a story focused on white people, so now we should tell it as a story focused on Black people. But that's not a way to achieve a more accurate understanding of the past. It's an act of replacing one form of distortion with another.
And this brings us back to the second-order issue to the question of whether the activists fighting for control of decisions in the workplace believe this kind of criticism is acceptable, and hence worth publishing, at all. From his essay, it's genuinely hard to tell where Nwanevu comes down on the question. During an especially perplexing passage, he mocks New York Times columnist David Brooks for "surreal condescension" in wondering, in the midst of an essay about Ta-Nehisi Coates's much-lauded memoir Between the World and Me, whether, as a white person, he had "standing to respond" critically to Coates' "experience."
When Brooks' column appeared, five years ago, it was possible to wave away such concerns. Today, after a series of forced resignations and firings at a series of media organizations, they cannot be. Yet Nwanevu dismisses them anyway before quickly pivoting to expressions of admiration for two more recent columns from Brooks in which the columnist shows that his reading in Black history has "worked" on him, leading to a "conversion" to support for reparations for slavery and an acknowledgement that "moderates" have "failed Black America."
Brooks has learned. He won't be canceled.
But what if his reading hadn't "worked"? What if Brooks stood by or deepened his respectful criticisms of Coates? What if he continued to argue, as he did in that five-year-old column, that "this country, like each person in it, is a mixture of glory and shame" and that although "violence is embedded in America it is not close to the totality of America"? What if instead of joining Coates in calling for reparations, he argued, as I have, that it's a proposal doomed to failure? Would he be allowed to make those arguments in The New York Times today? Or would he be risking his job in doing so not because he would be severely criticized, which is assumed and expected, but because he would provoke a rebellion on staff and calls for his dismissal for refusing to adequately listen, learn, and adjust his views?
I want a public world in which Ta-Nehisi Coates is free to make his arguments with as much potency as he possibly can. But I also want a public world in which his critics can do the same without fear of crossing lines newly drawn. One argument. Then the next. And so on, down through the years. That's how we truly learn and grow as a culture not by taking control of the boundaries of debate, narrowing them to verify our tidy certainties, protecting our sacred texts, and punishing those who dare to profane them.
I don't know if Osita Nwanevu shares this vision of a free, liberal society. I do know that many of the people on his side of the debate appear not to. And that he nonetheless believes that those who think the way I do are the ones guilty of illiberalism. Maybe one day, if the argument continues, I'll be able to persuade him otherwise.
Read the original here:
Who are the real liberals today? - The Week
- Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - December 11th, 2016 [December 11th, 2016]
- Liberal Democrat Voice - December 11th, 2016 [December 11th, 2016]
- Urban Dictionary : liberal - December 12th, 2016 [December 12th, 2016]
- READ MORE : Liberal groups want delay of Sessions' hearing - January 5th, 2017 [January 5th, 2017]
- What Is a Liberal - What Is Liberal Bias - January 9th, 2017 [January 9th, 2017]
- Liberal Party of Australia - Wikipedia - February 1st, 2017 [February 1st, 2017]
- Conservatives reject liberal humor in Trump era: Dave Berg - USA TODAY - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection - Daily Caller - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- Liberal Fake News Reportedly Growing - Yahoo News - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- House Science Chairman Sees Liberal Cover-Up on Warming Pause - Scientific American - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- Furious Liberal MPs turn on 'rat' Cory Bernardi - The Australian Financial Review - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- 'Rallying point': Abbott to headline conservative Liberal fundraiser in Melbourne - The Age - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- I'm A Liberal, And I Want Milo Yiannopoulos On My Campus - Huffington Post - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- Cory Bernardi says he resents being used in Liberal party 'proxy war' - The Guardian - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- HuffPo's New Editor In Chief Is Already Undoing Arianna's Liberal Legacy - Daily Caller - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- Why Are Liberals Surprised by the Senate Confirmation of DeVos? - National Review - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- Liberal Hashtag #NotMySuperBowlChamps Protests Patriots' Support of Trump - Fox News Insider - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- All liberals are hypocrites. I know because I am one - Quartz - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- '9th Circus'? Scholars Say Court's Liberal Rep Is Overblown - ABC News - February 7th, 2017 [February 7th, 2017]
- Economic freedom - Wikipedia - February 8th, 2017 [February 8th, 2017]
- Liberal land - Richfield Reaper - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- Liberal groups file lawsuit to block Trump's deregulation order - Washington Examiner - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- Strategies for Saving the Liberal Arts - Inside Higher Ed (blog) - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- This day in Liberal Judicial ActivismFebruary 9 - National Review - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- The Marco Rubio knockdown of Elizabeth Warren no liberal media outlet will cover - Conservative Review - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker proposes surprisingly liberal budget - Chicago Tribune - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- Why the liberal world order is worth saving - Irish Times - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- Tim Scott reads racist tweets by 'liberal left' over support for Jeff Sessions - Washington Times - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- Five tips on having a safe conversation with your liberal spouse or conservative brother - Fox News - February 10th, 2017 [February 10th, 2017]
