Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts

Sunday, August 13, 2017

From the Archives: Attacks on free speech provoke author Jonathan Rauch to defend 'liberal science'

Attacks on free speech provoke author Jonathan Rauch to defend 'liberal science'
November 30, 2013 10:17 PM MST


Kindly Inquisitors Jonathan Rauch free speechTwenty years after it was first published, a new, expanded edition of Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought is now available as an ebook, with an ink-and-paper edition coming out in March 2014.

Jonathan Rauch, the author of Kindly Inquisitors and other books (including Demosclerosis and his 2013 memoir, Denial: My 25 Years without a Soul), spoke recently with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner following a panel discussion on freedom of speech at the Cato Institute. He explained what inspired him to write the book in the first place.

When, in the late 1980s, “Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses and received a fatwa (essentially a death sentence) from Ayatollah Khomeini,” he said, “I thought that the West did not know how to respond to that. It could defend the laws of free speech but it wasn't defending the ideas of free speech. People were saying things like, 'Well, a death sentence on Rushdie is certainly offensive and wrong but Rushdie himself was offensive to Muslims,' and so forth. And I realized that a lot of people didn't understand why we have this idea of letting people say offensive stuff.”

What is 'liberal science'?
One of the concepts Rauch introduces in Kindly Inquisitors is what he calls “liberal science.”

Jonathan Rauch Rick Sincere Kindly Inquisitors free thought
He explained that “most discussions of free thought and speech start and end with the U.S Constitution” but he tries “to go a little deeper and look at society's method for producing knowledge and adjudicating disputes about fact, which is in some ways the most important thing we do” – for instance, disagreements about whether Christianity or Islam is “the right religion.”

Historically, he said, the method of “settling disputes like that was war.”

By contrast, “liberal science substitutes an open-ended, rule-based, social process in which everybody throws out ideas all the time and we subject them to criticism. We kill our hypotheses rather than each other. This turns out both to be spectacularly good at mobilizing intellectual talent to find and promote good ideas and spectacularly good at defusing what otherwise would be political, often violent, conflicts.”

Liberal science, he said, is the term he coined “for the whole intellectual network we have that seeks truth in Western liberal cultures.”

He compares it to two other major social institutions for “allocating resources and adjudicating social conflicts.”

In economics, he said, “market systems are in the business of allocating resources and they use open-ended rules of exchange to do that.”

In politics, he noted, “democracies are in the business of allocating coercive political power and they use the exchange of votes and compromise to do that.”

Parallel to those two systems, he added, “liberal science is in the business of adjudicating questions about who's right and wrong and they use the exchange of criticism.”

These three systems, Rauch explained, “all have in common that it shouldn't matter who you are. Anyone can participate, there's no special authority, and no one gets the final say. No one can stand outside the system and say, 'Here's the final result.'”

The result is “always subject to change. It's a big rolling social consensus.”

Retreat of the ideologues
Since Kindly Inquisitors was first published in 1993, there has been a major, positive change in the intellectual environment, Rauch said.

“In the last twenty years there's been a retreat by active ideologues who favored censorship and speech controls,” he said. Those views have “been replaced with a more refined case that focuses more specifically on how minorities can be hurt when hate speech rises to a certain level of prevalence in society. It's called the 'hostile environment doctrine.'”

In preparing the new edition of his book, Rauch “decided to take a really hard look at that because I think it's right now the biggest and most serious challenge to people like me who advocate very robust freedom of speech.”

He wanted to find out, “from a minority point of view, which is better: a wide open system where people are free to say hateful things about me and often do, or a more controlled system where you've got some people in charge trying to protect me from that?”

His conclusion, “based on the history of the last twenty years for gay rights” is that “there's no contest. We're much better off as minorities when our speech and the other side's speech are [both] protected because we win those arguments, and we're worse off when that process is interfered with.”

The expanded edition of Kindly Inquisitors includes a new foreword by syndicated columnist George F. Will and a new afterword by Jonathan Rauch. It is available now in both Nook and Kindle formats and a print version will be released next year by the University of Chicago Press.


