Where Ends the First Amendment?
Steve Bannon sees himself as the maestro of the Trump 2016 victory. He viewed Trump as a “tabula rasa,” a blank slate upon which he could write his own ideology. While Trump “before Bannon” was already projecting some of those views, including the “America First” and “Make America Great Again” mantras; Bannon (and Stephen Miller) were instrumental in painting in the colors.
Bannon is a nationalist and has brought Trump to that belief. Nationalism is defined in part by the word patriotism, a belief and pride in your country. But it goes farther than that, to a belief in the superiority of your country, and often your ethnic group or race, to the exclusion of others. It is this xenophobic view that led to the extremes of 20thCentury ideology, when nationalism morphed into Nazism and Fascism, and led the world to catastrophe.
Mr. Bannon doesn’t see it that way. He sees the world as a “zero sum” game, where the United States either wins of loses. With that arithmetic, a global warming solution like the Paris Accords wasn’t acceptable. Less advanced industrialized countries were given more leeway to pollute, while the more advanced sacrificed more (given that they were able to add a great deal of pollution as they developed.) The logic of that fairness didn’t fit the equation of America “winning,” regardless that the ultimate outcome improved the entire world.
This same equation applies to other international groups, including the United Nations, where the raw power of the United States is restricted in order to gain the benefit of international cooperation. Bannon’s view is that the US can “win” any one-on-one confrontation, so why should we “dilute our authority” by using an international organization.
Bannon’s nationalism has also revealed the same ugly tendencies as the nationalist movements of the past. His ethnic views have resulted in inhumanity at the US border with Mexico, and the mantra of illegal immigrants as “…rapists, murderers, and drug dealers” has opened the door to hatred. His views have given us a look at our ugly past.
Bannon was fired by Trump, and now is working to export his views to the world. Yesterday the Washington Post reported that one of Bannon’s closest European associates is seeking to rent an Italian Monastery, where, hidden in the mountain forest, he hopes to develop a“…gladiator school for culture warriors.” Bannon’s efforts are already taking root in the United Kingdom with Brexit, Hungary with the election of Orban, and growing nationalist movements in Italy, Austria, Germany and France.
The “liberal” view of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is that in the “marketplace of ideas” all views can be aired, with the people being wise enough to chose “correctly.” The Courts have explained the “slippery slope” of restricting freedom of speech, that once you begin down that path it becomes easier to restrict critical thought at every end of the spectrum.
While defending the “right” to express ideas, regardless of how repugnant they may be, is ingrained in Constitutional lore, the First Amendment applies to governmental actions, not private choices. While the government cannot, and should not, control speech, private industry is under no such restriction. In our world today, where Facebook and Twitter control so much of our social/political communications, those organizations are not required to protect or promote “free speech.” They make choices, clearly based on their own economic well-being, to determine who to amplify and who to restrict.
In the same way, private and public institutions such as universities have to decide whether to give a stage to nationalism. This should be a decision based on the interests of the students, not fear of attack or violence from one side or the other. The difficult problem: when does a legitimate political view become a stage for political provocateurs whose goal is violence, not discussion.
These choices become even more difficult when we know the “Pandora’s Box” that nationalism has been in the past. There are those who say we “…have grown beyond the hatreds;” but ten minutes of Facebook, or a perusal of recent newspapers will demonstrate that folly.
These past few years have given us a peek under the lid; we can see the hatred and even violence that comes with it. The question is: are we strong enough to allow these views to have open discussion and amplification, or is the poison so dangerous that it must be quarantined from discussion? And, would a quarantine work, or would it simply “romanticize” nationalism, making it even more seductive? These are the dangerous waters where Bannon, and Trump, have steered America.
