In the ever-polarizing climate of American politics, Anthony Lewis 's "The Open Mind: Freedom for the Thought that We Hate" emerges as a crucial beacon of hope and reason. The book, a profound exploration of the intricacies of free speech and its implications for a healthy democracy, resonates deeply with the ethos of our blog, The Long View, dedicated to fostering political civility and countering extremism in the United States.
The central thesis of "The Open Mind" rests on the cornerstone of American democracy: the First Amendment. Anthony Lewis delves into historical and contemporary debates surrounding free speech, arguing persuasively that the protection of speech, including that which we may find abhorrent, is fundamental to a functioning democracy. This is a particularly salient point in today's context, where political discourse often seems more fractious than ever.
One of the book's strengths lies in its meticulous research and balanced presentation. Lewis navigates through historical contexts, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to modern-day controversies, providing a comprehensive understanding of how free speech has been interpreted and challenged over time. This historical lens is not just academic; it offers practical insights into how we might approach current and future free speech dilemmas.
Perhaps most compelling is the author's exploration of the paradox of tolerance — the idea that a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance to survive. This paradox is central to the challenges of upholding free speech in an era marked by the rise of extremist ideologies. The author doesn't shy away from the complexities here, instead offering a nuanced discussion that encourages readers to think critically about where the lines should be drawn.
"The Open Mind" also excels in its analysis of the role of social media and technology in shaping public discourse. The author acknowledges the transformative impact these platforms have had on speech, for better and worse, and prompts a critical examination of the responsibilities of tech giants in moderating content.
In terms of style, Anthony Lewis maintains a clear, engaging, and professional tone throughout the book. The writing is accessible yet intellectually rigorous, reflecting a deep understanding of the subject matter. This makes the book an excellent resource not just for scholars and students of political science, but for anyone interested in the health of American democracy.
In conclusion, "The Open Mind: Freedom for the Thought that We Hate" is a timely and important contribution to the conversation on free speech and political civility. It challenges readers to consider the complex balance between protecting free expression and maintaining a civil society. For followers of The Long View, this book is not just recommended reading; it's essential for anyone committed to understanding and navigating the challenges of political discourse in the modern era.
As we continue to confront the growing divides in our society, Anthony Lewis's work serves as a crucial reminder of the value of open-mindedness, rigorous debate, and the enduring importance of the First Amendment.
Reviewer: Mariano Bernardez, Contributor to The Long View
The political use of human rights became evident for
Argentinians in the rally organized yesterday, March 24, 2023, by a pro-government group called La Campora, led by
the son of former president and current vice president Cristina Kirchner.
Under
the guise of an anniversary of the military coup of March 24, 1976, that installed a Military Junta and pursued crimes
against humanity judged in 1985 (recently presented in an Oscar-nominated film),
the rally pressed to stop the verdicts in trials for the corruption of Cristina
Kirchner excluded all opposition parties and independent organizations organized.
The rally organizers proclaimed a bogus version of
30,000 disappeared during the military dictatorship years (1976-1983) and accused
those who supported the 8,960 tested by CONADEP of "denialism."
We carefully researched the arguments for and against
both positions with an exhaustive search using artificial intelligence (ChatGPT
4).
Here are the results:
The
figure of 8,960 disappeared in Argentina during the 1976-1983 dictatorship
comes from a report, "Nunca Más," prepared by the National Commission
on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP) 1984. Then-President Raúl Alfonsín
created CONADEP to investigate and document the human rights violations
committed by the military government.
Sources and arguments in favor of the
figure of 8,960:
1.The "Nunca Más" report results
from an extensive investigative process carried out by CONADEP, which included
the collection of testimonies, documents, and evidence of human rights
violations.
2.CONADEP not only documented cases of
forced disappearance but also cases of torture, murder, and theft of babies.
Therefore, the figure of 8,960 is a solid number based on data collected and
verified by the commission.
