Political Affiliations and Free Speech by Jeff Price

 

The only thing one should take from a person’s political affiliation is an indication that they are—often innocently—somewhere in a funnel of radicalization. The reality is that political affiliation is far less a matter of enlightened choice than it is the predictable outcome of circumstances. For most, it is determined not by careful study of philosophy or policy, but by geography, the media ecosystem to which they are exposed, and the peer networks in which they live. 

People are, in large measure, receptacles of the narratives that surround them. That is why the vast majority of Americans remain Democrats or Republicans. If political identity were truly the product of independent enlightenment, why do so few align with the Libertarian, Green, or Constitution parties? Why not with movements that have shaped other nations—the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, the Christian Democrats in Germany, or the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan? Why not with the ANC in South Africa, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico, or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India?

For that matter, why not with historical forces that once commanded enormous loyalty: the Whigs, the Federalists, or the Bull Moose Progressives? The answer is that affiliation reflects conditioning, not epiphany. Political identity is overwhelmingly inherited from one’s environment, rather than chosen in a moment of sudden intellectual awakening.

When I hear someone say they do not want to hear a conflicting opinion, what I truly hear is that they do not want free choice at all. They prefer to continue operating as they were programmed, like a train fixed to its track, moving only where the rails laid by others allow.

Both major parties today indoctrinate more than they inform. This is not accidental. Statistical calculus shows that energizing turnout and generating contributions matter more to electoral outcomes than persuading moderates or undecided voters. As a result, citizens are fed extreme narratives designed not to inform but to inflame. Today, what should be a public square resembles a coliseum, where partisans cheer as their champions pummel caricatures of the other side, while objective truth lies trampled in the dust.

Because of this, I have chosen to be a non-participant—a conscientious objector of sorts—in the metaphorical, and too often literal, combat of politics. I have traded the right to vote for the freedom to remain fiercely independent. Just as every sport requires impartial referees, society too needs independent voices to limit the damage caused by political bloodsport.

I am not, and never have been, a defender of Donald Trump. In fact, I can say unequivocally that it would be difficult for me to care less about him individually. He has proposed some policies I find ludicrous and others I find sensible; the same could be said of President Biden and President Obama. I care neither to attack nor to defend any of them. What I do care about is the troubling notion that merely holding a different opinion about Trump might be deemed so offensive that it prevents engagement. That impulse is dangerous. It is, both collectively and individually, our duty to resist such intolerance.

Much has been said after the assassination of Charlie Kirk about free speech. Let us remember that speech we find unjust or inhumane should not be suppressed but spotlighted, for exposure to the light hastens its undoing. Humanity has a way of testing, challenging, and ultimately discarding falsehood. This is the deeper calculus of the universe: intellect, wisdom, knowledge, and benevolence ultimately prevail, while cruelty and ignorance collapse under their own weight.

I have long been critical of zealots on all sides who seem to care more about hating one another in support party affiliation than about loving their country and their fellow human beings, whether that hatred is directed toward "blue" or "red."

At present, we inhabit a nation of spiteful tribalists hurling rhetorical spears. Few take the time to study policy in depth. Rarely does one hear authentic debate about real problems and solutions. Political discourse has devolved into a contest of ascribing the worst motives and traits to the opposition. Such behavior has no value; it requires no talent, no discipline, no work. It produces only harm. 

I have long said that Democratic Party and Republic Party have evolved to be hate groups and that only violence will result. We have seen many examples in recent years confirming that this is the course. I predict we will see many more.  

I fear for the world we are shaping for future generations: a world of uncited assertions, bold opinions without substance, and violence from those unable to cope with beliefs not their own. I see a world ahead, where informed hypotheses cannot be safely tested without reprisal and, ultimately, a world of individuals so confident in their opinions, the question mark is absent from their written language.

-Jeff Price