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on November 30, 2013. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Monday, February 21, 2011

RLC Videos: Justin Amash and Randy Barnett

Congressman Justin Amash
Chronologically speaking, I may have jumped the turnstile by posting videos of the dinner speakers at the February 12 national convention of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Arlington.  My choice was not random, however; I had already noticed that YouTube views of the speeches by financial analyst Peter Schiff and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson were greater in number than the other videos I had posted from the convention.

The RLC convention lunch also had two speakers:  freshman U.S. Representative Justin Amash (R-Michigan), who at 30 years old is (I believe) the second-youngest Member of Congress as well as a longtime RLC activist in his home state, and Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.

Amash had also spoken at CPAC (the annual Conservative Political Action Conference) earlier in the week, where he was reportedly well-received.  Amash is perhaps the first Member of the House of Representatives to post all of his votes, and the rationale for most of them, on his Facebook page (www.facebook.com/repjustinamash), a practice he carried over from his time as a member of the Michigan state legislature.  He says he wants his votes to be subject to public scrutiny and that the new media -- in this case Facebook, but presumably also Twitter, Tumblr, and the rest -- are the easiest way to bring them to light.

Justin Amash represents the Grand Rapids area in Congress, the same part of Michigan once represented by Gerald R. Ford, who went on to become House Minority Leader, Vice President, and President of the United States. (One questioner suggests his hope for a similar career path for Congressman Amash.)  He is the youngest member of the congressional class of 2011, who were elected in the wave election of November 2010. He ran on a platform of "limited government, free markets, and individual liberty."

Congressman Amash's remarks are divided into two segments.  The first is his more formal address (though it is delivered without visible notes) and the second is a question-and-answer session with the audience.

RLC activist Laura Crockett introduces Congressman Justin Amash at the RLC convention lunch in part one:
Part two of Congressman Amash's presentation, a colloquy with RLC members:
After Congressman Amash finished his remarks and his answers to a number of questions, Professor Randy Barnett took the microphone and gave a speech entitled "Rediscovering the Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party."

Barnett, author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, and other books, spoke largely about Chief Justice of the United States Salmon P. Chase, who as a lawyer in the 1840s in Ohio had argued several cases about slavery and the Fugitive Slave Laws. Chase was a founder of the Republican Party after serving in the U.S. Senate as a member of the Free Soil Party. (Chase was also the first GOP governor of Ohio, a Republican Senator for all of two days, and Secretary of the Treasury in Abraham Lincoln's cabinet.)

Barnett makes a strong case for the Republican party's libertarian origins. In the Q&A period, he also discusses the Repeal Amendment that he has proposed, along with the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, William Howell, which is gaining a lot of attention around the United States.

Listen closely to Professor Barnett's remarks for some astute analysis of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as some sharp commentary on the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" in the 2010 health care law (colloquially known as "Obamacare").

Professor Randy Barnett, Part One:
Professor Randy Barnett at the RLC convention, Part Two:
Professor Randy Barnett answers questions (part three):


Still more RLC videos will be posted here. Watch for them soon.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 
 

Sunday, January 02, 2011

Virginia's Political Blog Rankings

In what might be an interesting experiment, blogger Tom White at Virginia Right! has developed three ways of ranking the scope and influence of political blogs based in -- or focusing on -- the Old Dominion.

All such attempts at rankings must be rough around the edges.  White's three categories are (1) dollar value (a concept I'm not too clear on); (2) global ranking; and (3) local ranking.  In each category, he makes a further division between liberal blogs and conservative blogs.

White explains:
I believe the dollar ranking to be the best overall measure as to the reach of a blog. I also believe the dollar values should be taken with a grain of salt as to the actual monetary value, but if taken as “points” as opposed to dollars, it looks to be a pretty good measure.

Any Virginia blog ranking that fails show Not Larry Sabato and Bearing Drift at the top of the charts is, in my opinion, suspect, and fails the sanity check.

