Back to the initial question: is (any of) the West’s cultural inheritance worth preserving? Part of the question goes to deep culture, inherited from Enlightenment philosophy, which is foundational to liberal democracy. Examples include natural rights of speech, religion, conscience, self-determination, and equality before the law, all of which position the individual or citizen at the center of political focus while limiting the purview of government. Alternative political orientations found outside the West are typically variations of collectivism (multiple –isms from which to choose). Unexpectedly, according to a wide-ranging Cato Institute survey about a CBDC (central bank digital currency), 14% of Americans would support in-home government surveillance (some version of Orwell’s Big Brother, already present with the Google Nest, Apple Echo, and other Internet-of-things devices), “to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.” The number jumps to 53% among those who support a CBDC as well. Guess those folks never learned the cautionary lessons of dystopian fiction and actual history, are complacent (or worse) about the inverted relationship of the U.S. citizen to government, and are willing to jettison what vestiges of privacy remain (which in truth was probably gone more than a decade ago).
The ongoing assault on free speech and sovereign thought is particularly concerning to me. The principle used to be readily understood simply by citing the example of the ACLU rising to the defense of the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL, way back in 1978. More fully, the worry was that if heinous and deeply offensive speech, protest, and dissent were infringed, the state would inevitably expand categories of suppression to include relatively innocuous opinion that ran counter to official policy. Most Americans no longer grok the concept, one result of decades of eroding educational standards that leaves large swaths of the public unable to form ideas clearly or develop a vision for life independently from whatever they are told. An educated public, able to understand their shifting positions in the world and in history, would have been worth preserving. Indeed, wizened perspectives based on the humanities are already disappearing from living memory as the digital life makes entire generations into insufferable, mouth-breathing twits face-planted in their phones. Citizens have become workers and consumers, and cultural heroes and thought leaders are now arch-capitalists and tech bros who may stumble accidentally into defense of rights but whose primary focus is directed to a different target.
Category creep is precisely what happened in the Covid era, where open public debate needed to support scientific inquiry was stifled. Make no mistake, the scale of social disruption demanded widespread scrutiny, discussion, and review by qualified experts; what the world got instead was bogus political consensus, orthodoxy, and mandates that only a minority of people, organizations, and countries were able to resist effectively. Now that the so-called Twitter Files revealed that the U.S. government has been working hand-in-glove with Silicon Valley and legacy journalism for some years to restrict speech, all presumed speech rights are lost. Independent journalists examining the Twitter Files discovered that there are hundreds of offices and agencies within the government surveilling public utterance and determining who should be thwarted. That entails thousands of bureaucrats and careerists carrying water for others. Tight control of narratives extends as well to, say, the Russo-Ukrainian proxy war and the past week’s French street rebellion. Who can guess how many other topics have been subjected to propaganda or completely excised from the news because legacy journalists decided (or were told) not to report? For instance, in late August 2023, a controversial law in the European Union will go into effect that commands Silicon Valley social media operators to regulate speech to combat “disinformation,” however that may be defined by some Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Who knows about this? Until yesterday, I didn’t. From this link:
“I am the enforcer,” European Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton told Politico ahead of his planned journey to visit American tech companies to “stress test” them for compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA), which goes into effect this summer. “I represent the law, which is the will of the state and the people.” [links removed]
I’d like to say that Breton’s claim to represent the will of the people is an outright fabrication, but as the Cato Institute survey above suggests, plenty of folks are just fine giving away their autonomy and critical thinking in favor of efficiency and empty promises of safety. (I grant that he represents the law and state in all their iniquity.) Any way one might try to (mis-)shape recent history, coordinated assaults on free speech and the availability of truthful information are marked betrayals of the cultural inheritance of the West and support my contention (from earlier blog posts) that a Counter-Enlightenment movement is underway from both above and below. I haven’t yet answered the question “what’s worth preserving?” directly, having instead pointed to what’s been lost. Stay tuned.