E-Pluribus | April 11, 2024
Slouching towards dictatorship; the case for Julian Assange; and authoritarianism isn't just a Republican problem.
A round-up of the latest and best musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
J.D. Tuccille: Americans Don't Want a Dictatorship, but They're Creating One Anyway
‘Dictator for thee but not for me’ is the attitude many Americans seem to have about politics, according to J.D. Tuccille at Reason. But without equal application of Constitutional principles regardless of who is in charge, authoritarianism is lurking at the door.
"About half of the public think it would be a bad idea if the next president is able to act on important policy issues without the approval of Congress or the courts," the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research reports of the results of a survey of 1,282 adults conducted March 21-25. "Only 21% think it would be a good thing, and about 30% think it's neither good nor bad."
[. . .]
"About half of the public, regardless of party identification, say the system of checks and balances dividing power among the president, Congress, and the courts is not working well these days," adds AP-NORC. Only around one in ten say it is working extremely or very well.
[. . .]
It's not unreasonable to interpret such polling results as evidence that too many Americans think the system is working well only when it's under the control of their political faction. Unless they can jam their preferred laws and policies down the throats of neighbors with different ideas, they call the system a failure and look for alternatives. Fortunately, only a small minority are willing to go so far as to support dumping the whole system in favor of an actual dictatorship by their chosen el jefe. Unfortunately, the presidency is creeping in the direction of satisfying that minority.
[. . .]
Only a small minority of Americans actually favor turning the presidency into an elective monarchy, but we're all getting it anyway. That's because many people ask far too much of a government that was originally designed to be limited in its role and hobbled by checks and balances. As the most recognizable face of that government, they expect the president to fulfill unreasonable expectations—and grant ever-greater power to the position so current officeholders can try.
[. . .]
It's encouraging that a majority of Americans don't want to live under a dictatorship. If only they'd stop acting in ways that are bound to bring one about.
Read it all.
Rupa Subramanya: Julian Assange Gave America the Ugly Truth
Of all the polarizing political figures, Julian Assange sits near the top of the list. Some see a traitor while others see a truth-teller. Rupa Subramanya at The Free Press says Assange is an uncomfortable mix of good and bad, but in the interests of the free press (including The Free Press), Assange should not be prosecuted for exposing the darkest side of government.
[T]omorrow marks five years since [Julian Assange] was arrested in London as part of a U.S. indictment. So far, he has evaded all attempts to move him onto American soil, but a final decision could come any day now. Last month, a UK court ruled that Assange could continue with his extradition appeal if the U.S. government failed to give assurances about his treatment in this country. The deadline for those guarantees is April 16.
If the U.S. finally succeeds, Assange will be tried for endangering national security under the Espionage Act—a rarely used 1917 law designed to punish those who interfere with “the war effort.” He stands accused of 17 counts of espionage and one of computer misuse. If convicted, he could face over 170 years behind bars.
The case has divided America: some argue Assange is an anarchist, trying to undermine our nation. Others say he is a heroic activist, fighting for a transparent democracy.
But the truth, actually, lies somewhere in the middle: yes, Assange is a deeply flawed character, and he also does not deserve to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Today, President Biden said he is considering a plea from Assange’s homeland of Australia to drop the case, which is a welcome development. Because if the hacker is convicted, it’s not only journalism that will be weaker—it’s democracy itself.
Democracy depends on whistleblowers. We need people like Chelsea Manning. Or Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency employee who leaked documents in 2013 that revealed a disturbing level of government surveillance. Or Thomas Drake, a high-ranking NSA official who blew the whistle on 9/11 intelligence failures. Or Jamie Reed, a case manager at a gender clinic for children, who revealed in these pages that doctors there too hastily prescribed hormones to young adults with mental health issues.
If politicians truly respect the First Amendment, they must defend the freedom of whistleblowers and investigative journalists to deliver the truth to the public—however ugly it may be.
[. . .]
[T]he prosecution of Assange as a publisher—the first time the Espionage Act would be used this way—would effectively criminalize the basic work of obtaining and publishing state secrets. It would make a lot of investigative journalism relating to national security close to impossible.
Already journalists are being punished for exercising their First Amendment rights. In February, Catherine Herridge was held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose her source for a set of stories about a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI over alleged ties to the Chinese military. CBS, Herridge’s former employer, said the court’s decision “should be concerning to all Americans who value the role of the free press.”
Read it all here.
Jonathan Chait: The Left-Wing Authoritarians Shutting Down the Democratic Party
Jonathan Chait, no conservative himself, is taking some progressive protesters to task in New York Magazine for their illiberal approach in the current election cycle, comparing them to (the unkindest cut of all!) Trump supporters. Chait says the heckler’s veto is wrong no matter who it’s directed at. But in terms of presidential politics, it’s also a direct shot to the foot.
Imagine a world in which Congressman Jamie Raskin attempts to deliver a speech on “Democracy, Autocracy, and the Threat to Reason in the 21st Century” and is unable to deliver his remarks because Trump supporters drown him out, and authorities justify the disruption as an exercise in “democracy.” Democrats attempting to raise money for the opposition are surrounded on the street by Trumpists shouting “fuck Joe Biden” and abusing them with racial epithets.
These are the kind of scenes that come to mind when we imagine the authoritarian culture of a second Trump term. They are also events that have not only occurred but have grown commonplace. This pattern of behavior is illiberal and dangerous.
The twist, of course, is that the mobs shutting down the opposition to Trump are not Trump supporters, or at least not right-wing Trump supporters. Pro-Palestinian activists have set out to disrupt Democratic Party officials from speaking and raising funds to defeat Trump.
[. . .]
Drowning out speakers and disrupting exercises in politics, regardless of its cause or the target, is wrong on principle.
I’m not referring to tactics like holding protest marches, speeches, social-media posts, organizing uncommitted votes in the Democratic primary, or other exercises of First Amendment rights. I’m specifically referring to a campaign to shut down speakers who oppose (or even, in many cases, simply decline to endorse) the movement’s agenda.
Usually, it means interrupting speeches with screaming insults until the protesters are dragged out of the room, which has become the norm at Biden campaign events. At events with sub-presidential levels of security, protesters often succeed in overwhelming the event and its security and shutting down the speech or event entirely, sometimes employing violence.
I’d place in the same category aggressive personal harassment campaigns, like gathering outside somebody’s home at three o’clock in the morning with bullhorns shouting “We will not let you sleep!,” or surrounding individuals on the street to scream insults:
[. . .]
Abusive protesters usually meet critiques of their illiberal methods with a facile comparison to the civil-rights movement. But that movement was designed for a political environment in which basic liberal rights did not exist: Black Americans lacked the right to vote, to petition for grievances, or otherwise exert basic freedoms that white Americans enjoyed. The movement’s theorists did not intend their carefully designed arguments to be a permanent license for any progressive cause to declare itself beyond the law for all time.
[. . .]
The illiberal left may have much less power than the illiberal right. But since this faction is demanding influence within the Democratic Party, it can no longer hide behind the notion that it’s too marginal to be worth criticizing. That old evasion — why single out a handful of college teens? — is comical now that illiberal tactics are playing an important role in a presidential election.
Read the whole thing.
Around Twitter (X)
Some Berkeley Law students seem to be having trouble figuring out the whole First Amendment thing. (Click for the video.)
Yesterday’s Around Twitter (X) included a thread from Jeffrey Sachs on disruptive speech. The response to Sachs’s thread was less than positive, so he’s taken another shot at explaining his position:
And finally, one of the most bizarre uses of “blackface” you’ll ever see from the George Washington University Student Coalition for Palestine, via Steve McGuire: