Donald Trump with the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, and the then House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, with Vice President Mike Pence. Credit: Mark Wilson / Getty
President Trump is not on the ropes, but 2019 is looking tricky. Democratic control of the House promises more confrontation over policy, the likelihood of investigations, and the possibility of impeachment. The Democrats despise Trump: 77% support his impeachment and removal from office. He, too, has an equal motivation to heighten tensions. The midterms showed that he lacks majority support; to prevail in 2020, he needs an opponent he can contrast himself with much as he successfully did in 2016 with Hillary Clinton.
Tensions are already ratcheting up. But there is an alternative path. Trump still holds the high ground because as President he can set the national agenda at will. So why not offer some olive branches? It’s not that outlandish a suggestion. He could surprise the opposition while also potentially improving outcomes for the country – and himself. Here are five areas where he might find compromise.
Trump’s first olive branch would involve his beloved wall. Already he’s signalling flexibility on the barrier’s nature, saying it could be made of steel rather than concrete. The Democrats, for all their bluster, know they need to demonstrate that they care about securing the border with Mexico, even as they fight the construction of a 2,000-mile long barrier. Using the standoff to produce a comprehensive border control plan, one that includes funds for some type of barrier as well as other methods favored by Democrats, could be the surprise end for a showdown most observers think will end with Trump caving in.
The annual State of the Union speech to Congress would be the second opportunity where Trump could change his stripes. Scheduled for January 29, this is where the President traditionally lays out his agenda and frames the coming year’s debate. Some nod to bi-partisanship will be expected because of the Democratic House takeover. But if he were to go significantly further than that, calling for perhaps bi-partisan commissions to address national topics such as immigration, our massive budget deficit, or the mismatch between our foreign commitments and our military capabilities, he would confound expectations that 2019 will be business as usual.
Trump’s third olive branch could involve a longstanding Democratic priority: combatting climate change. A carbon pricing scheme would be dead on arrival because of Republican opposition, but why not instead try to spur innovation directly, rather than indirectly, as carbon pricing would do? I’ve long thought that the NASA model – which captured the nation’s imagination and launched our space research and flight programme – would fit an American-style solution for climate policy. Asking Democrats and Republicans to help Trump design and finance a National Environment and Energy Security Agency (NEESA) to drive the technological breakthroughs necessary to make carbon-free wealth creation a reality would be totally unexpected, and very hard for Democrats to ignore.
Cabinet officials could be another realm for the surprise pivot. Two slots, Defense and Interior, must be filled early in the year. Would a Democrat be a potential pick for either? Presidents often have a member or two from the opposite party in their Cabinets, so perhaps nominating the Montana Governor Steve Bullock or the recently defeated North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp for Interior would be a low-cost way of building bridges.
Finally, Trump could make pushing his proposed infrastructure plan a top priority. It has languished in Congress for the past two years because spending more money, and perhaps raising gasoline taxes to pay for it, was not something Congressional Republicans wanted to do. Pushing this to the forefront now, however, would place Senate Republicans on the spot. Do they really want to say no to a programme that could fix America’s roads, expand its rail network and upgrade its airports? Perhaps financing it with a “Tesla Tax”, a per-mile charge applicable to low-emission vehicles that currently don’t pay much for the roads they use, would make a big-spending package palatable to the Republican rank-and-file.
Trump would need to make clear that this co-operation depends on reasonable behaviour from Congressional Democrats. They won’t get NEESA, bipartisan spending deals and the like if they use their new perch to launch all-out war on the White House. Normal political gamesmanship is one thing, but political persecution would mean all bets are off.
Should Trump try this or something similar, Democrats will find themselves in a quandary. Do they give in to their base, which wants Trump’s head on a silver platter more than anything? Or do they play more to the middle, the former Republicans whose anti-Trump votes gave the Democrats their House majority to begin with?
Should they choose the base, and Trump successfully turns over a new leaf, they might find they lose everything in 2020. But should they choose to co-operate, they could find they secure their image as a responsible, centre-left party capable of governing without frightening the nation.
People often underestimate Trump, thinking that he is incapable of strategic manoeuvering and change. Maybe they’re right. But what it they’re not? What if he, instead, follows the great ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who counselled that “the whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent”?
Offering olive branches is the last thing the Democrats will expect. But it could reduce the partisan infighting that poisons America – and secure his re-election.
Henry Olsen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. He is the author of The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism.
henryolsenEPPC 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeUgh. Why do western govts have to suck so much? This will lead to censorship, more censorship and even more censorship. We all know it.
Activist groups have the playbook nailed already and this will basically enshrine it into law. Govt will eventually use it to restrict inconvenient online discussion, which was the norm during Covid.
Horrible, horrible stuff.
General Systems Collapse Theory (see Joseph Tainter) suggests that societies collapse because they become too complicated: exhibit 1, our tax code. We seem to be in a slow-motion collapse that we make worse with sticking-plaster laws.
General Systems Collapse Theory (see Joseph Tainter) suggests that societies collapse because they become too complicated: exhibit 1, our tax code. We seem to be in a slow-motion collapse that we make worse with sticking-plaster laws.
Ugh. Why do western govts have to suck so much? This will lead to censorship, more censorship and even more censorship. We all know it.
Activist groups have the playbook nailed already and this will basically enshrine it into law. Govt will eventually use it to restrict inconvenient online discussion, which was the norm during Covid.
Horrible, horrible stuff.
Yes, well, I am sure that experts agreeing on more laws and regulations will get the whole thing sorted in no time.
The basic problem was raised by German sociologist Georg Simmel over a century ago. He wrote that the public square was created by men for men, and that women would change the public square “to suit a more feminine sensibility.”
Rule One: “Women expect to be protected.”
But really, the only way for a woman to be protected is to have a man on hand with a cricket bat.
If you have a better solution — that works — go for it.
Every woman to be upplied with a cricket bat?
There is a saying in America: “God created men and women; Smith and Wesson made them equal.” It’s not entirely false. Women (and geeks like me) derive significant benefit from both civilization and industrial capitalism. In a world where brawn matters more than brains; we lose.
Which means we misogynistic defenders of the patriarchy sure did a lousy job. The industrial revolution of the early 19th century and the social revolution of the early 20th have placed women in the driver’s seats of Western society, and women (whatever they are — we’re not sure anymore) do tend to be more risk averse, less independent, and more consensus driven. A female led society will be more bureaucratic (consensus), less inventive (requires risk), and “safer” going forward. We will be an empire run like a large corporate HR dept — more Brave New World and less 1984. The fact that this will eventually bring down civilization in an orgy of inefficiency doesn’t make it any less true.
BTW: One always have to say it when making comments like this. Everyone is an individual. Are there women who are risk takers? Yes. Are there women who thrive on bucking the trend? Yes. There are also a few women who can pass the marine recon training course. The outliers of any group only serve to point out the importance of the average though. In societal-wide groups, the averages matter far more than the outliers.
Totally agree with you. Have you read Susan Faludi’s book, “Stiffed”? Obliquely related in interesting ways.
“One always have to say it when making comments like this. Everyone is an individual. ”
Except of course some man turns out to be.a rapist or a white person says something rude, in which case every single member of their gender or race is a misogynist or racist….
Except of course of that man turns out to be someone from a minority ethnic group that’s 10x more likely to commit crimes against women or be genuinely racist, in which case merely observing facts means you are a bigot….
Who knew the 21st century would be this complicated.
You seem to be arguing that a female dominated society will necessarily result in some totalitarian nanny state. I’m inclined to lean on the lessons of history on these types of questions because while technology and the environment changes, human nature is pretty consistent throughout the ages. Unfortunately, we don’t have any really good examples of female dominant societies in recorded history. We have patriarchal societies that were occasionally led by female monarchs/empresses/etc. due to rules of inheritance and/or political expediency, but as far as I know, there has never been a truly matriarchal society, at least in recorded history. We can therefore speculate that female dominated society will be totalitarian, inefficient, and ultimately dystopian, but we have nothing that can reasonably be called evidence to back our claim except perhaps a few less than promising early indicators. The ethical reasons to consider women as equal in standing to men throughout all facets of running a society are, to me at least, more compelling than any speculation about what ‘might’ happen due to a perceived feminization of culture and politics given we have no real evidence upon which to base any conclusions. It’s rather like climate change. I’m only willing to suffer so much for the sake of something that might or might not occur at all and might or might not be as bad as the numerous examples we do have of male dominated oppressive, brutal, totalitarian, dystopian states that are well documented throughout history. Or, in other words, men have had plenty of chances and mucked it up in basically every possible way, so let’s let the ladies have a go at it. Maybe they’ll do no better, but I can’t imagine they’ll do much worse.
This has already happened, Brian. For one, scientific output (and sheer creative work) have clocked an unmistakable downturn worldwide. The longer we coddle this imbecilic “ponies & rainbows” dictatorship, the likelier it becomes that it will all end in some Lindisfarne-like “adjustment”.
Totally agree with you. Have you read Susan Faludi’s book, “Stiffed”? Obliquely related in interesting ways.
“One always have to say it when making comments like this. Everyone is an individual. ”
Except of course some man turns out to be.a rapist or a white person says something rude, in which case every single member of their gender or race is a misogynist or racist….
Except of course of that man turns out to be someone from a minority ethnic group that’s 10x more likely to commit crimes against women or be genuinely racist, in which case merely observing facts means you are a bigot….
Who knew the 21st century would be this complicated.
You seem to be arguing that a female dominated society will necessarily result in some totalitarian nanny state. I’m inclined to lean on the lessons of history on these types of questions because while technology and the environment changes, human nature is pretty consistent throughout the ages. Unfortunately, we don’t have any really good examples of female dominant societies in recorded history. We have patriarchal societies that were occasionally led by female monarchs/empresses/etc. due to rules of inheritance and/or political expediency, but as far as I know, there has never been a truly matriarchal society, at least in recorded history. We can therefore speculate that female dominated society will be totalitarian, inefficient, and ultimately dystopian, but we have nothing that can reasonably be called evidence to back our claim except perhaps a few less than promising early indicators. The ethical reasons to consider women as equal in standing to men throughout all facets of running a society are, to me at least, more compelling than any speculation about what ‘might’ happen due to a perceived feminization of culture and politics given we have no real evidence upon which to base any conclusions. It’s rather like climate change. I’m only willing to suffer so much for the sake of something that might or might not occur at all and might or might not be as bad as the numerous examples we do have of male dominated oppressive, brutal, totalitarian, dystopian states that are well documented throughout history. Or, in other words, men have had plenty of chances and mucked it up in basically every possible way, so let’s let the ladies have a go at it. Maybe they’ll do no better, but I can’t imagine they’ll do much worse.
This has already happened, Brian. For one, scientific output (and sheer creative work) have clocked an unmistakable downturn worldwide. The longer we coddle this imbecilic “ponies & rainbows” dictatorship, the likelier it becomes that it will all end in some Lindisfarne-like “adjustment”.
Yes, and in my experience feminine sensibilities tend to be totalitarian in nature simply because they seek to replace protection by men with protection by the state.
The issue is not just that “women need to be protected”.
It’s also that female culture is in fact much more violent than men – just not physically. Amd the main weapons include manipulation, emotional blackmail and insane levels of verbal politics and aggression. You see this in the office, home, media..and increasingly education and politics.
So, we end up with more bureaucracy, welfare, government controls to make us feel “safe” – while also in reality making the world more unsafe, brutal and unforgiving at the same time.
Which is probably why I get along much better with men than other women. I hate the games.
And likewise – to be fair, women who don’t play those games tend to be much better and pleasant company than the average man!
And likewise – to be fair, women who don’t play those games tend to be much better and pleasant company than the average man!
‘Female culture is in fact more violent than mens…..’
You are blaming women for the increase in ‘insane levels of verbal politics and aggression’. You got a source for that trope? What are ‘verbal politics’. Do you object to me, as a woman, expressing my ‘verbal politics’?
You are blaming women for an increase in bureaucracy. Again. What are you basing that on.
Maybe “verbal politics” translates as “inconvenient free speech”? First one group wants free speech and next thing you know, the whole damn world wants it.
Maybe “verbal politics” translates as “inconvenient free speech”? First one group wants free speech and next thing you know, the whole damn world wants it.
Which is probably why I get along much better with men than other women. I hate the games.
‘Female culture is in fact more violent than mens…..’
You are blaming women for the increase in ‘insane levels of verbal politics and aggression’. You got a source for that trope? What are ‘verbal politics’. Do you object to me, as a woman, expressing my ‘verbal politics’?
You are blaming women for an increase in bureaucracy. Again. What are you basing that on.
DELETED
I was agreeing with on everything but the nonsequitur spurious bit about capitalism.
I was agreeing with on everything but the nonsequitur spurious bit about capitalism.
Every woman to be upplied with a cricket bat?
There is a saying in America: “God created men and women; Smith and Wesson made them equal.” It’s not entirely false. Women (and geeks like me) derive significant benefit from both civilization and industrial capitalism. In a world where brawn matters more than brains; we lose.
Which means we misogynistic defenders of the patriarchy sure did a lousy job. The industrial revolution of the early 19th century and the social revolution of the early 20th have placed women in the driver’s seats of Western society, and women (whatever they are — we’re not sure anymore) do tend to be more risk averse, less independent, and more consensus driven. A female led society will be more bureaucratic (consensus), less inventive (requires risk), and “safer” going forward. We will be an empire run like a large corporate HR dept — more Brave New World and less 1984. The fact that this will eventually bring down civilization in an orgy of inefficiency doesn’t make it any less true.
BTW: One always have to say it when making comments like this. Everyone is an individual. Are there women who are risk takers? Yes. Are there women who thrive on bucking the trend? Yes. There are also a few women who can pass the marine recon training course. The outliers of any group only serve to point out the importance of the average though. In societal-wide groups, the averages matter far more than the outliers.
Yes, and in my experience feminine sensibilities tend to be totalitarian in nature simply because they seek to replace protection by men with protection by the state.
The issue is not just that “women need to be protected”.
It’s also that female culture is in fact much more violent than men – just not physically. Amd the main weapons include manipulation, emotional blackmail and insane levels of verbal politics and aggression. You see this in the office, home, media..and increasingly education and politics.
So, we end up with more bureaucracy, welfare, government controls to make us feel “safe” – while also in reality making the world more unsafe, brutal and unforgiving at the same time.
DELETED
Yes, well, I am sure that experts agreeing on more laws and regulations will get the whole thing sorted in no time.