- Why Liberal Policies Are Terrible For Young People - Power Line (blog) - February 10th, 2017 [February 10th, 2017]
- Trevor Bauer goes on long rant defending tweet about liberal bias - Yahoo Sports - February 10th, 2017 [February 10th, 2017]
- Liberal Tolerance: Sen. Tim Scott Reads His Hate Mail On Senate Floor For Supporting Sessions As AG - Townhall - February 10th, 2017 [February 10th, 2017]
- Claws Out For Ivanka Trump Show Liberal Love For Women Is A Sham - The Federalist - February 10th, 2017 [February 10th, 2017]
- Trump Takes a Running Whack at the Liberal Interventionists - The Nation. - February 10th, 2017 [February 10th, 2017]
- Networks Swoon Over GOP 'Feeling the Wrath' of Liberal Town Hall Protesters - NewsBusters (blog) - February 11th, 2017 [February 11th, 2017]
- Liberals, don't fall into the right's 'identity politics' trap - The Guardian - February 11th, 2017 [February 11th, 2017]
- Liberal pledge: Revamp for 69 outdated schools in $560 million spend - Perth Now - February 11th, 2017 [February 11th, 2017]
- Indians swept by Liberal in WAC action - Hays Daily News - February 11th, 2017 [February 11th, 2017]
- Trump's attacks on the press and how the liberal media myth has empowered him - Salon - February 11th, 2017 [February 11th, 2017]
- The Paranoid Style of Anti-Trump Politics - National Review - February 12th, 2017 [February 12th, 2017]
- What the Liberal-One Nation preference deal could mean at the ballot box - ABC Online - February 12th, 2017 [February 12th, 2017]
- Finley: Left bites Ivanka's liberal hand - The Detroit News - February 12th, 2017 [February 12th, 2017]
- A new, liberal tea party is forming. Can it last without turning against Democrats? - Washington Post - February 12th, 2017 [February 12th, 2017]
- Since When Is Being a Woman a Liberal Cause? - The New York ... - New York Times - February 12th, 2017 [February 12th, 2017]
- This liberal Brooklynite is on the hunt for conservative friends - New York Post - February 12th, 2017 [February 12th, 2017]
- Small-l liberal voters have been abandoned in the race to the right - The Sydney Morning Herald - February 12th, 2017 [February 12th, 2017]
- Rich, Liberal Celebrities Lecture and Claim to Stand for 'We the People' at the 2017 Grammys - NewsBusters (blog) - February 13th, 2017 [February 13th, 2017]
- WA One Nation candidates refuse to preference Liberals - ABC Online - February 13th, 2017 [February 13th, 2017]
- India's liberal bubble has shrunk to irrelevance in the age of Narendra Modi - Quartz - February 13th, 2017 [February 13th, 2017]
- Liberal superhero Justin Trudeau is not immune to the forces of Trump - CNN - February 13th, 2017 [February 13th, 2017]
- A new satire must emerge one that breaks out of the liberal bubble - The Guardian - February 13th, 2017 [February 13th, 2017]
- A liberal Tea Party, the pope helps spring a terrorist and other notable commentary - New York Post - February 13th, 2017 [February 13th, 2017]
- At Ole Miss, a Liberal Agitator's Education - New York Times - February 13th, 2017 [February 13th, 2017]
- Liberal Frenzy: 'Impeach' Trump; 'Traitor! Resign by Morning' - CNSNews.com - February 14th, 2017 [February 14th, 2017]
- Chelsea Clinton future run for political shunned by liberal activists ... - Washington Times - February 14th, 2017 [February 14th, 2017]
- One Nation could gain more than the Liberals from Western Australia seats deal - The Guardian - February 14th, 2017 [February 14th, 2017]
- Conservatives: Walker's budget plan is anything but 'liberal' - Watchdog.org - February 15th, 2017 [February 15th, 2017]
- Trump Says Liberal Media 'Going Crazy With Blind Hatred' - Daily Caller - February 15th, 2017 [February 15th, 2017]
- I'm a bleeding-heart liberal cleric but the Church of England must not accept gay marriage - Telegraph.co.uk - February 15th, 2017 [February 15th, 2017]
- What's a Liberal to Do When His Spouse Is a Trump Zealot? - New York Times - February 15th, 2017 [February 15th, 2017]
- Liberal Activists Join Forces Against a Common Foe: Trump - New York Times - February 15th, 2017 [February 15th, 2017]
- John Howard backs Liberal preference deal with One Nation in WA - The Guardian - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- Liberal ex-MP who called party a 'gay club' likely to be kicked out - The Australian Financial Review - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- New Liberal PAC Targets Democrats for Primaries - NBCNews.com - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- 'Liberals will continue to lose': Bill Maher defends Milo Yiannopoulos booking after panelist boycotts - Washington Post - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- Whatever happened to liberal Democrats, anyway? - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- Sportswriting Has Become a Liberal Profession Here's How It Happened - The Ringer (blog) - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- If the Church of England continues to smother liberal Anglicans, it is heading for a split - Telegraph.co.uk - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- Major liberal group opposes Gorsuch confirmation - USA TODAY - February 16th, 2017 [February 16th, 2017]
- The True Origins of the Phrase 'Bleeding-Heart Liberal' - Atlas Obscura - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- Liberals, Tories spar over Islamophobia motion in full-day debate - The Globe and Mail - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- Where Have All the Liberal Democrats Gone? - Townhall - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- Vicious attacks on Ivanka Trump exposes liberal hypocrisy - The Hill (blog) - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- Can Emmanuel Macron win? Why France is ripe for a liberal resurgence - New Statesman - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- Victorian Liberals: factional fight exposes deep divisions - The Age - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- 10 Unfortunate Liberal Myths Conservatives Often Believe - Observer - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- Terri Lovell: Liberal oppression - Santa Clarita Valley Signal - February 17th, 2017 [February 17th, 2017]
- Where's the liberal outrage over civil liberties in the Flynn case? - Minneapolis Star Tribune - February 18th, 2017 [February 18th, 2017]
- Liberal, conservative Jews in US increasingly divided over Trump - Chicago Tribune - February 18th, 2017 [February 18th, 2017]
- Anti-Islamophobia debate might define both Liberals and Conservatives - CBC.ca - February 18th, 2017 [February 18th, 2017]