3.The figure of 8,960 is widely accepted
and supported by international organizations and human rights experts, such as
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Arguments for the figure of 30,000:
1.The 30,000 figure is often cited by
human rights organizations and groups of relatives of victims, such as the
Madres de Plaza de Mayo and Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, who argue that the number
of disappeared is much higher due to the number of cases not reported or
documented.
2.The 30,000 figure is argued to be based
on estimates and testimonies from survivors and relatives of the victims, who
claim that many people were kidnapped, tortured, and killed without a trace.
3.Some argue that the "Nunca
Más" report could not include all cases due to a lack of resources and
time, as well as possible intimidation of witnesses and survivors by members of
the military government.
Critical analysis :
1.CONADEP's figure of 8,960 is supported
by exhaustive and systematic research. However, it is important to recognize
that the political and social context at the time may have limited the
commission's ability to document all cases.
2.The 30,000 figure, while widely reported
and cited, lacks the same empirical basis as the 8,960 figure. It
can help raise awareness of the magnitude of violence and human rights
violations. Still, it should be treated with caution when approaching the issue
from an academic or legal perspective.
3.The political and economic motivations
behind each figure can be diverse. While the 8,960 figure can be seen as an
attempt to document and acknowledge human rights violations officially, the
30,000 figure can be used by interest groups to highlight the seriousness of
the problem and press for justice and redress.
The
reasons why CONADEP's figure of 8,960 disappeared is considered correct are
based on the methodology used, the exhaustiveness of the investigation, and the
support of international organizations and human rights experts. Here
are the reasons _ _ main :
1.Research methodology: CONADEP carried out a rigorous and systematic
research process. The commission collected testimonies, documents, and evidence
of human rights violations, including forced disappearances, torture, murder,
and theft of babies. The figure of 8,960 is based on these verified and
documented data in the "Nunca Más" report (Source: "Nunca
Más" report, CONADEP, 1984).
2.Official recognition The report "Nunca Más" was published by a
commission created by then President Raúl Alfonsín, which gives it an official
and governmental character. The figure of 8,960 is the official recognition of
the forced disappearances during the dictatorship (Source: Decree 187/83,
Presidency of the Argentine Nation, 1983).
3.Supported by
international organizations and experts:
The figure of 8,960 is widely accepted and supported by international human
rights organizations and experts in the field, such as Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch. These organizations have cited and used the figure of
8,960 in their reports and analyses of the human rights situation in Argentina
during the dictatorship (Source: Amnesty International, "Argentina: A
Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, "2000; Human
Rights Watch, " World Report 2001: Argentina").
4.The thoroughness of
investigation: Although the "Nunca Más"
report may not have been able to include all cases of enforced disappearances,
the figure of 8,960 is the result of a comprehensive effort to document and
verify as many cases as possible. CONADEP identified and denounced human rights
violations, providing a solid foundation for future investigations and justice
efforts (Source: "Nunca Más" report, CONADEP, 1984).
Considering these reasons, the figure of
8,960 disappeared persons presented by CONADEP is considered correct from a
methodological, official point of view and supported by international
organizations and human rights experts.
Luis
Labraña, a journalist and former Montonero militant, has stated in interviews
that 30,000 disappeared was an invention on his part during the dictatorship. According to Labraña, the figure was created in 1978,
when he worked at the ANCLA news agency, founded by Rodolfo Walsh, a writer,
and journalist who disappeared during the dictatorship. Labraña maintains that
the figure was created to attract the attention of the international press and
that it had no real foundations.
Labraña mentions that the Mothers of the
Plaza de Mayo adopted the figure of 30,000 disappeared and used it in their
protests and activities. Over the years, various sectors in Argentina and abroad widely disseminated and accepted the figure.
It should be noted that Labraña's testimony
is an individual perspective and does not necessarily represent the reality of
how the figure of 30,000 disappeared originated. Despite their claims, CONADEP,
as we mentioned above, documented 8,960 cases of forced disappearances, this
being the official figure and supported by various international organizations
and human rights experts.
Sources:
Perfil, "Luis Labraña,
the journalist who invented the 30,000 disappeared", 2016.
