by By Jason Mattera
Back when I was living in Seattle, a healthcare practitioner told me she stopped identifying as a progressive. She was embarrassed by how authoritarian the left in Washington State and the White House acted during COVID — imposing unscientific mandates and censoring critical information about experimental drugs.
Before COVID, she was a staunch progressive. But after enduring masking dictates, vaccine passports, and the politicized “science” she knew was not just wrong but harmful, she decided it was time to retire the label. She now considers herself an independent — at least, last I checked.
We’re seeing this same trend with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. These two are undeniably liberal on most topics, but they’re increasingly alarmed by the censorship enthusiasm coming from the progressive wing of their own party.
Look no further than John Kerry’s recent comments at the World Economic Forum. The former senator and presidential candidate complained about how alternative news sites, like X, make it difficult to create a “consensus around any issue.” To him, democracy is in peril because mainstream media, the supposed “referees,” can’t weed out “disinformation” anymore.
Here’s the guy in his own words:
“[O]ur First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to hammer [disinformation] out of existence. What we need is to win…the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”
Let that sink in. Kerry dreams of a day when political leaders “change” fundamental civil liberty protections, all in the name of democracy, of course.
Or take Hillary Clinton. On her latest book tour, she suggested that Americans should face prosecution for what she labels “propaganda.” After discussing how the government has indicted foreign actors for meddling in previous elections, she dropped this gem to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow:
“But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.”
Set aside the fact that the progressive left blames Russia every time a vote doesn’t go their way. Hillary, who nearly became President of the United States, is now openly floating the idea of locking up Americans for saying things she doesn’t approve of — precisely the kind of tyranny the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
Hillary wasn’t done.
On CNN she endorsed scrapping Section 230 of the Federal Communications Act, which shields social media companies from liability for user content.
She claimed this law gives too much power to tech platforms and too little to the government: “[W]hether it’s Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.”
Now, I’m no fan of most of the socials because of their structural bias against conservative viewpoints. Hillary’s approach, though, is far worse. She wants government goons to call the shots and decide what info is allowed in the digital square and what isn’t.
No thanks.
Law professor Jonathan Turley argues that Hillary Clinton’s latest outbursts have put her on the side of “the growing anti-free speech movement” in America, which is true. This “movement” has not emerged in isolation, however; rather, as Turley documents, it stems from a rising wave of left-wing academics who advocate for the Constitution’s demise.
For instance, the dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote a book titled, No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States. Then there’s Jennifer Szalai of The New York Times, who criticizes what she refers to as “Constitution worship.” Szalai declared that while we’ve “long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”
These examples, and others Turley highlights, expose a disturbing pattern. Progressives, frustrated by their dwindling grip on political discourse and failure to silence dissent, have targeted the Bill of Rights. They want to ditch it and replace it with something more, ahem, government-friendly.
This mindset isn’t just confined to ivory towers or washed-up electoral candidates; it’s also seeping into local politics.
Remember the uproar in Bow, New Hampshire, over a “trans” athlete competing against high school girls?
Two fathers objected to their daughters being forced to play against a biological male in soccer. They sported pink wristbands with “XX” printed on them as a form of protest. For this stance, both men were kicked off campus. And as a newly filed lawsuit reveals, school officials even turned the cops loose on them, while the referee threatened to forfeit the game if the bands weren’t removed.
Think about how crazy that is: government workers on government property telling taxpayers they can’t wear attire that represents their opinions — absurdly tagging such actions as harassment and intimidation!
Meanwhile, the lawsuit alleges that “people attending soccer games and other extracurricular activities on Bow School District property regularly wear apparel supporting political and social causes — like shirts for political candidates, displaying the Pride Flag, or expressing messages about global warming.”
This is blatant hypocrisy, clearly. But it’s more than just hypocrisy; it’s a strategy aimed at establishing “total control” over our lives, as Hillary Clinton would say. The left seeks to steer us toward a reality where we cannot voice our opinions without incurring the wrath of politicians or their lackeys.
So, why do progressives despise free speech? The answer is simple: The left would rather have serfs than citizens — subjects to be controlled, not free thinkers challenging their authority.