SENATOR Edward M. Kennedy has begun his long and eagerly awaited campaign for the Presidency. He is offering
Senator Edward M. Kennedy has begun his long and eagerly awaited campaign for the Presidency. He is offering himself to the nation as someone who can provide the leadership which many Americans will agree is needed. Yet if President Carter is as unpopular as Kennedy hopes he is, then the electorate may be wary in 1980 of candidates who stress their personal characteristics more than their views on issues—for that is largely how Jimmy Carter won the Presidency in 1976. Senator Kennedy’s views on several domestic issues, especially national health insurance, are rather well known. Now that he is a candidate for national office, the electorate will want to know more about his views on foreign policy.
Senator Kennedy does not serve on either the Foreign Relations Committee or the Armed Services Committee, and as a result, he is less readily identified with particular questions of foreign policy than such Senators as Church, McGovern, Jackson, or Nunn. Nonetheless, Kennedy has taken an active interest in foreign and defense policy and has established a long record and some well-formulated positions in these areas. For about twelve of his seventeen years in the Senate, he has chaired the Subcommittee on Refugees and Escapees, which has given him a senatorial “handle” on foreign policy. He has written one book devoted largely to foreign policy and has inspired, and written an introduction to, another book on defense policy.1 He has contributed numerous articles to journals like Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, the American Journal of International Law, the Nation, Saturday Review, Policy Review, and others. Each year, he introduces numerous bills and amendments and sends out dozens of press releases on foreign policy. Few, if any, Senators who do not serve on either of the two principal committees concerned with international affairs have exercised anywhere near as much leadership on foreign policy as has Kennedy—a fact that lends credence to his major campaign theme.
Kennedy, for example, was so conspicuous in the fight against the ABM in 1969 that his senatorial collaborators urged him (according to a report in Newsweek) to take a lower profile lest the appearance of a Kennedy versus Nixon confrontation cost them votes. Kennedy also led the fight against continued production of the Minuteman III missile, our most modern deployed ICBM. He was one of the leaders in the effort to block development of the neutron bomb. And he has for years been the Senate’s leading advocate of a “comprehensive [nuclear] test ban.”
After the Vladivostok agreement limiting strategic arms was signed in 1974, Kennedy quickly introduced a bill, together with Senators Mathias and Mondale, which endorsed the agreement but sought to steer the United States away from building as large a nuclear force as the two sides were permitted under its terms. A key purpose of the Kennedy bill was to block Senator Jackson from once again dominating the SALT debate as he had in connection with the Senate’s ratification of SALT I in 1972.
In 1975, Kennedy was one of a group of four Senators (the others were Clark, Tunney, and Cranston) whose efforts succeeded in cutting off all U.S. aid to the FNLA and UNITA forces in Angola; then Kennedy took the lead in urging U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Cuban-backed Marxist government of Agostinho Neto even while the Angolan civil war was still raging. He has been in the forefront of the drives for normalization of relations with China, Cuba, and Vietnam as well. Kennedy also teamed up with Senator Culver in exposing the “secret” agreement between the United States and Great Britain which led to the establishment of a U.S. base at Diego Garcia in response to the increased Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean.
Perhaps most important, Kennedy has become the Senate’s leader in the campaign to enforce an uncompromising human-rights standard on governments friendly to the U.S. Indeed, it is a former Kennedy foreign-policy aide who now, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, has largely shaped the Carter administration’s policy.
All this inspired the Nation magazine, in an unusual editorial shortly after the 1976 election, to urge President-elect Carter to appoint Kennedy as his Secretary of State. The Nation’s enthusiastic summary provides a good sketch of Kennedy’s activity.
Senator Kennedy, even though he has never been a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has managed to take stands and support policies that are generally on the good side of issues connected with America’s activities abroad. His work on the Subcommittee on Refugees has made him the leader of the congressional forces that resist dictatorial oppression in “friendly” regimes like that of Chile. His record on matters of arms control and nuclear proliferation is outstanding. He has consistently opposed the unhealthy growth of our arms industry and the unchecked sale of its products abroad. . . . On human rights . . . no record in the Senate is better than his.
In an opening shot in the battle for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination, President Carter noted that one area of disagreement between himself and Kennedy is that “I would be in favor of much stronger defense commitments.” A Kennedy spokesman was reported to have replied that “he did not understand what the President was talking about” in light of the fact that Kennedy had recently voted for the 3 per-cent increase in defense spending requested by the administration. Carter’s description of the difference between himself and Kennedy may have sounded somewhat ironic to those, like Senators Nunn and Hollings, whose efforts to secure a 5 per-cent increase in U.S. defense spending have been resisted by the administration, but the President’s words were still essentially accurate. If Jimmy Carter stands a bit to the liberal or dovish side of what some recent congressional actions and polling data suggest is a toughening national mood on foreign and defense policy, Edward Kennedy’s record goes decidedly further in the same direction.
Although Kennedy finally did join Carter this September in supporting the 3 per-cent increase, he had taken a different stand on the 1980 budget earlier in the year. In January, Kennedy attacked Carter’s 1980 budget proposal for excessive defense spending, although that proposal provided $4 billion less for defense than the 3 per-cent increase ultimately allowed. And when, in April, Senator Muskie’s Budget Committee proposed a defense level slightly below Carter’s initial proposal, Kennedy voted for the “transfer amendment” offered by Senator McGovern which would have taken yet another $1.7 billion from the lower defense level proposed by the Budget Committee and shifted it to domestic social spending. Similarly, in May, when the Senate approved the administration’s request for a $2.1 billion “supplemental” defense authorization for the tail end of Fiscal 1979, Kennedy was one of twelve Senators who voted against it.
An important disagreement on defense is Kennedy’s opposition to the MX, a planned new ICBM which the Carter administration proposes as a partial remedy for the growing vulnerability of our land-based missiles to a Soviet strike. In a statement distributed by his office in May of this year, Kennedy said: “The MX will not buy the United States more security. It will buy less: it will only accelerate the nuclear arms race.” Kennedy has also publicized his “serious misgivings” about the U.S. cruise missile, a weapon on which the Carter administration placed great importance in connection with its decision to cancel deployment of the B-l bomber. Kennedy supported the B-l cancellation, a step which he had long advocated, although his position differed slightly from Carter’s. Carter, while cancelling B-l deployment, still supported the funding of further experimental work on the aircraft, whereas Kennedy voted in favor of an unsuccessful Senate motion to terminate the system entirely.
Two other issues on which Kennedy has differed to some degree from Carter are relations with China and the Panama Canal. On the latter, Carter accepted, and Kennedy opposed, the highly publicized “DeConcini reservation,” which allows the U.S. to use force to open the Canal if it should be closed. With respect to China, while applauding Carter for establishing diplomatic relations with the mainland, Kennedy chided him for having given Taiwan the courtesy of a formal termination of our defense treaty, which requires one year’s advance notification. One result of the President’s scrupulousness has been a lawsuit brought by Senator Goldwater challenging the President’s authority to withdraw the nation from a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate. “The President might have avoided the constitutional question,” said Kennedy, “by simply exercising his unchallenged prerogative to recognize the People’s Republic as the government of China and to establish diplomatic relations with it.” This would have made it possible, Kennedy went on to explain, for Peking to have declared null our treaty with Taiwan.
Another issue on which Carter and Kennedy have differed is aid to Turkey. Earlier this year, Carter won Senate support for converting $50 million in U.S. military credit into an outright grant to Turkey as a step toward healing strained American-Turkish relations. Kennedy “strongly opposed” the move. Kennedy has also criticized Carter for not having normalized relations with Vietnam and for not cracking down hard enough on Chile, Argentina, and other right-wing allies of the U.S. Columnist Henry Brandon, in a recent enthusiastic outline of Kennedy’s foreign policy, explained the difference on human-rights policy in these terms; Kennedy “was as outspoken about human-rights violations in South Korea, Brazil, and Chile as President Carter, but in relations with the Soviet Union, he handled the problem of dissenters and Jewish emigration with more circumspection—and more in human than in ideological terms.”
On all these issues, Kennedy’s positions may be said to have been to the “liberal,” “Left,” or “dovish” side of Carter’s. The one other foreign-policy issue which has divided the two men does not readily lend itself to any such scale: Carter’s 1978 decision to sell advanced military aircraft to Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, which Kennedy voted to block.
While the comparison of Kennedy’s and Carter’s recent stands has a certain obvious political interest, it provides only a very limited picture of Kennedy’s perspective on foreign policy. Kennedy was elected to the Senate in 1962 (the year Carter first entered the Georgia legislature) and has established a substantial record. For a “quick read” on a legislator’s record it is often useful to examine the “ratings” or “score cards” issued by various lobbying and issue-oriented groups. With respect to foreign policy, the best-known and most widely accepted are the “National Security Index” compiled by the American Security Council, a conservative group, and the annual “Voting Record” published by Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group.2 The NSI is based on a cumulative total of 50 roll-call votes during the past ten years. On these 50 votes, Senator George McGovern has, according to NSI, the worst record of any current Senator, having voted wrong all 50 times. Senator Kennedy ties (with Wisconsin’s Gaylord Nelson) for next worst, having cast one right vote and 49 wrong ones. Conversely, the ADA ratings give Kennedy the best foreign-policy record in the Senate, having cast 78 right votes and 3 wrong ones, a shade better than that of McGovern, who cast 69 right votes and 8 wrong, and Nelson, who cast 75 right and 4 wrong. (Kennedy’s ADA rating since 1972 is perfect.)
An inherent limitation of these group ratings is that they sample only a small number of the votes taken each year. For a more careful look at the record, I have undertaken a study of all the Senate roll calls on issues of foreign or defense policy in which Senator Kennedy voted from 1963 to October 1979. From this study, it is possible to formulate ten categories covering most of the controversial and continuing areas of policy.
These include four categories of foreign aid, two categories of defense policy, two categories concerning relations with friendly and unfriendly powers, and one each concerning the U.S. presence abroad and U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East. This is what the study shows:3
1. Foreign Economic Aid
On 52 roll calls on funding, expanding, or restricting foreign economic aid, Kennedy voted on the pro-foreign aid side 51 times. By comparison, the Senate as a whole voted pro-foreign aid 36 times. Democratic Senators, as a group, also voted on the pro side 33 times, while Northern Democrats as a group voted pro 44 times.
2. Foreign Aid to and Through International Organizations
This category includes such things as U.S. contributions to the UN and to international lending institutions. Of 40 such roll calls, Kennedy voted in favor 38 times. By comparison, the Senate as a whole voted in favor 29 times; Democrats as a group 27 times, and Northern Democrats 32 times.
3. Foreign Military Aid
Of 51 roll calls on foreign military aid, Kennedy voted in favor 18 times. The Senate as a whole voted in favor 32 times, Democrats as a group 19 times, and Northern Democrats 15 times. It is interesting to note that Kennedy, although opposing foreign military aid more than 60 per cent of the time, still is marginally more favorable to it than the average Northern Democrat. This suggests that Kennedy’s strong support for foreign aid as a concept tends to mitigate his opposition to military aid.
4. Foreign Aid—General
This category includes votes on the overall administration of foreign-aid programs or on funding bills which combine the three previous categories. Of 59 such roll calls, Kennedy voted on the pro side 58 times. The Senate as a whole voted pro 48 times, the Democrats 42 times, and the Northern Democrats 48 times.
Thus, in sum, Kennedy’s record on foreign aid, other than military, is 147 favorable votes and only 4 unfavorable. Bearing in mind that these figures exclude all unanimous or near unanimous votes, this is a remarkable record, and almost certainly ranks Kennedy as the single most consistent supporter of (non-military) foreign aid in the Senate.
5. Defense—Strategic Nuclear
This category includes funding of U.S. strategic nuclear forces and some votes concerning U.S. strategic policy. Of 55 roll calls, Kennedy voted for supporting or strengthening U.S. strategic programs 4 times. By comparison, the Senate voted pro 42 times, Democrats as a group 17 times, and Northern Democrats 9 times. Nuclear strategic policy is an important interest of Kennedy’s. It is noteworthy that his commitment to limiting U.S. nuclear forces is more than twice as great as that of the Northern Democrats as a group.
This category includes funding for non-strategic forces as well as the overall level of U.S. defense effort. Of 68 roll calls, Kennedy voted pro-defense 13 times, while the Senate as a whole voted pro 51 times, the Democrats 28 times, the Northern Democrats 17 times. Thus Kennedy’s record is pro-defense only half as often as the Democrats as a group and marginally less often than the Northern Democrats.
7. Relations with Hostile Powers
This category includes votes on U.S. relations with the USSR, other Communist and radical regimes, as well as a few votes concerning relations with OPEC. Of 36 roll calls, Kennedy voted for taking a tougher stance 4 times. The Senate as a whole voted for toughness 16 times, the Democrats 11 times, and the Northern Democrats 10 times. Kennedy, then, favors a tough line in dealing with these countries much less frequently even than other Northern Democrats.
8. Relations with Flawed Friendly Powers
This category comprises U.S. relations with countries which are friendly to the U.S., but which, because of some aspect of their domestic or foreign policies, are viewed by us with ambivalence. Examples of such countries are Chile, Turkey, Taiwan, and Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Of 43 roll calls, Kennedy favored taking a tougher stance toward these countries 42 times. The Senate as a whole favored toughness 19 times, the Senate Democrats 38 times, and the Northern Democrats 40 times. The comparison of this category with the previous one is interesting. Kennedy voted to get tough with hostile powers 11 per cent of the time; he voted to get tough with friendly powers 97 per cent of the time.
9. U.S. Presence Abroad
This category includes votes on the level of U.S. forces stationed abroad, the development of U.S. foreign bases, the Panama Canal Treaties, and support for such non-military instruments of U.S. international presence as Radio Free Europe and the U.S. Information Agency.
Of 24 roll calls, Kennedy voted for a stronger U.S. presence abroad 8 times while the Senate voted for a stronger presence 17 times, the Democrats 8 times, and the Northern Democrats 6 times. It is noteworthy that this and foreign military aid are the only two categories on which Kennedy’s record tends more toward the Center than does that of his fellow Northern Democrats. On foreign aid, military policy, and relations with hostile and flawed friendly powers, he is further from the Center. This suggests that while Kennedy’s record is very “liberal” or “dovish” indeed, it does not seem to be motivated primarily by a spirit of isolationism.
10. Middle East/Israel
This category comprises votes concerning U.S. military or policy support for Israel.
Of 17 roll calls Kennedy voted on the pro-Israel side 15 times, as did the Democrats and the Northern Democrats. The Senate as a whole voted pro-Israel 16 times.
Roll-Call votes provide a record of how a Senator behaves as a legislator, but to see how a Senator acts as a political and intellectual leader, it is necessary to examine his speeches, writings, and the causes to which he lends himself. Kennedy has taken an especially active interest in three areas of foreign policy. These are human rights in countries whose governments are allied with or friendly to the U.S.; relations with governments which are hostile to the U.S.; and arms control.
Kennedy keeps a vigilant eye on human-rights violations in a number of countries. He frequently sends out press releases and enters statements in the Congressional Record spotlighting and demanding stern diplomatic action by the U.S. to punish the offending governments. Often he has introduced legislation designed to cut off aid to the violators. Despite his generally avid support for foreign aid, he believes that “the United States should refuse to provide other than humanitarian aid to countries whose governments are gross violators of human rights and fail to make substantial reforms.” Moreover, he appears to hold very exacting standards for judging what constitutes “substantial reforms.” Earlier this year, he “strongly opposed” the Hayakawa-McGovern Resolution, which the Senate overwhelmingly adopted, to send a team of U.S. observers to monitor the elections held in Zimbabwe Rhodesia. He objected to dignifying these elections even with observers because “the Patriotic Front and other opposition organizations can neither engage in full political campaigning and activities nor publish their views” and because “free elections cannot be held in conditions of insecurity and intimidation.”
Not only would he terminate aid, Kennedy also favors barring private bank loans to countries violating human rights and has introduced a bill requiring public disclosure of such loans to any government to which U.S. assistance has been denied or reduced for violations of human rights.
Kennedy has denounced South Korea as “a veritable police state” and has served as a spokesman for a group of Senators and Congressmen who issued a warning last April that “continued military support for South Korea may make the United States an accomplice to political repression.” But Kennedy’s most intense interest has focused on the governments of Latin America. He has condemned the “appalling human-rights situation in El Salvador,” and called on the U.S. “to end all but humanitarian aid to El Salvador and to reconsider the entire range of our relationships with its government.” Kennedy spearheaded the drive to cut off military aid to Argentina and he strongly protested the approval granted last year by the Carter administration of a $270-million loan to Argentina by the Export-Import Bank. He has spoken out against human-rights violations in Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic.
Although the U.S. has cut off all military and economic aid to Chile, Kennedy believes that “these signals have not been strong enough.” He has advocated that, in addition, we consider seeking to block multilateral aid to Chile, and that we “withdraw all but essential U.S. personnel from Chile and consider permanent recall of our Ambassador. We should consider trade sanctions against Chile. And we should suspend any further Export-Import Bank credits or OPIC [Overseas Private Investment Corporation] guarantees . . . [and] scrutinize more closely the continuing loans and investments made by U.S. private banks in Chile.”
Perhaps the single country to which Kennedy has devoted the most attention concerning human rights has been Nicaragua. In 1977, Kennedy, together with Frank Church, introduced legislation to cut off military aid to Nicaragua. In presenting the bill on the floor, Kennedy observed that repression was on the rise in Nicaragua “primarily in response to a terrorist raid by Cuban-backed Sandinist National Liberation Front insurgents” but that “the threat of Cuban intervention is minimal, according to all reasonably objective observers. Insurgent strength is estimated at only 50 men in Nicaragua—this is hardly a serious threat.” In October 1978, Kennedy accused the Nicaraguan National Guard of having “killed thousands of innocent civilians,” and he called for cutting off all aid to that country. In May 1979, he demanded the recall of the U.S. Ambassador, a cut-off not only of aid but of all credits, and a U.S. effort to block international loans to Nicaragua; he further called on the U.S. to “impose sanctions on the meat and sugar exports by Nicaragua to this country [and to] encourage corresponding measures by the European importers of Nicaraguan coffee and cotton.” Immediately upon the resignation of Somoza, Kennedy issued a statement calling on the U.S. to “promptly recognize this new government which is supported by all of the democratic political forces in Nicaragua.”
An interesting aspect of Kennedy’s views is that his evaluations of certain countries’ human-rights practices seem to vary from the evaluations made by Freedom House, regarded by many as the authority on such questions. In a major address last year on U.S. relations with Latin America, Kennedy observed: “In our dedication to human rights and democracy, we are joined by such nations as Venezuela, Colombia, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Mexico, and most recently the Dominican Republic.” According to Freedom House, Mexico has the identical ranking for civil liberties and political rights as has El Salvador, the nation which Kennedy proposes to punish for its “appalling” practices. Jamaica is the only non-Latin nation on his list of approval and it is singled out later in the same speech as a “political democrac[y] struggling for social democracy,” yet no mention is made of Barbados, the Bahamas, or Trinidad and Tobago, three Caribbean nations which received better ratings from Freedom House than Jamaica does. The Dominican Republic is deemed to have joined the ranks of those dedicated to human rights and democracy “most recently,” by which is meant upon the election as President of Antonio Guzman, political heir to Juan Bosch. Yet even before the election of Guzman, the Dominican Republic, according to Freedom House, rated better than Mexico and only a hair below Jamaica.
What these discrepancies suggest is that Kennedy’s evaluation of a nation’s human-rights practices is not solidly based on the traditionally recognized civil liberties and political rights. A Left-of-Center stance in political philosophy appears to enhance a nation’s human-rights record in Kennedy’s eyes, while a Right-of-Center stance has the opposite effect.
Relations with Hostile Powers
Kennedy is a strong supporter of détente with the USSR, and he has frequently warned against the adoption of too belligerent a tone in our dealings with the Soviets. “Pursuit of détente and human rights is too serious an imperative for us to be sidetracked into righteous posturing and rhetoric which set back either or both of these objectives,” he says. And he believes that American policy must take into account “the likelihood that the Soviet leadership feels beset by an unprecedented number of internal and external challenges.” As Kennedy describes it, there are two factions within the Soviet government, one favoring détente and domestic liberalization and the other opposing these. Exhibitions of toughness by the U.S. in dealing with the Russians will serve to strengthen the repressive hawks in the Kremlin, while U.S. gestures of good will strengthen the permissive doves. After the Soviet government sentenced Yuri Orlov, the founder of the Soviet Helsinki Monitoring Group, to jail in 1978, various kinds of retaliation by the U.S. were widely discussed. Kennedy spoke against retaliation, because “Soviet advocates of confrontation with the U.S. would have one more argument to use against the advocates of cooperation and détente.” On other occasions he has warned that deployment of additional strategic weapons by the United States “will be used by Soviet opponents of better relations with the United States as evidence that we are not committed to halting the arms race.”
