By Noah Rothman
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Elizabeth Warren has another new idea, which, like so
many of her proposals, is actually an old idea. It is the idea that your freedom
of expression is a threat to the public good. It is so grave a threat, in fact,
that she’s inclined to criminalize the forms of expression she finds
distasteful.
The Massachusetts senator’s assaults on the American
social compact often come wrapped in the American flag and couched in terms
that project sincere concern for the dignity and rights of every citizen. Not
this time. As her presidential bid appears to be stalling, Warren has abandoned
caution and framed her latest proposal in explicitly partisan terms.
“Disinformation and online foreign interference erode our democracy, and Donald
Trump has invited both,” the Senator tweeted. “Anyone who seeks to challenge
and defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election must be fully prepared to take
this on…”
“I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and
criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which
has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote,” read the
press release announcing Warren’s intentions. Those Americans who had their
“right to vote” encroached upon by bad Facebook posts are, the senator adds,
“chiefly Black voters.” Warren does not provide any substantive evidence to
support the idea that disinformation on social media has or even can “depress voter
turnout.” Nor does she explain how such activities violate essential American
rights. Indeed, depressing otherwise enthusiastic voting demographics is a
pretty standard campaign tactic.
The senator has inadvertently exposed the extent to which
Democratic politicians and their allies have confused any distinction between
voter suppression and a simple lack of enthusiasm for their candidates among
the party’s core supporters. By saying the quiet part out loud, Warren has also
revealed that Democratic objections to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision that
rejected the criminalization of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton were not
rooted in a suspicion of money in politics (if the Democrats’ “dark money” haul
in 2018 or Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign hadn’t already confirmed your
suspicions).
The criminalization of speech she doesn’t trust you to
contextualize responsibly isn’t the only Warren plan that conflicts with the
nation’s founding charter. Warren’s vaunted “wealth tax” is equally offensive
to civic-minded Americans possessed of a passing familiarity with the
Constitution. The senator has never acknowledged the objections of informed
observers to her proposal. Those observers note that the expropriation of
wealth likely violates both Article I’s prohibition on direct taxes and the
16th Amendment, which has been affirmed in subsequent court rulings as a tax on
transfers of wealth, not the requisition of property just because it exists.
But the illegality of these plans is less revealing than the
motives behind them. What would Warren’s wealth tax achieve? According to the
bipartisan Tax Foundation, it would raise some new revenue—revenue Warren has
already dedicated in its entirety to her plans to universalize child care and
forgive some student loan debt—though no one is sure how much because those
with property would evade the tax or leave the country entirely (an outcome
Warren’s plan envisions). Those disappointing results should not come as a
surprise; this was the experience of most European countries that phased
out their wealth taxes. Moreover, the unintended consequences of this
policy would be to substantially depress economic growth and replace domestic
millionaires and billionaires with foreign interests as the primary owners of
capital. These downsides clearly outweigh the benefits.
What’s the value of childcare and an affordable advanced
degree if you cannot find employment? We are left to conclude that the
confiscation of property from America’s suspect castes is the value
proposition. Similarly, what is the point of muzzling citizens on social media?
It is not to mitigate the grave threat Instagram poses to democracy. It is, as
Warren admits, to impose “transparency” on the propriety algorithms used by
certain private firms the senator resents. It is to compel social media
networks to police speech, and, when they fail to perform that role to the
senator’s satisfaction, as they inevitably will, to assume that responsibility
for herself.
These and other proposals advanced by the “policy
candidate” reveal a disturbing impulse to impose a particular value system on
the country from the top-down, backed by the threat of government coercion or
force. It is nothing less than an authoritarian inclination. Fortunately,
though, the Constitution remains an immovable bulwark in the way of Warren’s
ambitions. If the polls are right, so, too, are Democratic voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment