I'm not sure this analysis gets to the heart of the problem, and I think it understates the power of pressure coming from the Left. (I'm writing as a sort of vanilla liberal.)
The main issues related to Right and Left are not really comparable. The Right is much more actively trying to use the force of government to restrict speech (banning books, gagging teachers, and so forth). In this sense, I think the greatest political threat comes from the Right, since court confirmation of these laws seems to me a significant encroachment on the First Amendment. I don't regard this as "cancel culture": it's simple state censorship.
I also think that when it comes to issues of how Left and Right relate to those on "the other side," there's not much of a difference (with the exception of shouting down speakers, which the Left has practiced for a long time, and which has done a great job of alienating non-political people and growing the GOP). I live in a Red state, and I've always had to watch my words around conservatives--polarization has heightened the degree, but it's not a qualitative change, and I think the same would be true for a conservative in a solid Blue state. I don't think this is what "cancel culture" means.
Progressives have built on traditional liberal issues of freedom from discrimination and tolerance of non-traditional self-expression. They have intensified attention to these, reconfigured some key concepts and terms, and developed an increasingly Manichaean view of American society that draws a moral distinction between those who adopt these new concepts and those who don't, regardless of where people may stand on the traditional political spectrum. Liberals who don't meet the standards of these heightened views are viewed as collaborators with conservatives and the far Right (somehow, Ibram Kendi's very good book against stereotyping has gotten popularly boiled down to this very bad form of stereotyping--I think Kendi has helped that along). I think the liberals who feel more constrained in their speech today are primarily biting their tongues around others on the Left. I don't think the parallel issue on the right (Trumpists, Alt-Right, QAnon, Militias vs. "RINOs") is a comparable dynamic. (At least not yet.) I suspect this is because the argument on the Left concerns dedication to universalistic ethics (which is why Anne Applebaum refers to progressives as "puritans"), while the argument on the Right concerns various forms of nationalism ("originalist" libertarian, race-based, worse), and is more about being a "patriot" than being moral.
Although conservatives complain about "cancel culture," I think they are not often its targets--they're making political hay out of a principally internal tension on the Left. (Social media company actions against Donald Trump and others is not "cancel culture," it's policy enforcement.) When prominent writers decry cancel culture, they are not usually inspired out of concern for people like Mel Gibson; they're concerned for people like J.K. Rowling, whose views on the complex terrain of trans issues seem basically to have redefined her as MINO (Moral in Name Only).
I think the behavior that gave rise to the concept of "cancel culture" is socially toxic, but I also think it's a phase that will pass, just as an earlier version, in the pre-virtual days of the '60s, wore itself out. Until the current phase winds down, it will continue to bestow its gifts upon the Republican Party and the extremists with whom that party is content to travel, just as '60s Left liberals like me did in our day.
This post captures the core of the issue, of why quite a few leftists are so focused on cancel culture: it's not affecting the conservatives; it's affecting *us*. We are not conservative, but we are not woke, so we no longer have a place. We feel like we're being pushed out of the party that we used to inhabit not because the other side's arguments are better, or policies are more effective, but because those with the most power are exercising that power to shut up those who disagree with their orthodoxies.
I think there's a lot to the idea that the core of this problem really stems from the institutional weakness in leftist spaces. I don't know if they fail to live up to their principles, or if they simply lack those principles in the first place.
If that's the case, then the conservative fear is especially misplaced. The survey data I analyzed shows they're the most afraid of harsh consequences for sharing their opinions.
Also, I'll note that few people who focus on cancel culture propose changing labor laws, namely at-will employment, as a solution. There's a bit of that, but not much. Most of the criticism of cancel culture is not from a leftist perspective.
I'm not sure the conservative fear is misplaced, Mr. Grossman. But I think two different dynamics are at work. Those who articulate commonly held conservative views in a liberal social context and get pushback may feel that they are being seen as stupid or immoral/racist, whereas liberals in a conservative context are more likely to feel accused of elitism or un-Americanism. The sting of the first set seems greater to me (and, of course, it feels equally bad for traditional liberals in a progressive social context).
Maybe my idea of the difference between the two sides can be captured in a stereotyped example. "Racism" is, publicly at least, deplored by consensus across the political spectrum. (Let's put aside the exceptions.) When a conservative is accused of being a racist by the Left, we've seen case after case of denial: "There's not a racist bone in my body!" When a liberal encounters accusations (also from the Left), it's very common to see apologies and declarations of solidarity with their critics (even though anatomical studies show they have fewer racist bones). I expect that the qualitative difference in the experiences underlying those types of reactions will show up on surveys in skewed quantitative ways, because the conservatives will perceive most or all of the fault to lie with their critics, while liberals are more likely to distribute the negative feelings between their critics and their own failings.
On an issue this socially complex, I think we may need more qualitative research as groundwork for improved nuance in survey design and interpretation.
I don't think it's all that misplaced; look at what happens over the past 4 years to Republicans who speak against Trump: they get excommunicated. The conservatives have nothing to fear from progressive cancelers much as progressives have nothing to fear from conservative cancelers. It's one's own "side" (for lack of a better term) that is today demanding fealty to a party line and punishing anyone who puts a foot wrong. I'd argue this has been a conservative problem for far longer than it has a progressive problem; Republicans have long been better at closing ranks than Democrats and have longer been obsessed with moral purity.
Andrew, I think some of the disagreement here has to do with what the term "cancel culture" denotes. It's a new term and its meaning is up for grabs. I don't think it applies to figures like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, currently the most prominent examples of the dynamic at work among Republicans. They are caught in intraparty electoral politics, and I think the RINO-bashing that dates back to the Clinton presidency belongs in that category. I haven't heard of anyone losing a non-political job because of a Twitter/Telegram/etc. campaign to out them as, say, marching in a pro-immigrant demonstration.
On the other side, the "Squad" has been repeatedly urged by centrist Democrats to quiet down, and in some cases been publicly reprimanded by Democratic leadership (I'm thinking of Omar and Pelosi). No one, I think, calls that "cancel culture."
Of course, we could stretch the meaning of the term: there are common features among all these examples. But I think it's wiser to maintain distinctions. The GOP/RINO issue is about a redefinition of what the partisan label "Republican" should mean on policy and cultural levels. The Democratic squelching of progressives in Congress seems primarily about electoral strategy. (I suppose you could carve out a separate niche for things like Democrats in Congress stripping MTG of committee assignments.)
I think "cancel culture" was coined to refer to a type of social/economic boycott pattern that has become broadly effective on the social level because social media provides leverage to build a solidarity response quickly. I think the phenomenon is problematic, and discrete enough that for those who see it as a problem to be solved, it will be helpful to try keeping the term more narrowly defined.
I'd agree on the contention around the term as well as your framing. The question I have of the polling research: how does it differentiate these disparate contexts?
I think the conservatives have tried the economic boycotts to generally poor effects...unless you're maybe the Dixie Chicks commenting on the George W. Bush and the Iraq war? Groups like Focus on the Family have gone on boycotting sprees of TV shows and the like, to nearly zero effect. However, note the contexts here: FotF went after organizations that were largely corporate and largely moderate-to-progressive, so it should come as little surprise they had mild effects at best. The Dixie Chicks, on the other hand, were part of a scene that was primarily conservative, and they stepped on a conservative cultural landmine, and were removed from a lot of country stations, lost a lot of fans, and got a heap of criticism from the right.
Nice counter-example, Andrew. The Dixie Chicks are what Right "celebrity cancel culture" would look like.
I'm not a Country Music person, so I don't have a feel for the context, but it seems to me that Garth Brooks has gotten a conservative pass despite his LGBT activism. I can't really see an opponent of marriage equality getting a pass in a liberal-dominated context. But your examples are good ways to start thinking about this in a less stereotyped way.
To be fair, if you’re an insufficiently Trumpy Republican pol & you happen to hold office the likelihood that you’ll be primaried is pretty damn high. And when you consider the fervency of primary voters the odds that you’ll be able continue representing the Republican Party in office are fairly grim. You might be able to find a job at MSNBC, though…😁
Good article. Your articles about free speech/cancel culture, as well as the recent ken White substack post about the NY times piece are pretty much exactly how I feel about this whole...shit show of a discourse.
I'm not sure this analysis gets to the heart of the problem, and I think it understates the power of pressure coming from the Left. (I'm writing as a sort of vanilla liberal.)
The main issues related to Right and Left are not really comparable. The Right is much more actively trying to use the force of government to restrict speech (banning books, gagging teachers, and so forth). In this sense, I think the greatest political threat comes from the Right, since court confirmation of these laws seems to me a significant encroachment on the First Amendment. I don't regard this as "cancel culture": it's simple state censorship.
I also think that when it comes to issues of how Left and Right relate to those on "the other side," there's not much of a difference (with the exception of shouting down speakers, which the Left has practiced for a long time, and which has done a great job of alienating non-political people and growing the GOP). I live in a Red state, and I've always had to watch my words around conservatives--polarization has heightened the degree, but it's not a qualitative change, and I think the same would be true for a conservative in a solid Blue state. I don't think this is what "cancel culture" means.
Progressives have built on traditional liberal issues of freedom from discrimination and tolerance of non-traditional self-expression. They have intensified attention to these, reconfigured some key concepts and terms, and developed an increasingly Manichaean view of American society that draws a moral distinction between those who adopt these new concepts and those who don't, regardless of where people may stand on the traditional political spectrum. Liberals who don't meet the standards of these heightened views are viewed as collaborators with conservatives and the far Right (somehow, Ibram Kendi's very good book against stereotyping has gotten popularly boiled down to this very bad form of stereotyping--I think Kendi has helped that along). I think the liberals who feel more constrained in their speech today are primarily biting their tongues around others on the Left. I don't think the parallel issue on the right (Trumpists, Alt-Right, QAnon, Militias vs. "RINOs") is a comparable dynamic. (At least not yet.) I suspect this is because the argument on the Left concerns dedication to universalistic ethics (which is why Anne Applebaum refers to progressives as "puritans"), while the argument on the Right concerns various forms of nationalism ("originalist" libertarian, race-based, worse), and is more about being a "patriot" than being moral.
Although conservatives complain about "cancel culture," I think they are not often its targets--they're making political hay out of a principally internal tension on the Left. (Social media company actions against Donald Trump and others is not "cancel culture," it's policy enforcement.) When prominent writers decry cancel culture, they are not usually inspired out of concern for people like Mel Gibson; they're concerned for people like J.K. Rowling, whose views on the complex terrain of trans issues seem basically to have redefined her as MINO (Moral in Name Only).
I think the behavior that gave rise to the concept of "cancel culture" is socially toxic, but I also think it's a phase that will pass, just as an earlier version, in the pre-virtual days of the '60s, wore itself out. Until the current phase winds down, it will continue to bestow its gifts upon the Republican Party and the extremists with whom that party is content to travel, just as '60s Left liberals like me did in our day.
This post captures the core of the issue, of why quite a few leftists are so focused on cancel culture: it's not affecting the conservatives; it's affecting *us*. We are not conservative, but we are not woke, so we no longer have a place. We feel like we're being pushed out of the party that we used to inhabit not because the other side's arguments are better, or policies are more effective, but because those with the most power are exercising that power to shut up those who disagree with their orthodoxies.
I think there's a lot to the idea that the core of this problem really stems from the institutional weakness in leftist spaces. I don't know if they fail to live up to their principles, or if they simply lack those principles in the first place.
If that's the case, then the conservative fear is especially misplaced. The survey data I analyzed shows they're the most afraid of harsh consequences for sharing their opinions.
Also, I'll note that few people who focus on cancel culture propose changing labor laws, namely at-will employment, as a solution. There's a bit of that, but not much. Most of the criticism of cancel culture is not from a leftist perspective.
I'm not sure the conservative fear is misplaced, Mr. Grossman. But I think two different dynamics are at work. Those who articulate commonly held conservative views in a liberal social context and get pushback may feel that they are being seen as stupid or immoral/racist, whereas liberals in a conservative context are more likely to feel accused of elitism or un-Americanism. The sting of the first set seems greater to me (and, of course, it feels equally bad for traditional liberals in a progressive social context).