These rankings are not intended to offend anyone and are simply reflective of measurements and algorithms developed by someone with no interest in Virginia Politics and completely objective in their calculations.
For what it's worth, this blog (Rick Sincere News and Thoughts) has a "dollar value" of $7,665, for tenth place among all Virginia blogs, just ahead of Black Velvet Bruce Lee and just behind a six-way tie for ninth place. While my dollar value remains the same, my ranking rises to seven among conservative blogs.

Top-dollar-value political blogs in Virginia are Not Larry Sabato ($210,787), Bearing Drift ($109,500), and Vivian Paige (also $109,500).

On the measure called "global ranking," this blog places 37th overall among Virginia political blogs and 23rd among Virginia conservative blogs (global rank: 4,336,918). The top three in global rankings are Vivian Paige (global rank: 226,490), Bearing Drift (rank: 239,458), and Virginia Right! (rank: 292,312).

In terms of "local ranking," this blog is listed 22nd among all Virginia political blogs (local ranking: 712,222) and 14th among Virginia conservative blogs. The top three political blogs by this measure are, once again, Vivian Paige (local rank: 43,245), Bearing Drift (rank: 44,538), and Virginia Right! (rank: 67,745).

The full universe of blogs ranked in these three categories seems to number 73, though I might be misreading that figure.  If so, the number of conservative-leaning blogs is 51 and the number of liberal-leaning blogs is 22.

Although this is a static picture of Virginia's political blogosphere as of January 2, 2011, Tom White says he plans to rerun his survey on a weekly basis. Tune in to Virginia Right! next week and subsequently for results of future horse races.
Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The End of 'Liberty'? Not Exactly...

Generally, receiving unexpected money in the mail is something to celebrate.

When I found a check for $30.55 in my mailbox early last week, however, it was a bittersweet event.

Why was that?  It marked the end of an era.  The check was the refund on the remainder of my subscription to Liberty magazine, which is switching to an exclusively on-line format starting in 2011.  The print version of the magazine will be no more.

I have been reading Liberty since about 1990.  It is always a delight, especially when I begin -- as I invariably do -- with the feature on the last page, "Terra Incognita," a collection of oddities from the world press, showcasing strange behavior by governments and political elites, and sometimes just strange behavior, full stop.  The additional short items in the front of the book, under the heading of "Reflections," may represent the first group blog -- having existed for years, if not decades, before the concept of "group blog" ever manifested itself.

Editor-in-chief Stephen Cox also has a monthly column on the abuses of language that can be thoughtful and provocative, often bringing me to say, "Yes, I get peeved about that, too; I'm glad I'm not the only one."

Though not an organ of the Libertarian Party, Liberty has often been the only publication that treats the LP both seriously and critically, serving not as a cheerleader (though the magazine and the party have clearly been on the same side in the struggle against statism) but often as a gently chiding friend.  For example, the founding editor, the late R.W. Bradford, ran a series of articles about a decade ago calling attention to alleged malfeasance on the part of LP executives and officials in the campaigns of Harry Browne, who was the LP nominee for president in 1996 and 2000.  This investigative journalism led to better management of the party.

Liberty also offered book and movie reviews from a libertarian perspective, recollections of the early days of the libertarian movement, and lots of articles about Ayn Rand and her disciples.

I was lucky enough to be published in Liberty, at least once -- a review of Paulina Borsook's book, Cyberselfish, which I found to be a caricature, rather than a serious exploration, of libertarian thought and libertarians.

I am sure that I will occasionally visit Liberty's web site to keep up with all the writers whom I've come to enjoy, but unless I receive regular email, Twitter, or Facebook updates reminding me to do so, I'm afraid I will be neglectful.  (That's how I end up visiting the web sites of Reason and The Freeman several times a week.)

The print edition, with Liberty's plain appearance and rich content, will be missed.  In the meantime, I have dozens of copies strewn around my house.  Since they all look alike, I can pick up any one of them, ignore the date on the cover, and pretend it's new.  Even if it's not, I'm bound to learn something.
Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Albemarle County, Va: "We're Number 69!"

Last month I noted that Hanover County, Virginia, had been rated as the eighth most conservative-friendly county in the United States by The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's new on-line news site.

