Cancel Culture and the intellectual right

In the Plot Against America (an HBO series) a fictional retelling of history sees Charles Lindberg elected as president, instead of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In truth, Lindberg was part of the infamous America First movement of the 1940s. America First felt American intervention in a European war (World War 2) was a bad idea, and the U.S. was best to invest in domestic policy. Charles Lindberg was a famous populist, a US Postal airmail pilot turned celebrity by completing the first trans-Atlantic flight. In reality, Lindberg never ran for president, but his America First ideals had seeped into mainstream society as the debate abounded whether or not America should enter World War 2. In the series, the Lindberg presidency isn’t overtly anti-Jew, but the sentiment that American men shouldn’t die liberating European Jews leads to a racist outpouring in America.

Trump’s real America First policies had a similar impact to Lindberg’s fictional America First policies. Why should Americans suffer so that other ethnic groups can have a better life, or even a piece of the American dream? It’s not overt racism, but the invitation of racism, the idea that minority groups can only succeed at the expense of the majority. This is easily proven not to be true, minority groups can succeed with their own skill, merit and innovation, but the idealism of America First lends to darker angels of human nature. Compile this with catch phrases like “China Virus” and “Kung Flu” amid a costly global pandemic, and the environment becomes ripe with racist conservative ideology, and also the far left ideology to counter it. In short, after four years of America First, the U.S. has become a polarized nation of two extremes, much like the fictional America portrayed in the Plot Against America.

Combine that with engagement based search engines and social media algorithms, and it can appear like America is on the precipice of civil war, illustrated by two polarized extremes at odds with one another. On one side, you have extreme conservative ideology that believes in the complete and total proliferation of freedom of speech, free market, and rugged individualism. On the other, you have cancel culture, which seeks to regulate, legislate, and rebuke anything that can potentially be deemed remotely offensive to anyone. Neither side is morally or ideologically correct.

The reality is that most Americans are no different today, than they were 100 years ago. Most of us still want the stereotypical American Dream. A level of education befitting of our intelligence, a career that offers a moderate middle class life and some personal satisfaction, a long-term intimate relationship that is both rewarding and joyous, and the opportunity to find satisfaction and fulfillment in a family of our own making. Most Americans aren’t particularly idealistic, and while they support equality for everyone, they aren’t overly loud about it. The majority is so focused on meeting their own responsibilities, that they don’t have ample time to zero in on all the social injustices around them.

So why does America seem so polarized? Well, the average American making their way through life, working a stable but boring 9-5 job, getting groceries, picking up their children from school, helping with homework and raking leaves doesn’t make for an exciting story. Americans rioting in the streets after the murder of an unarmed minotority, or Americans storming the capitol are both sensational and engaging. Like it or not, they turn people on, and since search engines and online video services are based on engagement, the sensational rises to the top, high above advice on how to unclog your drain and polish your hardwood floors.

However, right now, the traditional American dream isn’t what every person is chasing, and that’s okay too. Again, the majority of Americans have no problem with that. For some Americans just living as the gender they register with is a primary goal, or perhaps living free of gender altogether is what they’re chasing. For other minority groups, their picture of the perfect life might look altogether different from the apple pie Americana dream eastern European descendents seek. All of that is okay, and again, the vast majority believe everyone should have the freedom to pursue the lifestyle of their choice, as long as those choices don’t harm anyone else. Again though, this isn’t sensational, it doesn’t make good news. A township of people who respect social distancing regulations and wear masks during the pandemic isn’t good news. People working together toward a common goal often don't get the same online engagement as someone going off on a tirade about masking rules does.

Thus, we are given the illusion that the bottom is about to fall out of the America we thought we knew. Conservatives often believe that things are so good now, that changing them may risk the greatness we already have. Progressives believe that right now, things aren’t good at all, and we need abrupt and serious immediate changes to course correct. The moderates, which still make up the vast majority, recognize that we’ve come a long way and many things have improved, but there is still work to do, however if we move too fast we could create more problems than we solve. Despite allegations that he was a radical liberal, President Barack Obama was a textbook definition of a moderate president. But since polarization gets engagement, it can appear like America is a land of two extremes, and thus both sides of our social struggles lock down and hyper-engage.

