J.K. Rowling caused quite a stir last week by tweeting out a defense of a British researcher who was fired for having the wrong opinion on transgenderism.

My colleague Madeline Fry wrote about the substance of the controversy, but one thing that has struck me about the tone of the criticism has been the sheer level of sorrow from liberals that an author they liked could take a position they found so problematic. The New York Times ran an op-ed headlined, "Harry Potter Helped Me Come Out as Trans, But J.K. Rowling Disappointed Me.'" An author at Vox declared that Rowling had "ruined Harry Potter."

As conservatives, we're used to disagreeing politically with artists and entertainers who we like. Sure, we may take potshots at Hollywood celebrities or authors, but those of us who consume art, literature, or popular entertainment more or less expect that the producers of such media are going to have political views that we find noxious. It's not as if conservatives just sit around reading C.S. Lewis over and over and watching Clint Eastwood movies. And we aren't shocked if some author, actor, or musician says something we find objectionable. It's our expectation that they will.

But for liberals, there's a broad assumption that artists are going to be more or less on the same page as they are. So that's why it's especially jarring to them if an icon such as Rowling displays insufficient wokeness. And it's why the cultural Left is so quick to jump over any statement by any popular artist or entertainer that deviates from liberal orthodoxy.

In a way, it's similar to why liberals get so irrationally angry about Bari Weiss writing for the New York Times or at conservatives being given a platform at universities. They believe that they should have control over all such institutions.

More:

Liberals are piling on JK Rowling because they aren't used to disagreeing with artists they like - Washington Examiner