A Cultural Revolution? by Sydney Williams
http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com
For a democracy to collapse into authoritarianism, what are required is a man or a woman and a movement. In Trump, we have a man but no movement. On the Progressive Left, we have a movement but no one person. To be effective, the movement must have the backing of the media, the academy and a sufficient number of bureaucrats who run government – advantage, the Left.
Trump is criticized by his detractors as a neo-fascist, a would-be dictator, but, apart from his love for America and his call to “clean the swamp,” he has no overriding political philosophy. The Tea Party did not expand during his White House tenure. The Progressive Left calls for an expansionist government that will provide more regulation, a “green new deal,” free college, all of which will mean higher taxes and limit individual freedom. They have on their side mainstream media, the academy and most of the bureaucracy that runs Washington. But they have no one individual around whom they gather. Some might look at this as an optimistic appraisal – a leader with no real movement and a movement with no one leader – and assume an Alfred E. Neuman stance.
However, there are cultural trends abroad that should worry a believer in a free and open society. In the essay, from which the rubric was drawn, Mr. Xiao wrote about his father and his contemporaries, now living in the United States: “…they can feel a certain febrility in the air which reminded them of the events of half a century ago.” Former President Obama, in a recent speech, prescribed “a combination of regulations and standards within industries to get us back to the point where we at least recognize a common set of facts,” suggesting a need for an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. In a speech on November 12 before the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Justice Samuel Alito warned that “tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community.” Richard Stengel, who joined Joe Biden’s transition team, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post in October 2019: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.” Whose Truths? Whose lies? Whose guardrails?
Students at Harvard, America’s oldest and best-known university, called on college officials to ban Trump officials from giving talks or holding positions on campus. Like tyrants in dictatorial countries, the students called for the administration to “set up a system of accountability for high-level political appointees and Trump administration consultants before they are invited as fellows or to teach or speak on campus.” The letter went on: “Harvard should stand firm with its stated commitment to a just Harvard and a just world, to free and honest inquiry in the unfettered pursuit of truth” – except when that search uncovers a truth opposed to their narrative.
Religious liberty has become a “disfavored right,” so spoke Justice Alito. Social media platforms police conservative ideas; schools expunge history that does not accord with their pre-determined story; colleges promote a cancel culture and encourage safe places for students against “harmful words,” and politicians compartmentalize voters, creating a salad bowl of diversity rather than the melting pot traditionally promised immigrants. These actions have led to identity politics where the narrative of victimization has replaced the concept of individual responsibility. The consequence is an ideology that “seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with,” using Hannah Arendt’s definition of a totalitarian society, “the goal of bringing all aspects of society under the control of that ideology.”
When government recommendations become edicts, when enforcement of rules, such as the wearing of masks or keeping family gatherings below a fixed number, relies on neighbors or friends informing on others, we reach a tipping point. One of the most powerful books to be published in the wake of China’s Cultural Revolution was Nien Cheng’s Life and Death in Shanghai. In it, she wrote: “One of the ugliest aspects of life in Communist China during the Mao Zedong era was the Party’s demand that people inform on each other routinely…This practice had a profoundly destructive effect on human relationships…It encouraged secretiveness and hypocrisy.” We have not reached that point in the U.S. However, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her squad, after the recent election, suggested that information should be collected on anyone who might ever had said anything positive about Trump, lest such people scrub their records and pretend they were critical of him all along. To do so, she believes, would be a “public service.” To do so, in my opinion, would put us further down the road to serfdom, to borrow a title from Friedrich Hayek.
The United States has never had an aristocracy, a landed gentry or a permanent ruling class. But it has always had exceptional people who have risen to the top of their field – politics, business, finance, the arts, media and the world of sports. Attempts to pull up the ladders that provide opportunity, something we see in inner cities where school competition is denied, should be resisted. The U.S. stands alone, a beacon of freedom based on the rule of law and the rights of individuals. The nation is unique. For generations, it has set standards for other nations.
Is there a cultural revolution underway in the U.S.? The evidence suggests there is. It is fascinating to witness how many of us (including myself) have, with the pandemic as an excuse, willingly complied with directives from the state – succumbing to mask-wearing everywhere and staying away from family and friends. Is it enough to plunge us into an authoritarian regime? I think not at this time. Nevertheless, there are those who have exhibited authoritarian tendencies, like Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gary Newsom of California. I worry that a charismatic leader, adored by the media, could emerge. And I know that I would rather encounter an impolite man with a bark than be seduced by the mellifluous voice of a temptress. We do not want a cultural revolution.
Comments are closed.