The basic problem was raised by German sociologist Georg Simmel over a century ago. He wrote that the public square was created by men for men, and that women would change the public square “to suit a more feminine sensibility.”
Rule One: “Women expect to be protected.”
But really, the only way for a woman to be protected is to have a man on hand with a cricket bat.
If you have a better solution — that works — go for it.
Yet again a supposedly right wing government implements legislation that acts as a trojan horse and will lead to an undermining of its own side and further wins for its safety obsessed victimhood class enemies. The Tories are absolute fools. The tech giants are already hostile environments for conservatives and this is likely to make it even worse.
They are their own worst enemies, for sure.
They are their own worst enemies, for sure.
Yet again a supposedly right wing government implements legislation that acts as a trojan horse and will lead to an undermining of its own side and further wins for its safety obsessed victimhood class enemies. The Tories are absolute fools. The tech giants are already hostile environments for conservatives and this is likely to make it even worse.
“Our idea of harm has inflated — a fact reflected by the growing tendency to regard unwelcome disagreement as intrinsically damaging.”
There’s a specific reason for this: The Left has for decades been pushing a civilization changing agenda in which many people recognize the serious threat of a “tyranny of good intentions” (if not outright naked tyranny), and which they resist. Unable to muster enough support to enact their program, the Left opts instead for silencing dissent under the excuse that it causes harm. The only thing it actually harms is their agenda, and they hate that.
deleted
deleted
“Our idea of harm has inflated — a fact reflected by the growing tendency to regard unwelcome disagreement as intrinsically damaging.”
There’s a specific reason for this: The Left has for decades been pushing a civilization changing agenda in which many people recognize the serious threat of a “tyranny of good intentions” (if not outright naked tyranny), and which they resist. Unable to muster enough support to enact their program, the Left opts instead for silencing dissent under the excuse that it causes harm. The only thing it actually harms is their agenda, and they hate that.
Of course placing limitations on social media and on-line platforms has to be considered with caution. Nobody doubts that. Liberty and freedom of expression is to cherish. But it’s the Mills and Taylor maxim about ‘Harm’ and when that line is crossed and I feel the Author underplays this.
Let us reflect that Gen Z are the first generation exposed to such bombardment pre-adulthood. Yes it may be in their bedroom on their smart phone but it has a much greater volume and range of exposure than that they may have met on the playground. It is surely not just an unrelated correlation that mental health and suicide in this age group has significantly increased in UK and US in this generation. This is harm. It may not be that the Policy response is to place more responsibility on social media companies. Perhaps it’s to place more responsibility on parents not to let pre-adults still developing have such access? But we know that’s going to happen.
The other issue we all know social media and on-line platforms help reinforce, and we see a bit of this on UnHerd, is the reaffirmation of extreme views that makes it’s purveyors more brazen. As we know algorithms deliberately then set off a ripple of confirmatory bias – sometimes used by anti democrats to sow more doubt and division in the West in a bid to weaken us.
So it’s a serious issue of a type we’ve not had to grapple with before and cannot just be dismissed.
Free speech is messy and dangerous. Govt control of speech is fatal. I would rather ban children from using some of these platforms than impose egregious speech controls.
We witnessed how govt manipulated public speech forums during Covid. We need to prevent that in the future.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately social media and on-line platforms, currently v suspectible to mass manipulation and limited Ofcom type standards, does force us to consider the matter.
Mills/Taylor expounded that one can do whatever one likes as long as one doesn’t harm other people. The problem is this is much easier to apply to physical actions as opposed to speech or written word. I think in general ‘incitement to violence’ we’d find a general consensus can’t be allowed.
The problem then zeros in on mass misinformation and what Harm that can cause. But where one starts and finishes on this is v problematic. Who’s the arbiter being the key problem. Plurality and transparency is thus perhaps therefore the best defence. No anonymous postings, the views can’t be engineered Bots, and thus open to challenge if one disagrees. But we are some way off this hence the dilemma.
I think to a degree anonymity can be important. Anonymous posting can protect against tyranny of the majority where society has become intolerant. It can protect whistleblowers against reprisals from governments and corporations. I think the right to remain anonymous in some circumstances is important still.
Arguments like this always assume people are too stupid to differentiate between truth and lies. I don’t agree. This is always the plea of people trying to take away our freedoms – we’re doing it for your own good. It’s flat out dangerous because the bar always moves.
During early 20th century smallpox outbreaks, vaccine uptake in some communities was less than 40%, because people feared the vaccine.
But an outbreak would hit a city, people would see the death it caused and get vaccinated. And because the vaccine was so effective, that community would become immune. When an outbreak hit another community, the same thing would happen.
Now we have govts across the globe protecting us from Covid misinformation, even though in countries like mine, Canada, 84% of the population was double vaxxed. Young people were getting vaxxed even though they were not at risk from Covid. But they were told it would protect grandma, even though the drug companies didn’t bother testing the vaccine for transmission.
This manipulation of information by authorities is far more dangerous than some bohunk spreading conspiracy theories from a laptop in his basement.
Maybe it’s just that I’m in the US and all of our vaccines are mRNA, but I don’t see where you can say a vaccine can transmit the disease. Are you referring to a killed virus vaccine where, as has happened in the past, a batch didn’t get fully killed? Or are you saying that no vaccine can be 100% effective?
And when you’re talking about medicine, you’re talking about science. Science *requires* people being able to freely disagree, whether you agree with what they’re saying or not. Nothing is ever proven in science, only that it hasn’t been disproven yet. Consensus is anti-science.
Maybe it’s just that I’m in the US and all of our vaccines are mRNA, but I don’t see where you can say a vaccine can transmit the disease. Are you referring to a killed virus vaccine where, as has happened in the past, a batch didn’t get fully killed? Or are you saying that no vaccine can be 100% effective?
And when you’re talking about medicine, you’re talking about science. Science *requires* people being able to freely disagree, whether you agree with what they’re saying or not. Nothing is ever proven in science, only that it hasn’t been disproven yet. Consensus is anti-science.
Free people have the inalienable right to read and hear whatever toxic opinions they want. The community has every right and in fact the responsibility to try to prevent them acting on them and/or apprehending them once an actual crime is committed. But there is no legitimate way for the state to decide in advance what speech is acceptable and which is not, because whichever side is in power will inevitably use its institutional power to pronounce disagreement as “harmful.” Again, free people are free to speak freely or they are not free at all – or soon won’t be.
I think to a degree anonymity can be important. Anonymous posting can protect against tyranny of the majority where society has become intolerant. It can protect whistleblowers against reprisals from governments and corporations. I think the right to remain anonymous in some circumstances is important still.
Arguments like this always assume people are too stupid to differentiate between truth and lies. I don’t agree. This is always the plea of people trying to take away our freedoms – we’re doing it for your own good. It’s flat out dangerous because the bar always moves.
During early 20th century smallpox outbreaks, vaccine uptake in some communities was less than 40%, because people feared the vaccine.
But an outbreak would hit a city, people would see the death it caused and get vaccinated. And because the vaccine was so effective, that community would become immune. When an outbreak hit another community, the same thing would happen.
Now we have govts across the globe protecting us from Covid misinformation, even though in countries like mine, Canada, 84% of the population was double vaxxed. Young people were getting vaxxed even though they were not at risk from Covid. But they were told it would protect grandma, even though the drug companies didn’t bother testing the vaccine for transmission.
This manipulation of information by authorities is far more dangerous than some bohunk spreading conspiracy theories from a laptop in his basement.
Free people have the inalienable right to read and hear whatever toxic opinions they want. The community has every right and in fact the responsibility to try to prevent them acting on them and/or apprehending them once an actual crime is committed. But there is no legitimate way for the state to decide in advance what speech is acceptable and which is not, because whichever side is in power will inevitably use its institutional power to pronounce disagreement as “harmful.” Again, free people are free to speak freely or they are not free at all – or soon won’t be.
Yup, spot on. Next time it’ll be suppression of debate on climate and net zero…
That started years ago. It’s where the term science denier was first established.
That started years ago. It’s where the term science denier was first established.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately social media and on-line platforms, currently v suspectible to mass manipulation and limited Ofcom type standards, does force us to consider the matter.
Mills/Taylor expounded that one can do whatever one likes as long as one doesn’t harm other people. The problem is this is much easier to apply to physical actions as opposed to speech or written word. I think in general ‘incitement to violence’ we’d find a general consensus can’t be allowed.
The problem then zeros in on mass misinformation and what Harm that can cause. But where one starts and finishes on this is v problematic. Who’s the arbiter being the key problem. Plurality and transparency is thus perhaps therefore the best defence. No anonymous postings, the views can’t be engineered Bots, and thus open to challenge if one disagrees. But we are some way off this hence the dilemma.
Yup, spot on. Next time it’ll be suppression of debate on climate and net zero…
While it’s difficult to disagree that online content can be harmful for children and adults, I do find increasing regulation of every human interaction quite disturbing. Yes, it’s serious issue, and we should try to prevent children being exposed to a lot of garbage and predators online, but surely that needs to be mostly on family and I guess school to some degree. Education that teaches critical thinking is far more valuable and universal tool for such treats.
These regulations are increasingly treating adults as children as well. They essentially say they can’t tell right from wrong and we can’t trust parents to teach their children how to recognise and avoid misleading or harmful content, or limit exposure, so we need to do some parenting by government. We also prevent university students from hearing things that can damage their delicate ears, books are filtered by sensitivity readers /censors, media companies decide what is correct and what is wrong, what is appropriate to watch or read…
This is also transferring in physical world, apparently here in UK there is a law proposed that walking too close to someone on the pavement, while minding your own business (e.g. listening music or reading UnHerd), can be a felony if that someone feels threatened.
