Socialism is but a step toward communist oppression. Among the dangers it promotes is the abolition of popular dissent.
Read more The race they said was over may be just beginning
Unfortunately, that’s already common.
You’ve witnessed it at public events and in private conversations: Leftists today aren’t interested in respectful exchanges of viewpoints, or in offering rationales for their own ideas.
In eras not so long past, Democrats honored the principle of free speech. They articulated positions and considered objections. Through equal and open dialogue, all perspectives could be weighed by participants and onlookers.
Liberals once championed fair debate in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ “marketplace of ideas.” Then, Marxists took the wheel. Having now traveled three stoplights past crazy, they seem convinced yesterday’s wrong is the new correct.
It is standard for both wet-eared radicals and those long of tooth to interrupt opponents and shout over them. Of course, that denies the free-speech rights of adversarial speakers and audiences.
Cuban dictator Fidel Castro executed citizens who had inveighed against that country’s communism. His rationale was that national self-defense interest justified killing speakers who threatened communist rule.
Just so, left-wing partisans on these shores practice communist repression. They believe themselves to be not just correct, but morally superior to all who disagree. In their judgment, it follows that allowing contrary expression is counterproductive to constructing the utopia they envision.
They feel they know what’s best for all. Any who think differently should just shut up.
Read more The Spendthrift State
Untrammeled American political speech is reviled as a threat to be quashed (even violently) in intolerant, woke circles. Tactics employed include denying platforms to voices, blowing whistles to drown out speakers, and campaigns to pressure advertisers into dropping support for oppositional radio and television programs.
(A blood relative of those First Amendment abridgments is the blocking of independent cameras at rallies and other public events.)
In any nation where citizens exercise control (at least theoretically), conversation about issues, candidates, and elected officials is crucial to richer understanding and, hence, more responsible voting. Even heated debate between ideological partisans can prove beneficial.
But to be productive, such exchanges must be fair. All speakers should be allowed to articulate positions fully. Then, both participants and listeners can weigh divergent perspectives — considering each for strengths and flaws — and arrive at informed conclusions.
Ad hominem broadsides, feigned guffawing, shouting over opponents in order to prevent them from being heard — those are strategies of the playground (or cable news panelists’ food fights).
Debates are never won by bratty carryings-on. Not in the estimation of intelligent witnesses. Victory belongs to those who present superior reasoning and facts. For some, though, objective facts simply are not allies.
Iowan DC Larson is the author of That a Man Can Again Stand Up and Ideas Afoot. He counts among freelance credits Daily Caller, The Iowa Standard, and American Thinker. His political blog is American Scene Magazine.
Read more Patriots Won’t Let Communists Take America