Infobae, "The militant
who recognized that he invented the figure of 30,000 disappeared",
2016.
Maintaining a critical and analytical
vision of the statements and testimonies presented concerning complex and
sensitive historical events, such as the forced disappearances in Argentina
during the dictatorship, is essential to keep political use at bay.
Although Labraña's testimony is interesting, it is crucial to consider official and documented
information when addressing this issue.
For those societies that have experienced them, the danger of civil wars is not just a hypothetical but a menacing specter of their actual past. Survivors of past civil wars (like most African and European countries and a significant number of Asians) are haunted by their memories. So might be those who read History and books such as Barbara Walter's How Civil Wars Start and How To Prevent Them.
The central argument of How Civil Wars Start and How To Prevent Them is that in a spectrum of political systems that go from total tyranny (-10 on Walter's scale) and stable, strong al well-functioning liberal democracy (+10), Civil Wars tend to happen in those Walter call "emocracies" -somewhere between -5 and +5 of that scale.
In her study of multiple civil war cases -from Ancient times to Kosovo and Rwanda, Iraq or Afghanistan- Walter found two common elements:
Identity politics pit one ethnic/cultural group against another -usually the "son of the land" against immigrants or perceived "elite" groups in power. ("critical race" theory on the Far Left and 'ethnic replacement" on the Far Right mirror the same populist argument to fuel hatred and distrust.
Replacement of the current republic: The idea that if the rival win will mean the destruction of the US constitution and descent into some form of dictatorship with massive loss of rights for the losing faction.
The United States under Trump descended from an 8 to a dangerous 5 in the civil war risk "zone" during Trump's first term (so far) to return to 7 after Trump's contentious defeat in 2020. (At least for 25/30% of hard-core Trumpists and the majority of mainstream republican voters that get their information from Tucker Carlson and other conspiratory hacks)
Critical Review
Walter's study has many eye-opening points of contact with the current crises in EU and US liberal democracies with several important caveats:
It's a mid-term scenario for the US. Institutions are still able to contain dictatorial takeovers -as the June 6 hearings and the Republican Party business establishment's reluctance to go with Trump's anti-globalization policies. It would take more than a small mob storming the Capitol to bring down 248-year-old and tested constitutional institutions installing a Putin- Xi or a new version of Jefferson Davis.
It downplays and neglects the analysis of the illiberal Left in promoting civil wars -from BLM, Antifa, and the Quad- to the illiberal 'woke' left identity politics that drive the 2022 Democratic party presided by fading octogenarian leadership (COTUS and POTUS) without moderate and government-tested succession line.
It underestimates the historical size and power of the mainstream center in the US that rejects both extremes that demand sensible politics that address inflation growth and security.
The book proposes a clever, innovative, multi-perspective model to understand and analyze more than globalization itself, the politics, and political reactions to it.
The authors do not take sides but offer what can be a useful tool to foresee and even negotiate policies beyond politics that address the impacts and unintended consequences of globalization processes and their ups and downturns.
It is a good complement to my "cat whiskers' analysis methodology.
Here I quote their main theses for the sake of brevity:
"The Top Face of the
Cube: Everybody Wins
According to some
economists, if you think that globalization impoverishes countries and destroys
communities, you have it all wrong. Sure, you may have lost your job because
workers.
in other countries are paid less, but that is not at all
different from losing your job because workers in the factory next door are
more efficient or because technological progress has rendered your skills
obsolete. The market is simply doing its work. You should improve your
qualifications to get a better job; in the meantime, you still benefit from
globalization since it gives you access to cheaper products. The process of
adjustment may be hard at times, but it is a short- term cost that we have to
accept in the interest of long- term prosperity. The end result will be a more
efficient economy, lower prices, and more abundant consumer choice. In this
view, the pushback against economic globalization by people who feel that they
have lost out is simply a natural reaction to the creative destruction cycles.
