TEXT JOIN TO 77022

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Democrats

In Real Clear Opinion Research, Carl M. Cameron’s article “Is Censorship a Partisan Issue” provides Democrats an exceptional opportunity to follow the facts. The Left will not like where it leads.

The article delves into a Real Clear Opinion Research poll that reveals the Left is the party hastening to embrace government censorship of free speech:

But the most glaring gap is between conservatives and liberals, i.e., between Republicans and Democrats.  On the issue of free expression, at least, Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats…

Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”

Further, within the responses, there is one disturbing, though not surprising, finding that reveals the basis for this finding and, indeed, of much of the overall contention roiling the citizenry; moreover, it is a finding which shows no signs of ratcheting anywhere but upward. To wit:

Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans.  Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.

That slightly over one-third of Democrats believe their fellow citizens have “too much freedom” not only explains their embrace of censorship, it also explains the policies and proposals the Democrats have endeavored to foist upon their fellow citizens. Now, it makes sense why the president and his Congressional almost never use the word “liberty” when discussing public policy issues or in their addresses; and, indeed, the Left’s overarching attempt to supplant “liberty and equality” with the DIE cult of “diversity, inclusion, and equity” as America’s foundational principles. And these radical, extreme, and dangerous Democrats are determined to do so by any means fair or foul, including the weaponization of government against all dissent.

Ominously, it is this 34% of Democrats that largely provides its activist base in government, academia, NGOs, the media and elsewhere. Thus, the Left’s most paranoid and rabid proponents of limiting the freedom of Americans are the most empowered to do it. From government mandated and coerced COVID vaccinations through the destruction of parental right to the imposition of the DIE cult and cancel culture, this segment of the Democratic party is making Americans’ lives miserable, and fraying the bonds of civil society.

Why are these one-third of Democrats intent on foisting their freedom-curbing “democracy” upon our republic? A leftist’s morally superior sense of self is based upon their political beliefs; thus, any dissent to one’s views is seen as a personal attack. This leads the Leftist to feel offended and, ultimately, threatened by people who disagree with them. Inevitably, they come to view the dissenter as a bad person; and seek to silence them. Of course, the Leftist will rationalize away their authoritarian mindset and behavior, and for good measure, project their sins upon the dissenter.

That one-third of one of our two major parties believe Americans have too much freedom, and more than that are willing to censor free speech, is an existential problem for a free republic founded upon self-evident truths and God-given rights. It is first and foremost a problem for the Democrats who, to their credit, do not agree with the 34% of aspiring Leftist authoritarians. Just as preventing the ascendance of the 14.6% of “Republicans” who agree with the Left that Americans have too much freedom is first and foremost a responsibility of the GOP.

Perhaps, then, there can be gleaned a glimmer of a silver lining in these otherwise distressing findings: there is a basis for a bi-partisan consensus among the anti-authoritarians of both parties – who while they have sharp disagreements over how and what shape it should take – agree that the goal is the promotion, not the reduction, of American freedom. To abandon this bipartisan accord is to progress into authoritarianism. After all, fundamental rights upon which Americans have traditionally agreed and staunchly defended include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) represented Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003-2012, and served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars; and a Monday co-host of the “John Batchelor Radio Show,” among sundry media appearances.

Get the news corporate media won't tell you.

Get caught up on today's must read stores!

By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

About Thaddeus G. McCotter

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) represented Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003 to 2012 and served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars, and a Monday co-host of the "John Batchelor Show" among sundry media appearances.

Photo: NEW YORK, NY - SEPTEMBER 19: A 22 percent illuminated waxing crescent moon sets behind the Statue of Liberty on September 19, 2023, in New York City. (Photo by Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)

Notable Replies

  1. Although it’s stating the obvious----the reason a high number of Leftists are comfortable with the concept of limiting speech is that it is extremely rare when it is “their” speech that has limits. For the most part, Leftists are free to express the most batshit rhetoric with little fear of any repercussions. The rare exception is when a Leftist departs in even the slightest degree from accepted orthodoxy—then it is like piranhas on a bloody carcass. The piranha feature sends a clear message to not stray off the reservation. One sees the abject groveling by the “offender” to regain accepted status. I call this the Jimmy Kimmel effect.

    Curiously, one group in the vanguard of protecting free speech that has been otherwise overlooked is the growing number of Black males rejecting the Democrat Plantation very loudly. I can remember the time when the Black male vanguard of speaking truth regardless of consequences numbered two—Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. On the periphery one might also count Shelby Steele, though he did so only in baby steps.

    Today, the number of Black males willing to publicly speak the truth would just about fill a bowling alley. While the figure of non-public Black males just living their free life would now probably fill a couple of National league football stadiums, which is a huge departure from the past.

    It may not sound like much, but we are talking exponential growth here.

    Any Democrat Pollster worth his or her salt is acutely aware of this, though they only speak of it in hushed tones.

  2. I watched the video interview with VDH this morning and he said something that really struck me. The professor said that the revolution currently being waged by the left is predicated on the assumption (correct, I might add) that our side will not engage in the tactics the left does.

    I think that is an important point because for a representative democracy to function, differing sides must have a few common points of agreement. For instance, so long as all sides revered and followed the Constitution, then disagreements could generally be worked out. Thus slavery, which was an abomination against the principles of the Constitution (and which the framers knew would eventually be the locus for ending that abominable practice), eventually proved to be a point of irreconcilable differences which devolved into war.

    Today, although our side more or less adheres to Constitutional principles and its limitations on government, the left is dismissive of the document, to the point of declaring it antiquated, or in need of infusion with foreign constitutions that amplify the power of government, and restrict the freedom of individuals.

    Until the point in time when the American public can rally around the Constitution and its protections for individual liberty and restrictions on governmental power, then our side should not constrain ourselves in its strategies and tactics.

    To wit: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. No more Marquess de Queensberry rules. The only Rules of Engagement are to win–period.

  3. Max, I don’t think we have to abandon adhering to the Constitution (yet) in the battle against the Left. I think we could win by just forcing the Left to adhere to its own rules.

    For example, a child still needs a parental permission slip to even take an aspirin or Tylenol at school. BY THE SAME RULE, a child should need the same permission to be called by another pronoun, much less receive counseling on puberty blockers. Sue the Districts for not following their “own” rules. Any inconsistency should be litigated. Lawfare is engaged by the Left on the Right. Same dosage, same medicine for them.

Continue the discussion at community.amgreatness.com

Participants

Avatar for Maximus-Cassius Avatar for Everett_Brunson Avatar for system