According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 16 speakers were disinvited from speaking at U.S. college campuses in 2017 alone.1 In 13 of these cases, student groups on the Left petitioned to have right-leaning speakers barred from speaking—or simply overwhelmed the events with violence forcing administrations to cancel speaking engagements for public safety.
Other colleges have used these violent outbursts as excuses to head off conservative speakers. In August 2017, the University of California, Berkeley, levied a $15,000 “security fee” on Young America’s Foundation, the group that invited Daily Wire editor in chief Ben Shapiro to speak on campus.2 This is ironic, as Berkeley is the supposed home of the free speech movement.
These are limitations that the Founding Fathers never intended—and would have wholeheartedly rejected. While some people hold views which are indeed abhorrent, it is critical to our liberty that all Americans are able to speak their minds without fear of punishment by the state or censorship by academic institutions.
The men and women of Trump’s America understand this, which is why they rallied to Trump as a candidate and continue to support him today. President Trump rejects these limitations as well and is working to ensure that our core freedoms and values are not simply limited to those with whom the elites agree.
REJECTING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
If President Trump has a single defining characteristic, it is his willingness to say what he believes, regardless of who might be offended.
This was the first jarring reality of the Trump candidacy. He was willing to say things that no typical leader could have imagined saying. The bluntness and, at times, crassness of Trump’s language has proven to be a force in its own right. People are stunned and forced to pay attention to Trump just because they have never heard a modern political leader speak like him.
As a candidate, Trump defeated more than a dozen Republicans and the Clinton political machine by branding opponents as “low-energy,” “little,” “lying,” and “crooked.” He unabashedly called out past Republicans for failures in the Middle East in dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. As president, he has answered nearly every criticism from hostile leaders with defiance. He calls North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “Rocket man” in response to missile tests. Even when British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is an ally, criticized him for retweeting a video about Islamic terrorism posted by a controversial group, he tweeted, “Don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom.” His whole attitude toward opinion leaders, other political figures, and the news media has been “if you want to go after me, I will go after you ten times harder.”
When the news media began to attack him relentlessly, he brilliantly co-opted the term fake news and began branding his critics as liars and propagandists. His 50 million Twitter followers enabled him to fight the anti-Trump media to a standstill.
Consistently, the president insists that the southern border must be secured and that so-called sanctuary cities must cooperate with federal law enforcement in deporting criminals who are in our country illegally. He also says we must halt immigration from countries wracked by terrorism until we can assure security measures are in place to protect Americans. For these comments, the political correctness thought police maliciously claim that he is a xenophobic isolationist who is offending all people of Latin American, Hispanic, or Islamic descent.
However, Trump has not backed away. Instead, he has reinforced his political incorrectness as defined by the elites by picking fights that are virtually indefensible on the other side. Instead of talking about illegal immigration, in general, he talks about the vicious brutality of the MS-13 gang. Similarly, instead of talking about immigration at large, he focuses on sanctuary cities and emphasizes the cases where the cities released someone who then harmed an American. His opponents then grow frustrated because they can’t really defend the murderers and rapists who are at the heart of MS-13, or other criminals who are in the country illegally and hurting and killing Americans.
President Trump also represents the 83 percent of Americans who identify as Christians3 and the 67 percent who routinely say Merry Christmas (25 percent say happy holidays and 4 percent refuse to say anything).4 While the secular multiculturalists in the anti-Trump coalition insist on toning down all religious references, many Americans are deeply pleased that President Trump breaks the mold and emphasizes Christmas.
When faced with this overwhelming acceptance and support of Christmas by most Americans, the elites disingenuously claim they never waged a war on Christmas—despite spending decades filing lawsuits seeking to ban nativity displays, tree lighting ceremonies, and other religious iconography from public areas.
FACT VERSUS IDEOLOGY
Political correctness is enforced in part by having a commitment to mindlessly repeat what is ideologically necessary.
It is ironic that America, the birthplace of pragmatism, is now home to elites who believe in a philosophy that facts should be reshaped to fit ideology. One of the reasons it has become so hard to reform government has been this rise of the ideologically defined reality. Nowhere has this preference for ideology over facts been more obvious than in trying to analyze the threat from Islamic supremacists.
The elites in Germany refused to recognize mass harassment, assaults, and in some cases, rape of German women during the 2015–2016 New Year’s Eve celebration in Cologne and other parts of Germany. Only when social media blew up with indignation and outrage did the authorities admit that there had been more than 1,200 assaults.
