9 Comments

David French is a Christian conservative. I'm a liberal who finds the God of the Bible despicable. Yet how much common ground we have!

Expand full comment

The reality is that what had made this country great was that you and David could both find common ground here. That is quickly disappearing and has been for some time. When I was in college, nearly 40 years ago, at the beginning of the Reagan administration, I was relatively conservative, but viewed the New Testament (and the Torah) fine works of fiction. That was not well received then. I dislike the term "cancel culture" for a variety of reasons, but to say it is novel betrays the experiences of many of us. I have little hope, however, that there will be a reconciliation between those seeking to regulate thought and those of us who do not mind healthy debate and criticism.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this excellent essay. Now, you need to get it in front of people on "both sides" who prefer censorship to dialogue. I'm not hopeful this will be achieved in my lifetime.

Expand full comment

An excellent essay. Impressively, it adopts an even-handed perspective on problems on right and left. Notwithstanding issues on the left, many right-wingers are in denial about the problem on their side. Political psychologists agree that conservative attitudes are associated with fear and desire for psychological closure; this isn’t a promising basis for defence of free speech!

But of course, there’s a big problem on the left. Given the liberal-left’s historic defence of free speech, this is surprising. In my opinion, this reflects the changing balance of political values. In recent decades, liberal values have achieved hegemony. As postmaterial values have spread among populations, associated with better economic conditions, several liberal causes have become more popular. Reflecting liberal history, many of these causes concern the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities. Crucially, support for these rights has attained reverse polarity, entailing social pressure to adopt these stances.

Now this doesn’t mean that the left will give up on free speech. This has long been a core principle, meaning that it is embedded within left-liberal traditions. But despite this caveat, left-liberal commitment to free speech appears to be waning; this is bad news for liberal democracy!

I wrote more about this here, if people are interested: https://thomasprosser.substack.com/p/why-dont-liberals-support-free-speech

Expand full comment

Thank you for this essay and for including references to the historical words of Frederick Douglas and John Stuart Mills. My question concerns what to do when free speech cross over into the realm of hate speech and causes first psychological harm, then physical violence. As one example from my work as a physician, I saw intimately the damage done to people who were shamed by family and society at large, over their identity as gay or as an HIV+ person.

As a self-identified left-leaning liberal, I cringe when I'm reminded that some of the efforts to restrict free speech come from the "left". It is ineffective and ultimately counterproductive to suppress views that are racist, anti-Semitic or prejudicial in other ways, but it is also a mistake to allow the Ku Klux Klan to march down Broadway. We need is a culture that teaches critical thinking and has better guard rails around expressions of hate. But that is an ideal goal, and we need to protect one another now.

Expand full comment

Of course, freedom of speech doesn't exist (and is not constitutionally protected) on (public) college campuses. Consider the case of Law Professor Kilborn at University of Illinois. Not exactly a lot of free speech to found there. I would also mention the appalling case of Sandra Sellers at Georgetown. Of Georgetown is not a public university.

Expand full comment

Ok, fine. But what exactly does this mean to a parent whose child is being taught the U.S. is an historical pariah? And that they are complicit. French condemns right-wing reaction, but what is the practical alternative? If you say presenting different points of view, again, fine. But what views?Where is the reasonable counter narrative to hard left ideas? Not just to their illiberal tactics, but their ideas. After all, if society really is systemically unjust, then they might be excused for countering it with bully-boy tactics. But they're not right. Tell that story.

Expand full comment

One of my favorite quotes comes from I.F. Stone, who when asked how he could admire that “notorious slaveholder” Thomas Jefferson, replied, “Because history is a tragedy, not a melodrama.” We’re living in an age of melodrama. To teach history, it’s important to teach historical imagination, the difficulty, if not impossibility, of imagining what it was like to be someone from an entirely different era or place, without immediately passing judgment on actions or words alien or repellent to one’s own scheme of values. To get out of the trap of American exceptionalism, positive or negative, it’s important to study the history of other places and peoples. The history of slavery is often taught as if slavery were an American institution, the transatlantic slave trade uniquely driven by American interests; to explore the breadth and depth of the transatlantic slave trade, or the phenomenon of slavery in human culture would correct that view. The teaching of history should admit the making of positive statements about American ideas and culture, or more broadly Western ideas or culture, without being seen as chauvinistic or biased. After all, making a positive argument about one culture need not entail derogating other cultures. The catch is that the rules of the game, leftwing or rightwing, do not allow nuance, humility and uncertainty. In response to denunciation or nationalism, it’s hard to answer, “And…” but that’s surely what’s needed.

Expand full comment

Yes, we are living in an age of great melodrama - that threatens to become an age of tragedy due to the lack nuance to which you refer, but more to the lack of mutual respect. Unfortunately - and maybe tragically - one side's denial of demonstrable facts and support of flimsy conspiracy fables in place of reasoned analysis, makes mutual respect and constructive discourse particularly challenging.

Expand full comment