Kennedy has written that:
It may be that a continuing reduction of international tensions, coupled with a rising Soviet standard of living, will in time help to liberalize Soviet society—despite today’s concessions made to repressive elements in the Politburo by Soviet supporters of improved U.S.-Soviet relations (emphasis added).
This last phrase is particularly interesting. Kennedy surely counts Brezhnev among the Soviet supporters of improved relations. He has often quoted approvingly from things Brezhnev has said to him, during their private conversations, about the importance of peace. Thus Kennedy’s description seems almost to exculpate Brezhnev from recent Soviet human-rights violations. It suggests a picture of a peace-loving leader, beset by domestic political problems, forced by the opposition to take repressive measures which he does not in his heart support. It is not clear whether Kennedy’s interpretation is a matter of elaborate speculation or whether he has an unrevealed source of intelligence on Politburo deliberations.
Kennedy has warned aganst underestimating how much genuine progress has taken place under détente. “Neither we nor the Russians (apparently) now automatically view every action by the other as intrinsically hostile.” But the question has never been whether “every action” was intrinsically hostile; it has been rather whether the overall objective of the Soviet Union was intrinsically hostile, and there is a strong suggestion that Kennedy’s answer is no. To be sure, Kennedy thinks that “the Soviet Union will no doubt continue to challenge the United States as a world power.” Yet rarely does he convey the sense that this challenge differs from the situation of two boys competing for athletic letters, scholastic honors, or girlfriends, or that it is something more profound and more deadly than a symbolic competition. “We should respect the Soviet desire to feel equal,” he says, “yet there is no point in countenancing foolishness on Moscow’s part nor in matching it with our own.” In the context, “foolishness” means the attempt to expand international political and military influence. What, then, does it mean that we should neither countenance it nor match it? That we will win a moral victory by refusing to compete with the Soviets on such a low level? What will we do with such moral victories? In a similar vein, Kennedy has identified “paranoia” as one of the major causes of U.S. opposition to the SALT II treaty. In light of the fact that in 1972 the Senate approved SALT I by a vote of 88-2, Kennedy’s analysis leaves open the question of what has caused such an alarming rise in American “paranoia” during these past seven years.
Kennedy’s reaction to the Yom Kippur War is illustrative. It is worth recalling that the high-point of détente began with the May 1972 Moscow summit at which Nixon and Brezhnev signed SALT I and many other agreements including the Declaration of Basic Principles of Relations between the two countries. DéTente euphoria lasted, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, through the 1972 elections and well into 1973—until the Yom Kippur War. It was apparent almost at once that the Soviets had been deeply involved in the planning and even in aspects of the execution of the surprise attack on Israel. And they were brazen in their exhortations to the other Arab states to join the war and the oil boycott of the West. This behavior was difficult to reconcile with the agreement, undertaken in the second point of the Declaration of Basic Principles, that “the U.S. and the USSR attach major importance to preventing the development of situations capable of causing a dangerous exacerbation of their relations.” This was a turning point at which many Americans began to reconsider the existing détente. A search of the Congressional Record of this period reveals no substantial comment by Kennedy on these events until about three or four months after the war when he said in a speech:
I believe that this is an historic moment in the history of American foreign policy. The President and Secretary Kissinger have been laboring to create a new structure of peace. Agreements have been reached with both Russia and China. The Middle East may at long last have a chance to move from a situation of repeated conflicts to a genuine peace. And a series of negotiations is in progress to built upon efforts made so far in détente.
Whether we will sustain these efforts, or lose today’s chance to pass decisively beyond the cold war, will depend in part on what happens during the coming critical phase of the SALT talks.
Apparently the events of the recent past had not led Kennedy to any revaluation of Soviet intentions.
Kennedy’s role in pushing the Carter administration toward recognition of China was the culmination of a twelve-year-long effort. “As long ago as 1966, a small number of us in Washington called for new directions in our China policy,” Kennedy recalls. In 1969, Kennedy set forth a position which, Newsweek reported, “went farther than any other Kennedy or any other major U.S. politician—in urging that the U.S. go all out toward cultivating relations with Peking.”
In these early efforts, Kennedy took the view that improvement of relations with Peking should not come at the expense of Taiwan. By 1971, a considerable body of U.S. opinion had developed in favor of supporting a “two-China” policy at the UN. Kennedy’s views, however, had progressed by then. He had come to the conviction that “the People’s Republic of China should be granted its legitimate seat in the United Nations as the sole government of China.” So strongly did Kennedy feel about this that he introduced a bill designed to prevent the U.S. from adopting a two-China aproach. “However reasonable such a dual representation compromise might seem to non-Chinese,” he argued, “it is unacceptable to the Chinese. . . . We must recognize that it is vital to the peace and progress of the world that Peking be brought into the international community.” Kennedy even said that he would rather the U.S. continue its traditional policy of complete opposition to Peking than to shift to a two-China approach. He explained that he felt sure that Peking was likely to be admitted soon even over U.S. objections and that he would rather see the U.S. suffer the humiliation of such a defeat than have entry offered to Peking on terms which it would not accept. He said that by continuing our old position “the U.S. would simply go down with the ship. Even that seems better to me than advocating a dual representation policy—a policy that would prevent Peking’s participation in the UN for the foreseeable future.” The same attitude, that it is important to meet China on its own terms, was again present in Kennedy’s efforts in 1978 to prod the Carter administration. “We can resolve the Taiwan issue as long as American policy respects China’s principles,” he said, adding that “it is neither necessary nor useful” to seek a pledge from Peking not to use force in its pursuit of reunification with Taiwan.
However, one key question on which Kennedy has drawn the line against accepting the Chinese position is on the Chinese desire to cooperate with the U.S. at the expense of the Russians. In response to those who would “play the China card,” Kennedy wrote in 1974:
It is tempting for the United States to engage in a serious effort to play the Soviet Union and China off against one another, in a “triangular politics” of great powers that bears a vague but disquieting resemblance to Orwell’s prophecy in 1984. Yet giving in to this temptation would be misguided or worse.
As in the case of China, Kennedy has long advocated normalization of relations with Cuba, a position he set forth in an article in the New York Times Magazine in January 1973, and in legislation which he introduced in 1975. At the time of the ground-breaking visit to Cuba by Senators Javits and Pell, the Washington Post reported on an earlier visit to Cuba by some of Kennedy’s aides and quoted a Cuban source as saying that “Senator Kennedy has been making efforts to come to Cuba ‘for close to two years and friends of his have come here to put out feelers on several previous occasions.’”
Kennedy has made clear that he is concerned about human rights in Cuba, but feels that this should not impede progress toward normalization, noting that “we have relations with nations—and in fact provide assistance to some of them—which have equal or worse records of violations of human rights than Cuba—Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, the USSR, the People’s Republic of China, India, etc.” Rather than make improvement of Cuba’s human-rights practices a precondition of normalization, Kennedy hopes that normalization will help to solve Cuba’s human-rights problems. He says:
Although Cuba has a program of rehabilitation that has seen numerous prisoners released, some political detainees still remain. Hopefully, in the process of normalizing relations, the issue of political prisoners will be one of those discussed. Clearly our past policy of isolation and hostility has not achieved any direct impact on their situation—the changes and improvements have occurred despite, rather than because of, our policy. With an end to hostile relations between our two countries, the atmosphere may lead to an opportunity for the remaining prisoners to be released or to emigrate.
This seems rather a delicate formulation in light of the fact that Castro has allowed the outside world no accurate knowledge about the status or number of political prisoners, and that some respected observers guess that Cuba may have one of the highest proportions of political prisoners per capita in the world.
On another occasion Kennedy said: “The continued refusal of the government of Cuba to permit objective international organizations to visit maximum-security areas and interview prisoners privately continues to disturb many Americans.” What is especially noteworthy about this statement is that the expression of concern is limited to maximum-security areas because Kennedy reported that members of his staff recently visited some other-than-maximum-security areas and found that “conditions appear adequate.” But no international organization had been allowed to inspect these areas. Did Kennedy view his staff’s visit as having fulfilled the same purpose? If so, why did they produce no public report? Where did they go and what did they see? Were they allowed to interview prisoners privately? What specifically was “adequate” about the conditions? It is hard to understand how a champion of human rights could treat this question in so offhand a manner.
Since shortly after the fall of South Vietnam Kennedy has been urging normalization of relations with the government of Vietnam. Kennedy’s view is that the violation of the Paris peace accords and the conquest of South Vietnam were as much the fault of the United States as of North Vietnam:
Even after the Paris peace accords were signed in 1973, there was no evidence that any serious effort was made by either side to enforce the terms of the agreement—terms that could have led to a genuine political settlement. Instead, both sides moved toward the final military confrontation. We gambled—and South Vietnam lost all.
In the absence of formal diplomatic ties, the government of Vietnam has often chosen to deal with the United States through Senator Kennedy, as well as through Senator McGovern. In December 1975, North Vietnam’s announcement of its willingness to return the remains of the last two U.S. servicemen to die in Vietnam came in a letter from Foreign Minister Nguyen Duy Trinh to Kennedy which expressed appreciation for Kennedy’s support of normalization and reconstruction assistance to Vietnam. Then in July 1976, Kennedy announced that he had received “a cable and a telephone call from the Vietnam embassy in Paris indicating that American citizens still in South Vietnam will be authorized to leave Vietnam.” In September 1978, the Vietnamese used Kennedy as their vehicle to hint at a shift in their negotiating position away from the demand that U.S. reparations payments must precede the establishment of diplomatic relations. “The only written communication to surface on the subject from the Vietnamese,” reported the Wall Street Journal, was “a letter from Premier Pham Van Dong to Senator Edward Kennedy.”
Kennedy has been unusually kind in his remarks about Vietnam. After the announced repatriation of Americans held in South Vietnam, Kennedy said that he wanted to “commend the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for another gesture of good will to the American people, and for continuing to respond to the many humanitarian issues that remain in the aftermath of the long war.” Kennedy’s Subcommittee on Refugees and Escapees issued a staff report in 1976 which praised the Vietnamese “new economic zones.” Many Vietnamese refugees have described these as a form of involuntary internal exile to conditions of great hardship where large numbers have died. The Subcommittee report observed that the new government in Indochina faced a problem created by “falsely urbanized centers, overpopulated with refugees, often unemployed, from the rural countryside.” The report went on to say that in response to this problem “in South Vietnam . . . a series of ‘new economic zones’ have been created to reintegrate refugees from the countryside into rural life.” The report did not explain why reintegrating refugees from the countryside into rural life should be so difficult or should require coercive measures. It noted that these efforts “are necessarily ambitious,” but that they are “founded on clearly understood needs and problems and a realistic assessment of available and potential resources.” In a similar vein, Kennedy in 1976 said about Cambodia, where the government had depopulated the cities, that “the authorities have necessarily focused all attention on rural areas and increasing food production.”
The dramatic and heartrending problems of the “boat people” and other Indochinese refugees have drawn worldwide attention and have also opened a major debate on the American Left over criticism of the government of Vietnam. Kennedy has taken an active interest in the refugees and has pushed for increased funding and liberalized immigration procedures to help ease their plight. At the same time he has shied away from criticism of the government of Vietnam. Kennedy apparently shares the view, vehemently disputed by “boat people” who have reached the U.S., that the flight from Vietnam is a result of economic conditions. In a recent major address on the problem he called on the U.S. to “deal directly with Vietnam to help ameliorate conditions that contribute to the outflow of refugees. . . . By responding to the humanitarian needs of the Vietnamese . . . [for] relief and reconstruction programs . . . we will also help stabilize conditions and perhaps stem the flow of refugees.” Kennedy has condemned “those within Vietnam and those sources outside Vietnam, as well, who are trafficking in human lives for profit,” but these guilty parties seem not to include the government of Vietnam. On the other hand, Kennedy has called on the non-Communist governments of Southeast Asia “to abide by international law and human rights standards, by granting temporary asylum to bona fide refugees” (his emphasis).
Kennedy’s tone toward friendly governments seems to contrast sharply with his tone toward unfriendly ones. Here are some examples.
A military junta has violated not only the norms of Chilean law but the most fundamental standards of law of Western civilization. It has tortured. It has killed. It has stifled every democratic freedom.
It has condoned and perpetrated the most brutal forms of violence in its own defense. In doing so it has said that violence, from assassination to torture, are acceptable forms of conduct.
On the USSR:
[T]he pace of change [i.e., liberalization] will inevitably be slow, with very real limits on the extent to which the Soviet Union will adapt in ways that are to our liking—just as our evolution will rarely (if ever) meet Soviet desires for American society.
On Zimbabwe Rhodesia:
This [i.e., the “internal settlement”] is a constitution which does not protect basic human rights and which does not provide a foundation for true self-determination.
On the USSR:
[P]rogress . . . can and must be made in order to make the world safe for diversity.
Argentina has the dubious distinction of having more political prisoners than the rest of the hemisphere combined.
[S]ome political detainees still remain.
On Various Friendly Governments:
Whether in Chile, in Southern Africa, or in Korea, we must heed the voices of the victims and instill in them the renewed hope that America will once more respond to its own heritage and its own ideals.
We must stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors.
We must stand with the defenders of human rights, not with those who defile them.
[T]he U.S. . . . should respect the experiment that has taken place in Cuba and normalize relations with it.
Kennedy is perhaps aware of the contradiction here and he has defended his position by arguing that “the most fundamental human right remains freedom from war.” This is an idea not widely shared by non-pacifists. Yet even if this idea is germane to relations with the Soviet Union, it is unclear why it would have bearing on relations with Cuba, Vietnam, and other Communist countries. And even with regard to the USSR, it is by no means self-evident that muting American objection to Soviet human-rights practices helps to preserve peace.
Kennedy’s contradictory approach to human rights has led him into another kind of potentially embarrassing situation. Since President Carter brought the human-rights issue to the fore in the early days of his administration, those active in the international human-rights struggle have observed that a number of 1960’s-style New Leftists and other radical elements have thrown themselves into a certain kind of one-sided human-rights activity. Their vehicles are such groups as the Institute for Policy Studies, the Coalition for New Foreign and Military Policies (the group which honored Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda at the start of their recent national tour), the North American Coalition for Human Rights in Korea (a group much more concerned about repression in South Korea than in North Korea), and others. Kennedy has maintained active contact with these groups in his human-rights work, sometimes issuing joint statements with them, entering their material in the Congressional Record, and relying on them for information.
In 1976 Kennedy eulogized Orlando Letelier as “a good man as well as a man of great intellectual capacity and courage” who was killed because he “believed in justice and freedom.” Letelier was the victim of a heinous crime, but subsequent revelations of his connections with the Cuban secret police make Kennedy’s encomium sound odd. In 1978 Kennedy issued a statement supporting the refusal of Harry Bridges’s International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union to load certain weapons for shipment to Chile. Nothing in the statement indicated an awareness of what everyone with even a passing knowledge of U.S. labor history knows: that the ILWU is just as likely to refuse to ship weapons to NATO should it be engaged in war against the Warsaw Pact.
In all these dealings, Kennedy seems not to observe the dictum which has guided many American liberals in various battles over the past several decades—to avoid making common cause with the anti-democratic Left.
Kennedy is a sharp critic of U.S. defense spending. He sought out the opportunity to testify at the Senate Budget Committee’s hearings on the 1977 budget in order to raise his voice against “constantly adding more money for defense—a practice which has been the trend in Congress since I have been here these past fourteen years.” Measured in constant dollars defense spending had risen only in three of the previous thirteen years, the three main years of the escalation of U.S. participation in the Vietnam war. During each one of the other ten years, constant-dollar spending actually declined, so that at the time Kennedy was speaking it was about 17 per-cent lower than it had been when he entered the Senate.
Kennedy has taken a special interest in the area of strategic nuclear policy and arms control, and has carved out for himself an important role on these issues, most recently as the Senate’s leading proponent of a comprehensive nuclear test ban. In connection with his fight against the ABM in the late 60’s, Kennedy asked some scholars to put together a book compiling the arguments against the ABM. The men he approached were Jerome Wiesner, former science adviser to President Kennedy, and Abram Chayes, who later became the chief foreign-policy adviser to the 1972 McGovern campaign. Among the contributors to the book, in addition to Wiesner and Chayes, were George Rathjens, Jeremy Stone, Mason Willrich, Marshall Shulman, and Adam Yarmolinsky. These men are well-known members of what is sometimes called the “arms-control community,” a group of scholars and public officials who have developed and propagated what John Newhouse, a sympathizer, has called the “theology” of arms control.
This theology—to which Kennedy adheres—consists of three main parts. The first is a notion of fundamental truth. The second is an explanation of why some people don’t behave in accord with that truth. The third is a formula for correcting the problem.
The fundamental truth of the arms-control theology begins with the idea that nuclear weapons are so destructive that they can have no use other than deterrence of other nuclear weapons. “There is no point in trying to define relative national power in terms of weapons that cannot be used without risks to the future of the world,” says Kennedy. Further, each side should have the ability to deter the other; it was in the U.S. national interest to allow the Soviets in the 1960’s to catch up with us in nuclear weaponry. As Kennedy puts it, “deterrence of nuclear attack must be mutual . . . we can only be safe from the threat of a nuclear holocaust if the Soviet Union feels that its nuclear deterrent is secure, as well.” Because of this mutual stalemate, it does not matter who has a stronger nuclear force.
Kennedy said last year:
. . . nuclear superiority lost most of its meaning over 15 years ago, when both sides possessed enough nuclear weapons to inflict unacceptable damage to the other after any first strike. President Brezhnev told me last month that he was convinced that even one nuclear bomb dropped by one side over the other would result in a general nuclear exchange—a nuclear holocaust not only for our two nations but for the entire world.
In light of this fact, it is clear, so the theology holds, that the U.S. has no need, virtually ever, to augment its forces. “If . . . we continue to stress the irreducible elements of mutual assured destruction,” says Kennedy, “. . . then our massive nuclear arsenal will speak for itself: It needs no bolstering.” This viewpoint helps to explain why Kennedy voted against strategic defense programs on 51 out of 55 occasions.
The second part of the theology attempts to explain why certain people, in particular those governing the two superpowers, have not yet come to see the foregoing fundamental truths. The first reason is that there are powerful elements in both societies who have a vested interest in nuclear arms production. These include the military, some nuclear scientists, and the defense contractors, who are seen as combining to make up a formidable lobby. Kennedy laments that “it is easy to become discouraged by the energy and resourcefulness of the people and institutions working on weapons technology and by the enormous incentives which motivate some of them.” Moreover the pro-nuclear forces on each side feed off their counterparts on the other. “Both their generals and ours use evidence of new developments on the other side to justify new developments of their own,” explains Kennedy. This constitutes “. . . a strange but unspoken alliance of interests and reactions,” called the “action/ reaction cycle” through which the arms race will, so the theology holds, spiral onward and upward to Armageddon.
Two key factors help to drive the spiral. One is the tendency to overstate the capability of the adversary. In 1976, for example, Kennedy protested that “it is deeply disturbing to hear once again a Pentagon rhetoric to justify the defense budget that grossly inflates Soviet strength and deflates our own.” Of course it is not known for certain whether Kremlin planners make similar overestimates of U.S. programs, but the danger that they may do so requires that we bend over backward to avoid providing grist “for their fears.” The other factor driving the arms spiral is technology. The scientists produce new weapons faster than the diplomats can control them. A corollary of this is that the United States bears a disproportionate share of responsibility for the arms race. Kennedy has put it this way: “The United States has taken the lead in most new types of nuclear technology; therefore, the decision whether to expand the competition in arms into new areas is largely in our hands.” It is not clear why Kennedy believes that the Russians would not anyway proceed into areas where the U.S. abstains, especially in light of Soviet leadership in anti-satellite warfare and the “race” which the Soviet Union continues to run with itself in such areas as chemical warfare, strategic air defense, and civil defense.