From my perspective it is all going in quite a dystopian direction, we keep using fear to compromise on privacy and freedom of speech and/or movement.
We need to teach children to deal with real world not just try to hide them from it. We are raising generation where lost Wi-Fi signal can trigger a panic attack. They seem ill equipped to deal with inevitable traps and frustrations of actual living outside the government issued glass bubble.
Reminds me of those baby animals hand reared in safe environment unable to be released back in the wild as they would either starve to death or be eaten themselves, they never had a chance to learn how to survive in it.
Free speech is messy and dangerous. Govt control of speech is fatal. I would rather ban children from using some of these platforms than impose egregious speech controls.
We witnessed how govt manipulated public speech forums during Covid. We need to prevent that in the future.
While it’s difficult to disagree that online content can be harmful for children and adults, I do find increasing regulation of every human interaction quite disturbing. Yes, it’s serious issue, and we should try to prevent children being exposed to a lot of garbage and predators online, but surely that needs to be mostly on family and I guess school to some degree. Education that teaches critical thinking is far more valuable and universal tool for such treats.
These regulations are increasingly treating adults as children as well. They essentially say they can’t tell right from wrong and we can’t trust parents to teach their children how to recognise and avoid misleading or harmful content, or limit exposure, so we need to do some parenting by government. We also prevent university students from hearing things that can damage their delicate ears, books are filtered by sensitivity readers /censors, media companies decide what is correct and what is wrong, what is appropriate to watch or read…
This is also transferring in physical world, apparently here in UK there is a law proposed that walking too close to someone on the pavement, while minding your own business (e.g. listening music or reading UnHerd), can be a felony if that someone feels threatened.
From my perspective it is all going in quite a dystopian direction, we keep using fear to compromise on privacy and freedom of speech and/or movement.
We need to teach children to deal with real world not just try to hide them from it. We are raising generation where lost Wi-Fi signal can trigger a panic attack. They seem ill equipped to deal with inevitable traps and frustrations of actual living outside the government issued glass bubble.
Reminds me of those baby animals hand reared in safe environment unable to be released back in the wild as they would either starve to death or be eaten themselves, they never had a chance to learn how to survive in it.
Of course placing limitations on social media and on-line platforms has to be considered with caution. Nobody doubts that. Liberty and freedom of expression is to cherish. But it’s the Mills and Taylor maxim about ‘Harm’ and when that line is crossed and I feel the Author underplays this.
Let us reflect that Gen Z are the first generation exposed to such bombardment pre-adulthood. Yes it may be in their bedroom on their smart phone but it has a much greater volume and range of exposure than that they may have met on the playground. It is surely not just an unrelated correlation that mental health and suicide in this age group has significantly increased in UK and US in this generation. This is harm. It may not be that the Policy response is to place more responsibility on social media companies. Perhaps it’s to place more responsibility on parents not to let pre-adults still developing have such access? But we know that’s going to happen.
The other issue we all know social media and on-line platforms help reinforce, and we see a bit of this on UnHerd, is the reaffirmation of extreme views that makes it’s purveyors more brazen. As we know algorithms deliberately then set off a ripple of confirmatory bias – sometimes used by anti democrats to sow more doubt and division in the West in a bid to weaken us.
So it’s a serious issue of a type we’ve not had to grapple with before and cannot just be dismissed.
The limitless demand for safety and the pathological fear of risk used to go by another name: Cowardice. And we used to understand that those who live in constant fear and trembling do not really live at all, and those who give up their rights and their freedom in the hope that it will yield safety become the subjects of demagogues and those who promise false security. When did safety become the most important virtue? When those who envy the bold and the success that they sometimes enjoy were able to relabel their envy as the pursuit of safety. Was it not the SAS who embraced the motto: Who Dares Wins. Now the motto is Be Careful and Wear Your Helmet.
The limitless demand for safety and the pathological fear of risk used to go by another name: Cowardice. And we used to understand that those who live in constant fear and trembling do not really live at all, and those who give up their rights and their freedom in the hope that it will yield safety become the subjects of demagogues and those who promise false security. When did safety become the most important virtue? When those who envy the bold and the success that they sometimes enjoy were able to relabel their envy as the pursuit of safety. Was it not the SAS who embraced the motto: Who Dares Wins. Now the motto is Be Careful and Wear Your Helmet.
One thing that eludes me in all this is why, with all this talk of online safety, nothing is being done about the reams of sexually explicit content readily available to children of any age who knows where to look. Why would those who are quite happy to curtail free speech for fear of causing harm be unflappable in the damage online p–nography causes to children’s sexual development?
The fact is that there is no way to actually confirm a person’s age online. Even if they demanded a photo of a birth certificate, there’s no way to prove that it’s genuine. That’s where the whole thing falls apart. The end game winds up being that no one should be able to access anything that would not be appropriate for anyone much more than a toddler. The infantilization of the general populace, watched over and protected by those who care about you and always know what’s best for you.
