By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, July 10, 2022
If Democrats get their way, America’s
crisis-pregnancy centers will be wiped off the map — literally.
A small army of progressive activists and Democratic
officials including New York attorney general Letitia James is leaning on
Google to ensure that its mapping service does not direct women experiencing
crisis pregnancies to crisis-pregnancy centers — to ensure that these women are
directed to abortion clinics and to abortion clinics only. As Jezebel complains: “Nearly 40 percent
of search results for ‘abortion’ on Google Maps direct people in
abortion-hostile states to crisis pregnancy centers instead of real clinics.”
Why bother with persuasion when anybody who disagrees
with you can just be digitally disappeared?
The progressives’ delegitimization game is old, familiar,
and tedious: Forcing children to parrot ideological bromides as an educational
requirement is not indoctrination but “cultural competence”; climate policy is
not a matter of political, social, and economic tradeoffs but a question that
can be answered empirically via science, and, hence, opposition to the
progressive climate-policy agenda is anti-science; criticizing that climate agenda
is not political activism but somehow is securities fraud; talking to unhappy
people experiencing gender dysphoria is forbidden “conversion therapy” that
stands criminally in the way of the obvious medical necessity of ritual
mutilation and genital amputation. Etc.
And, of course, helping women with crisis pregnancies to
understand that abortion is not their only option — that they do in fact have
a choice, as they say, and that if their choice is not abortion
then there are many kinds of help available to them — isn’t help or counseling
or outreach, but “fake medicine” happening at “fake clinics.”
There is power in information, and progressives seek to
use their political advantage in states such as New York and California to lean
on technology firms to impose an Orwellian blackout on wrongthink — removing
unpopular voices and views from social media, cutting off verboten institutions
and communications from the digital infrastructure, and, if it comes to it,
manipulating GPS services to simply erase unwelcome charities and businesses.
If you ever were bewildered by the old Stalinist practice of airbrushing photos
to remove figures who have fallen into disfavor, this is the same sensibility
at work.
There is one slice of life in these United States in
which it is very common to use GPS mapping to oversee and control the choices
people make: parole. That bears meditating upon.
It is the power of the parole officer that progressives
dream of lording over their fellow citizens — the power to set boundaries to
govern the lives of everyone else and, especially, of those who attempt to escape that power. We hear it from the
likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and we hear it in Elizabeth Warren’s “you
didn’t build that” nonsense: the idea that we live and work and prosper only at
the sufferance of the state and its progressive masters, that we require
permission to enjoy our freedom and our prosperity — and that this permission
is liable to be revoked for infractions against the
progressive sensibility.
We right-wingers are a paranoid bunch, but, sometimes, I
wonder: Are we paranoid enough?
It is easy to see the kind of politics practiced by
Letitia James et al. descending into any number of dystopian scenarios. If we
are all using self-driving cars in 20 years, you can be sure that the Letitia
Jameses of the future will try to control where those cars will go — and where
they won’t. Progressives already have weaponized the financial system against
their political enemies — here, again, Letitia James is a major offender — and
you can be sure that in a cashless society they will simply try to exclude
wrong-thinking businesses, if not entire wrong-thinking industries, from the
system. (Sturm Ruger & Co. makes a legal — and excellent —
product, but it has been unbanked three times because of left-wing political
pressure.) And it is not as though weaponizing travel would be
unprecedented: You already can have your passport taken away over a relatively
small tax debt — even if the debt is the subject of an ongoing dispute.
The Internet was supposed to be a decentralizing power,
but, in many cases, the rise of ubiquitous information technology has had a
centralizing effect that must be guarded against and, where possible,
counteracted — because it is liable to be exploited by those who believe that
justice requires that their fellow citizens be something other than free.
Freedom irritates progressives. In late June, Slate’s
Dahlia Lithwick published a story decrying recent Supreme Court decisions,
juxtaposing the Dobbs abortion decision with the right-to-pray
decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton. As the headline put it, the issue
is “the story this court is telling about who deserves rights,” and the ghastly
outcome that “men are free to pray everywhere.”
Heavens to Betsy.
Of course Americans are free to pray
everywhere, free to exercise their religion — that was kind of the main idea
from the very beginning.
In spite of the efforts of the campus administrators to
put up invisible fences around “free-speech zones,” the United States of
America — all of it — is a free-speech zone, and a place in which the free
exercise of religion is protected as a fundamental matter of the law. The Kennedy case
was a school-prayer case only to the extent that it involved a man employed by
a school district praying after a sports event. Students were not being asked
to participate in that prayer, much less required to do so.
Everybody was free to pray or not. That progressives could not abide this
speaks to their weird understanding of freedom, their perverse belief that your
freedom is defined not by what you are permitted to do but by
what other people are prohibited from doing — and not
prohibited from doing to you, but prohibited from doing in a world
in which you simply exist.
Our Democratic friends are single-serving libertarians,
happy to say: “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” But that of course
doesn’t hold for them where firearms are concerned — or where prayer is
concerned, or where employment is concerned, or even where comedy is concerned.
Progressives are free to turn off Joe Rogan, but they will not be happy as long
as you are free to listen to his podcasts. Progressives are free to advocate
abortion, but they will not be happy as long as you are free to advocate
nonlethal alternatives. The vegans and the bug-eaters will not be happy until
veganism or insectophagia or whatever their particular dietary obsession might
be is mandatory. They cannot feel themselves to be free until you aren’t.
The people who want to take crisis-pregnancy centers off
the maps want to take nonconforming radio programs and television networks off
the airwaves, too. They want to take publications they disagree with off the
Internet and off the newsstands, and they want to take comedians who hurt their
feelings off television. (Do check out Noah Rothman’s excellent new book on
that subject, The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against
Progressives’ War on Fun.) And, ultimately, they want to control your
lives just as comprehensively — and at least as ruthlessly — as the parole
system does those under its jurisdiction.
Happily, there already is a palpable sense that the
cultural tide is turning against the little suppressors. But progressives will continue to
exploit — with all the mercilessness they can manage — their positions of power
at the sensitive junctions of important institutions, from regulatory agencies
to college campuses, where the especially cruel practice of revoking
undergraduates’ admissions as a form of political retaliation against the
thoughts and words of children remains in force.
We are not probationary Americans or Americans on parole
— and I do not think that most of us will consent to live as though that were
the case. The emblem of this country is an eagle in flight — not an eagle
wearing an ankle monitor. But we will always have to fight against the kind of
omnipresent surveillance and control dreamt of by the likes of petty
totalitarians such as Letitia James.
No comments:
Post a Comment