The third part of the theology sets forth the remedy. “We can break that nuclear spiral only if we have the political will to stand up to the weapons makers in both countries and cry ‘Halt,’” declares Kennedy. The logical place to begin is, of course, at home. “We must practice restraint and demand that the Soviet Union do the same.” But what should we do if the Soviets fail to respond in kind? From the beginning of SALT in 1969 the U.S. was concerned about the giant Soviet SS-9 ICBM. (The U.S. had refrained from building such giants.) By the mid-70’s the Soviets had begun to replace these with an even larger and better version, the SS-18, and had developed a MIRV capability which made these especially menacing to American ICBM’s. Kennedy in 1975 argued strongly against any U.S. countermove:
What we should be doing is going to the SALT talks and insisting that the Soviet Union join us in giving up a counterforce option against land-based missiles and we must do this without first building—or even developing—so-called bargaining chips.
This is precisely what U.S. negotiators had been trying to do for six years already, and what they continued to do for four more years. But the Soviets refused to budge, which is why the Carter administration reluctantly decided to move ahead with plans to deploy the MX. Carter’s decision has drawn heavy fire from Kennedy:
For a decade we have been trying to teach the Soviets a fundamental strategic lesson—that an invulnerable deterrent, a secure retaliatory force, adds to stability. It is time that we re-learned that lesson ourselves.
The point seems to be that no matter for how long or how dramatically the Soviets demonstrate their refusal to accept our concept of mutual deterrence, we must perservere in our adherence to it and in our policy of unilateral restraint.
Perhaps the best-known disciple of the arms-control theology in which Kennedy believes has been Paul Warnke. Warnke’s resignation last year from his position as chief U.S. SALT negotiator was widely interpreted as having been encouraged by the Carter administration in order to put some distance between the SALT treaty and his controversial views. At the time, Kennedy took a verbal swipe at the administration for letting Warnke go and said of him:
His clear and reasoned speeches around this country have made a compelling case for SALT. When Paul resigns at the end of this month our nation will lose one of its toughest and ablest negotiators, one of the most effective arms-control directors, and one of the most dedicated public servants it has ever had. Paul Warnke is surpassed by no one in his commitment to the security of our nation and to arms control and disarmament.
Kennedy’s many pronouncements serve to illustrate an important contradiction that lies at the core of arms-control theology. If both sides have such a superfluity of weapons that we needn’t worry when the Russians build more, then why is an arms race held to be so dangerous? If it is no threat to us when the Soviets alone are building weapons, why are we in dire jeopardy if we build them as well?
Like other theologies, moreover, the arms-control theology tends to be impervious to experience. Kennedy’s repetitious litany has led Stephen Rosenfeld, the Washington Post’s liberal foreign-policy analyst, to comment:
The notion that the United States hurts its chances for agreement by tending to its defenses is a holdover from a period in the 1960’s and earlier when American strategic superiority and momentum were plain. But that period is past. Where has Kennedy been?
Rosenfeld wrote this four years ago. Wherever it was that Kennedy “had been,” he appears to be there still.
The Kennedys have been regarded by many as interested more in the exercise of power than in ideology. One sometimes hears it asked how much of Senator Kennedy’s record reflects “true beliefs” which may be expected to remain constant, and how much may have been transient responses to passing political currents. The question, of course, cannot be answered. But two observations are pertinent. One is that Kennedy’s main foreign-policy interests, despite certain inconsistencies already noted, tend to fit into a broader world view which Kennedy has on occasion tried to articulate. The second is that his ideas seems to have remained constant for a substantial period of time.
After the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, Kennedy, together with Senator Cranston, did the nation a service by organizing an extraordinary Senate session. Two days were given not to specific bills and amendments, but to consideration of “the underlying foreign and military policy issues facing the nation in the aftermath of the Indochina tragedy.” Kennedy took this opportunity to lay out his conception of the “five vital interests” which should shape U.S. policy. These are:
- Nuclear arms control.
- Defining carefully our overseas security commitments, which Kennedy believes should be United to Western Europe, Japan, and Israel. Korea seems to be a borderline case where Kennedy evidently favors slow disengagement (slow, so as not to alarm Japan). Kennedy has said about Africa that he is against “bringing that continent within the compass of an outmoded concept of containment.” Since this is the only concept of containment that we have, Kennedy is in effect opposed to resisting Communist expansion anywhere in Africa.
- To avoid “trying to manipulate physically the process of change in a complex and difficult world.” In another speech at about the same time Kennedy said that “Vietnam is the most painful lesson we have ever learned about the aspirations of other peoples” and that “we are being challenged to accept new concepts of nationalism and independence”—two observations which now seem to apply to Cambodia and Laos as well as they apply to the U.S.
- “A global economic compact designed to promote a more equitable distribution of the world’s wealth.”
- International human rights.
An underlying theme of this program is that the United States is less menaced by Communism than we have in the past believed.
Kennedy has held to this general perspective for at least twelve years. In Decisions for a Decade, a book published in 1968, but clearly written not later than 1967, Kennedy observed that “the portrait of a Stalinist Russia committed to our destruction has faded” and that “every European nation, democratic or Communist, . . . is more concerned with developing economically than with exporting revolution.”
In the same book Kennedy advocated a reduction in U.S. commitments abroad, especially a “reduction of American involvement in the military and economic affairs of Europe,” and a reassessment of the role of NATO, an institution which Kennedy felt was “better suited to yesterday’s dangers than to tomorrow’s opportunities.” As to other parts of the world, Kennedy warned America to avoid opposing what he saw as the tide of inevitable change:
. . . guerrilla movements, despite their use of terror and violence, will frequently offer discontented people a faith, an organization, a way of life. To these people, the terror which we abhor is not that much worse from the life of poverty and pestilence which they seek to escape. . . . It is, to put it bluntly, not our business to suppress these movements.
In addition Kennedy called on developed nations to give “1 per cent of their gross national product to world development programs” and to channel this through multilateral institutions because “bilateral aid is in many respects stifling.” And he recommended that we “make clear our disapproval of repressive measures” by right-wing governments in Latin America. In 1968, Kennedy wrote in his introduction to the book he inspired against the ABM that “arms-limitation talks with the Soviets” offer “the only real hope for world stability and security.”
It can be seen, then, that all the main themes of 1975 were also the themes of 1967-68, and they have remained constant into 1979. This, together with Kennedy’s voting record, which shows no significant changes over seventeen years, suggest a long-term consistency of view.
Kennedy’s views on foreign policy seem to convey an aura of idealism, but it is an idealism fueled by naiveté and by an unrealistic sense of the balance of power in the world. In his championing of foreign aid, and his insistence that our aid programs not be used as a tool of political interest; in the unimpeachable faith he places in the efficacy of arms control; in the high standards of human rights he applies to some countries; and in his tireless pursuit of reconciliation with those hostile to us, Kennedy might appear an idealist. Yet his is an idealism that has been purchased at the cost of analytic clarity, that disregards the world’s dangers and difficulties, and that underestimates what might be done by this country to counter them. Consider Kennedy’s concept of America’s five “vital interests”:
1. Almost all Americans agree on the desirability of nuclear arms control. The really difficult questions concern Soviet intentions and their implications. A year after the signing of SALT I, Kennedy expressed the view that “the Soviet Union has a vested interest in a web of arms-control agreements which have been erected over the past decade. They know that this carefully balanced creation would fall to pieces at the first sign of a treaty violation.” Yet even the State Department and others who have defended Soviet behavior under SALT acknowledge that it has been replete with ambiguities and has frequently probed the outer perimeter of the accord’s restrictions.
In 1976, Kennedy commented on the U.S.-Soviet military balance that “the biggest canard of all is the charge that the Soviet Union is outspending us on defense.” Here, too, reality instructs otherwise. The astronomical level of Soviet defense spending is taken by most observers to hold important implications for arms control. If the Soviets are deploying weapons much faster than the U.S. is doing (and are also trying to cheat), the possibility arises that they would hope to use arms-control agreements to lull the U.S. into complacency, while they pursue military advantage. Most supporters of SALT would acknowledge this as a danger against which the U.S. should remain vigilant. But Kennedy has taken the view that Soviet intentions don’t matter! He said in 1974: “This need (and opportunity) to control the arms race has been important for us regardless of Moscow’s motives and capabilities.”
2. It is hard to see how Kennedy’s proposal to limit U.S. security commitments abroad to Western Europe, Japan, and Israel would work, even assuming, that it is desirable. What would the Israelis and the Europeans think of a security commitment which came attached to a declaration that the Indian Ocean, Africa, and the rest of the Middle East are outside the U.S. defense perimeter? What would they think of Kennedy’s 1975 proposal to withdraw the small symbolic U.S. naval presence from the Persian Gulf so as not to provoke the Russians into a competition for influence in that area? How would Japan feel if the closest country to which the United States recognized a security commitment was Israel? The Japanese, the Europeans, the Israelis tend to believe-as do most other peoples—that their security is profoundly affected by events in neighboring areas. A U.S. policy which seeks to isolate three such narrow spheres of U.S. commitment is bound to alarm those who live within the spheres almost as much as those who are left outside of them.
3. Kennedy’s prescription that the U.S. avoid “trying to manipulate physically the process of change in a complex and difficult world” seems to take no account of the fact that there are others busily trying to do just that—and to our disadvantage. If we have learned the wisdom of not seeing Communist machinations behind every manifestation of discontent in the world, are we now to accept as mere local discontent every effort of the Soviets to extend their empire? Perhaps the Sandinistas are true democrats and the armies of North Vietnam are nothing but the instruments of a quest for national independence. But if there are those quick to see a Soviet presence where there is insufficient evidence, Kennedy seems to have difficulty perceiving such a presence even where the evidence is more than ample, as when he wrote in Decisions for a Decade that “today, with the exception of East Germany, Russia has no more satellites.”
4. Kennedy’s call for a new “global economic compact” and his idea about foreign aid suggest an approach to poor countries which would increase the transfer of American wealth to these countries while decreasing efforts to exert American influence on them. Yet the failure of American foreign aid lies largely in our present inability to influence its recipients. The United States cannot provide enough charity to lift the world out of poverty. The answer to poverty lies in social and cultural changes which will enable poor countries to produce more wealth. The U.S. may not be able to create such changes in other countries, but it can certainly foster and encourage them: in any case, it is hard to understand who will be helped by an effort to guard against the exertion of American influence.
5. In his approach to human rights, Kennedy seems innocently hopeful about the benefits which will accrue from a U.S. reconciliation with Communist countries, as in his idea that with U.S.diplomatic recognition, Castro may release all political prisoners. He seems equally unrealistic about what may be gained from cracking down on allies, as with his suggestion that the cause of human rights would be helped by a termination of U.S. military aid to South Korea.
The Kennedy presidential candidacy is based on a promise of strong, dynamic leadership, which the country surely wants. But leadership for what, and to what end? Kennedy’s world view appears to foresee an America with more modest military strength, fewer commitments, a diminished interest in exerting influence abroad, and a reduced attachment to the defense of our own values. On the record, Kennedy stands for a partial withdrawal from the role of world leadership which the United States has played since World War II. It is very much an open question whether this is the direction in which Americans yearn to be boldly led.
1 Decisions for a Decade, preface by George F. Kennan (Doubleday, 1968), and ABM: An Evaluation, edited by Abram Chayes and Jerome B. Wiesner (Harper & Row, 1969).
2 The NSI includes only foreign and defense issues, whereas ADA includes domestic issues as well, but it is easy to separate out the foreign and defense issues, as has been done in the figures provided here.
3 These categories do not include votes concerning the war in Indochina, the draft, or the division of war powers between the legislative and executive branches. Nor do they include other occasional areas of Senate action such as tariffs and minor treaties. In each category a criterion of significance was applied excluding roll calls which were unanimous or near unanimous, i.e., where fewer than 10 per cent of the votes were on the losing side or where fewer than 67 Senators were present. In addition, purely trivial votes were excluded, e.g., regional competition over which shipyard shall receive a given naval contract. Otherwise, all votes were counted in their respective category with the exception of the Panama Canal Treaties. It was necessary to select the three most important, out of the 80 roll calls which were held on these treaties, for inclusion in the category concerning U.S. presence abroad. To have included all 80 would have been to overwhelm the category and rob it of meaning. All data are from the Congressional Quarterly Almanac.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
Kennedy’s Foreign Policy: What the Record Shows
Must-Reads from Magazine
t can be said that the Book of Samuel launched the American Revolution. Though antagonistic to traditional faith, Thomas Paine understood that it was not Montesquieu, or Locke, who was inscribed on the hearts of his fellow Americans. Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense is a biblical argument against British monarchy, drawing largely on the text of Samuel.
Today, of course, universal biblical literacy no longer exists in America, and sophisticated arguments from Scripture are all too rare. It is therefore all the more distressing when public intellectuals, academics, or religious leaders engage in clumsy acts of exegesis and political argumentation by comparing characters in the Book of Samuel to modern political leaders. The most common victim of this tendency has been the central character in the Book of Samuel: King David.
Most recently, this tendency was made manifest in the writings of Dennis Prager. In a recent defense of his own praise of President Trump, Prager wrote that “as a religious Jew, I learned from the Bible that God himself chose morally compromised individuals to accomplish some greater good. Think of King David, who had a man killed in order to cover up the adultery he committed with the man’s wife.” Prager similarly argued that those who refuse to vote for a politician whose positions are correct but whose personal life is immoral “must think God was pretty flawed in voting for King David.”
Prager’s invocation of King David was presaged on the left two decades ago. The records of the Clinton Presidential Library reveal that at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, an email from Dartmouth professor Susannah Heschel made its way into the inbox of an administration policy adviser with a similar comparison: “From the perspective of Jewish history, we have to ask how Jews can condemn President Clinton’s behavior as immoral, when we exalt King David? King David had Batsheva’s husband, Uriah, murdered. While David was condemned and punished, he was never thrown off the throne of Israel. On the contrary, he is exalted in our Jewish memory as the unifier of Israel.”
One can make the case for supporting politicians who have significant moral flaws. Indeed, America’s political system is founded on an awareness of the profound tendency to sinfulness not only of its citizens but also of its statesmen. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” James Madison informs us in the Federalist. At the same time, anyone who compares King David to the flawed leaders of our own age reveals a profound misunderstanding of the essential nature of David’s greatness. David was not chosen by God despite his moral failings; rather, David’s failings are the lens that reveal his true greatness. It is in the wake of his sins that David emerges as the paradigmatic penitent, whose quest for atonement is utterly unlike that of any other character in the Bible, and perhaps in the history of the world.
While the precise nature of David’s sins is debated in the Talmud, there is no question that they are profound. Yet it is in comparing David to other faltering figures—in the Bible or today—that the comparison falls flat. This point is stressed by the very Jewish tradition in whose name Prager claimed to speak.
It is the rabbis who note that David’s predecessor, Saul, lost the kingship when he failed to fulfill God’s command to destroy the egregiously evil nation of Amalek, whereas David commits more severe sins and yet remains king. The answer, the rabbis suggest, lies not in the sin itself but in the response. Saul, when confronted by the prophet Samuel, offers obfuscations and defensiveness. David, meanwhile, is similarly confronted by the prophet Nathan: “Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.” David’s immediate response is clear and complete contrition: “I have sinned against the Lord.” David’s penitence, Jewish tradition suggests, sets him apart from Saul. Soon after, David gave voice to what was in his heart at the moment, and gave the world one of the most stirring of the Psalms:
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
. . . Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
The tendency to link David to our current age lies in the fact that we know more about David than any other biblical figure. The author Thomas Cahill has noted that in a certain literary sense, David is the only biblical figure that is like us at all. Prior to the humanist autobiographies of the Renaissance, he notes, “we can count only a few isolated instances of this use of ‘I’ to mean the interior self. But David’s psalms are full of I’s.” In David’s Psalms, Cahill writes, we “find a unique early roadmap to the inner spirit—previously mute—of ancient humanity.”
At the same time, a study of the Book of Samuel and of the Psalms reveals how utterly incomparable David is to anyone alive today. Haym Soloveitchik has noted that even the most observant of Jews today fail to feel a constant intimacy with God that the simplest Jew of the premodern age might have felt, that “while there are always those whose spirituality is one apart from that of their time, nevertheless I think it safe to say that the perception of God as a daily, natural force is no longer present to a significant degree in any sector of modern Jewry, even the most religious.” Yet for David, such intimacy with the divine was central to his existence, and the Book of Samuel and the Psalms are an eternal testament to this fact. This is why simple comparisons between David and ourselves, as tempting as they are, must be resisted. David Wolpe, in his book about David, attempts to make the case as to why King David’s life speaks to us today: “So versatile and enduring is David in our culture that rare is the week that passes without some public allusion to his life…We need to understand David better because we use his life to comprehend our own.”
The truth may be the opposite. We need to understand David better because we can use his life to comprehend what we are missing, and how utterly unlike our lives are to his own. For even the most religious among us have lost the profound faith and intimacy with God that David had. It is therefore incorrect to assume that because of David’s flaws it would have been, as Amos Oz has written, “fitting for him to reign in Tel Aviv.” The modern State of Israel was blessed with brilliant leaders, but to which of its modern warriors or statesmen should David be compared? To Ben Gurion, who stripped any explicit invocation of the Divine from Israel’s Declaration of Independence? To Moshe Dayan, who oversaw the reconquest of Jerusalem, and then immediately handed back the Temple Mount, the locus of King David’s dreams and desires, to the administration of the enemies of Israel? David’s complex humanity inspires comparison to modern figures, but his faith, contrition, and repentance—which lie at the heart of his story and success—defy any such engagement.
And so, to those who seek comparisons to modern leaders from the Bible, the best rule may be: Leave King David out of it.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
Three attacks in Britain highlight the West’s inability to see the threat clearly
This lack of seriousness manifests itself in several ways. It’s perhaps most obvious in the failure to reform Britain’s chaotic immigration and dysfunctional asylum systems. But it’s also abundantly clear from the grotesque underfunding and under-resourcing of domestic intelligence. In MI5, Britain has an internal security service that is simply too small to do its job effectively, even if it were not handicapped by an institutional culture that can seem willfully blind to the ideological roots of the current terrorism problem.
In 2009, Jonathan Evans, then head of MI5, confessed at a parliamentary hearing about the London bus and subway attacks of 2005 that his organization only had sufficient resources to “hit the crocodiles close to the boat.” It was an extraordinary metaphor to use, not least because of the impression of relative impotence that it conveys. MI5 had by then doubled in size since 2001, but it still boasted a staff of only 3,500. Today it’s said to employ between 4,000 and 5,000, an astonishingly, even laughably, small number given a UK population of 65 million and the scale of the security challenges Britain now faces. (To be fair, the major British police forces all have intelligence units devoted to terrorism, and the UK government’s overall counterterrorism strategy involves a great many people, including social workers and schoolteachers.)
You can also see that unseriousness at work in the abject failure to coerce Britain’s often remarkably sedentary police officers out of their cars and stations and back onto the streets. Most of Britain’s big-city police forces have adopted a reactive model of policing (consciously rejecting both the New York Compstat model and British “bobby on the beat” traditions) that cripples intelligence-gathering and frustrates good community relations.
If that weren’t bad enough, Britain’s judiciary is led by jurists who came of age in the 1960s, and who have been inclined since 2001 to treat terrorism as an ordinary criminal problem being exploited by malign officials and politicians to make assaults on individual rights and to take part in “illegal” foreign wars. It has long been almost impossible to extradite ISIS or al-Qaeda–linked Islamists from the UK. This is partly because today’s English judges believe that few if any foreign countries—apart from perhaps Sweden and Norway—are likely to give terrorist suspects a fair trial, or able to guarantee that such suspects will be spared torture and abuse.
We have a progressive metropolitan media elite whose primary, reflexive response to every terrorist attack, even before the blood on the pavement is dry, is to express worry about an imminent violent anti-Muslim “backlash” on the part of a presumptively bigoted and ignorant indigenous working class. Never mind that no such “backlash” has yet occurred, not even when the young off-duty soldier Lee Rigby was hacked to death in broad daylight on a South London street in 2013.
Another sign of this lack of seriousness is the choice by successive British governments to deal with the problem of internal terrorism with marketing and “branding.” You can see this in the catchy consultant-created acronyms and pseudo-strategies that are deployed in place of considered thought and action. After every atrocity, the prime minister calls a meeting of the COBRA unit—an acronym that merely stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A but sounds like a secret organization of government superheroes. The government’s counterterrorism strategy is called CONTEST, which has four “work streams”: “Prevent,” “Pursue,” “Protect,” and “Prepare.”