Maybe my idea of the difference between the two sides can be captured in a stereotyped example. "Racism" is, publicly at least, deplored by consensus across the political spectrum. (Let's put aside the exceptions.) When a conservative is accused of being a racist by the Left, we've seen case after case of denial: "There's not a racist bone in my body!" When a liberal encounters accusations (also from the Left), it's very common to see apologies and declarations of solidarity with their critics (even though anatomical studies show they have fewer racist bones). I expect that the qualitative difference in the experiences underlying those types of reactions will show up on surveys in skewed quantitative ways, because the conservatives will perceive most or all of the fault to lie with their critics, while liberals are more likely to distribute the negative feelings between their critics and their own failings.
On an issue this socially complex, I think we may need more qualitative research as groundwork for improved nuance in survey design and interpretation.
I don't think it's all that misplaced; look at what happens over the past 4 years to Republicans who speak against Trump: they get excommunicated. The conservatives have nothing to fear from progressive cancelers much as progressives have nothing to fear from conservative cancelers. It's one's own "side" (for lack of a better term) that is today demanding fealty to a party line and punishing anyone who puts a foot wrong. I'd argue this has been a conservative problem for far longer than it has a progressive problem; Republicans have long been better at closing ranks than Democrats and have longer been obsessed with moral purity.
Andrew, I think some of the disagreement here has to do with what the term "cancel culture" denotes. It's a new term and its meaning is up for grabs. I don't think it applies to figures like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, currently the most prominent examples of the dynamic at work among Republicans. They are caught in intraparty electoral politics, and I think the RINO-bashing that dates back to the Clinton presidency belongs in that category. I haven't heard of anyone losing a non-political job because of a Twitter/Telegram/etc. campaign to out them as, say, marching in a pro-immigrant demonstration.
On the other side, the "Squad" has been repeatedly urged by centrist Democrats to quiet down, and in some cases been publicly reprimanded by Democratic leadership (I'm thinking of Omar and Pelosi). No one, I think, calls that "cancel culture."
Of course, we could stretch the meaning of the term: there are common features among all these examples. But I think it's wiser to maintain distinctions. The GOP/RINO issue is about a redefinition of what the partisan label "Republican" should mean on policy and cultural levels. The Democratic squelching of progressives in Congress seems primarily about electoral strategy. (I suppose you could carve out a separate niche for things like Democrats in Congress stripping MTG of committee assignments.)
I think "cancel culture" was coined to refer to a type of social/economic boycott pattern that has become broadly effective on the social level because social media provides leverage to build a solidarity response quickly. I think the phenomenon is problematic, and discrete enough that for those who see it as a problem to be solved, it will be helpful to try keeping the term more narrowly defined.
I'd agree on the contention around the term as well as your framing. The question I have of the polling research: how does it differentiate these disparate contexts?
I think the conservatives have tried the economic boycotts to generally poor effects...unless you're maybe the Dixie Chicks commenting on the George W. Bush and the Iraq war? Groups like Focus on the Family have gone on boycotting sprees of TV shows and the like, to nearly zero effect. However, note the contexts here: FotF went after organizations that were largely corporate and largely moderate-to-progressive, so it should come as little surprise they had mild effects at best. The Dixie Chicks, on the other hand, were part of a scene that was primarily conservative, and they stepped on a conservative cultural landmine, and were removed from a lot of country stations, lost a lot of fans, and got a heap of criticism from the right.
Nice counter-example, Andrew. The Dixie Chicks are what Right "celebrity cancel culture" would look like.
I'm not a Country Music person, so I don't have a feel for the context, but it seems to me that Garth Brooks has gotten a conservative pass despite his LGBT activism. I can't really see an opponent of marriage equality getting a pass in a liberal-dominated context. But your examples are good ways to start thinking about this in a less stereotyped way.
To be fair, if you’re an insufficiently Trumpy Republican pol & you happen to hold office the likelihood that you’ll be primaried is pretty damn high. And when you consider the fervency of primary voters the odds that you’ll be able continue representing the Republican Party in office are fairly grim. You might be able to find a job at MSNBC, though…😁
Good article. Your articles about free speech/cancel culture, as well as the recent ken White substack post about the NY times piece are pretty much exactly how I feel about this whole...shit show of a discourse.