An obvious irony not lost on conservatives or libertarians is the near-constant refrain from certain Democrats, along with left-wing journalists and activists, that Donald Trump wants to become a dictator. What makes it ironic is that the people leveling this accusation are themselves expressing ever more open hostility toward constitutional rights and individual liberties. One of the most recent examples of this trend popped up at the World Economic Forum on Sept. 25. John Kerry, a former secretary of state and now Joe Biden's “climate envoy,” put his own authoritarian tendencies on full display with a very unambiguous attack on Americans’ First Amendment right to free speech.
Kerry was participating in a panel discussion on green energy when a member of the audience asked him about the problem of “disinformation” on climate change circulating across the Internet.
What the former presidential candidate and enthusiastic globalist said in response to the question could be described as any number of things, from inappropriate to disturbing to chilling. Prominent conservatives on social media and several right-leaning news publications focused on Kerry’s direct attack on the First Amendment. But it was his reasoning for wanting to do away with freedom of speech that should be sending a shiver down the spine of anybody who doesn't care much for the idea of living in a police state. Kerry droned on a bit, as he usually does, but it's worth unpacking his entire response.
Referring to a supposedly widespread and growing concern about online disinformation, Kerry said, “It's part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today.” The beauty of living in a free society is that anyone can choose to interpret Kerry's words however they see fit. Consider this, though: If dictators or senior officials in an authoritarian government were to give an honest answer to the question at hand, it would probably be about the same response. If they were being entirely candid, they would likely say something along the lines of, it's difficult to effectively rule the people if you can't get them all to think the way you want them to think. Essentially, that's just what Kerry said here. In this instance, “building consensus” is code for telling people what they should believe.
He continued with a curious remark about “the referees we used to have, to determine what's a fact and what isn't a fact,” but he didn't explain who he thought these “referees” were. After that, Kerry did something that right-leaning pundits and journalists might describe as saying the quiet part out loud. “People self-select where they go for their news or their information – and then you just get into a vicious cycle.” The horror! How dare people choose where they get their news!
“There's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities,” Kerry went on, presumably referring to news outlets or other information sources of which he and the progressive ruling class disapprove, “in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, et cetera.”
He wasn’t done, and the longer it went on, the more sinister it got:
“But, look, if people go to only one source and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.”
Just a reminder here – if one were needed – that Kerry and his ilk on the left are the ones claiming Trump will become a tyrant and stamp out our freedoms should he return to the White House. Of course, Trump had four years in the Oval Office already and if he was going to make himself a dictator, he would have done so. But that's beside the point. Here is Kerry literally talking about hammering “out of existence” any source of information he doesn't like.
As if this wasn't bad enough, Kerry then strongly implied that, should Kamala Harris become the next US president, a full-scale assault on the First Amendment would be very much on the agenda. “So, what we need is to win the ground,” he asserted. “Win the right to govern by hopefully having … winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change.”
One of the co-panelists then interjected, wondering if democracy could survive. Kerry's response was highly alarming. “I think democracies are very challenged right now, and have not proven they can move fast enough, or big enough, to deal with the challenges that we are facing. And to me, that is part of what this race, this election, is all about. Will we break the fever in the United States?”
Was he saying that democracy is flawed? That it is inadequate – a fever that must be broken? It certainly appears so. And yet, these are the people who keep telling us they are defending democracy. This is very much in line with the historical strategy of the political left. It hides behind the word “democracy” when it's convenient to do so, but, in truth, they don't believe in it because democratic systems of government enable citizens to exercise their pesky and inconvenient freedoms -- and to choose their leaders, of course. East Germany, when it was a Soviet satellite, was officially known as the German Democratic Republic. North Korea is formally known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Neither of these states – one now defunct, of course – was ever free or democratic.
There’s a lesson here. Certain politicians and former statesmen often refer to something or someone as a threat to democracy. When they do so, it is worth paying attention to what they are saying about democracy, constitutional rights – such as those protected by the First Amendment – and basic liberties in their most candid moments.
Dig Deeper into the Themes Discussed in this Article!
Liberty Vault: United States v. Alvarez
Liberty Vault: 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