Perhaps the ultimate sign of unseriousness is the fact that police, politicians, and government officials have all displayed more fear of being seen as “Islamophobic” than of any carnage that actual terror attacks might cause. Few are aware that this short-term, cowardly, and trivial tendency may ultimately foment genuine, dangerous popular Islamophobia, especially if attacks continue.R
ecently, three murderous Islamist terror attacks in the UK took place in less than a month. The first and third were relatively primitive improvised attacks using vehicles and/or knives. The second was a suicide bombing that probably required relatively sophisticated planning, technological know-how, and the assistance of a terrorist infrastructure. As they were the first such attacks in the UK, the vehicle and knife killings came as a particular shock to the British press, public, and political class, despite the fact that non-explosive and non-firearm terror attacks have become common in Europe and are almost routine in Israel.
The success of all three plots indicates troubling problems in British law-enforcement practice and culture, quite apart from any other failings on the parts of the state in charge of intelligence, border control, and the prevention of radicalization. At the time of writing, the British media have been full of encomia to police courage and skill, not least because it took “only” eight minutes for an armed Metropolitan Police team to respond to and confront the bloody mayhem being wrought by the three Islamist terrorists (who had ploughed their rented van into people on London Bridge before jumping out to attack passersby with knives). But the difficult truth is that all three attacks would be much harder to pull off in Manhattan, not just because all NYPD cops are armed, but also because there are always police officers visibly on patrol at the New York equivalents of London’s Borough Market on a Saturday night. By contrast, London’s Metropolitan police is a largely vehicle-borne, reactive force; rather than use a physical presence to deter crime and terrorism, it chooses to monitor closed-circuit street cameras and social-media postings.
Since the attacks in London and Manchester, we have learned that several of the perpetrators were “known” to the police and security agencies that are tasked with monitoring potential terror threats. That these individuals were nevertheless able to carry out their atrocities is evidence that the monitoring regime is insufficient.
It also seems clear that there were failures on the part of those institutions that come under the leadership of the Home Office and are supposed to be in charge of the UK’s border, migration, and asylum systems. Journalists and think tanks like Policy Exchange and Migration Watch have for years pointed out that these systems are “unfit for purpose,” but successive governments have done little to take responsible control of Britain’s borders. When she was home secretary, Prime Minister Theresa May did little more than jazz up the name, logo, and uniforms of what is now called the “Border Force,” and she notably failed to put in place long-promised passport checks for people flying out of the country. This dereliction means that it is impossible for the British authorities to know who has overstayed a visa or whether individuals who have been denied asylum have actually left the country.
It seems astonishing that Youssef Zaghba, one of the three London Bridge attackers, was allowed back into the country. The Moroccan-born Italian citizen (his mother is Italian) had been arrested by Italian police in Bologna, apparently on his way to Syria via Istanbul to join ISIS. When questioned by the Italians about the ISIS decapitation videos on his mobile phone, he declared that he was “going to be a terrorist.” The Italians lacked sufficient evidence to charge him with a crime but put him under 24-hour surveillance, and when he traveled to London, they passed on information about him to MI5. Nevertheless, he was not stopped or questioned on arrival and had not become one of the 3,000 official terrorism “subjects of interest” for MI5 or the police when he carried out his attack. One reason Zaghba was not questioned on arrival may have been that he used one of the new self-service passport machines installed in UK airports in place of human staff after May’s cuts to the border force. Apparently, the machines are not yet linked to any government watch lists, thanks to the general chaos and ineptitude of the Home Office’s efforts to use information technology.
The presence in the country of Zaghba’s accomplice Rachid Redouane is also an indictment of the incompetence and disorganization of the UK’s border and migration authorities. He had been refused asylum in 2009, but as is so often the case, Britain’s Home Office never got around to removing him. Three years later, he married a British woman and was therefore able to stay in the UK.
But it is the failure of the authorities to monitor ringleader Khuram Butt that is the most baffling. He was a known and open associate of Anjem Choudary, Britain’s most notorious terrorist supporter, ideologue, and recruiter (he was finally imprisoned in 2016 after 15 years of campaigning on behalf of al-Qaeda and ISIS). Butt even appeared in a 2016 TV documentary about ISIS supporters called The Jihadist Next Door. In the same year, he assaulted a moderate imam at a public festival, after calling him a “murtad” or apostate. The imam reported the incident to the police—who took six months to track him down and then let him off with a caution. It is not clear if Butt was one of the 3,000 “subjects of interest” or the additional 20,000 former subjects of interest who continue to be the subject of limited monitoring. If he was not, it raises the question of what a person has to do to get British security services to take him seriously as a terrorist threat; if he was in fact on the list of “subjects of interest,” one has to wonder if being so designated is any barrier at all to carrying out terrorist atrocities. It’s worth remembering, as few do here in the UK, that terrorists who carried out previous attacks were also known to the police and security services and nevertheless enjoyed sufficient liberty to go at it again.B
ut the most important reason for the British state’s ineffectiveness in monitoring terror threats, which May addressed immediately after the London Bridge attack, is a deeply rooted institutional refusal to deal with or accept the key role played by Islamist ideology. For more than 15 years, the security services and police have chosen to take note only of people and bodies that explicitly espouse terrorist violence or have contacts with known terrorist groups. The fact that a person, school, imam, or mosque endorses the establishment of a caliphate, the stoning of adulterers, or the murder of apostates has not been considered a reason to monitor them.
This seems to be why Salman Abedi, the Manchester Arena suicide bomber, was not being watched by the authorities as a terror risk, even though he had punched a girl in the face for wearing a short skirt while at university, had attended the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Didsbury Mosque, was the son of a Libyan man whose militia is banned in the UK, had himself fought against the Qaddafi regime in Libya, had adopted the Islamist clothing style (trousers worn above the ankle, beard but no moustache), was part of a druggy gang subculture that often feeds individuals into Islamist terrorism, and had been banned from a mosque after confronting an imam who had criticized ISIS.
It was telling that the day after the Manchester Arena suicide-bomb attack, you could hear security officials informing radio and TV audiences of the BBC’s flagship morning-radio news show that it’s almost impossible to predict and stop such attacks because the perpetrators “don’t care who they kill.” They just want to kill as many people as possible, he said.
Surely, anyone with even a basic familiarity with Islamist terror attacks over the last 15 or so years and a nodding acquaintance with Islamist ideology could see that the terrorist hadn’t just chosen the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester Arena because a lot of random people would be crowded into a conveniently small area. Since the Bali bombings of 2002, nightclubs, discotheques, and pop concerts attended by shameless unveiled women and girls have been routinely targeted by fundamentalist terrorists, including in Britain. Among the worrying things about the opinion offered on the radio show was that it suggests that even in the wake of the horrific Bataclan attack in Paris during a November 2015 concert, British authorities may not have been keeping an appropriately protective eye on music venues and other places where our young people hang out in their decadent Western way. Such dereliction would make perfect sense given the resistance on the part of the British security establishment to examining, confronting, or extrapolating from Islamist ideology.
The same phenomenon may explain why authorities did not follow up on community complaints about Abedi. All too often when people living in Britain’s many and diverse Muslim communities want to report suspicious behavior, they have to do so through offices and organizations set up and paid for by the authorities as part of the overall “Prevent” strategy. Although criticized by the left as “Islamophobic” and inherently stigmatizing, Prevent has often brought the government into cooperative relationships with organizations even further to the Islamic right than the Muslim Brotherhood. This means that if you are a relatively secular Libyan émigré who wants to report an Abedi and you go to your local police station, you are likely to find yourself speaking to a bearded Islamist.
From its outset in 2003, the Prevent strategy was flawed. Its practitioners, in their zeal to find and fund key allies in “the Muslim community” (as if there were just one), routinely made alliances with self-appointed community leaders who represented the most extreme and intolerant tendencies in British Islam. Both the Home Office and MI5 seemed to believe that only radical Muslims were “authentic” and would therefore be able to influence young potential terrorists. Moderate, modern, liberal Muslims who are arguably more representative of British Islam as a whole (not to mention sundry Shiites, Sufis, Ahmmadis, and Ismailis) have too often found it hard to get a hearing.
Sunni organizations that openly supported suicide-bomb attacks in Israel and India and that justified attacks on British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan nevertheless received government subsidies as part of Prevent. The hope was that in return, they would alert the authorities if they knew of individuals planning attacks in the UK itself.
It was a gamble reminiscent of British colonial practice in India’s northwest frontier and elsewhere. Not only were there financial inducements in return for grudging cooperation; the British state offered other, symbolically powerful concessions. These included turning a blind eye to certain crimes and antisocial practices such as female genital mutilation (there have been no successful prosecutions relating to the practice, though thousands of cases are reported every year), forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, the mass removal of girls from school soon after they reach puberty, and the epidemic of racially and religiously motivated “grooming” rapes in cities like Rotherham. (At the same time, foreign jihadists—including men wanted for crimes in Algeria and France—were allowed to remain in the UK as long as their plots did not include British targets.)
This approach, simultaneously cynical and naive, was never as successful as its proponents hoped. Again and again, Muslim chaplains who were approved to work in prisons and other institutions have sometimes turned out to be Islamist extremists whose words have inspired inmates to join terrorist organizations.
Much to his credit, former Prime Minister David Cameron fought hard to change this approach, even though it meant difficult confrontations with his home secretary (Theresa May), as well as police and the intelligence agencies. However, Cameron’s efforts had little effect on the permanent personnel carrying out the Prevent strategy, and cooperation with Islamist but currently nonviolent organizations remains the default setting within the institutions on which the United Kingdom depends for security.
The failure to understand the role of ideology is one of imagination as well as education. Very few of those who make government policy or write about home-grown terrorism seem able to escape the limitations of what used to be called “bourgeois” experience. They assume that anyone willing to become an Islamist terrorist must perforce be materially deprived, or traumatized by the experience of prejudice, or provoked to murderous fury by oppression abroad. They have no sense of the emotional and psychic benefits of joining a secret terror outfit: the excitement and glamor of becoming a kind of Islamic James Bond, bravely defying the forces of an entire modern state. They don’t get how satisfying or empowering the vengeful misogyny of ISIS-style fundamentalism might seem for geeky, frustrated young men. Nor can they appreciate the appeal to the adolescent mind of apocalyptic fantasies of power and sacrifice (mainstream British society does not have much room for warrior dreams, given that its tone is set by liberal pacifists). Finally, they have no sense of why the discipline and self-discipline of fundamentalist Islam might appeal so strongly to incarcerated lumpen youth who have never experienced boundaries or real belonging. Their understanding is an understanding only of themselves, not of the people who want to kill them.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
For a very limited time, we are extending a six-week free trial on both our subscription plans. Put your intellectual life in order while you can. This offer is also valid for existing subscribers wishing to purchase a gift subscription. Click here for more details.
Review of 'White Working Class' By Joan C. Williams
Williams is a prominent feminist legal scholar with degrees from Yale, MIT, and Harvard. Unbending Gender, her best-known book, is the sort of tract you’d expect to find at an intersectionality conference or a Portlandia bookstore. This is why her insightful, empathic book comes as such a surprise.
Books and essays on the topic have accumulated into a highly visible genre since Donald Trump came on the American political scene; J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy planted itself at the top of bestseller lists almost a year ago and still isn’t budging. As with Vance, Williams’s interest in the topic is personal. She fell “madly in love with” and eventually married a Harvard Law School graduate who had grown up in an Italian neighborhood in pre-gentrification Brook-lyn. Williams, on the other hand, is a “silver-spoon girl.” Her father’s family was moneyed, and her maternal grandfather was a prominent Reform rabbi.
The author’s affection for her “class-migrant” spouse and respect for his family’s hardships—“My father-in-law grew up on blood soup,” she announces in her opening sentence—adds considerable warmth to what is at bottom a political pamphlet. Williams believes that elite condescension and “cluelessness” played a big role in Trump’s unexpected and dreaded victory. Enlightening her fellow elites is essential to the task of returning Trump voters to the progressive fold where, she is sure, they rightfully belong.
Liberals were not always so dense about the working class, Williams observes. WPA murals and movies like On the Waterfront showed genuine fellow feeling for the proletariat. In the 1970s, however, the liberal mood changed. Educated boomers shifted their attention to “issues of peace, equal rights, and environmentalism.” Instead of feeling the pain of Arthur Miller and John Steinbeck characters, they began sneering at the less enlightened. These days, she notes, elite sympathies are limited to the poor, people of color (POC), and the LGBTQ population. Despite clear evidence of suffering—stagnant wages, disappearing manufacturing jobs, declining health and well-being—the working class gets only fly-over snobbery at best and, more often, outright loathing.
Williams divides her chapters into a series of explainers to questions she has heard from her clueless friends and colleagues: “Why Does the Working Class Resent the Poor?” “Why Does the Working Class Resent Professionals but Admire the Rich?” “Why Doesn’t the Working Class Just Move to Where the Jobs Are?” “Is the Working Class Just Racist?” She weaves her answers into a compelling picture of a way of life and worldview foreign to her targeted readers. Working-class Americans have had to struggle for whatever stability and comfort they have, she explains. Clocking in for midnight shifts year after year, enduring capricious bosses, plant closures, and layoffs, they’re reliant on tag-team parenting and stressed-out relatives for child care. The campus go-to word “privileged” seems exactly wrong.
Proud of their own self-sufficiency and success, however modest, they don’t begrudge the self-made rich. It’s snooty professionals and the dysfunctional poor who get their goat. From their vantage point, subsidizing the day care for a welfare mother when they themselves struggle to manage care on their own dime mocks both their hard work and their beliefs. And since, unlike most professors, they shop in the same stores as the dependent poor, they’ve seen that some of them game the system. Of course that stings.
White Working Class is especially good at evoking the alternate economic and mental universe experienced by Professional and Managerial Elites, or “PMEs.” PMEs see their non-judgment of the poor, especially those who are “POC,” as a mark of their mature understanding that we live in an unjust, racist system whose victims require compassion regardless of whether they have committed any crime. At any rate, their passions lie elsewhere. They define themselves through their jobs and professional achievements, hence their obsession with glass ceilings.
Williams tells the story of her husband’s faux pas at a high-school reunion. Forgetting his roots for a moment, the Ivy League–educated lawyer asked one of his Brooklyn classmates a question that is the go-to opener in elite social settings: “What do you do?” Angered by what must have seemed like deliberate humiliation by this prodigal son, the man hissed: “I sell toilets.”
Instead of stability and backyard barbecues with family and long-time neighbors and maybe the occasional Olive Garden celebration, PMEs are enamored of novelty: new foods, new restaurants, new friends, new experiences. The working class chooses to spend its leisure in comfortable familiarity; for the elite, social life is a lot like networking. Members of the professional class may view themselves as sophisticated or cosmopolitan, but, Williams shows, to the blue-collar worker their glad-handing is closer to phony social climbing and their abstract, knowledge-economy jobs more like self-important pencil-pushing.
White Working Class has a number of proposals for creating the progressive future Williams would like to see. She wants to get rid of college-for-all dogma and improve training for middle-skill jobs. She envisions a working-class coalition of all races and ethnicities bolstered by civics education with a “distinctly celebratory view of American institutions.” In a saner political environment, some of this would make sense; indeed, she echoes some of Marco Rubio’s 2016 campaign themes. It’s little wonder White Working Class has already gotten the stink eye from liberal reviewers for its purported sympathies for racists.
Alas, impressive as Williams’s insights are, they do not always allow her to transcend her own class loyalties. Unsurprisingly, her own PME biases mostly come to light in her chapters on race and gender. She reduces immigration concerns to “fear of brown people,” even as she notes elsewhere that a quarter of Latinos also favor a wall at the southern border. This contrasts startlingly with her succinct observation that “if you don’t want to drive working-class whites to be attracted to the likes of Limbaugh, stop insulting them.” In one particularly obtuse moment, she asserts: “Because I study social inequality, I know that even Malia and Sasha Obama will be disadvantaged by race, advantaged as they are by class.” She relies on dubious gender theories to explain why the majority of white women voted for Trump rather than for his unfairly maligned opponent. That Hillary Clinton epitomized every elite quality Williams has just spent more than a hundred pages explicating escapes her notice. Williams’s own reflexive retreat into identity politics is itself emblematic of our toxic divisions, but it does not invalidate the power of this astute book.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
When music could not transcend evil
he story of European classical music under the Third Reich is one of the most squalid chapters in the annals of Western culture, a chronicle of collective complaisance that all but beggars belief. Without exception, all of the well-known musicians who left Germany and Austria in protest when Hitler came to power in 1933 were either Jewish or, like the violinist Adolf Busch, Rudolf Serkin’s father-in-law, had close family ties to Jews. Moreover, most of the small number of non-Jewish musicians who emigrated later on, such as Paul Hindemith and Lotte Lehmann, are now known to have done so not out of principle but because they were unable to make satisfactory accommodations with the Nazis. Everyone else—including Karl Böhm, Wilhelm Furtwängler, Walter Gieseking, Herbert von Karajan, and Richard Strauss—stayed behind and served the Reich.
The Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics, then as now Europe’s two greatest orchestras, were just as willing to do business with Hitler and his henchmen, firing their Jewish members and ceasing to perform the music of Jewish composers. Even after the war, the Vienna Philharmonic was notorious for being the most anti-Semitic orchestra in Europe, and it was well known in the music business (though never publicly discussed) that Helmut Wobisch, the orchestra’s principal trumpeter and its executive director from 1953 to 1968, had been both a member of the SS and a Gestapo spy.
The management of the Berlin Philharmonic made no attempt to cover up the orchestra’s close relationship with the Third Reich, no doubt because the Nazi ties of Karajan, who was its music director from 1956 until shortly before his death in 1989, were a matter of public record. Yet it was not until 2007 that a full-length study of its wartime activities, Misha Aster’s The Reich’s Orchestra: The Berlin Philharmonic 1933–1945, was finally published. As for the Vienna Philharmonic, its managers long sought to quash all discussion of the orchestra’s Nazi past, steadfastly refusing to open its institutional archives to scholars until 2008, when Fritz Trümpi, an Austrian scholar, was given access to its records. Five years later, the Viennese, belatedly following the precedent of the Berlin Philharmonic, added a lengthy section to their website called “The Vienna Philharmonic Under National Socialism (1938–1945),” in which the damning findings of Trümpi and two other independent scholars were made available to the public.
Now Trümpi has published The Political Orchestra: The Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics During the Third Reich, in which he tells how they came to terms with Nazism, supplying pre- and postwar historical context for their transgressions.1 Written in a stiff mixture of academic jargon and translatorese, The Political Orchestra is ungratifying to read. Even so, the tale that it tells is both compelling and disturbing, especially to anyone who clings to the belief that high art is ennobling to the spirit.U
nlike the Vienna Philharmonic, which has always doubled as the pit orchestra for the Vienna State Opera, the Berlin Philharmonic started life in 1882 as a fully independent, self-governing entity. Initially unsubsidized by the state, it kept itself afloat by playing a grueling schedule of performances, including “popular” non-subscription concerts for which modest ticket prices were levied. In addition, the orchestra made records and toured internationally at a time when neither was common.
These activities made it possible for the Berlin Philharmonic to develop into an internationally renowned ensemble whose fabled collective virtuosity was widely seen as a symbol of German musical distinction. Furtwängler, the orchestra’s principal conductor, declared in 1932 that the German music in which it specialized was “one of the very few things that actually contribute to elevating [German] prestige.” Hence, he explained, the need for state subsidy, which he saw as “a matter of [national] prestige, that is, to some extent a requirement of national prudence.” By then, though, the orchestra was already heavily subsidized by the city of Berlin, thus paving the way for its takeover by the Nazis.
The Vienna Philharmonic, by contrast, had always been subsidized. Founded in 1842 when the orchestra of what was then the Vienna Court Opera decided to give symphonic concerts on its own, it performed the Austro-German classics for an elite cadre of longtime subscribers. By restricting membership to local players and their pupils, the orchestra cultivated what Furtwängler, who spent as much time conducting in Vienna as in Berlin, described as a “homogeneous and distinct tone quality.” At once dark and sweet, it was as instantly identifiable—and as characteristically Viennese—as the strong, spicy bouquet of a Gewürztraminer wine.