Similarly, the news media has had a long tradition of trying to avoid religious motivation as a key to understanding terrorist violence.
In 2016, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s first reaction to a bomb that injured 29 people in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan was to avoid using the word terrorism until police fully investigated the matter.5
Again and again, authorities are cautious to the point of absurdity in reporting on and analyzing terrorist attacks. Whenever possible, the elite media shades the facts to fit its ideological preconceptions. Thus, the truck driver who instantly killed 84 people and injured hundreds more during the July 2016 Bastille Day celebration in Nice, France, was reported to be a French resident. Initially, there was no mention that he was originally from Tunisia. Similarly, attackers can yell “Allahu Akbar” before committing or attempting mass murder, and the elite’s first reaction is to say motivation is not known.
President Trump’s willingness to be blunt about the threat of Islamic supremacists is a major break with the elites. For two decades the elites did everything they could to downplay the religious motivation of international terrorists. It was considered xenophobic and racist to even raise questions about the people who were trying to kill us. Trump blew all that away and insisted on telling the truth even if it conflicted with the elite ideology.
Another example of ideology dominating facts is the absolute refusal of American elites to hold large, bureaucratic schools accountable for their failure to educate. No matter how bad the schools are, or how much they cheat their poorest children, the elites insist that these failing schools are paragons of citizenship and progress—and they just need more money.
However, facts, if confronted, can be devastating.
At schools in the city of Baltimore, only 15 percent of elementary and middle school students who took the Partnership for Assessments of Career and College Readiness assessment passed the English portion and 11.9 percent passed the math section.6
Some schools in the District of Columbia have half or more students absent for more than half the year, but these students still somehow graduate. The school faculty is still paid with our tax dollars for “teaching” empty seats. Furthermore, the students still receive passing grades, despite not going to class. In a fact-based society, this would be considered fraud, and these teachers would be at least fired and at most prosecuted
. However, in the ideologically defined world of big city, left-wing, union-dominated politics, it is just bureaucracy as usual.
President Trump is redefining the very structure of American political and governmental dialogue by insisting on fact-based conversations—even if they are politically incorrect and even if they offend Republicans and Democrats alike.
However, President Trump’s commitment to fight political correctness has its own downside. There are times when President Trump gets himself in trouble that traditional leaders might have avoided. His lack of timidity sometimes leads to overreach and, at times, indefensible statements. The Trump technique is to learn from the mistakes and keep moving forward, without apology. His philosophy is that the next fight will drown the last fight.
Trump’s ferocity in counterattacking is also a part of his strategy. As someone who spent his career with blue-collar workers, Trump understands that someone punching you becomes an existential moment. You either fight back or you back down. Trump always chooses to fight. In some ways, President Trump is the first president since Andrew Jackson to understand barroom brawling at a practical level. He applies this brawl model to politics. You have to counterpunch or you will lose.
Clearly, President Trump has been fighting a nonstop battle with political correctness, and I expect he will continue that fight.
This has been a total shock to the political establishment—and a breath of fresh air to many Americans. Trump’s rejection of political correctness and promotion of the free expression of ideas tapped a feeling many Americans share. It has been a key to his success as a candidate and as president.
In fact, the CATO Institute found in its 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey that 71 percent of Americans polled in August 2017 thought political correctness has prevented important conversations about a range of societal issues. As a result, the poll shows 58 percent of Americans have opted not to share their political opinions in public.7
For these Americans, and millions like them, President Trump has heralded a return to the traditional idea that America is inherently diverse, people are going to disagree about many things, and for our country to grow, we must freely speak about our differences.
The results of the CATO survey clearly show why this return to traditional freedom of speech has been welcomed. Across the political spectrum, Americans are self-censoring. Even on the Left, 45 percent of those who identified themselves as liberal said they agreed with the statement: “The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive.” Thirty percent of self-identified strong liberals agreed as well. As the graph tracks to the right, more and more people say they silence themselves to avoid social consequences. Fifty-seven percent of moderates, 70 percent of conservatives, and 76 percent of strong conservatives all reported keeping their political views to themselves to avoid ridicule by the political correctness thought police.
The fact that this many people—of all political persuasions—have been afraid to publicly share their beliefs in America tells you that the cudgel of political correctness has done serious damage to our right of free speech.