The fact is that there is no way to actually confirm a person’s age online. Even if they demanded a photo of a birth certificate, there’s no way to prove that it’s genuine. That’s where the whole thing falls apart. The end game winds up being that no one should be able to access anything that would not be appropriate for anyone much more than a toddler. The infantilization of the general populace, watched over and protected by those who care about you and always know what’s best for you.
One thing that eludes me in all this is why, with all this talk of online safety, nothing is being done about the reams of sexually explicit content readily available to children of any age who knows where to look. Why would those who are quite happy to curtail free speech for fear of causing harm be unflappable in the damage online p–nography causes to children’s sexual development?
Life once had the Ten Commandments’
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
So basically 1 – 4 said you know the Judaeo-Christian ethic, which is from God, and that is the one to be used here.
6 – 10 basically told you that your actions must be proper.
And so society for 2000 years – with the amazing Intellectualism of the Church, knew what was right and what was wrong. Ethics, Morality, good over evil were understood as something to always strive for.
‘Then we Got ‘The Bill Of Rights” for Civil Rules reflecting the highest Classic Liberalism ideals of governance
Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”
First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second AmendmentA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third AmendmentNo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth AmendmentThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth AmendmentNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Sixth AmendmentIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Seventh AmendmentIn Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Eighth AmendmentExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth AmendmentThe enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth AmendmentThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Then we got ‘Post Modernism‘, which killed The Classic Liberalism that had created the Men who wrote the Constitution, and all which was great – with all its Justice and Ideals and excellence, Rights With Duties, and gave us Liberal Lefties instead. Relative Morality, Situational Ethics, and Flexible codes of Honor. Gave us Nihilism, Solipsism, psycho-analytics, existentialism, Critical Theory, and Marxism.
Every one of the 20 above Laws were therefore completely relative and all which remained was ‘Correct and Incorrect., and no one was to say to what anything meant – as long as it was Post-modernist, Liberal Lefty ‘Correct’ and that is the rule that degeneracy is valid, and rules are not…..
And so we get the F***ed up situation the article posses.
Nothing about “Thou shalt not rape” in there, which is rather odd is it not?
And I’m sure there was something about my neighbour’s ox in there somewhere.
That falls under “covet” I think. Or adultery, which used to have a much broader definition.
And I’m sure there was something about my neighbour’s ox in there somewhere.
That falls under “covet” I think. Or adultery, which used to have a much broader definition.
Got as far as Life
‘And so society for 2000 years – with the amazing Intellectualism of the Church, knew what was right and what was wrong. Ethics, Morality, good over evil were understood as something to always strive for’
I see. Would you like to discuss Christianities bloody history of intolerance for other faiths. Would you like to discuss the reformation where Christians kicked the shit out of each other? Their intolerance for academics that questioned the church?
TMI without much added value.
Nothing about “Thou shalt not rape” in there, which is rather odd is it not?
Got as far as Life
‘And so society for 2000 years – with the amazing Intellectualism of the Church, knew what was right and what was wrong. Ethics, Morality, good over evil were understood as something to always strive for’
I see. Would you like to discuss Christianities bloody history of intolerance for other faiths. Would you like to discuss the reformation where Christians kicked the shit out of each other? Their intolerance for academics that questioned the church?
TMI without much added value.
Life once had the Ten Commandments’
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
So basically 1 – 4 said you know the Judaeo-Christian ethic, which is from God, and that is the one to be used here.
6 – 10 basically told you that your actions must be proper.
And so society for 2000 years – with the amazing Intellectualism of the Church, knew what was right and what was wrong. Ethics, Morality, good over evil were understood as something to always strive for.
‘Then we Got ‘The Bill Of Rights” for Civil Rules reflecting the highest Classic Liberalism ideals of governance
Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”
First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second AmendmentA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third AmendmentNo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth AmendmentThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth AmendmentNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Sixth AmendmentIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Seventh AmendmentIn Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Eighth AmendmentExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth AmendmentThe enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth AmendmentThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Then we got ‘Post Modernism‘, which killed The Classic Liberalism that had created the Men who wrote the Constitution, and all which was great – with all its Justice and Ideals and excellence, Rights With Duties, and gave us Liberal Lefties instead. Relative Morality, Situational Ethics, and Flexible codes of Honor. Gave us Nihilism, Solipsism, psycho-analytics, existentialism, Critical Theory, and Marxism.
Every one of the 20 above Laws were therefore completely relative and all which remained was ‘Correct and Incorrect., and no one was to say to what anything meant – as long as it was Post-modernist, Liberal Lefty ‘Correct’ and that is the rule that degeneracy is valid, and rules are not…..
And so we get the F***ed up situation the article posses.
There’s nothing anyone can say to anyone else about anything at any place at any time that someone cannot claim “hurts” them. It can neither be proven nor disproven. On the other hand, someone who’s comfortable in their skin is just as comfortable online as off.
A few years back, my daughter in law asked if I preferred being called handicapped or disabled or what. I replied that, “I really don’t care. I know you’re not trying to hurt me with it and there’s no denying that I am {handicapped, disabled, crippled, a gimp, or whatever label you care to put on it}, so whatever you want.” She seemed puzzled by that reply as if I had to pick a label that everyone else had to use in order to avoid hurting my feelings. A word does not make me anything other than what I am, for better or worse. Using one over another doesn’t change anything. And generally, if you know someone is *trying* to hurt you, just consider the source and ignore it.
The old mantra used to be that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Where did that basic truism disappear to?
There’s nothing anyone can say to anyone else about anything at any place at any time that someone cannot claim “hurts” them. It can neither be proven nor disproven. On the other hand, someone who’s comfortable in their skin is just as comfortable online as off.
A few years back, my daughter in law asked if I preferred being called handicapped or disabled or what. I replied that, “I really don’t care. I know you’re not trying to hurt me with it and there’s no denying that I am {handicapped, disabled, crippled, a gimp, or whatever label you care to put on it}, so whatever you want.” She seemed puzzled by that reply as if I had to pick a label that everyone else had to use in order to avoid hurting my feelings. A word does not make me anything other than what I am, for better or worse. Using one over another doesn’t change anything. And generally, if you know someone is *trying* to hurt you, just consider the source and ignore it.
The old mantra used to be that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Where did that basic truism disappear to?
It strikes me that if our governments could bring themselves to punish bad actions, we would not be so concerned about bad words. If people understood that words are just words, but physical violence (among other things like finnacial fraud, of course, but we all know what are the real issues in this case) is what causes real harm, and that if you inflict real harm justice will be swift and sure, everyone will see the bright line they should not cross and the whole problem shrinks to something beneath the threshold of government action (essentially, hurt feelings).
That leaves a few thigs like adolescent bullying to be dealt with, but homo sapiens has survived for 100,000 years and we can deal with that without destroyimg our hard-won liberties.
It strikes me that if our governments could bring themselves to punish bad actions, we would not be so concerned about bad words. If people understood that words are just words, but physical violence (among other things like finnacial fraud, of course, but we all know what are the real issues in this case) is what causes real harm, and that if you inflict real harm justice will be swift and sure, everyone will see the bright line they should not cross and the whole problem shrinks to something beneath the threshold of government action (essentially, hurt feelings).
That leaves a few thigs like adolescent bullying to be dealt with, but homo sapiens has survived for 100,000 years and we can deal with that without destroyimg our hard-won liberties.
Disagreement is by definition a two-way thing yet the harm always seems to flow in only one direction.
Disagreement is by definition a two-way thing yet the harm always seems to flow in only one direction.
The author makes some good points, especially in linking the attempt to mitigate harms of digital technologies with those used to govern the pandemic, but this is not a new trend. Environmental protection and health and safety were essentially rational/legal attempts to mitigate against the negative externalities of industrial capitalism. We’re now seeing the same attempt to mitigate against the social harms of digital capitalism. That is basically what the woke takeover of the institutions amounts to, an attempt by the administrative classes to hold together a fragmenting society by procedural/legal means. It will fail as precaution is Janus faced. Lockdowns caused untold harm to society, health and safety culture destroys the creativity and autonomy of workers, and woke bureaucratic management will cause further disenchantment and engender further social conflict. The only way is down I’m afraid.
The author makes some good points, especially in linking the attempt to mitigate harms of digital technologies with those used to govern the pandemic, but this is not a new trend. Environmental protection and health and safety were essentially rational/legal attempts to mitigate against the negative externalities of industrial capitalism. We’re now seeing the same attempt to mitigate against the social harms of digital capitalism. That is basically what the woke takeover of the institutions amounts to, an attempt by the administrative classes to hold together a fragmenting society by procedural/legal means. It will fail as precaution is Janus faced. Lockdowns caused untold harm to society, health and safety culture destroys the creativity and autonomy of workers, and woke bureaucratic management will cause further disenchantment and engender further social conflict. The only way is down I’m afraid.
The next Licensing Act should place a duty on publicans to prevent harmful conversations in their bar. That would lead to increased purchases of alcohol from supermarkets, which should accept responsibility for their customers’ behaviour post-purchase.
Sound extreme? My local DIY centre used to leave out cardboard boxes at the entrance. Customers could take a box to contain their purchases. One day, no boxes. I asked why not and was told that Head Office had decided that it was impossible to control what customers did with the boxes at home, so to avoid liability, no more cardboard boxes to be available.
The OSB seeks to separate us into Humans and Beasts. It is the legacy of do-gooders like Mary Whitehouse and her 80s crusade against video nasties. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/the-online-safety-bill-is-a-cannibal?utm_source=direct&r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The OSB seeks to separate us into Humans and Beasts. It is the legacy of do-gooders like Mary Whitehouse and her 80s crusade against video nasties. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/the-online-safety-bill-is-a-cannibal?utm_source=direct&r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web