Two other Virginia localities, Chesterfield County and Virginia Beach, also made the top 100 list.

Now The Daily Caller is ranking the top 100 liberal-friendly counties in the country.  Yesterday it listed 81-100; today it listed 61-80.

It turns out that our own Albemarle County (including, it seems, according to the description, the independent city of Charlottesville that the county encircles) is ranked number 69.  This is what The Daily Caller has to say about our liberal community:

69. Albemarle County, Va.
Largest city: Charlottesville

Charlottesville is an independent city, but the county seat of surrounding Albemarle County is Charlottesville. Just as well, sicne the two entities are basically one and the same. Thomas Jefferson, a native of the county, set up his last great project in Charlottesville — the University of Virginia. The university dominates the economy and culture of the county. The county correspondingly leans Democratic, and Charlottesville is more liberal than the county itself.
Albemarle is snuggled, on the list, between #70 Ulster County, New York (where Woodstock is located; enough said) and #68 Kauai County, Hawai'i.  (Intriguingly, Hawai'i County is #67 and Maui County is #66.)

The rest of the top 100 will be posted in 20-county increments on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. We will find out later this week how highly ranked are Arlington County and the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church -- and whether any other Virginia counties qualify for the honor of being "most liberal."

I know a lot of progressives in and around Charlottesville are going to be grumbling about their low ranking.  They'll do their best on November 2 to change that for next year's survey.



Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

VaBook10: A Conversation from Left and Right

Those who have been following my other blog (Book Reviews by Rick Sincere, not Where Are the Copy Editors?) know that I was guest blogging for the 2010 Virginia Festival of the Book.  Over the five days of the festival, I posted several "short takes" -- video interviews with various authors about their books.  As I did last November at the National Press Club's annual book fair and authors' night, and again in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I asked authors to (1) state their names, (2) say the titles of their books, and (3) explain why I -- or any viewer -- would want to read the book, all in 45 to 60 seconds.

Needless to say, the Virginia Festival of the Book offered an abundance of smart, witty, and -- on occasion -- loquacious authors who were generous with their time and eager to tell people about their books.

In consideration of the layout and format of my book review blog, I decided that I will post the long-form video (recordings of complete panel discussions) here rather than there, because it seems to fit better.

The first long video I have -- in 13 segments covering nearly 90 minutes of intelligent discussion -- comes from a panel at the book festival sponsored by the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia.  Titled "A Conversation from Left and Right: With Hendrik Hertzberg and Richard Brookhiser," the event was moderated by the Institute's executive director, Bob Gibson, and introduced by Coy Barefoot, who works at the Institute by day and hosts a drive-time radio talk show on WINA-AM in Charlottesville.

As indicated in the event title, the featured discussants were authors Richard Brookhiser, a senior editor at National Review whose most recent book is a memoir called Right Time, Right Place: Coming of Age with William F. Buckley Jr. and the Conservative Movement, and Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor at The New Yorker, whose most recent book is ¡OBÁMANOS!: The Birth of a New Political Era.

In keeping with the philosophy of the Sorensen Institute, Brookhiser and Hertzberg engaged in a civil discussion about the Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, civility and incivility in politics from the 18th century to today, election law reform, health care, Tea Parties, and various current issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and -- prodded by a question from Coy Barefoot -- the Texas state school board's decision to remove references to Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum.

Hertzberg has written about his Charlottesville experience in an entry on his New Yorker politics blog called "Reconciliation Philadelphia Style."  For those who prefer audio to video, the Sorensen Institute has posted a podcast of the conversation, noting that there were over 200 people in the audience at the Culbreth Theatre on March 20.

In the first segment, Coy introduces the Sorensen Institute, noting that it was "founded in 1993 to identify, train, and inspire emerging leaders" from around Virginia, and then the panelists.  Then the moderator, Bob Gibson, thanks the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and various financial contributors who made the event possible.  His first question posed to Hertzberg and Brookhiser is "something foundational," because both panelists have written about the nation's founding.  He asks:  "What would our nation's Founders do if they had to do it all over again under today's conditions?  And, would, for example, today's partisan gridlock alarm them, and what would please them?"