Unlike the Berlin Philharmonic, which played for whoever would pay the tab and programmed new music as a matter of policy, the Vienna Philharmonic chose not to diversify either its haute-bourgeois audience or its conservative repertoire. Instead, it played Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, and Schubert (and, later, Bruckner and Richard Strauss) in Vienna for the Viennese. Starting in the ’20s, the orchestra’s recordings consolidated its reputation as one of the world’s foremost instrumental ensembles, but its internal culture remained proudly insular.
What the two orchestras had in common was a nationalistic ethos, a belief in the superiority of Austro-German musical culture that approached triumphalism. One of the darkest manifestations of this ethos was their shared reluctance to hire Jews. The Berlin Philharmonic employed only four Jewish players in 1933, while the Vienna Philharmonic contained only 11 Jews at the time of the Anschluss, none of whom was hired after 1920. To be sure, such popular Jewish conductors as Otto Klemperer and Bruno Walter continued to work in Vienna for as long as they could. Two months before the Anschluss, Walter led and recorded a performance of the Ninth Symphony of Gustav Mahler, his musical mentor and fellow Jew, who from 1897 to 1907 had been the director of the Vienna Court Opera and one of the Philharmonic’s most admired conductors. But many members of both orchestras were open supporters of fascism, and not a few were anti-Semites who ardently backed Hitler. By 1942, 62 of the 123 active members of the Vienna Philharmonic were Nazi party members.
The admiration that Austro-German classical musicians had for Hitler is not entirely surprising since he was a well-informed music lover who declared in 1938 that “Germany has become the guardian of European culture and civilization.” He made the support of German art, music very much included, a key part of his political program. Accordingly, the Berlin Philharmonic was placed under the direct supervision of Joseph Goebbels, who ensured the cooperation of its members by repeatedly raising their salaries, exempting them from military service, and guaranteeing their old-age pensions. But there had never been any serious question of protest, any more than there would be among the members of the Vienna Philharmonic when the Nazis gobbled up Austria. Save for the Jews and one or two non-Jewish players who were fired for reasons of internal politics, the musicians went along unhesitatingly with Hitler’s desires.
With what did they go along? Above all, they agreed to the scrubbing of Jewish music from their programs and the dismissal of their Jewish colleagues. Some Jewish players managed to escape with their lives, but seven of the Vienna Philharmonic’s 11 Jews were either murdered by the Nazis or died as a direct result of official persecution. In addition, both orchestras performed regularly at official government functions and made tours and other public appearances for propaganda purposes, and both were treated as gems in the diadem of Nazi culture.
As for Furtwängler, the most prominent of the Austro-German orchestral conductors who served the Reich, his relationship to Nazism continues to be debated to this day. He had initially resisted the firing of the Berlin Philharmonic’s Jewish members and protected them for as long as he could. But he was also a committed (if woolly-minded) nationalist who believed that German music had “a different meaning for us Germans than for other nations” and notoriously declared in an open letter to Goebbels that “we all welcome with great joy and gratitude . . . the restoration of our national honor.” Thereafter he cooperated with the Nazis, by all accounts uncomfortably but—it must be said—willingly. A monster of egotism, he saw himself as the greatest living exponent of German music and believed it to be his duty to stay behind and serve a cause higher than what he took to be mere party politics. “Human beings are free wherever Wagner and Beethoven are played, and if they are not free at first, they are freed while listening to these works,” he naively assured a horrified Arturo Toscanini in 1937. “Music transports them to regions where the Gestapo can do them no harm.”O
nce the war was over, the U.S. occupation forces decided to enlist the Berlin Philharmonic in the service of a democratic, anti-Soviet Germany. Furtwängler and Herbert von Karajan, who succeeded him as principal conductor, were officially “de-Nazified” and their orchestra allowed to function largely undisturbed, though six Nazi Party members were fired. The Vienna Philharmonic received similarly privileged treatment.
Needless to say, there was more to this decision than Cold War politics. No one questioned the unique artistic stature of either orchestra. Moreover, the Vienna Philharmonic, precisely because of its insularity, was now seen as a living museum piece, a priceless repository of 19th-century musical tradition. Still, many musicians and listeners, Jews above all, looked askance at both orchestras for years to come, believing them to be tainted by Nazism.
Indeed they were, so much so that they treated many of their surviving Jewish ex-members in a way that can only be described as vicious. In the most blatant individual case, the violinist Szymon Goldberg, who had served as the Berlin Philharmonic’s concertmaster under Furtwängler, was not allowed to reassume his post in 1945 and was subsequently denied a pension. As for the Vienna Philharmonic, the fact that it made Helmut Wobisch its executive director says everything about its deep-seated unwillingness to face up to its collective sins.
Be that as it may, scarcely any prominent musicians chose to boycott either orchestra. Leonard Bernstein went so far as to affect a flippant attitude toward the morally equivocal conduct of the Austro-German artists whom he encountered in Europe after the war. Upon meeting Herbert von Karajan in 1954, he actually told his wife Felicia that he had become “real good friends with von Karajan, whom you would (and will) adore. My first Nazi.”
At the same time, though, Bernstein understood what he was choosing to overlook. When he conducted the Vienna Philharmonic for the first time in 1966, he wrote to his parents:
I am enjoying Vienna enormously—as much as a Jew can. There are so many sad memories here; one deals with so many ex-Nazis (and maybe still Nazis); and you never know if the public that is screaming bravo for you might contain someone who 25 years ago might have shot me dead. But it’s better to forgive, and if possible, forget. The city is so beautiful, and so full of tradition. Everyone here lives for music, especially opera, and I seem to be the new hero.
Did Bernstein sell his soul for the opportunity to work with so justly renowned an orchestra—and did he get his price by insisting that its members perform the symphonies of Mahler, with which he was by then closely identified? It is a fair question, one that does not lend itself to easy answers.
Even more revealing is the case of Bruno Walter, who never forgave Furtwängler for staying behind in Germany, informing him in an angry letter that “your art was used as a conspicuously effective means of propaganda for the regime of the Devil.” Yet Walter’s righteous anger did not stop him from conducting in Vienna after the war. Born in Berlin, he had come to identify with the Philharmonic so closely that it was impossible for him to seriously consider quitting its podium permanently. “Spiritually, I was a Viennese,” he wrote in Theme and Variations, his 1946 autobiography. In 1952, he made a second recording with the Vienna Philharmonic of Mahler’s Das Lied von der Erde, whose premiere he had conducted in 1911 and which he had recorded in Vienna 15 years earlier. One wonders what Walter, who had converted to Christianity but had been driven out of both his native lands for the crime of being Jewish, made of the text of the last movement: “My friend, / On this earth, fortune has not been kind to me! / Where do I go?”
As for the two great orchestras of the Third Reich, both have finally acknowledged their guilt and been forgiven, at least by those who know little of their past. It would occur to no one to decline on principle to perform with either group today. Such a gesture would surely be condemned as morally ostentatious, an exercise in what we now call virtue-signaling. Yet it is impossible to forget what Samuel Lipman wrote in 1993 in Commentary apropos the wartime conduct of Furtwängler: “The ultimate triumph of totalitarianism, I suppose it can be said, is that under its sway only a martyred death can be truly moral.” For the only martyrs of the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics were their Jews. The orchestras themselves live on, tainted and beloved.
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
He knows what to reveal and what to conceal, understands the importance of keeping the semblance of distance between oneself and the story of the day, and comprehends the ins and outs of anonymous sourcing. Within days of his being fired by President Trump on May 9, for example, little green men and women, known only as his “associates,” began appearing in the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post to dispute key points of the president’s account of his dismissal and to promote Comey’s theory of the case.
“In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty,” the New York Times reported on May 11. “Comey Demurred.” The story was a straightforward narrative of events from Comey’s perspective, capped with an obligatory denial from the White House. The next day, the Washington Post reported, “Comey associates dispute Trump’s account of conversations.” The Post did not identify Comey’s associates, other than saying that they were “people who have worked with him.”
Maybe they were the same associates who had gabbed to the Times. Or maybe they were different ones. Who can tell? Regardless, the story these particular associates gave to the Post was readable and gripping. Comey, the Post reported, “was wary of private meetings and discussions with the president and did not offer the assurance, as Trump has claimed, that Trump was not under investigation as part of the probe into Russian interference in last year’s election.”
On May 16, Michael S. Schmidt of the Times published his scoop, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.” Schmidt didn’t see the memo for himself. Parts of it were read to him by—you guessed it—“one of Mr. Comey’s associates.” The following day, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation. On May 18, the Times, citing “two people briefed” on a call between Comey and the president, reported, “Comey, Unsettled by Trump, Is Said to Have Wanted Him Kept at a Distance.” And by the end of that week, Comey had agreed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
As his testimony approached, Comey’s people became more aggressive in their criticisms of the president. “Trump Should Be Scared, Comey Friend Says,” read the headline of a CNN interview with Brookings Institution fellow Benjamin Wittes. This “Comey friend” said he was “very shocked” when he learned that President Trump had asked Comey for loyalty. “I have no doubt that he regarded the group of people around the president as dishonorable,” Wittes said.
Comey, Wittes added, was so uncomfortable at the White House reception in January honoring law enforcement—the one where Comey lumbered across the room and Trump whispered something in his ear—that, as CNN paraphrased it, he “stood in a position so that his blue blazer would blend in with the room’s blue drapes in an effort for Trump to not notice him.” The integrity, the courage—can you feel it?
On June 6, the day before Comey’s prepared testimony was released, more “associates” told ABC that the director would “not corroborate Trump’s claim that on three separate occasions Comey told the president he was not under investigation.” And a “source with knowledge of Comey’s testimony” told CNN the same thing. In addition, ABC reported that, according to “a source familiar with Comey’s thinking,” the former director would say that Trump’s actions stopped short of obstruction of justice.
Maybe those sources weren’t as “familiar with Comey’s thinking” as they thought or hoped? To maximize the press coverage he already dominated, Comey had authorized the Senate Intelligence Committee to release his testimony ahead of his personal interview. That testimony told a different story than what had been reported by CNN and ABC (and by the Post on May 12). Comey had in fact told Trump the president was not under investigation—on January 6, January 27, and March 30. Moreover, the word “obstruction” did not appear at all in his written text. The senators asked Comey if he felt Trump obstructed justice. He declined to answer either way.
My guess is that Comey’s associates lacked Comey’s scalpel-like, almost Jesuitical ability to make distinctions, and therefore misunderstood what he was telling them to say to the press. Because it’s obvious Comey was the one behind the stories of Trump’s dishonesty and bad behavior. He admitted as much in front of the cameras in a remarkable exchange with Senator Susan Collins of Maine.
Comey said that, after Trump tweeted on May 12 that he’d better hope there aren’t “tapes” of their conversations, “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.”
Collins asked whether that friend had been Wittes, known to cable news junkies as Comey’s bestie. Comey said no. The source for the New York Times article was “a good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School,” Daniel Richman.
Every time I watch or read that exchange, I am amazed. Here is the former director of the FBI just flat-out admitting that, for months, he wrote down every interaction he had with the president of the United States because he wanted a written record in case the president ever fired or lied about him. And when the president did fire and lie about him, that director set in motion a series of public disclosures with the intent of not only embarrassing the president, but also forcing the appointment of a special counsel who might end up investigating the president for who knows what. And none of this would have happened if the president had not fired Comey or tweeted about him. He told the Senate that if Trump hadn’t dismissed him, he most likely would still be on the job.
Rarely, in my view, are high officials so transparent in describing how Washington works. Comey revealed to the world that he was keeping a file on his boss, that he used go-betweens to get his story into the press, that “investigative journalism” is often just powerful people handing documents to reporters to further their careers or agendas or even to get revenge. And as long as you maintain some distance from the fallout, and stick to the absolute letter of the law, you will come out on top, so long as you have a small army of nightingales singing to reporters on your behalf.
“It’s the end of the Comey era,” A.B. Stoddard said on Special Report with Bret Baier the other day. On the contrary: I have a feeling that, as the Russia investigation proceeds, we will be hearing much more from Comey. And from his “associates.” And his “friends.” And persons “familiar with his thinking.”
Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!
In April, COMMENTARY asked a wide variety of writers,
thinkers, and broadcasters to respond to this question: Is free speech under threat in the United States? We received twenty-seven responses. We publish them here in alphabetical order.
Floyd AbramsFree expression threatened? By Donald Trump? I guess you could say so.
When a president engages in daily denigration of the press, when he characterizes it as the enemy of the people, when he repeatedly says that the libel laws should be “loosened” so he can personally commence more litigation, when he says that journalists shouldn’t be allowed to use confidential sources, it is difficult even to suggest that he has not threatened free speech. And when he says to the head of the FBI (as former FBI director James Comey has said that he did) that Comey should consider “putting reporters in jail for publishing classified information,” it is difficult not to take those threats seriously.
The harder question, though, is this: How real are the threats? Or, as Michael Gerson put it in the Washington Post: Will Trump “go beyond mere Twitter abuse and move against institutions that limit his power?” Some of the president’s threats against the institution of the press, wittingly or not, have been simply preposterous. Surely someone has told him by now that neither he nor Congress can “loosen” libel laws; while each state has its own libel law, there is no federal libel law and thus nothing for him to loosen. What he obviously takes issue with is the impact that the Supreme Court’s 1964 First Amendment opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan has had on state libel laws. The case determined that public officials who sue for libel may not prevail unless they demonstrate that the statements made about them were false and were made with actual knowledge or suspicion of that falsity. So his objection to the rules governing libel law is to nothing less than the application of the First Amendment itself.
In other areas, however, the Trump administration has far more power to imperil free speech. We live under an Espionage Act, adopted a century ago, which is both broad in its language and uncommonly vague in its meaning. As such, it remains a half-open door through which an administration that is hostile to free speech might walk. Such an administration could initiate criminal proceedings against journalists who write about defense- or intelligence-related topics on the basis that classified information was leaked to them by present or former government employees. No such action has ever been commenced against a journalist. Press lawyers and civil-liberties advocates have strong arguments that the law may not be read so broadly and still be consistent with the First Amendment. But the scope of the Espionage Act and the impact of the First Amendment upon its interpretation remain unknown.
A related area in which the attitude of an administration toward the press may affect the latter’s ability to function as a check on government relates to the ability of journalists to protect the identity of their confidential sources. The Obama administration prosecuted more Espionage Act cases against sources of information to journalists than all prior administrations combined. After a good deal of deserved press criticism, it agreed to expand the internal guidelines of the Department of Justice designed to limit the circumstances under which such source revelation is demanded. But the guidelines are none too protective and are, after all, simply guidelines. A new administration is free to change or limit them or, in fact, abandon them altogether. In this area, as in so many others, it is too early to judge the ultimate treatment of free expression by the Trump administration. But the threats are real, and there is good reason to be wary.
Floyd Abrams is the author of The Soul of the First Amendment (Yale University Press, 2017).
Ayaan Hirsi AliFreedom of speech is being threatened in the United States by a nascent culture of hostility to different points of view. As political divisions in America have deepened, a conformist mentality of “right thinking” has spread across the country. Increasingly, American universities, where no intellectual doctrine ought to escape critical scrutiny, are some of the most restrictive domains when it comes to asking open-ended questions on subjects such as Islam.
Legally, speech in the United States is protected to a degree unmatched in almost any industrialized country. The U.S. has avoided unpredictable Canadian-style restrictions on speech, for example. I remain optimistic that as long as we have the First Amendment in the U.S., any attempt at formal legal censorship will be vigorously challenged.
Culturally, however, matters are very different in America. The regressive left is the forerunner threatening free speech on any issue that is important to progressives. The current pressure coming from those who call themselves “social-justice warriors” is unlikely to lead to successful legislation to curb the First Amendment. Instead, censorship is spreading in the cultural realm, particularly at institutions of higher learning.
The way activists of the regressive left achieve silence or censorship is by creating a taboo, and one of the most pernicious taboos in operation today is the word “Islamophobia.” Islamists are similarly motivated to rule any critical scrutiny of Islamic doctrine out of order. There is now a university center (funded by Saudi money) in the U.S. dedicated to monitoring and denouncing incidences of “Islamophobia.”
The term “Islamophobia” is used against critics of political Islam, but also against progressive reformers within Islam. The term implies an irrational fear that is tainted by hatred, and it has had a chilling effect on free speech. In fact, “Islamophobia” is a poorly defined term. Islam is not a race, and it is very often perfectly rational to fear some expressions of Islam. No set of ideas should be beyond critical scrutiny.
To push back in this cultural realm—in our universities, in public discourse—those favoring free speech should focus more on the message of dawa, the set of ideas that the Islamists want to promote. If the aims of dawa are sufficiently exposed, ordinary Americans and Muslim Americans will reject it. The Islamist message is a message of divisiveness, misogyny, and hatred. It’s anachronistic and wants people to live by tribal norms dating from the seventh century. The best antidote to Islamic extremism is the revelation of what its primary objective is: a society governed by Sharia. This is the opposite of censorship: It is documenting reality. What is life like in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Northern Nigerian States? What is the true nature of Sharia law?
Islamists want to hide the true meaning of Sharia, Jihad, and the implications for women, gays, religious minorities, and infidels under the veil of “Islamophobia.” Islamists use “Islamophobia” to obfuscate their vision and imply that any scrutiny of political Islam is hatred and bigotry. The antidote to this is more exposure and more speech.
As pressure on freedom of speech increases from the regressive left, we must reject the notions that only Muslims can speak about Islam, and that any critical examination of Islamic doctrines is inherently “racist.”
Instead of contorting Western intellectual traditions so as not to offend our Muslim fellow citizens, we need to defend the Muslim dissidents who are risking their lives to promote the human rights we take for granted: equality for women, tolerance of all religions and orientations, our hard-won freedoms of speech and thought.
It is by nurturing and protecting such speech that progressive reforms can emerge within Islam. By accepting the increasingly narrow confines of acceptable discourse on issues such as Islam, we do dissidents and progressive reformers within Islam a grave disservice. For truly progressive reforms within Islam to be possible, full freedom of speech will be required.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the founder of the AHA Foundation.
Lee C. BollingerI know it is too much to expect that political discourse mimic the measured, self-questioning, rational, footnoting standards of the academy, but there is a difference between robust political debate and political debate infected with fear or panic. The latter introduces a state of mind that is visceral and irrational. In the realm of fear, we move beyond the reach of reason and a sense of proportionality. When we fear, we lose the capacity to listen and can become insensitive and mean.
Our Constitution is well aware of this fact about the human mind and of its negative political consequences. In the First Amendment jurisprudence established over the past century, we find many expressions of the problematic state of mind that is produced by fear. Among the most famous and potent is that of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California in 1927, one of the many cases involving aggravated fears of subversive threats from abroad. “It is the function of (free) speech,” he said, “to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” “Men feared witches,” Brandeis continued, “and burned women.”
Today, our “witches” are terrorists, and Brandeis’s metaphorical “women” include the refugees (mostly children) and displaced persons, immigrants, and foreigners whose lives have been thrown into suspension and doubt by policies of exclusion.
The same fears of the foreign that take hold of a population inevitably infect our internal interactions and institutions, yielding suppression of unpopular and dissenting voices, victimization of vulnerable groups, attacks on the media, and the rise of demagoguery, with its disdain for facts, reason, expertise, and tolerance.
All of this poses a very special obligation on those of us within universities. Not only must we make the case in every venue for the values that form the core of who we are and what we do, but we must also live up to our own principles of free inquiry and fearless engagement with all ideas. This is why recent incidents on a handful of college campuses disrupting and effectively censoring speakers is so alarming. Such acts not only betray a basic principle but also inflame a rising prejudice against the academic community, and they feed efforts to delegitimize our work, at the very moment when it’s most needed.
I do not for a second support the view that this generation has an unhealthy aversion to engaging differences of opinion. That is a modern trope of polarization, as is the portrayal of universities as hypocritical about academic freedom and political correctness. But now, in this environment especially, universities must be at the forefront of defending the rights of all students and faculty to listen to controversial voices, to engage disagreeable viewpoints, and to make every effort to demonstrate our commitment to the sort of fearless and spirited debate that we are simultaneously asking of the larger society. Anyone with a voice can shout over a speaker; but being able to listen to and then effectively rebut those with whom we disagree—particularly those who themselves peddle intolerance—is one of the greatest skills our education can bestow. And it is something our democracy desperately needs more of. That is why, I say to you now, if speakers who are being denied access to other campuses come here, I will personally volunteer to introduce them, and listen to them, however much I may disagree with them. But I will also never hesitate to make clear why I disagree with them.
Lee C. Bollinger is the 19th president of Columbia University and the author of Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century. This piece has been excerpted from President Bollinger’s May 17 commencement address.
Richard A. Epstein
Today, the greatest threat to the constitutional protection of freedom of speech comes from campus rabble-rousers who invoke this very protection. In their book, the speech of people like Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald constitutes a form of violence, bordering on genocide, that receives no First Amendment protection. Enlightened protestors are both bound and entitled to shout them down, by force or other disruptive actions, if their universities are so foolish as to extend them an invitation to speak. Any indignant minority may take the law into its own hands to eradicate the intellectual cancer before it spreads on their own campus.
By such tortured logic, a new generation of vigilantes distorts the First Amendment doctrine: Speech becomes violence, and violence becomes heroic acts of self-defense. The standard First Amendment interpretation emphatically rejects that view. Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t let you say what you want when and wherever you want to. Your freedom of speech is subject to the same limitations as your freedom of action. So you have no constitutional license to assault other people, to lie to them, or to form cartels to bilk them in the marketplace. But folks such as Murray, Mac Donald, and even Yiannopoulos do not come close to crossing into that forbidden territory. They are not using, for example, “fighting words,” rightly limited to words or actions calculated to provoke immediate aggression against a known target. Fighting words are worlds apart from speech that provokes a negative reaction in those who find your speech offensive solely because of the content of its message.
This distinction is central to the First Amendment. Fighting words have to be blocked by well-tailored criminal and civil sanctions lest some people gain license to intimidate others from speaking or peaceably assembling. The remedy for mere offense is to speak one’s mind in response. But it never gives anyone the right to block the speech of others, lest everyone be able to unilaterally increase his sphere of action by getting really angry about the beliefs of others. No one has the right to silence others by working himself into a fit of rage.
Obviously, it is intolerable to let mutual animosity generate factional warfare, whereby everyone can use force to silence rivals. To avoid this war of all against all, each side claims that only its actions are privileged. These selective claims quickly degenerate into a form of viewpoint discrimination, which undermines one of the central protections that traditional First Amendment law erects: a wall against each and every group out to destroy the level playing field on which robust political debate rests. Every group should be at risk for having its message fall flat. The new campus radicals want to upend that understanding by shutting down their adversaries if their universities do not. Their aggression must be met, if necessary, by counterforce. Silence in the face of aggression is not an acceptable alternative.
Richard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law.
David FrenchWe’re living in the midst of a troubling paradox. At the exact same time that First Amendment jurisprudence has arguably never been stronger and more protective of free expression, millions of Americans feel they simply can’t speak freely. Indeed, talk to Americans living and working in the deep-blue confines of the academy, Hollywood, and the tech sector, and you’ll get a sense of palpable fear. They’ll explain that they can’t say what they think and keep their jobs, their friends, and sometimes even their families.
The government isn’t cracking down or censoring; instead, Americans are using free speech to destroy free speech. For example, a social-media shaming campaign is an act of free speech. So is an economic boycott. So is turning one’s back on a public speaker. So is a private corporation firing a dissenting employee for purely political reasons. Each of these actions is largely protected from government interference, and each one represents an expression of the speaker’s ideas and values.
The problem, however, is obvious. The goal of each of these kinds of actions isn’t to persuade; it’s to intimidate. The goal isn’t to foster dialogue but to coerce conformity. The result is a marketplace of ideas that has been emptied of all but the approved ideological vendors—at least in those communities that are dominated by online thugs and corporate bullies. Indeed, this mindset has become so prevalent that in places such as Portland, Berkeley, Middlebury, and elsewhere, the bullies and thugs have crossed the line from protected—albeit abusive—speech into outright shout-downs and mob violence.
But there’s something else going on, something that’s insidious in its own way. While politically correct shaming still has great power in deep-blue America, its effect in the rest of the country is to trigger a furious backlash, one characterized less by a desire for dialogue and discourse than by its own rage and scorn. So we’re moving toward two Americas—one that ruthlessly (and occasionally illegally) suppresses dissenting speech and the other that is dangerously close to believing that the opposite of political correctness isn’t a fearless expression of truth but rather the fearless expression of ideas best calculated to enrage your opponents.
The result is a partisan feedback loop where right-wing rage spurs left-wing censorship, which spurs even more right-wing rage. For one side, a true free-speech culture is a threat to feelings, sensitivities, and social justice. The other side waves high the banner of “free speech” to sometimes elevate the worst voices to the highest platforms—not so much to protect the First Amendment as to infuriate the hated “snowflakes” and trigger the most hysterical overreactions.
The culturally sustainable argument for free speech is something else entirely. It reminds the cultural left of its own debt to free speech while reminding the political right that a movement allegedly centered around constitutional values can’t abandon the concept of ordered liberty. The culture of free speech thrives when all sides remember their moral responsibilities—to both protect the right of dissent and to engage in ideological combat with a measure of grace and humility.
David French is a senior writer at National Review.
Pamela GellerThe real question isn’t whether free speech is under threat in the United States, but rather, whether it’s irretrievably lost. Can we get it back? Not without war, I suspect, as is evidenced by the violence at colleges whenever there’s the shamefully rare event of a conservative speaker on campus.
Free speech is the soul of our nation and the foundation of all our other freedoms. If we can’t speak out against injustice and evil, those forces will prevail. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
With that principle in mind, I organized a free-speech event in Garland, Texas. The world had recently been rocked by the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. My version of “Je Suis Charlie” was an event here in America to show that we can still speak freely and draw whatever we like in the Land of the Free. Yet even after jihadists attacked our event, I was blamed—by Donald Trump among others—for provoking Muslims. And if I tried to hold a similar event now, no arena in the country would allow me to do so—not just because of the security risk, but because of the moral cowardice of all intellectual appeasers.
Under what law is it wrong to depict Muhammad? Under Islamic law. But I am not a Muslim, I don’t live under Sharia. America isn’t under Islamic law, yet for standing for free speech, I’ve been:
- Prevented from running our advertisements in every major city in this country. We have won free-speech lawsuits all over the country, which officials circumvent by prohibiting all political ads (while making exceptions for ads from Muslim advocacy groups);
- Shunned by the right, shut out of the Conservative Political Action Conference;
- Shunned by Jewish groups at the behest of terror-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations;
- Blacklisted from speaking at universities;
- Prevented from publishing books, for security reasons and because publishers fear shaming from the left;
- Banned from Britain.
A Seattle court accused me of trying to shut down free speech after we merely tried to run an FBI poster on global terrorism, because authorities had banned all political ads in other cities to avoid running ours. Seattle blamed us for that, which was like blaming a woman for being raped because she was wearing a short skirt.
This kind of vilification and shunning is key to the left’s plan to shut down all dissent from its agenda—they make legislation restricting speech unnecessary.
The same refusal to allow our point of view to be heard has manifested itself elsewhere. The foundation of my work is individual rights and equality for all before the law. These are the foundational principles of our constitutional republic. That is now considered controversial. Truth is the new hate speech. Truth is going to be criminalized.
The First Amendment doesn’t only protect ideas that are sanctioned by the cultural and political elites. If “hate speech” laws are enacted, who would decide what’s permissible and what’s forbidden? The government? The gunmen in Garland?
There has been an inversion of the founding premise of this nation. No longer is it the subordination of might to right, but right to might. History is repeatedly deformed with the bloody consequences of this transition.
Pamela Geller is the editor in chief of the Geller Report and president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.
Jonah GoldbergOf course free speech is under threat in America. Frankly, it’s always under threat in America because it’s always under threat everywhere. Ronald Reagan was right when he said in 1961, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
This is more than political boilerplate. Reagan identified the source of the threat: human nature. God may have endowed us with a right to liberty, but he didn’t give us all a taste for it. As with most finer things, we must work to acquire a taste for it. That is what civilization—or at least our civilization—is supposed to do: cultivate attachments to certain ideals. “Cultivate” shares the same Latin root as “culture,” cultus, and properly understood they mean the same thing: to grow, nurture, and sustain through labor.
In the past, threats to free speech have taken many forms—nationalist passion, Comstockery (both good and bad), political suppression, etc.—but the threat to free speech today is different. It is less top-down and more bottom-up. We are cultivating a generation of young people to reject free speech as an important value.
One could mark the beginning of the self-esteem movement with Nathaniel Branden’s 1969 paper, “The Psychology of Self-Esteem,” which claimed that “feelings of self-esteem were the key to success in life.” This understandable idea ran amok in our schools and in our culture. When I was a kid, Saturday-morning cartoons were punctuated with public-service announcements telling kids: “The most important person in the whole wide world is you, and you hardly even know you!”
The self-esteem craze was just part of the cocktail of educational fads. Other ingredients included multiculturalism, the anti-bullying crusade, and, of course, that broad phenomenon known as “political correctness.” Combined, they’ve produced a generation that rejects the old adage “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me” in favor of the notion that “words hurt.” What we call political correctness has been on college campuses for decades. But it lacked a critical mass of young people who were sufficiently receptive to it to make it a fully successful ideology. The campus commissars welcomed the new “snowflakes” with open arms; truly, these are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
“Words hurt” is a fashionable concept in psychology today. (See Psychology Today: “Why Words Can Hurt at Least as Much as Sticks and Stones.”) But it’s actually a much older idea than the “sticks and stones” aphorism. For most of human history, it was a crime to say insulting or “injurious” things about aristocrats, rulers, the Church, etc. That tendency didn’t evaporate with the Divine Right of Kings. Jonathan Haidt has written at book length about our natural capacity to create zones of sanctity, immune from reason.
And that is the threat free speech faces today. Those who inveigh against “hate speech” are in reality fighting “heresy speech”—ideas that do “violence” to sacred notions of self-esteem, racial or gender equality, climate change, and so on. Put whatever label you want on it, contemporary “social justice” progressivism acts as a religion, and it has no patience for blasphemy.
When Napoleon’s forces converted churches into stables, the clergy did not object on the grounds that regulations regarding the proper care and feeding of animals had been violated. They complained of sacrilege and blasphemy. When Charles Murray or Christina Hoff Summers visits college campuses, the protestors are behaving like the zealous acolytes of St. Jerome. Appeals to the First Amendment have as much power over the “antifa” fanatics as appeals to Odin did to champions of the New Faith.
That is the real threat to free speech today.
Jonah Goldberg is a senior editor at National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
KC JohnsonIn early May, the Washington Post urged universities to make clear that “racist signs, symbols, and speech are off-limits.” Given the extraordinarily broad definition of what constitutes “racist” speech at most institutions of higher education, this demand would single out most right-of-center (and, in some cases, even centrist and liberal) discourse on issues of race or ethnicity. The editorial provided the highest-profile example of how hostility to free speech, once confined to the ideological fringe on campus, has migrated to the liberal mainstream.
The last few years have seen periodic college protests—featuring claims that significant amounts of political speech constitute “violence,” thereby justifying censorship—followed by even more troubling attempts to appease the protesters. After the mob scene that greeted Charles Murray upon his visit to Middlebury College, for instance, the student government criticized any punishment for the protesters, and several student leaders wanted to require that future speakers conform to the college’s “community standard” on issues of race, gender, and ethnicity. In the last few months, similar attempts to stifle the free exchange of ideas in the name of promoting diversity occurred at Wesleyan, Claremont McKenna, and Duke. Offering an extreme interpretation of this point of view, one CUNY professor recently dismissed dialogue as “inherently conservative,” since it reinforced the “relations of power that presently exist.”
It’s easy, of course, to dismiss campus hostility to free speech as affecting only a small segment of American public life—albeit one that trains the next generation of judges, legislators, and voters. But, as Jonathan Chait observed in 2015, denying “the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender” has broad appeal on the left. It is only most apparent on campus because “the academy is one of the few bastions of American life where the political left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others.” During his time in office, Barack Obama generally urged fellow liberals to support open intellectual debate. But the current campus environment previews the position of free speech in a post-Obama Democratic Party, increasingly oriented around identity politics.
Waning support on one end of the ideological spectrum for this bedrock American principle should provide a political opening for the other side. The Trump administration, however, seems poorly suited to make the case. Throughout his public career, Trump has rarely supported free speech, even in the abstract, and has periodically embraced legal changes to facilitate libel lawsuits. Moreover, the right-wing populism that motivates Trump’s base has a long tradition of ideological hostility to civil liberties of all types. Even in campus contexts, conservatives have defended free speech inconsistently, as seen in recent calls that CUNY disinvite anti-Zionist fanatic Linda Sarsour as a commencement speaker.
In a sharply polarized political environment, awash in dubiously-sourced information, free speech is all the more important. Yet this same environment has seen both sides, most blatantly elements of the left on campuses, demand restrictions on their ideological foes’ free speech in the name of promoting a greater good.
KC Johnson is a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center.
Laura KipnisI find myself with a strange-bedfellows problem lately. Here I am, a left-wing feminist professor invited onto the pages of Commentary—though I’d be thrilled if it were still 1959—while fielding speaking requests from right-wing think tanks and libertarians who oppose child-labor laws.
Somehow I’ve ended up in the middle of the free-speech-on-campus debate. My initial crime was publishing a somewhat contentious essay about campus sexual paranoia that put me on the receiving end of Title IX complaints. Apparently I’d created a “hostile environment” at my university. I was investigated (for 72 days). Then I wrote up what I’d learned about these campus inquisitions in a second essay. Then I wrote about it all some more, in a book exposing the kangaroo-court elements of the Title IX process—and the extra-legal gag orders imposed on everyone caught in its widening snare.
I can’t really comment on whether more charges have been filed against me over the book. I’ll just say that writing about being a Title IX respondent could easily become a life’s work. I learned, shortly after writing this piece, that I and my publisher were being sued for defamation, among other things.
Is free speech under threat on American campuses? Yes. We know all about student activists who wish to shut down talks by people with opposing views. I got smeared with a bit of that myself, after a speaking invitation at Wellesley—some students made a video protesting my visit before I arrived. The talk went fine, though a group of concerned faculty circulated an open letter afterward also protesting the invitation: My views on sexual politics were too heretical, and might have offended students.
I didn’t take any of this too seriously, even as right-wing pundits crowed, with Wellesley as their latest outrage bait. It was another opportunity to mock student activists, and the fact that I was myself a feminist rather than a Charles Murray or a Milo Yiannopoulos, made them positively gleeful.
I do find myself wondering where all my new free-speech pals were when another left-wing professor, Steven Salaita, was fired (or if you prefer euphemism, “his job offer was withdrawn”) from the University of Illinois after he tweeted criticism of Israel’s Gaza policy. Sure the tweets were hyperbolic, but hyperbole and strong opinions are protected speech, too.
I guess free speech is easy to celebrate until it actually challenges something. Funny, I haven’t seen Milo around lately—so beloved by my new friends when he was bashing minorities and transgender kids. Then he mistakenly said something authentic (who knew he was capable of it!), reminiscing about an experience a lot of gay men have shared: teenage sex with older men. He tried walking it back—no, no, he’d been a victim, not a participant—but his fan base was shrieking about pedophilia and fleeing in droves. Gee, they were all so against “political correctness” a few minutes before.
It’s easy to be a free-speech fan when your feathers aren’t being ruffled. No doubt what makes me palatable to the anti-PC crowd is having thus far failed to ruffle them enough. I’m just going to have to work harder.
Laura Kipnis’s latest book is Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus.
Eugene KontorovichThe free and open exchange of views—especially politically conservative or traditionally religious ones—is being challenged. This is taking place not just at college campuses but throughout our public spaces and cultural institutions. James Watson was fired from the lab he led since 1968 and could not speak at New York University because of petty, censorious students who would not know DNA from LSD. Our nation’s founders and heroes are being “disappeared” from public commemoration, like Trotsky from a photograph of Soviet rulers.
These attacks on “free speech” are not the result of government action. They are not what the First Amendment protects against. The current methods—professional and social shaming, exclusion, and employment termination—are more inchoate, and their effects are multiplied by self-censorship. A young conservative legal scholar might find himself thinking: “If the late Justice Antonin Scalia can posthumously be deemed a ‘bigot’ by many academics, what chance have I?”
Ironically, artists and intellectuals have long prided themselves on being the first defenders of free speech. Today, it is the institutions of both popular and high culture that are the censors. Is there one poet in the country who would speak out for Ann Coulter?
The inhibition of speech at universities is part of a broader social phenomenon of making longstanding, traditional views and practices sinful overnight. Conservatives have not put up much resistance to this. To paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s famous dictum: “First they came for Robert E. Lee, and I said nothing, because Robert E. Lee meant nothing to me.”
The situation with respect to Israel and expressions of support for it deserves separate discussion. Even as university administrators give political power to favored ideologies by letting them create “safe spaces” (safe from opposing views), Jews find themselves and their state at the receiving end of claims of apartheid—modern day blood libels. It is not surprising if Jewish students react by demanding that they get a safe space of their own. It is even less surprising if their parents, paying $65,000 a year, want their children to have a nicer time of it. One hears Jewish groups frequently express concern about Jewish students feeling increasingly isolated and uncomfortable on campus.
But demanding selective protection from the new ideological commissars is unlikely to bring the desired results. First, this new ideology, even if it can be harnessed momentarily to give respite to harassed Jews on campus, is ultimately illiberal and will be controlled by “progressive” forces. Second, it is not so terrible for Jews in the Diaspora to feel a bit uncomfortable. It has been the common condition of Jews throughout the millennia. The social awkwardness that Jews at liberal arts schools might feel in being associated with Israel is of course one of the primary justifications for the Jewish State. Facing the snowflakes incapable of hearing a dissonant view—but who nonetheless, in the grip of intersectional ecstasy, revile Jewish self-determination—Jewish students should toughen up.
Eugene Kontorovich teaches constitutional law at Northwestern University and heads the international law department of the Kohelet Policy Forum in Jerusalem.
Nicholas LemannThere’s an old Tom Wolfe essay in which he describes being on a panel discussion at Princeton in 1965 and provoking the other panelists by announcing that America, rather than being in crisis, is in the middle of a “happiness explosion.” He was arguing that the mass effects of 20 years of post–World War II prosperity made for a larger phenomenon than the Vietnam War, the racial crisis, and the other primary concerns of intellectuals at the time.
In the same spirit, I’d say that we are in the middle of a free-speech explosion, because of 20-plus years of the Internet and 10-plus years of social media. If one understands speech as disseminated individual opinion, then surely we live in the free-speech-est society in the history of the world. Anybody with access to the unimpeded World Wide Web can say anything to a global audience, and anybody can hear anything, too. All threats to free speech should be understood in the context of this overwhelmingly reality.
It is a comforting fantasy that a genuine free-speech regime will empower mainly “good,” but previously repressed, speech. Conversely, repressive regimes that are candid enough to explain their anti-free-speech policies usually say that they’re not against free speech, just “bad” speech. We have to accept that more free speech probably means, in the aggregate, more bad speech, and also a weakening of the power, authority, and economic support for information professionals such as journalists. Welcome to the United States in 2017.
I am lucky enough to live and work on the campus of a university, Columbia, that has been blessedly free of successful attempts to repress free speech. Just in the last few weeks, Charles Murray and Dinesh D’Souza have spoken here without incident. But, yes, the evidently growing popularity of the idea that “hate speech” shouldn’t be permitted on campuses is a problem, especially, it seems, at small private liberal-arts colleges. We should all do our part, and I do, by frequently and publicly endorsing free-speech principles. Opposing the BDS movement falls squarely into that category.
It’s not just on campuses that free-speech vigilance is needed, though. The number-one threat to free speech, to my mind, is that the wide-open Web has been replaced by privately owned platforms such as Facebook and Google as the way most people experience the public life of the Internet. These companies are committed to banning “hate speech,” and they are eager to operate freely in countries, like China, that don’t permit free political speech. That makes for a far more consequential constrained environment than any campus’s speech code.
Also, Donald Trump regularly engages in presidentially unprecedented rhetoric demonizing people who disagree with him. He seems to think this is all in good fun, but, as we have already seen at his rallies, not everybody hears it that way. The place where Trumpism will endanger free speech isn’t in the center—the White House press room—but at the periphery, for example in the way that local police handle bumptious protestors and the journalists covering them. This is already happening around the country. If Trump were as disciplined and knowledgeable as Vladimir Putin or Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which so far he seems not to be, then free speech could be in even more serious danger from government, which in most places is its usual main enemy.
Nicholas Lemann is a professor at Columbia Journalism School and a staff writer for the New Yorker.
Michael J. LewisFree speech is a right but it is also a habit, and where the habit shrivels so will the right. If free speech today is in headlong retreat—everywhere threatened by regulation, organized harassment, and even violence—it is in part because our political culture allowed the practice of persuasive oratory to atrophy. The process began in 1973, an unforeseen side effect of Roe v. Wade. Legislators were delighted to learn that by relegating this divisive matter of public policy to the Supreme Court and adopting a merely symbolic position, they could sit all the more safely in their safe seats.
Since then, one crucial question of public policy after another has been punted out of the realm of politics and into the judicial. Issues that might have been debated with all the rhetorical agility of a Lincoln and a Douglas, and then subjected to a process of negotiation, compromise, and voting, have instead been settled by decree: e.g., Chevron, Kelo, Obergefell. The consequences for speech have been pernicious. Since the time of Pericles, deliberative democracy has been predicated on the art of persuasion, which demands the forceful clarity of thought and expression without which no one has ever been persuaded. But a legislature that relegates its authority to judges and regulators will awaken to discover its oratorical culture has been stunted. When politicians, rather than seeking to convince and win over, prefer to project a studied and pleasant vagueness, debate withers into tedious defensive performance. It has been decades since any presidential debate has seen any sustained give and take over a matter of policy. If there is any suspense at all, it is only the possibility that a fatigued or peeved candidate might blurt out that tactless shard of truth known as a gaffe.
A generation accustomed to hearing platitudes smoothly dispensed from behind a teleprompter will find the speech of a fearless extemporaneous speaker to be startling, even disquieting; unfamiliar ideas always are. Unhappily, they have been taught to interpret that disquiet as an injury done to them, rather than as a premise offered to them to consider. All this would not have happened—certainly not to this extent—had not our deliberative democracy decided a generation ago that it preferred the security of incumbency to the risks of unshackled debate. The compulsory contraction of free speech on college campuses is but the logical extension of the voluntary contraction of free speech in our political culture.
Michael J. Lewis’s new book is City of Refuge: Separatists and Utopian Town Planning (Princeton University Press).
Heather Mac DonaldThe answer to the symposium question depends on how powerful the transmission belt is between academia and the rest of the country. On college campuses, violence and brute force are silencing speakers who challenge left-wing campus orthodoxies. These totalitarian outbreaks have been met with listless denunciations by college presidents, followed by . . . virtually nothing. As of mid-May, the only discipline imposed for 2017’s mass attacks on free speech at UC Berkeley, Middlebury, and Clare-mont McKenna College was a letter of reprimand inserted—sometimes only temporarily—into the files of several dozen Middlebury students, accompanied by a brief period of probation. Previous outbreaks of narcis-sistic incivility, such as the screaming-girl fit at Yale and the assaults on attendees of Yale’s Buckley program, were discreetly ignored by college administrators.
Meanwhile, the professoriate unapologetically defends censorship and violence. After the February 1 riot in Berkeley to prevent Milo Yiannapoulos from speaking, Déborah Blocker, associate professor of French at UC Berkeley, praised the rioters. They were “very well-organized and very efficient,” Blocker reported admiringly to her fellow professors. “They attacked property but they attacked it very sparingly, destroying just enough University property to obtain the cancellation order for the MY event and making sure no one in the crowd got hurt” (emphasis in original). (In fact, perceived Milo and Donald Trump supporters were sucker-punched and maced; businesses downtown were torched and vandalized.) New York University’s vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity, Ulrich Baer, displayed Orwellian logic by claiming in a New York Times op-ed that shutting down speech “should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people.”
Will non-academic institutions take up this zeal for outright censorship? Other ideological products of the left-wing academy have been fully absorbed and operationalized. Racial victimology, which drives much of the campus censorship, is now standard in government and business. Corporate diversity trainers counsel that bias is responsible for any lack of proportional racial representation in the corporate ranks. Racial disparities in school discipline and incarceration are universally attributed to racism rather than to behavior. Public figures have lost jobs for violating politically correct taboos.
Yet Americans possess an instinctive commitment to the First Amendment. Federal judges, hardly an extension of the Federalist Society, have overwhelmingly struck down campus speech codes. It is hard to imagine that they would be any more tolerant of the hate-speech legislation so prevalent in Europe. So the question becomes: At what point does the pressure to conform to the elite worldview curtail freedom of thought and expression, even without explicit bans on speech?
Social stigma against conservative viewpoints is not the same as actual censorship. But the line can blur. The Obama administration used regulatory power to impose a behavioral conformity on public and private entities. School administrators may have technically still possessed the right to dissent from novel theories of gender, but they had to behave as if they were fully on board with the transgender revolution when it came to allowing boys to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms.
Had Hillary Clinton had been elected president, the federal bureaucracy would have mimicked campus diversocrats with even greater zeal. That threat, at least, has been avoided. Heresies against left-wing dogma may still enter the public arena, if only by the back door. The mainstream media have lurched even further left in the Trump era, but the conservative media, however mocked and marginalized, are expanding (though Twitter and Facebook’s censorship of conservative speakers could be a harbinger of more official silencing).
Outside the academy, free speech is still legally protected, but its exercise requires ever greater determination.
Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of The War on Cops.
John McWhorterThere is a certain mendacity, as Brick put it in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, in our discussion of free speech on college campuses. Namely, none of us genuinely wish that absolutely all issues be aired in the name of education and open-mindedness. To insist so is to pretend that civilized humanity makes nothing we could call advancement in philosophical consensus.
I doubt we need “free speech” on issues such as whether slavery and genocide are okay, whether it has been a mistake to view women as men’s equals, or to banish as antique the idea that whites are a master race while other peoples represent a lower rung on the Darwinian scale. With all due reverence of John Stuart Mill’s advocacy for the regular airing of even noxious views in order to reinforce clarity on why they were rejected, we are also human beings with limited time. A commitment to the Enlightenment justifiably will decree that certain views are, indeed, no longer in need of discussion.
However, our modern social-justice warriors are claiming that this no-fly zone of discussion is vaster than any conception of logic or morality justifies. We are being told that questions regarding the modern proposals about cultural appropriation, about whether even passing infelicitous statements constitute racism in the way that formalized segregation and racist disparagement did, or about whether social disparities can be due to cultural legacies rather than structural impediments, are as indisputably egregious, backwards, and abusive as the benighted views of the increasingly distant past.
That is, the new idea is not only that discrimination and inequality still exist, but that to even question the left’s utopian expectation on such matters justifies the same furious, sloganistic and even physically violent resistance that was once levelled against those designated heretics by a Christian hegemony.
Of course the protesters in question do not recognize themselves in a portrait as opponents of something called heresy. They suppose that Galileo’s opponents were clearly wrong but that they, today, are actually correct in a way that no intellectual or moral argument could coherently deny.
As such, we have students allowed to decree college campuses as “racist” when they are the least racist spaces on the planet—because they are, predictably given the imperfection of humans, not perfectly free of passingly unsavory interactions. Thinkers invited to talk for a portion of an hour from the right rather than the left and then have dinner with a few people and fly home are treated as if they were reanimated Hitlers. The student of color who hears a few white students venturing polite questions about the leftist orthodoxy is supported in fashioning these questions as “racist” rhetoric.
The people on college campuses who openly and aggressively spout this new version of Christian (or even Islamist) crusading—ironically justifying it as a barricade against “fascist” muzzling of freedom when the term applies ominously well to the regime they are fostering—are a minority. However, the sawmill spinning blade of their rhetoric has succeeding in rendering opposition as risky as espousing pedophilia, such that only those natively open to violent criticism dare speak out. The latter group is small. The campus consensus thereby becomes, if only at moralistic gunpoint à la the ISIS victim video, a strangled hard-leftism.
Hence freedom of speech is indeed threatened on today’s college campuses. I have lost count of how many of my students, despite being liberal Democrats (many of whom sobbed at Hillary Clinton’s loss last November), have told me that they are afraid to express their opinions about issues that matter, despite the fact that their opinions are ones that any liberal or even leftist person circa 1960 would have considered perfectly acceptable.
Something has shifted of late, and not in a direction we can legitimately consider forwards.
John McWhorter teaches linguistics, philosophy, and music history at Columbia University and is the author of The Language Hoax, Words on the Move, and Talking Back, Talking Black.
Kate Bachelder OdellIt’s 2021, and Harvard Square has devolved into riots: Some 120 people are injured in protests, and the carnage includes fire-consumed cop cars and smashed-in windows. The police discharge canisters of tear gas, and, after apprehending dozens of protesters, enforce a 1:45 A.M. curfew. Anyone roaming the streets after hours is subject to arrest. About 2,000 National Guardsmen are prepared to intervene. Such violence and disorder is also roiling Berkeley and other elite and educated areas.
Oh, that’s 1970. The details are from the Harvard Crimson’s account of “anti-war” riots that spring. The episode is instructive in considering whether free speech is under threat in the United States. Almost daily, there’s a new YouTube installment of students melting down over viewpoints of speakers invited to one campus or another. Even amid speech threats from government—for example, the IRS’s targeting of political opponents—nothing has captured the public’s attention like the end of free expression at America’s institutions of higher learning.
Yet disruption, confusion, and even violence are not new campus phenomena. And it’s hard to imagine that young adults who deployed brute force in the 1960s and ’70s were deeply committed to the open and peaceful exchange of ideas.
There may also be reason for optimism. The rough and tumble on campus in the 1960s and ’70s produced a more even-tempered ’80s and ’90s, and colleges are probably heading for another course correction. In covering the ruckuses at Yale, Missouri, and elsewhere, I’ve talked to professors and students who are figuring out how to respond to the illiberalism, even if the reaction is delayed. The University of Chicago put out a set of free-speech principles last year, and others schools such as Princeton and Purdue have endorsed them.
The NARPs—Non-Athletic Regular People, as they are sometimes known on campus—still outnumber the social-justice warriors, who appear to be overplaying their hand. Case in point is the University of Missouri, which experienced a precipitous drop in enrollment after instructor Melissa Click and her ilk stoked racial tensions last spring. The college has closed dorms and trimmed budgets. Which brings us to another silver lining: The economic model of higher education (exorbitant tuition to pay ever more administrators) may blow up traditional college before the fascists can.
Note also that the anti-speech movement is run by rich kids. A Brookings Institution analysis from earlier this year discovered that “the average enrollee at a college where students have attempted to restrict free speech comes from a family with an annual income $32,000 higher than that of the average student in America.” Few rank higher in average income than those at Middlebury College, where students evicted scholar Charles Murray in a particularly ugly scene. (The report notes that Murray was received respectfully at Saint Louis University, “where the median income of students’ families is half Middlebury’s.”) The impulses of over-adulated 20-year-olds may soon be tempered by the tyranny of having to show up for work on a daily basis.
None of this is to suggest that free speech is enjoying some renaissance either on campus or in America. But perhaps as the late Wall Street Journal editorial-page editor Robert Bartley put it in his valedictory address: “Things could be worse. Indeed, they have been worse.”
Kate Bachelder Odell is an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal.
Jonathan RauchIs free speech under threat? The one-syllable answer is “yes.” The three-syllable answer is: “Yes, of course.” Free speech is always under threat, because it is not only the single most successful social idea in all of human history, it is also the single most counterintuitive. “You mean to say that speech that is offensive, untruthful, malicious, seditious, antisocial, blasphemous, heretical, misguided, or all of the above deserves government protection?” That seemingly bizarre proposition is defensible only on the grounds that the marketplace of ideas turns out to be the most powerful engine of knowledge, prosperity, liberty, social peace, and moral advancement that our species has had the good fortune to discover.
Every new generation of free-speech advocates will need to get up every morning and re-explain the case for free speech and open inquiry—today, tomorrow, and forever. That is our lot in life, and we just need to be cheerful about it. At discouraging moments, it is helpful to remember that the country has made great strides toward free speech since 1798, when the Adams administration arrested and jailed its political critics; and since the 1920s, when the U.S. government banned and burned James Joyce’s great novel Ulysses; and since 1954, when the government banned ONE, a pioneering gay journal. (The cover article was a critique of the government’s indecency censors, who censored it.) None of those things could happen today.
I suppose, then, the interesting question is: What kind of threat is free speech under today? In the present age, direct censorship by government bodies is rare. Instead, two more subtle challenges hold sway, especially, although not only, on college campuses. The first is a version of what I called, in my book Kindly Inquisitors, the humanitarian challenge: the idea that speech that is hateful or hurtful (in someone’s estimation) causes pain and thus violates others’ rights, much as physical violence does. The other is a version of what I called the egalitarian challenge: the idea that speech that denigrates minorities (again, in someone’s estimation) perpetuates social inequality and oppression and thus also is a rights violation. Both arguments call upon administrators and other bureaucrats to defend human rights by regulating speech rights.
Both doctrines are flawed to the core. Censorship harms minorities by enforcing conformity and entrenching majority power, and it no more ameliorates hatred and injustice than smashing thermometers ameliorates global warming. If unwelcome words are the equivalent of bludgeons or bullets, then the free exchange of criticism—science, in other words—is a crime. I could go on, but suffice it to say that the current challenges are new variations on ancient themes—and they will be followed, in decades and centuries to come, by many, many other variations. Memo to free-speech advocates: Our work is never done, but the really amazing thing, given the proposition we are tasked to defend, is how well we are doing.
Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought.
Nicholas Quinn RosenkranzSpeech is under threat on American campuses as never before. Censorship in various forms is on the rise. And this year, the threat to free speech on campus took an even darker turn, toward actual violence. The prospect of Milo Yiannopoulos speaking at Berkeley provoked riots that caused more than $100,000 worth of property damage on the campus. The prospect of Charles Murray speaking at Middlebury led to a riot that put a liberal professor in the hospital with a concussion. Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley was cancelled after the university determined that none of the appropriate venues could be protected from “known security threats” on the date in question.
The free-speech crisis on campus is caused, at least in part, by a more insidious campus pathology: the almost complete lack of intellectual diversity on elite university faculties. At Yale, for example, the number of registered Republicans in the economics department is zero; in the psychology department, there is one. Overall, there are 4,410 faculty members at Yale, and the total number of those who donated to a Republican candidate during the 2016 primaries was three.
So when today’s students purport to feel “unsafe” at the mere prospect of a conservative speaker on campus, it may be easy to mock them as “delicate snowflakes,” but in one sense, their reaction is understandable: If students are shocked at the prospect of a Republican behind a university podium, perhaps it is because many of them have never before laid eyes on one.
To see the connection between free speech and intellectual diversity, consider the recent commencement speech of Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust:
Universities must be places open to the kind of debate that can change ideas….Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and it inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones. . . . We must work to ensure that universities do not become bubbles isolated from the concerns and discourse of the society that surrounds them. Universities must model a commitment to the notion that truth cannot simply be claimed, but must be established—established through reasoned argument, assessment, and even sometimes uncomfortable challenges that provide the foundation for truth.
Faust is exactly right. But, alas, her commencement audience might be forgiven a certain skepticism. After all, the number of registered Republicans in several departments at Harvard—e.g., history and psychology—is exactly zero. In those departments, the professors themselves may be “basking in intellectual orthodoxy” without ever facing “uncomfortable challenges.” This may help explain why some students will do everything in their power to keep conservative speakers off campus: They notice that faculty hiring committees seem to do exactly the same thing.
In short, it is a promising sign that true liberal academics like Faust have started speaking eloquently about the crucial importance of civil, reasoned disagreement. But they will be more convincing on this point when they hire a few colleagues with whom they actually disagree.
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz is a professor of law at Georgetown. He serves on the executive committee of Heterodox Academy, which he co-founded, on the board of directors of the Federalist Society, and on the board of directors of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Ben ShapiroIn February, I spoke at California State University in Los Angeles. Before my arrival, professors informed students that a white supremacist would be descending on the school to preach hate; threats of violence soon prompted the administration to cancel the event. I vowed to show up anyway. One hour before the event, the administration backed down and promised to guarantee that the event could go forward, but police officers were told not to stop the 300 students, faculty, and outside protesters who blocked and assaulted those who attempted to attend the lecture. We ended up trapped in the auditorium, with the authorities telling students not to leave for fear of physical violence. I was rushed from campus under armed police guard.
Is free speech under assault?
Of course it is.
On campus, free speech is under assault thanks to a perverse ideology of intersectionality that claims victim identity is of primary value and that views are a merely secondary concern. As a corollary, if your views offend someone who outranks you on the intersectional hierarchy, your views are treated as violence—threats to identity itself. On campus, statements that offend an individual’s identity have been treated as “microaggressions”–actual aggressions against another, ostensibly worthy of violence. Words, students have been told, may not break bones, but they will prompt sticks and stones, and rightly so.
Thus, protesters around the country—leftists who see verbiage as violence—have, in turn, used violence in response to ideas they hate. Leftist local authorities then use the threat of violence as an excuse to ideologically discriminate against conservatives. This means public intellectuals like Charles Murray being run off of campus and his leftist professorial cohort viciously assaulted; it means Ann Coulter being targeted for violence at Berkeley; it means universities preemptively banning me and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condoleezza Rice and even Jason Riley.
The campus attacks on free speech are merely the most extreme iteration of an ideology that spans from left to right: the notion that your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin. Even Democrats who say that Ann Coulter should be allowed to speak at Berkeley say that nobody should be allowed to contribute to a super PAC (unless you’re a union member, naturally).
Meanwhile, on the right, the president’s attacks on the press have convinced many Republicans that restrictions on the press wouldn’t be altogether bad. A Vanity Fair/60 Minutes poll in late April found that 36 percent of Americans thought freedom of the press “does more harm than good.” Undoubtedly, some of that is due to the media’s obvious bias. CNN’s Jeff Zucker has targeted the Trump administration for supposedly quashing journalism, but he was silent when the Obama administration’s Department of Justice cracked down on reporters from the Associated Press and Fox News, and when hacks like Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes openly sold lies regarding Iran. But for some on the right, the response to press falsities hasn’t been to call for truth, but to instead echo Trumpian falsehoods in the hopes of damaging the media. Free speech is only important when people seek the truth. Leftists traded truth for tribalism long ago; in response, many on the right seem willing to do the same. Until we return to a common standard under which facts matter, free speech will continue to rest on tenuous grounds.
Ben Shapiro is the editor in chief of The Daily Wire and the host of The Ben Shapiro Show.
Judith ShulevitzIt’s tempting to blame college and university administrators for the decline of free speech in America, and for years I did just that. If the guardians of higher education won’t inculcate the habits of mind required for serious thinking, I thought, who will? The unfettered but civil exchange of ideas is the basic operation of education, just as addition is the basic operation of arithmetic. And universities have to teach both the unfettered part and the civil part, because arguing in a respectful manner isn’t something anyone does instinctively.
So why change my mind now? Schools still cling to speech codes, and there still aren’t enough deans like the one at the University of Chicago who declared his school a safe-space-free zone. My alma mater just handed out prizes for “enhancing race and/or ethnic relations” to two students caught on video harassing the dean of their residential college, one screaming at him that he’d created “a space for violence to happen,” the other placing his face inches away from the dean’s and demanding, “Look at me.” All this because they deemed a thoughtful if ill-timed letter about Halloween costumes written by the dean’s wife to be an act of racist aggression. Yale should discipline students who behave like that, even if they’re right on the merits (I don’t think they were, but that’s not the point). They certainly don’t deserve awards. I can’t believe I had to write that sentence.
But in abdicating their responsibilites, the universities have enabled something even worse than an attack on free speech. They’ve unleashed an assault on themselves. There’s plenty of free speech around; we know that because so much bad speech—low-minded nonsense—tests our constitutional tolerance daily, and that’s holding up pretty well. (As Nicholas Lemann observes elsewhere in this symposium, Facebook and Google represent bigger threats to free speech than students and administrators.) What’s endangered is good speech.
Universities were setting themselves up to be used. Provocateurs exploit the atmosphere on campus to goad overwrought students, then gleefully trash the most important bastion of our crumbling civil society. Higher education and everything it stands for—logical argument, the scientific method, epistemological rigor—start to look illegitimate. Voters perceive tenure and research and higher education itself as hopelessly partisan and unworthy of taxpayers’ money.
The press is a secondary victim of this process of delegitimization. If serious inquiry can be waved off as ideology, then facts won’t be facts and reporting can’t be trusted. All journalism will be equal to all other journalism, and all journalists will be reduced to pests you can slam to the ground with near impunity. Politicians will be able to say anything and do just about anything and there will be no countervailing authority to challenge them. I’m pretty sure that that way lies Putinism and Erdoganism. And when we get to that point, I’m going to start worrying about free speech again.