We call this “everybody wins” view the establishment
narrative, because it was the dominant paradigm for understanding economic
globalization in the West in the three decades following the end of the Cold
War. The view reflected a consensus of the main political parties in most
Western democracies and beyond, and it has been espoused by many of the
institutions that serve as the guardians of the international economic order,
such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the WTO.
Many powerful actors still endorse this narrative, arguing that free trade not
only increases prosperity but also supports other goals, such as promoting
peace. Since the establishment narrative has been ruling the world and also
represents the sunniest view of globalization, we visualize it as situated on
the top of the cube.
The Four Sides of the Cube: Winners and Losers
"The establishment narrative now finds itself besieged from
all sides. Concerns about the impact of free trade on workers and the
environment have bubbled up previously, but discontent with economic
globalization tended to be suppressed in mainstream circles in the West. In the
decade following the global financial crisis, however, narratives that
highlight how economic globalization produces both winners and losers have
returned to the center of political debate. These currents have pushed us off
the sunny top of the cube, over the edges, and down to the four faces on the
cube’s sides (Figure 1.2). Instead of relatively limited squabbles between the center-
left and center- right
Proponents of the four challenger narratives do not
necessarily contest that economic globalization has produced absolute economic
gains at the aggregate level, whether measured nationally or globally. However,
they focus on the distribution of those gains, both within and across
countries, and derive much of their energy from channeling the disappointment,
fears, and anger of the losers.
2. On the left of the political spectrum, we see two narratives that emphasize how gains from economic
globalization have flowed upward to rich individuals and multinational
corporations. The left- wing populist narrative focuses on the ways in
which national economies are rigged to channel the gains from globalization to
the privileged few.
Left- wing populism expresses itself
in vertical hostility; its proponents stand up for the ordinary people who have
lost out to the corrupt elite.
Whereas some proponents point the finger at chief
executive officers (CEOs), bankers, and billionaires (the top 1 percent),
others take aim at the educated professional class and the upper middle class
more broadly (the top 20 percent).
Instead of singling out domestic elites, proponents of
the corporate power narrative argue that the real winners from economic
globalization are multinational corporations, which can take advantage of a
global marketplace to produce cheaply, sell everywhere, and pay as little in
taxes as possible.
The left-wing populist narrativezeroes in on domestic problems, highlighting the
explosion of inequality within countries.
The corporate power narrative, by contrast, adopts a transnational approach and treats
multinational corporations and the transnational working class as the key
actors.
The two narratives are often intertwined in places such as
the United States and the United Kingdom, where many on the left are broadly
critical of owners of substantial capital, whether individual or corporate.
In many western European countries, by contrast, where
levels of domestic inequality are lower, the corporate power narrative features
more prominently, as was evident in the protests across Europe in 2015 and 2016
against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
3. In the right- wing populist narrative, workers, their families, and their communities lose from
globalization, both economically and in a cultural sense.
This narrative’s emphasis varies in different countries.
In the United States, where the loss of blue- collar jobs to China and Mexico
has devastated manufacturing communities, the narrative has a strong anti-
trade element.
In western Europe, anti- immigrant sentiment and concerns
about a loss of sovereignty are central features of the narrative, whereas
anxieties about the impact of international trade are less pronounced.
In the United Kingdom, for instance, many of those who
voted for Brexit did not oppose free trade; they rebelled against what they
perceived as dictates from the EU institutions in Brussels and longed to regain
control over immigration.
The right-wing populist narrative shares with the left-wing
version a deep distrust of elites, but the two narratives part company on what
they blame the elite for.
whereas left- wing populists fault the elite for enriching
themselves at the expense of the working and middle classes, right- wing
populists denounce the elite for failing to protect the hardworking native
population from threats posed by an external “other.”
The right- wing populist narrative thus has a strong
horizontal us- versus- them quality, whether expressed
through concern about protecting workers from the offshoring of jobs or
guarding them against an inflow of immigrants who might compete for those jobs,
live off the welfare system, or threaten the native community’s sense of
identity.