Brookhiser takes the first shot at the question; Hertzberg responds in the second segment.
Part II:
The dialogue about Gibson's first question continues in Part III, followed by a new question, addressing whether we are in a downward spiral of political incivility today and whether there is a "prescription" for getting out of it. Hertzberg answers first in this case, saying that he "deplores" Fox News and Glenn Beck, and that political fundraising is "soul killing" for Senators and congressmen.
In Part IV, Gibson gives what he calls the "last initial question" before he begins taking questions from the audience. He asks: "Do you think each of your publications [meaning The New Yorker and National Review] have remained faithful to their origins?"
Part V begins with a question from the audience, pointing out with regard to electoral districts, gerrymandering requires candidates to run to the left or the right in order to win nominations in districts that are more or less ideologically homogeneous. Hertzberg takes the opportunity to talk about proportional representation and, later, preference voting, wondering "why no state has experimented" with this type of democracy.
In Part VI, Bob Gibson interjects another question: "In the globalization of the economies that we share today, America and China are joined at the bank. Is it troubling to you that our democracy is tied to their form of government through the financing system?" Brookhiser pauses before answering that "this question may look very different in five or ten years." Hertzberg notes that even though the Communist Party is still in charge in China, "Communism is dead."
Part VII begins with a question from former University of Connecticut professor David RePass, who suggests that the Founding Fathers would wonder, "What have you done" to the Constitution? He refers to the 2000 election and the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore and to the Senate's requirement for 60 votes in order to do business. He also suggests that the Bill of Rights does not apply to corporations, and plugs an op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times in March 2009 about the filibuster.

The first response to RePass's several points comes from Hendrik Hertzberg, who says he agrees "with all that." Brookhiser says the filibuster is a "complicated question," and that the House of Representatives is actually less democratic than the Senate is. He repeats an anecdote about Newt Gingrich found in Right Time, Right Place, in which Gingrich predicted in 1994 that his speakership would be based not on that of Joseph Cannon but rather on "Czar" Thomas Reed, who ran the house with an iron fist (or iron gavel?).
Part VIII is very short and is transitional, as Brookhiser finishes up his comments from the previous segment with a reflection on the election of 1872, when Republicans lost about 100 seats in Congress and which marked the beginning of Jim Crow.
The truncated question at the beginning of Part IX is about "fixing the language of the Second Amendment." Brookhiser answers first, with a discourse on the origins of the Bill of Rights.
In Part X, an audience member asks about "the nature of the American people." He points out people "not in this room" are susceptible to demagoguery. "Are we getting the democracy we deserve?," he asks.

Brookhiser answers that he is "sure people in this room are susceptible to demagoguery. I'm sure we all are." He also refers to the famous essay by Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hertzberg then turns the question to ask why we don't have national health care, as they do in Europe, saying that our institutions don't transmit the will of the people. (This discussion took place one day before the House of Representatives voted on the massive health care bill.)
Part XI begins with Gibson asking Hertzberg what he thinks about President Obama's standing today. Hertberg predicts that, no matter what happens with the health care vote, Democrats will lose a great many seats in November.
In Part XII, a "lapsed journalist" asks about "government by ballot initiative," which he suggests has caused many problems in California. He wonders why ballot initiatives, "which appeal to extremes," have not caught on elsewhere. Hertzberg points out that initiative began in the Progressive era, when states were so corrupt that citizens needed a way to get around the legislature.
In the concluding segment (Part XIII), Rick Hertzberg answers a question about the Texas Board of Education, pointing out that the United States was founded by people who do not share the religious leanings of that board's members, mentioning that Washington, Jefferson, and others were deists.

The last questioner from the audience recalls that when he was growing up, parties were bigger tents. He names liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits and notes there were conservative Democrats, too. Hertzberg asserts that the Democratic party is now a "center-left coalition" while Republicans are like a "disciplined, European party of the Right."
In this segment, Brookhiser looks back in history and remembers earlier times when there was a "frenzy" about politics, "if not polarization." The conversation more or less ends with that thought, and applause from the audience.


Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter!