By Christine Rosen
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
At the third annual Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago
this week, former President Barack Obama made a forceful statement about
“cancel culture.”
“This idea of purity and you’re
never compromised and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff, you should
get over that quickly,” Obama said, which prompted some gentle heckling noises
from the audience. He went on: “The world is messy. There are ambiguities.
People who do really good stuff have flaws. . . One danger I see among young
people particularly on college campuses (Malia and I talk about this) . . but I
do get a sense sometimes among certain young people, and this is accelerated by
social media, there is this sense sometimes that the way of me making change is
to be as judgmental as possible about other people. And that’s enough. I mean,
if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right, or used the
wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. . . You see
how woke I was? I called you out. . .. that’s not activism. That’s not bringing
about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not gonna
get that far.”
It’s been a fairly consistent message from Obama over the
years, although it’s interesting that in this most recent expression of it, he
stopped himself before saying “wrong pronoun” and instead said “wrong verb”—a
nod to the fact that the progressive left has made pronoun choice a call-out
culture hobby horse.
But the fact that Obama’s remarks were notable is also
evidence of how much further to the left the Democratic Party has moved on
issues of identity politics and woke-ness. With the exception of Democratic
presidential hopeful Andrew Yang, who has also spoken critically of cancel
culture, Obama’s is a rare intervention from the left these days.
And while many on the right and the left praised him for
taking on “toxic” cancel culture, that praise shouldn’t obscure a larger
challenge: the left remains in a state of deep confusion about the meaning and
monitoring of speech and on the appropriate consequences when someone says
something with which the left disagrees.
Consider a recent piece in the Washington Post by
Richard Stengel, a former journalist who worked in Obama’s State Department and
who is now arguing for bans on hate speech. “Yes, the First Amendment protects
the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can
cause violence by one group against another,” he wrote. “In an age when
everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.” He summed up his
argument in decidedly Orwellian terms: “All speech is not equal. And where
truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.”
But as the “guardrails” already in place on college
campuses show, speech codes and bans on hate speech remain a contentious issue
for a reason. As the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson argued, “When Establishment
figures declare that they’ve changed their mind on free speech and now think
there should be less of it, know that they expect the speech that gets
throttled to be yours, not theirs.”
The trends are not heartening for defenders of the First
Amendment. A 2015 Pew Research study found that younger generations of
Americans are far more willing to censor speech if it targets minority groups
than previous generations. For every celebrity like Obama (or Dave Chappelle),
there are hordes of leftist Twitter users and campus activists poised to
demolish anyone who deploys the wrong pronoun or challenges any aspect of
progressive orthodoxy.
No comments:
Post a Comment