Posted on by rjonakait

Where Are the Conservatives Who Cared About Free Speech?

Acquaintances of mine railed against President Biden’s attempts to get social media to take down posts of misinformation and disinformation. They maintained that this was government coercion, in effect, telling citizens what could be published. Free speech was under a dangerous assault, they said. Where are these conservatives now when free speech is being assaulted regularly on many, many fronts?

Examples are legion. The administration has been trying to dictate to universities the viewpoints faculty hires should have and what they should teach. They want them disciplined for disapproved teachings. Law firms have been punished because of the people whom lawyers have represented. Negative comments about Charlie Kirk are apparently not allowed. Speaking in favor of diversity can lead to the end of a government career or the withdrawal of a research grant. Lawful residents are locked up–even deported–for their views. The government seeks to punish congressional representatives for repeating a basic legal principle. And this is only a fraction of the actions that have subverted free speech. But my supposed free speech-loving companions remain silent. I expect that their silence will continue even in the face of a memo to all federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies dropped by Attorney General Pam Bondi on December 4, 2025, which came to light weeks later.

In the memo Bondi says she is outlining federal law enforcement priorities to support President Trump’s call to root out domestic terrorism. The AG maintains that “many of these domestic terrorists and domestic terrorist organizations are united by an anti-fascist platform. . . . This ideology that paints legitimate government authority and traditional conservative viewpoints as ‘fascist’ connects a recent string of political violence.” (If the left is using the “fascist” label, it is only following the right. In 2023, Time wrote, “Among Trump and his allies, the ‘fascist’ label has been growing in popularity.”)

Bondi’s claim is, putting it charitably, weakly sourced. For example, a claim that “anti-fascists violently rioted on UC Berkeley’s campus in 2017” [emphasis added] footnotes a 2019 news report headlined “Scattered Violence Erupts at Large, Left-Wing Berkley (sic) Rally.” Besides getting the date wrong, she equates “scattered violence” at a large rally with terrorism. Trump and his appointee maintain that lefties are the problem for mass, terroristic violence in this country even though study after study, including one posted on the FBI website (but now archived) have concluded that disproportionately right wingers have been the cause of such violence in this century.

Bondi continues, “Particularly dangerous are those acts committed by violent extremist groups that threaten both citizens’ safety and our country’s ability to self-govern. These domestic terrorists use violence or the threat of violence to advance political and social agendas, including opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States  Government; hostility toward traditional views on family, religion, and morality; and an elevation of violence to achieve policy outcomes, such as political assassinations. [Federal law enforcement] shall prioritize the investigation of such conduct.” Law enforcement, Bondi said, should identify not only those who participate in such events but also “those who organize or financially sponsor those participants.”

There are some–shall we say–definitional problems. Define, e.g., “radical gender ideology.” What is an “extreme” view of mass migration? Does a traditional view on family oppose divorce? Why is anti-Christianity included but not antisemitism? If I don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, am I anti-Christian? If I think CEOs get paid too much, am I anti-capitalist? I can argue that traditional moral values both favor and oppose the death penalty. Can it be both? A traditional view of religion is that churches are greedy. May I hold that opinion and start an anti-clerical movement? The January 6 protestors tried to prevent the legal transfer of power through violence. Wasn’t that anti-Americanism deserving prioritization?

She seems to have overlooked a salient fact: “Political and social agendas” and “views,” whether extreme or not, are expressions protected under the First Amendment. Yet this concern got a mere footnote in the memo: “The United States Government does not investigate, collect, or maintain information on U.S. persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment. No investigation may be opened based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of rights secured by the Constitution.” Notice, however, the qualifier “solely,” which eviscerates the apparent qualifications of the footnote. No government official will claim an investigation or collection of information is based “solely” on monitoring constitutionally protected activities. Some other justification will always be conjured up. Thus, the First Amendment will be trampled.

Shouldn’t anyone who uses illegal violence or threat of violence be prosecuted? Why “prioritize” those who hold such views and not everyone who uses illegal violence and threats of violence? Surely it is designed to suppress dissent so that those in power can stay in power.

And not for the first time I wonder where the principled conservatives are. Those who complained when the Biden administration tried to get social media companies to remove misinformation should be screaming now. The Trumpian actions impeding free speech are dangerously far-reaching. The Bondi directive is another clear example. And yet, my conservative acquaintances are silent.

Posted on by rjonakait

Meritocracy and Hypocrisy

It is not a new word, but the frequency of “meritocracy” coming from the mouths and pens of conservatives has made it a trendy one. The richest of them has made it a catchphrase. Elon Musk: “It’s not like America’s been purely a meritocracy, but it has been more of a meritocracy than any other place. Which I regard as good.” Musk again: “America rose to a greatness over the past 150 years because it was a meritocracy more than anywhere else on Earth. I will fight to my last drop of blood to ensure that it remains that land of freedom and opportunity.”

Musk, who is not averse to hyperbole (Isn’t your ability to fight gone long before your last drop of blood oozes onto the Tesla leather?), surprisingly qualified his meritocratic statement about America. He concedes that this country has not been a pure meritocracy, only that it has rewarded merit more than any other place.