This hyper-engagement, and over-engagement in what produces an almost bedazzled version of political viewpoints. The left cancels, while the right condemns lifestyles. Cancel culture exists largely in cyberspace, often curated by self-appointed liberal thinkers who spend their days mining social media for the slightest offense. And it doesn’t matter when that offense took place. It could have been last week, it could have been ten-years ago. In the case of a former Teen Vogue editor, it was when she was 17. Cancel culture has given birth to the notion that any oversight of language, behavior, thought, or argument must result in an immediate action, the canceling of a person from their current identity and place in society. Plus, there’s no redemption and sorry doesn’t cut it, not anymore.

Now, given U.S. free speech laws, this would be difficult to do. However, it’s important to note that U.S. free speech laws also protect private corporations. What do I mean? When Facebook removes someone’s post for violating their user agreement, the same free speech laws that protect the user’s right to say it, protect Facebook’s right to remove it. Since the platform belongs to Facebook, it’s within their right to determine what’s expressed on it. The same goes for all U.S. social media, and traditional media as well. This means that in hard reality, the only place our first amendment is truly sacred and without restraint is on our own property. Yes, you can place a billboard on your land that says anything you want it to say, and you can’t be forced to remove it. Case in point, a property not far from my home has a clearly black mannequin hanging from a noose right in their front yard. Many minorities make their way here on vacation each year, and many have argued with local authorities to have the mannequin display removed. It cannot be, since the display is on private property, and protected by free speech laws. However, if the display was on Facebook’s property (the same as a Facebook post digitally) it wouldn’t last five seconds.

Cancel culture is often said to engage in de-platforming. What is de-platforming? It’s not simply removing one, two, or three posts that someone made. It’s stating that their entire platform (which is usually hosted by a social media provider) is harmful to a specific group. If someone is de-platformed, they don’t just lose the ability to post certain memes or videos, they lose the ability to post at all. A good example is former president Donald Trump. Twitter deemed his entire platform as so damaging, that he has been banned FOR LIFE. Twitter has also determined that mis-gendering someone (calling a trans-person by their originally assigned gender or original name) is so harmful that it must result in a lifetime ban.

De-platforming happens when a group of social media activists rally against a particular outspoken user. Usually it happens to an outspoken personality that has offended a certain demographic of the population. Candance Owens is a good example. Owens is a conservative online talk show host that often shares controversial views on social media. After the death of George Floyd, Owens (who is black) argued that Floyd was a career criminal and his own behavior had led to his subsequent death. Cancel culture activists sought to de-platform her, and force the hand of social media giants to have her removed from all social media. Sadly for them, it was deemed Owen’s viewpoints weren’t harmful enough to support her losing her platform.

De-platforming isn’t just isolated to social media. What happened to conservative actress Gina Carano could be considered an example of de-platforming. Twitter users banned together and formed the fire Gina Carano hashtag, after Carano posted a variety of controversial tweets propagating her conservative viewpoints. Once the hashtag gained enough support, Disney made the decision to fire Gina Carano, meaning she literally lost her job over social media posts and their subsequent response.

On an even bigger level, trans-activists seek to de-platform mega-author JK Rowling, after Rowling made a series of controversial blog posts questioning the trans community. Activists have sought to force HBO Max to abandon a Harry Potter series, since the series would mean financial reward for Rowling. So far, their attempts have been unsuccessful, but Rowling has been largely removed from the feminist perch she once occupied.

In a roundabout way, the removal of several Dr. Seuss books from print is an example of de-platforming, as Seuss’ primary platform was children’s books, several of which were removed from publication. The latest de-platformed children’s writer is the author of the Captain Underpants series. One book was found to be stereotypical of Asians (it featured a kung-fu master named Mr. Wong) and removed from publication.

Cancel culture isn’t only concerned with what individuals say, it’s also concerned about what they read or support. An example is the banjo player in British folk/rock band Mumford and Sons. After Tweeting that he read a conservative book on Antifa, he was forced to step-away from the band to “reflect on the hurt reading the book had caused.” Again, this is de-platforming. His band was his platform, a platform he was forced to step down from.