The CATO poll also found that Americans are getting tired of biting their tongues. Overall, 59 percent of those surveyed said people should be able to express their opinions publicly even if others are offended. The importance of this nationwide frustration over political correctness can’t be overstated. People are starting to reject it.
In fact, a predictive computer model made by clearthinking.org found that opposition to political correctness was the second-highest motivator for Trump voters in the 2016 election—behind party affiliation.8 The nonpartisan organization developed a machine learning program, which analyzed survey results from 800 people who had already decided how they would vote one month before the election.
On a seven-point scale (with –3 representing total disagreement and +3 meaning total agreement), 90 percent of Trump voters agreed with the statement: “There is too much political correctness in this country.” In fact, 54 percent reported the strongest possible agreement rating. Interestingly, even 49 percent of Clinton voters expressed some level of agreement with the statement.
It’s not surprising so many people are rejecting political correctness. The very idea that one must not air ideas which some may find offensive is totally counter to the American system of freedom.
Consider the words of Founder Ben Franklin, who wrote an article on freedom of speech for the Pennsylvania Gazette in November 1737:
Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.
Our country is based, thrives, and depends on the free flow of opinions and robust public debate. The process of hearing and weighing ideas, and ultimately uplifting some over others, is the key to maintaining a vibrant civil discourse in our society. Frankly, constantly grappling with new opposing viewpoints—especially in politics—keeps our civilization honest and helps to stave off tyranny.
In the words of George Washington, “the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”
This is one of the main reasons some in the anti-Trump coalition are trying to limit the exchange of ideas. They are trying to promote a system in which ideas they don’t like can be deemed unacceptable and summarily dismissed. Currently, they are issuing these dismissals in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity. However, as Franklin warned in the New-England Courant in 1722, “in those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything else his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”9
ACADEMIC ATTACKS ON FREE SPEECH
Since its beginning in the 1980s, the political correctness movement has waged the brunt of its war on America’s college campuses. The reason is simple, the elites want to train young minds to accept restrictions on speech and opinions as soon as they begin forming solid political opinions.
Some of the results of these efforts are completely ridiculous. For example, in a January 2, 2018, op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Steve Salerno criticized an article written by a pair of University of Northern Iowa professors which aimed at putting an end to what they called “white-informed civility.”10
According to Salerno, “their core contention is twofold: One, that civility, as currently practiced in America, is a white construct. Two, that in a campus setting, the ‘woke’ white student’s endeavor to avoid microaggressions against black peers is itself a microaggression—a form of noblesse oblige whereby white students are in fact patronizing students of color. Not only that, but by treating black students with common courtesy and expecting the same in return, white students [ignore] black grievances, bypassing the ‘race talk’ that is supposed to occur in preamble to all other conversations.”
The takeaway here is: According to political correctness doctrine, all white people are racist, and their ideas are illegitimate unless they sufficiently atone for their inherent racism—which only reinforces their inherent racism and delegitimizes their opinions. It is a negative feedback loop.
The article Salerno references is outlandish; however, it represents a real, constant movement in the academic wing of the anti-Trump coalition to fundamentally alter our freedom of expression.
If you have any doubt that the academic elite view freedom of speech as malleable and think it should be applied to some speakers differently than others, simply read the April 24, 2017, New York Times op-ed by New York University professor Ulrich Baer.11
In the op-ed titled “What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech,” Baer quite clearly argues that instead of following the founding principle of free expression promoted by the Founders of o
ur country, we should instead adopt the definition developed by contemporary French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard.
Baer argues that some opinions are simply too wrong or hurtful to be allowed. Specifically, he said:
Lyotard shifted attention away from the content of free speech to the way certain topics restrict speech as a public good. Some things are unmentionable and undebatable, but not because they offend the sensibilities of the sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.12
Baer said speakers with bigoted, maligned, overtly controversial opinions rob others of their humanity and voice. Baer applied this faulty idea as a justification for recent violent efforts by college students to bar people he called controversial from speaking on campus. Specifically, he named Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulous, and Charles Murray. According to Baer, these efforts to silence speakers “should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship.”
Sure, Spencer and Yiannopoulous may be racist and outlandish, respectively. However, Murray is a serious academic and an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Regardless of the character of the speaker, condoning—or rather failing to condemn—violence aimed at silencing speech is dangerous and un-American.
Ultimately, Baer’s position is that free speech doesn’t count for some people—and it just depends on what they have to say.
We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.…
Trump's America Page 9