Judith Shulevitz is a critic in New York.
Harvey SilverglateFree speech is, and has always been, threatened. The title of Nat Hentoff’s 1993 book Free Speech for Me – but Not for Thee is no less true today than at any time, even as the Supreme Court has accorded free speech a more absolute degree of protection than in any previous era.
Since the 1980s, the high court has decided most major free-speech cases in favor of speech, with most of the major decisions being unanimous or nearly so.
Women’s-rights advocates were turned back by the high court in 1986 when they sought to ban the sale of printed materials that, because deemed pornographic by some, were alleged to promote violence against women. Censorship in the name of gender–based protection thus failed to gain traction.
Despite the demands of civil-rights activists, the Supreme Court in 1992 declared cross-burning to be a protected form of expression in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, a decision later refined to strengthen a narrow exception for when cross-burning occurs primarily as a physical threat rather than merely an expression of hatred.
Other attempts at First Amendment circumvention have been met with equally decisive rebuff. When the Reverend Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt for defamation growing out of a parody depicting Falwell’s first sexual encounter as a drunken tryst with his mother in an outhouse, a unanimous Supreme Court lectured on the history of parody as a constitutionally protected, even if cruel, form of social and political criticism.
When the South Boston Allied War Veterans, sponsor of Boston’s Saint Patrick’s Day parade, sought to exclude a gay veterans’ group from marching under its own banner, the high court unanimously held that as a private entity, even though marching in public streets, the Veterans could exclude any group marching under a banner conflicting with the parade’s socially conservative message, notwithstanding public-accommodations laws. The gay group could have its own parade but could not rain on that of the conservatives.
Despite such legal clarity, today’s most potent attacks on speech are coming, ironically, from liberal-arts colleges. Ubiquitous “speech codes” limit speech that might insult, embarrass, or “harass,” in particular, members of “historically disadvantaged” groups. “Safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” protect purportedly vulnerable students from hearing words and ideas they might find upsetting. Student demonstrators and threats of violence have forced the cancellation of controversial speakers, left and right.
It remains unclear how much campus censorship results from politically correct faculty, control-obsessed student-life administrators, or students socialized and indoctrinated into intolerance. My experience suggests that the bureaucrats are primarily, although not entirely, to blame. When sued, colleges either lose or settle, pay a modest amount, and then return to their censorious ways.
This trend threatens the heart and soul of liberal education. Eventually it could infect the entire society as these students graduate and assume influential positions. Whether a resulting flood of censorship ultimately overcomes legal protections and weakens democracy remains to be seen.
Harvey Silverglate, a Boston-based lawyer and writer, is the co-author of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (Free Press, 1998). He co-founded the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in 1999 and is on FIRE’s board of directors. He spent some three decades on the board of the ACLU of Massachusetts, two of those years as chairman. Silverglate taught at Harvard Law School for a semester during a sabbatical he took in the mid-1980s.
Christina Hoff SommersWhen Heather Mac Donald’s “blue lives matter” talk was shut down by a mob at Claremont McKenna College, the president of neighboring Pomona College sent out an email defending free speech. Twenty-five students shot back a response: “Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist . . . classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live.”
Some blame the new campus intolerance on hypersensitive, over-trophied millennials. But the students who signed that letter don’t appear to be fragile. Nor do those who recently shut down lectures at Berkeley, Middlebury, DePaul, and Cal State LA. What they are is impassioned. And their passion is driven by a theory known as intersectionality.
Intersectionality is the source of the new preoccupation with microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and privilege-checking. It’s the reason more than 200 colleges and universities have set up Bias Response Teams. Students who overhear potentially “otherizing” comments or jokes are encouraged to make anonymous reports to their campus BRTs. A growing number of professors and administrators have built their careers around intersectionality. What is it exactly?
Intersectionality is a neo-Marxist doctrine that views racism, sexism, ableism, heterosexism, and all forms of “oppression” as interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Together these “isms” form a complex arrangement of advantages and burdens. A white woman is disadvantaged by her gender but advantaged by her race. A Latino is burdened by his ethnicity but privileged by his gender. According to intersectionality, American society is a “matrix of domination,” with affluent white males in control. Not only do they enjoy most of the advantages, they also determine what counts as “truth” and “knowledge.”
But marginalized identities are not without resources. According to one of intersectionality’s leading theorists, Patricia Collins (former president of the American Sociology Association), disadvantaged groups have access to deeper, more liberating truths. To find their voice, and to enlighten others to the true nature of reality, they require a safe space—free of microaggressive put-downs and imperious cultural appropriations. Here they may speak openly about their “lived experience.” Lived experience, according to intersectional theory, is a better guide to the truth than self-serving Western and masculine styles of thinking. So don’t try to refute intersectionality with logic or evidence: That only proves that you are part of the problem it seeks to overcome.
How could comfortably ensconced college students be open to a convoluted theory that describes their world as a matrix of misery? Don’t they flinch when they hear intersectional scholars like bell hooks refer to the U.S. as an “imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy”? Most take it in stride because such views are now commonplace in high-school history and social studies texts. And the idea that knowledge comes from lived experience rather than painstaking study and argument is catnip to many undergrads.
Silencing speech and forbidding debate is not an unfortunate by-product of intersectionality—it is a primary goal. How else do you dismantle a lethal system of oppression? As the protesting students at Claremont McKenna explained in their letter: “Free speech . . . has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry.” To the student activists, thinkers like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray are agents of the dominant narrative, and their speech is “a form of violence.”
It is hard to know how our institutions of higher learning will find their way back to academic freedom, open inquiry, and mutual understanding. But as long as intersectional theory goes unchallenged, campus fanaticism will intensify.
Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of several books, including Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys. She also hosts The Factual Feminist, a video blog. @Chsommers
John StosselYes, some college students do insane things. Some called police when they saw “Trump 2016” chalked on sidewalks. The vandals at Berkeley and the thugs who assaulted Charles Murray are disgusting. But they are a minority. And these days people fight back.
Someone usually videotapes the craziness. Yale’s “Halloween costume incident” drove away two sensible instructors, but videos mocking Yale’s snowflakes, like “Silence U,” make such abuse less likely. Groups like Young America’s Foundation (YAF) publicize censorship, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) sues schools that restrict speech.
Consciousness has been raised. On campus, the worst is over. Free speech has always been fragile. I once took cameras to Seton Hall law school right after a professor gave a lecture on free speech. Students seemed to get the concept. Sean, now a lawyer, said, “Protect freedom for thought we hate; otherwise you never have a society where ideas clash, and we come up with the best idea.” So I asked, “Should there be any limits?” Students listed “fighting words,” “shouting fire in a theater,” malicious libel, etc.— reasonable court-approved exceptions. But then they went further. Several wanted bans on “hate” speech, “No value comes out of hate speech,” said Javier. “It inevitably leads to violence.”
No it doesn’t, I argued, “Also, doesn’t hate speech bring ideas into the open, so you can better argue about them, bringing you to the truth?”
“No,” replied Floyd, “With hate speech, more speech is just violence.”
So I pulled out a big copy of the First Amendment and wrote, “exception: hate speech.”
Two students wanted a ban on flag desecration “to respect those who died to protect it.”
One wanted bans on blasphemy:
“Look at the gravity of the harm versus the value in blasphemy—the harm outweighs the value.”
Several wanted a ban on political speech by corporations because of “the potential for large corporations to improperly influence politicians.”
Finally, Jillian, also now a lawyer, wanted hunting videos banned.
“It encourages harm down the road.”
I asked her, incredulously, “you’re comfortable locking up people who make a hunting film?”
“Oh, yeah,” she said. “It’s unnecessary cruelty to feeling and sentient beings.”
So, I picked up my copy of the Bill of Rights again. After “no law . . . abridging freedom of speech,” I added: “Except hate speech, flag burning, blasphemy, corporate political speech, depictions of hunting . . . ”
That embarrassed them. “We may have gone too far,” said Sean. Others agreed. One said, “Cross out the exceptions.” Free speech survived, but it was a close call. Respect for unpleasant speech will always be thin. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton wanted violent video games banned. John McCain and Russ Feingold tried to ban political speech. Donald Trump wants new libel laws, and if you burn a flag, he tweeted, consequences might be “loss of citizenship or a year in jail!” Courts or popular opinion killed those bad ideas.
Free speech will survive, assuming those of us who appreciate it use it to fight those who would smother it.
John Stossel is a FOX News/FOX Business Network Contributor.
Warren TreadgoldEven citizens of dictatorships are free to praise the regime and to talk about the weather. The only speech likely to be threatened anywhere is the sort that offends an important and intolerant group. What is new in America today is a leftist ideology that threatens speech precisely because it offends certain important and intolerant groups: feminists and supposedly oppressed minorities.
So far this new ideology is clearly dominant only in colleges and universities, where it has become so strong that most controversies concern outside speakers invited by students, not faculty speakers or speakers invited by administrators. Most academic administrators and professors are either leftists or have learned not to oppose leftism; otherwise they would probably never have been hired. Administrators treat even violent leftist protestors with respect and are ready to prevent conservative and moderate outsiders from speaking rather than provoke protests. Most professors who defend conservative or moderate speakers argue that the speakers’ views are indeed noxious but say that students should be exposed to them to learn how to refute them. This is very different from encouraging a free exchange of ideas.
Although the new ideology began on campuses in the ’60s, it gained authority outside them largely by means of several majority decisions of the Supreme Court, from Roe (1973) to Obergefell (2015). The Supreme Court decisions that endanger free speech are based on a presumed consensus of enlightened opinion that certain rights favored by activists have the same legitimacy as rights explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution—or even more legitimacy, because the rights favored by activists are assumed to be so fundamental that they need no grounding in specific constitutional language. The Court majorities found restricting abortion rights or homosexual marriage, as large numbers of Americans wish to do, to be constitutionally equivalent to restricting black voting rights or interracial marriage. Any denial of such equivalence therefore opposes fundamental constitutional rights and can be considered hate speech, advocating psychological and possibly physical harm to groups like women seeking abortions or homosexuals seeking approval. Such speech may still be constitutionally protected, but acting upon it is not.
This ideology of forbidding allegedly offensive speech has spread to most of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. Rather than seeing themselves as taking one side in a free debate, progressives increasingly argue (for example) that opposing abortion is offensive to women and supporting the police is offensive to blacks. Some politicians object so strongly to such speech that despite their interest in winning votes, they attack voters who disagree with them as racists or sexists. Expressing views that allegedly discriminate against women, blacks, homosexuals, and various other minorities can now be grounds for a lawsuit.
Speech that supposedly offends women or minorities has already cost some people their careers, their businesses, and their opportunities to deliver or hear speeches. Such intimidation is the intended result of an ideology that threatens free speech.
Warren Treadgold is a professor of history at Saint Louis University.
Matt WelchLike a sullen zoo elephant rocking back and forth from leg to leg, there is an oversized paradox we’d prefer not to see standing smack in the sightlines of most our policy debates. Day by day, even minute by minute, America simultaneously gets less free in the laboratory, but more free in the field. Individuals are constantly expanding the limits and applications of their own autonomy, even as government transcends prior restraints on how far it can reach into our intimate business.
So it is that the Internal Revenue Service can charge foreign banks with collecting taxes on U.S. citizens (therefore causing global financial institutions to shun many of the estimated 6 million-plus Americans who live abroad), even while block-chain virtuosos make illegal transactions wholly undetectable to authorities. It has never been easier for Americans to travel abroad, and it’s never been harder to enter the U.S. without showing passports, fingerprints, retinal scans, and even social-media passwords.
What’s true for banking and tourism is doubly true for free speech. Social media has given everyone not just a platform but a megaphone (as unreadable as our Facebook timelines have all become since last November). At the same time, the federal government during this unhappy 21st century has continuously ratcheted up prosecutorial pressure against leakers, whistleblowers, investigative reporters, and technology companies.
A hopeful bulwark against government encroachment unique to the free-speech field is the Supreme Court’s very strong First Amendment jurisprudence in the past decade or two. Donald Trump, like Hillary Clinton before him, may prattle on about locking up flag-burners, but Antonin Scalia and the rest of SCOTUS protected such expression back in 1990. Barack Obama and John McCain (and Hillary Clinton—she’s as bad as any recent national politician on free speech) may lament the Citizens United decision, but it’s now firmly legal to broadcast unfriendly documentaries about politicians without fear of punishment, no matter the electoral calendar.
But in this very strength lies what might be the First Amendment’s most worrying vulnerability. Barry Friedman, in his 2009 book The Will of the People, made the persuasive argument that the Supreme Court typically ratifies, post facto, where public opinion has already shifted. Today’s culture of free speech could be tomorrow’s legal framework. If so, we’re in trouble.
For evidence of free-speech slippage, just read around you. When both major-party presidential nominees react to terrorist attacks by calling to shut down corners of the Internet, and when their respective supporters are actually debating the propriety of sucker punching protesters they disagree with, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that our increasingly shrill partisan sorting is turning the very foundation of post-1800 global prosperity into just another club to be swung in our national street fight.
In the eternal cat-and-mouse game between private initiative and government control, the former is always advantaged by the latter’s fundamental incompetence. But what if the public willingly hands government the power to muzzle? It may take a counter-cultural reformation to protect this most noble of American experiments.
Matt Welch is the editor at large of Reason.
Adam. J. WhiteFree speech is indeed under threat on our university campuses, but the threat did not begin there and it will not end there. Rather, the campus free-speech crisis is a particularly visible symptom of a much more fundamental crisis in American culture.
The problem is not that some students, teachers, and administrators reject traditional American values and institutions, or even that they are willing to menace or censor others who defend those values and institutions. Such critics have always existed, and they can be expected to use the tools and weapons at their disposal. The problem is that our country seems to produce too few students, teachers, and administrators who are willing or able to respond to them.
American families produce children who arrive on campus unprepared for, or uninterested in, defending our values and institutions. For our students who are focused primarily on their career prospects (if on anything at all), “[c]ollege is just one step on the continual stairway of advancement,” as David Brooks observed 16 years ago. “They’re not trying to buck the system; they’re trying to climb it, and they are streamlined for ascent. Hence they are not a disputatious group.”
Meanwhile, parents bear incomprehensible financial burdens to get their kids through college, without a clear sense of precisely what their kids will get out of these institutions in terms of character formation or civic virtue. With so much money at stake, few can afford for their kids to pursue more than career prospects.
Those problems are not created on campus, but they are exacerbated there, as too few college professors and administrators see their institutions as cultivators of American culture and republicanism. Confronted with activists’ rage, they offer no competing vision of higher education—let alone a compelling one.
Ironically, we might borrow a solution from the Left. Where progressives would leverage state power in service of their health-care agenda, we could do the same for education. State legislatures and governors, recognizing the present crisis, should begin to reform and renegotiate the fundamental nature of state universities. By making state universities more affordable, more productive, and more reflective of mainstream American values, they will attract students—and create incentives for competing private universities to follow suit.
Let’s hope they do it soon, for what’s at stake is much more than just free speech on campus, or even free speech writ large. In our time, as in Tocqueville’s, “the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of a democratic republic,” especially “where instruction which awakens the understanding is not separated from moral education which amends the heart.” We need our colleges to cultivate—not cut down—civic virtue and our capacity for self-government. “Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form,” Madison wrote in Federalist 55. If “there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” then “nothing less than the chains of despotism” can restrain us “from destroying and devouring one another.”
Adam J. White is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Cathy YoungA writer gets expelled from the World Science Fiction Convention for criticizing the sci-fi community’s preoccupation with racial and gender “inclusivity” while moderating a panel. An assault on free speech, or an exercise of free association? How about when students demand the disinvitation of a speaker—or disrupt the speech? When a critic of feminism gets banned from a social-media platform for unspecified “abuse”?
Such questions are at the heart of many recent free-speech controversies. There is no censorship by government; but how concerned should we be when private actors effectively suppress unpopular speech? Even in the freest society, some speech will—and should—be considered odious and banished to unsavory fringes. No one weeps for ostracized Holocaust deniers or pedophilia apologists.
But shunned speech needs to remain a narrow exception—or acceptable speech will inexorably shrink. As current Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai cautioned last year, First Amendment protections will be hollowed out unless undergirded by cultural values that support a free marketplace of ideas.
Sometimes, attacks on speech come from the right. In 2003, an Iraq War critic, reporter Chris Hedges, was silenced at Rockford College in Illinois by hecklers who unplugged the microphone and rushed the stage; some conservative pundits defended this as robust protest. Yet the current climate on the left—in universities, on social media, in “progressive” journalism, in intellectual circles—is particularly hostile to free expression. The identity-politics left, fixated on subtle oppressions embedded in everyday attitudes and language, sees speech-policing as the solution.
Is hostility to free-speech values on the rise? New York magazine columnist Jesse Singal argues that support for restrictions on public speech offensive to minorities has remained steady, and fairly high, since the 1970s. Perhaps. But the range of what qualifies as offensive—and which groups are to be shielded—has expanded dramatically. In our time, a leading liberal magazine, the New Republic, can defend calls to destroy a painting of lynching victim Emmett Till because the artist is white and guilty of “cultural appropriation,” and a feminist academic journal can be bullied into apologizing for an article on transgender issues that dares to mention “male genitalia.”
There is also a distinct trend of “bad” speech being squelched by coercion, not just disapproval. That includes the incidents at Middlebury College in Vermont and at Claremont McKenna in California, where mobs not only prevented conservative speakers—Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald—from addressing audiences but physically threatened them as well. It also includes the use of civil-rights legislation to enforce goodthink in the workplace: Businesses may face stiff fines if they don’t force employees to call a “non-binary” co-worker by the singular “they,” even when talking among themselves.
These trends make a mockery of liberalism and enable the kind of backlash we have seen with Donald Trump’s election. But the backlash can bring its own brand of authoritarianism. It’s time to start rebuilding the culture of free speech across political divisions—a project that demands, above all, genuine openness and intellectual consistency. Otherwise it will remain, as the late, great Nat Hentoff put it, a call for “free speech for me, but not for thee.”
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason.
Robert J. ZimmerFree speech is not a natural feature of human society. Many people are comfortable with free expression for views they agree with but would withhold this privilege for those they deem offensive. People justify such restrictions by various means: the appeal to moral certainty, political agendas, demand for change, opposing change, retaining power, resisting authority, or, more recently, not wanting to feel uncomfortable. Moral certainty about one’s views or a willingness to indulge one’s emotions makes it easy to assert that others are doing true damage or creating unacceptable offense simply by presenting a fundamentally different perspective.
The resulting challenges to free expression may come in the form of laws, threats, pressure (whether societal, group, or organizational), or self-censorship in the face of a prevailing consensus. Specific forms of challenge may be more or less pronounced as circumstances vary. But the widespread temptation to consider the silencing of “objectionable” viewpoints as acceptable implies that the challenge to free expression is always present.
The United States today is no exception. We benefit from the First Amendment, which asserts that the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. However, fostering a society supporting free expression involves matters far beyond the law. The ongoing and increasing demonization of one group by another creates a political and social environment conducive to suppressing speech. Even violent acts opposing speech can become acceptable or encouraged. Such behavior is evident at both political rallies and university events. Our greatest current threat to free expression is the emergence of a national culture that accepts the legitimacy of suppression of speech deemed objectionable by a segment of the population.
University and college campuses present a particularly vivid instance of this cultural shift. There have been many well-publicized episodes of speakers being disinvited or prevented from speaking because of their views. However, the problem is much deeper, as there is significant self-censorship on many campuses. Both faculty and students sometimes find themselves silenced by social and institutional pressures to conform to “acceptable” views. Ironically, the very mission of universities and colleges to provide a powerful and deeply enriching education for their students demands that they embrace and protect free expression and open discourse. Failing to do so significantly diminishes the quality of the education they provide.
My own institution, the University of Chicago, through the words and actions of its faculty and leaders since its founding, has asserted the importance of free expression and its essential role in embracing intellectual challenge. We continue to do so today as articulated by the Chicago Principles, which strongly affirm that “the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” It is only in such an environment that universities can fulfill their own highest aspirations and provide leadership by demonstrating the value of free speech within society more broadly. A number of universities have joined us in reinforcing these values. But it remains to be seen whether the faculty and leaders of many institutions will truly stand up for these values, and in doing so provide a model for society as a whole.
Robert J. Zimmer is the president of the University of Chicago.