The most successful societies are those that empower individuals to speak and act freely. History and the reality of democratic prosperity over authoritarian central planning teaches us that this truth is beyond all logical reproach.
I note this in light of writer Holly Thomas’ guest article for CNN, in which she decries the Oxford Union’s decision to invite Steve Bannon to speak on Friday. The union is the debating institution of Britain’s auspicious Oxford University.
Before we get going, let’s be clear about something: It makes perfect sense for the Oxford Union to invite Bannon to speak. Bannon is the architect of President Trump’s stunning electoral victory in 2016 and the ideological and organizational driving force behind many growing populist-right movements in Europe. These factors make Bannon not just a preferable speaker for an institution like the Oxford Union, but a supremely desirable one.
That’s not because Bannon is necessarily right about what he says, but because what he says finds a great wellspring of sympathy around the world and is reflective of a growing political power. These things are worthy of our understanding. To his credit, Oxford Union President Stephen Horvarth recognizes this. Speaking to the Oxford Student newspaper, Horvarth noted that Bannon’s speech would offer the union’s members the opportunity “to critically question and debate the ideas and rhetoric” that Bannon purveys. Horvarth’s understanding is in the finest traditions of free inquiry.
Thomas sees it differently. She suggests that inviting Bannon is wrong because “[i]f flexing the intellectual muscles of a group of students comes at the cost of amplifying a man whose political program thus far has endangered the lives of thousands — even millions — of people across the world, and who is not done yet, it is not worth it.”
Putting aside Thomas’ utterly absurd narrative here that Bannon “has endangered the lives of … even millions” (if the Left wants to play that game, let’s consider how many lives socialist ideology has directly harmed), I take issue with her suggestion that Bannon’s only value to the Oxford Union is the “flexing” of “intellectual muscles.”
Thomas’ implication here is that this “flexing” is worthless in that it represents only a base physical force rather than the expansion of the brain. That is patently untrue. Bannon might be a passionate ideologue, but he’s also a powerful intellect. Matched against the other powerful intellects of the Oxford Union, the expectation of great contemplation arises from Bannon’s presentation.
Yet even if its censorship ambition is decidedly defective, there is some value in Thomas’ op-ed. Thomas at least has the courage to admit the authoritarian impulses that sustain the anti-speech Left’s penchant. We see this when Thomas declares, “Freedom, though, is a currency whose value tends to diminish in proportion to the amount one has of it. It is easy, when one has only ever known an abundance of freedom, to take it for granted.”
Think on those words: “Freedom, though, is a currency whose value tends to diminish in proportion to the amount one has of it.” That isn’t a call for introspective self-censorship, its an endorsement of the most basic of authoritarian narratives: the idea that individuals cannot be trusted nor empowered with the discretion to speak and think freely. Few sentences can be as disheartening as Thomas’ to those of us who love freedom.
Remember Thomas’ op-ed the next time someone tells you the Left doesn’t have a problem with intellectual freedom. And remember some of the other examples that sit alongside it.
