Thread. 1) Thirty or forty years ago, supporting free speech was understood to be a non-negotiable core value of the liberal left.

2) Pop culture endlessly celebrated liberalism’s uncompromising support of speech rights — from The People Vs. Larry Flynt to Field of Dreams to The American President. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
3) Think of “President Shepard’s” speech in “The American President” about how “America isn’t easy” and citizenship requires we “acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil.” https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
4) That started to change long before Trump. As “The American President” came out, Bill Clinton was pushing the first Internet censorship laws. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
When the PATRIOT Act passed, every Democrat but one in both houses voted yes. Russ Feingold, Independent Bernie Sanders, and three Republicans voted no. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
6) After Trump and especially after Charlottesville, mainstream Democrats mostly stopped defending the principle of free speech. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
7) A leaked ACLU memo read: "Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed." https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
8) Democratic lawmakers pressured Internet companies to censor more and activists cheered as Internet companies suppressed books like “Irreversible Damage.” https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
9) This gave Republicans a political opening to sell themselves as defenders of speech rights. But they’ve blown it so far. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
10) So far, the signature Republican responses to censorship have been legislative bans as batty as the worst lefty speech codes. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
11) Either that, or Republican lawmakers are pressing firms like Barnes and Noble to suppress books like “Gender Queer” — new-age lefty censorship in reverse. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
12) From the lab-leak fact-checking fiasco to the insane overreaction to @ElonMusk’s attempted purchase of Twitter, it’s clear we need an effective non-partisan lobby to defend free expression. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
@elonmusk 13) The announcement of a major expansion by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (@theFIREorg) is a step on the road to such a lobby. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
@elonmusk @TheFIREorg 14) Either way, neither of the two parties currently shows much interest in the principle of free speech, which really sucks and means those rights are in danger. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi
@elonmusk @TheFIREorg 15) The worst case is a world where censorship will be yet another underreported area of near-total consensus between the two parties, like military spending, bailouts, and corporate taxation. We're almost there. https://t.co/ZWpiCOocUi

More from Politics

All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.

Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.


I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.

But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.

Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.

I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".