The United States has always had limits on meritocracy. In the first place, let us not confuse merit with opportunity and advantage. The rich have always had more opportunities than others. (If you got it, you get it.) Those born into rich families have always had more opportunities. (It is easier to score if you are born on third base.)  And, of course, opportunities have always been limited in this country by race, ethnicity, religion, locality, gender, and other factors. Perhaps there has been a meritocracy in a certain pool of Americans, but that pool has been restricted. At times, it has not included Irish, Swedes, Italians, Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Jews, women, and, of course, Blacks. Put another way, meritocracy has often been confined in this country to white male Protestants.

Even when attempts at expanding that pool have been made, they have often been circumscribed. In the 1940s, for example, some department stores started for the first time hiring Black women for sales, but there were quotas. An executive of Lord & Taylor, which was a pioneer in hiring Blacks, told The Afro-American: “It seems to me that it is only fair that the person with the best qualifications should be hired, regardless of color . . . with limitations of course. [Emphasis added] It is only natural that we don’t want to flood our place with colored people, even if they all had the best qualifications.” (Quoted from Julie Satow, When Women Ran Fifth Avenue: Glamour and Power at the Dawn of American Fashion, 2024.)

A foundational American myth has been about meritocracy and the ability to get ahead through one’s own ability. As Dara Horn says in People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present (2021), the legend “is that it doesn’t matter who your parents are, or who their parents were, or where you came from—that what matters is what you do now with the opportunities this country presents to you, and this is what we call the American dream. The fact that this legend is largely untrue does not detract from its power; legends are not reports on reality but expressions of a culture’s value and aspirations.” How many qualified women for how many years were rejected by medical schools and law schools because, well, they were women?

In spite of our history of the limitations on opportunities, many conservatives are furthering the legend by pretending that our meritocracy has been undermined. And what has undermined it? DEI. Yep, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As though seeking the meritorious from a diverse pool, or equalizing advantages and opportunities, or seeking to include an overlooked source of qualified people is the most egregious thing that a democratic country could do even though it would seem obvious that the larger the pool from which we seek to draw talent, the more likely we are to get the best.

Another enemy, they say, is “wokeness.” I guess it’s also egregious in a “meritocracy” to want to make sure that all types of people feel as though they are equal and welcome participants in the pool.

Let Elon Musk speak again, “DEI is just another word for racism. Shame on anyone who uses it.” To say that DEI is racist implies two things: 1) You don’t believe that the previously excluded races, ethnic groups, women, or religious groups require special attention in order to join the meritocracy pool, or 2) You think that anything that undermines the hegemony of white males is threatening.  Although the opposition to DEI may have many roots, most charitably it is based on the belief that diversity is the enemy of meritocracy. It assumes that the only way diversity is achieved is by allowing less qualified people of color or women (or other groups) to leapfrog over what are assumed to be more qualified white males. Even if that is sincerely believed, those with that belief should still want to expand the pool from which the meritorious are drawn. Doubt the sincerity of those who cry out for meritocracy unless they also seek broadly for the meritorious.

At another time, Musk maintained, “The point was not to replace DEI,…but rather to be a meritocratic society.” How are you to have a meritocracy if you do not actively encourage participation by all?

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, says Trump has told him to “clean house of the woke crap. All that stuff. Climate stuff, the (Critical Race Theory), the DEI and genderism. Get rid of it.” Not clear how “Climate stuff” got in there, but it’s clear that Trump and his cohort are fed up with trying to break down the barriers that have prevented a true meritocracy to emerge.

A familiar pattern: If something goes wrong, and if anyone other than a white male is in charge, the pejorative cry of “diversity” is uttered again and again. The mayor of Los Angeles is a Black woman, and something definitely went wrong in Los Angeles recently. However, she did not attain her position as part of a DEI movement. She was not appointed by some person who thought it would be politically correct to have a black person (and woman as mayor. No. She was picked by the electorate, just as Trump was. But still conservatives talk about her as if she were part of a DEI or woke movement.

 If a white male had been in charge, his competence might be questioned, but we don’t point to the “old boys” network that might have put him there in the first place. And we only blame DEI if a non-conservative has done the appointment or hiring of a non-white male. If Pam Bondi turns out to be a less than a stellar attorney general, diversity will not be blamed. After all, a conservative president nominated her. (Fox News presents a lot of women as hosts and commentators. Aren’t they a product of diversity?)

The anti-diversity group, however, may proclaim that the country has been successful in the expansion of the meritocratic pool and that, sadly, the pool has been exhausted. Is that why they are advocating for the expansion of H-1b visas? It is certainly the case that having more of those visas is good for businesses of rich conservatives. Among other things, they can pay those workers less. However, if the barriers to success were truly overcome in the U.S., would we need to import workers from out of the country? Shouldn’t Making America Great Again mean making sure that all Americans in fact have the opportunity to attain merit? (Not all conservatives agree that we should expand the availability of H-1b. Laura Loomer, an ardent supporter of Trump, has said, “Our country was built by white Europeans, actually. Not third world invaders from India.”*)

There are things wrong with DEI and wokeness. It is fair to criticize these movements and policies, but a meritocratic society needs more than such criticisms. It requires plans and action to expand the pool from which we seek the meritorious. I have not seen that from conservatives, and without such expansion, it sure looks as if they want to see again a future dominated by white males.