Surprisingly, since it comes from the supposed compassionate left, cancel culture is cold. It has all the fire and brimstone of radical religion, but none of the redemption. Once you’ve offended someone in the social sphere, you’re doomed for life. Many formerly popular commentators have watched their platform turn to ash, along with their fortunes. While other more polarizing commentators have used critique of cancel culture to propel them.

A platform isn’t just a social media profile; it can be a job, a book, a film, a TV series and much more.

To counter this, conservatives decry that this is the end of American expression as we know it. Their claim is that increased hate speech legislation, combined with the rise of cancel culture is leading America to a societal system akin to that of China, where language is policed and what you think has serious consequences. Their crafty by enacting what are called “intellectual arguments” about everything from gender to race. Dress up racism in an intellectual argument, is it still racism? At least that seems to be the overall gist. A perfect example is trans-gender rights, perhaps the most hot-button topic of all right now. Where a decade ago it was perfectly acceptable to simply disparage trans-people openly with little consequences. Today, those same words will, you guessed it, get you de-platformed. So the work around conservatives use is wrapping up their disapproval of trans-gender people in intellectual arguments. Transitioning harms children, and trans-gender activists are tricking young people into swapping genders.

And while cancel culture may define the radical left, the intellectual argument defines the alternative right. Gone are the days of open hate, here are the days of hate wrapped in intellectualism. What conservatives fail to mention is that U.S. free speech laws aren’t as iron clad as they may seem. The first amendment is refreshingly short. Congress may not pass any law that interferes with free speech. That’s it, nothing else. The U.S. Congress can’t pass a law that interferes with your freedom of speech. However, your employer has the same right to free speech (as an organization) as you do as an individual. That isn’t new, it’s always been that way. Meaning, when you’re at work (on their platform) you have to abide by the image they seek to project. When you don’t, the organization's freedom of speech protection allows them to fire you. What has changed? No longer are employment decisions made solely between employee and employer, but now between employers, the public, and employee. It’s arguable that if you take Twitter out of the equation, both Gina Carano and Mumford and Son’s banjo player would still have jobs.

That’s concerning, because someone’s political viewpoint, or even controversial viewpoint doesn’t mean they’re incapable of playing a role, or a banjo for that matter. So while freedom of speech laws are the same as they’ve always been (vague at best) how they’re applied in the workplace has most certainly changed due to cancel culture. Previously, it was rare that someone was fired for holding a controversial viewpoint outside of work. Today, it’s rather common.

Equally as concerning is that we can wrap hate up as intellectualism and watch it gain traction. Many “intellectuals” promote a hateful rhetoric, that when dissected isn’t much different from divisive rhetoric from the past. Yet, when packaged and sold under the guise of intellectual critique, it becomes popularized, and often its subscribers radicalized. A prime example of this is the Qanon conspiracy theory. Qanon believers often envisioned themselves as tireless intellectual researchers, unraveling a secret plot within the inner workings of American government. It was all bullshit, which begs the question, is conservative intellectualism just bullshit served as chocolate truffle?

To sum this up, I’ll leave you with a story. Several years ago, a local university invited a black educator and activist to speak. While in a small, rural town, the activist stopped at a local bookstore to inquire about a black settlement that once existed there. In a Twitter post years later (the post was dropped recently) she claimed the bookstore owner asked her to leave, largely because she was black and because she was asking about a former black settlement in town. A journalism student saw the Tweet, and happened to know the bookstore owner who confirmed the activist had visited years earlier. However, the bookstore owner (who is white) happens to be very progressive, and an outspoken anti-racist. Beyond that, he’s highly respected in the community, trusted, and beloved. He claimed the interaction didn’t play out at all as the activist described it and was hurt and dismayed at why she recanted the story that way.

When the journalism student posted about this, and questioned as to why an activist would tell a story about her town, and this bookstore owner that seemed nearly impossible, a mob of people swarmed in and forced her off social media. To be clear, she wasn’t de-platformed, but the constant barrage of negative messages was too much for her to bear.

Ask yourself, is running people off over skeptical inquiry healthy, or not? On the flipside, is using the guise of intellectualism to spread hate any better than phrases like “China Virus?” Is the current pull and tug between radical left and alternative right any different than the social upheavals of America’s past?