The right- wing populist narrative also highlights
geographical divisions within countries, such as the diverging fortunes of
thriving cities
The geoeconomic narrative also focuses on an external threat, but of a different kind: it
emphasizes economic and technological competition between the United States
and China as great- power rivals.
Although the narrative features most prominently in
America, it is gaining ground in other Western countries as well, where China
is increasingly regarded as a strategic competitor and a potential security
threat rather than merely as an economic partner. Instead of applauding trade
and investment as enhancing economic welfare and increasing prospects for peace,
the geoeconomic narrative emphasizes the security vulnerabilities created by
economic interdependence and digital connectivity with a strategic rival.
Although both the right- wing populist and geoeconomic
narratives emphasize external, horizontal threats, they differ in key ways.
The former focuses on cultural as well as economic losses, while
the latter is more mindful of relative economic power of countries and its
capacity to undergird political and military power. The former primarily laments the loss of the manufacturing jobs
of the past, while the latter focuses on winning the race in the technologies
of the future, such as fifth- generation (5G) networks and artificial
intelligence.
And the former targets Polish plumbers who undercut local
workers, whereas the latter casts a critical eye on Chinese scientists and
engineers who might steal Western technology.
4. The Bottom Face of the Cube: Everybody Loses
"on the bottom face of the Rubik’s cube, we locate
narratives that see all of us as at risk of losing from economic globalization
in its current form. These narratives portray economic globalization as a
source and accelerator of global threats, such as pandemics and climate change.
Some of these narratives focus on how global connectivity
increases the risk of contagion, both of the viral and economic kind.
Others warn that
the skyrocketing carbon emissions associated with the global diffusion of
Western patterns of production and consumption are endangering both people and
the planet.
The Rubik analogy is a rich and thought-provoking
framework to "frame" political and social reactions
toward globalization. The book presents five reactions to the "mainstream"
idea of globalization as "faces" or "sides" of the Rubik
cube. The Rubik analogy frames the analysis within certain constraints or pre-condition
that can help or hinder the search for practical problem-solving alternatives:
1.There
is no one "optimal" "win-win" but 6ⁿ possible
options. The Rubik model presents the non-zero-sum, "win-win"
option as "the establishment narrative" (two popular populist derogatory
terms) and "the dominant paradigm" (another). To find a "win-win"
option within the tangled Rubik model, all other facets must be fulfilled on
their terms -whether they might be objectively correct or wrong, feasible or
not. Everybody has to be happy to find a happy ending, or at least, the problem-solver
has to conciliate six positions at politically, ideologically, and socially odds
with each other.
2.All
six facets are presented antagonistically, which defeats the purpose of the
Rubik model, which has multiple collaborative solutions to "fill"
the six desired sides' optimal" (no facet can have "mixed" or
blended elements).
A All six "facets" in the Rubik model are political and ideological "narratives", not objective country/ industry ./ social segment, region objective P&L data
3.There
is a "lose-lose" mandatory option to solve all other five, and
Rubik's simplistic logic does not have a 'losing side."
The Rubik analogy is academically
and visually attractive but intrinsically drives to endless unsustainable "solutions"
unless there is an optimal "win-win," non=zero-sum alternative.
Such an alternative requires "mixing"
elements of each side
And also to have a "guiding
star": a solution that is not "a side" but a multi-dimensional "win-win"
optimal, like the Prisoners' Dilemma.
How about a Minimal Ideal Vision
(MIV) for a shared, sustainable human future?
That goes beyond quick fix
diplomacy and appeasement. We got one in 1945-48 after two World wars. And a
third, with the fall of the USSR.
We must find a new MIV or get entangled in an unsolvable, unstable mess of a self-made maze.
On February 18th, 2019, Intelligence Squared brought together a panel of experts to argue the causes behind the rise of populism and to debate what should happen next. Should mainstream parties adopt the policies of the populists in an attempt to appeal to people who have hitherto felt unheard? Or should liberals refuse to abandon principled and economically necessary immigration policies? Hear the arguments and have your say.They are today even more valid than then.
