Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Supreme Neocon Warmonger Anne Applebaum Awarded Peace Prize
July 05, 2024
Guest contributors: HarryBerger
post photo preview

As we take a break for the Fourth of July holidays, find below an article by Harrison Berger, one of the producers on our team, about the extreme and telling irony that one of America’s most relentless warmongers, neocon pundit Anne Applebaum, was just awarded a peace prize. We will be back with our regularly-scheduled show on Monday, July 8th.


By Harrison Berger

It is not unusual for a warmonger to be awarded a prestigious peace prize - in fact it’s become something of a tradition. Back in 2009, for instance, Barack Obama collected his Nobel Peace Prize while greenlighting a 30,000 troop surge for the US War in Afghanistan - one of the many wars he escalated despite his 2008 campaign promise that he would not. Henry Kissinger was famously given the same award. Though not as prestigious as that award, the academic and columnist Anne Applebaum received her own peace prize last week. 

"At a time when democratic values and achievements are increasingly being caricatured and attacked, her work embodies an eminent and indispensable contribution to the preservation of democracy and peace," the award description said of Applebaum.

Anne Applebaum winning awards for peace is like fast food companies winning awards for promoting weight loss. Pick any major US war of the past 20 years and she’s supported it. 

Her career trajectory is a gateway to understanding not only the hollowness behind these establishment awards but more importantly how corporate media functions to propel people like Anne Applebaum upward. 

Starting at The Economist and later moving upward to the editorial board of The Washington Post, Applebaum currently writes for The Atlantic, a paper owned by Steve Jobs’ widow and managed by Jeffrey Goldberg, famous for his award winning 2003 propaganda, which claimed to have linked Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. Fellow byliners at Applebaum’s magazine include Russia hawk Tom Nichols, Bush speechwriter David Frum, and Bush state department alumni Eliot A. Cohen, producing a neocon editorial line that is indistinguishable from that of The Weekly Standard in its heyday. And the function of both papers - The Atlantic and The Weekly Standard - is the same: to cheerlead and drum up support for America’s foreign conflicts. 

Perhaps no magazine has done more than Goldberg’s and Applebaum’s to support America’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, despite the fact that the war is killing a generation of men who are being conscripted against their will, in a country that has suspended elections, banned media, and begun rounding up its own citizens off the streets. 

Back in May of 2023, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and Anne Applebaum were the leading voices along with people like Max Boot and David Petreus at The Washington Post to insist that Ukraine was well prepared for its vaunted counteroffensive and that the United States should dump money into supporting it.

Uniquely, the United States has the power to determine how, and how quickly, the war of attrition turns into something quite different. Over the next few months, as the Ukrainians take their best shot at winning the war, the democratic world will have to decide whether to help them do so. The fate of NATO, of America’s position in Europe, indeed of America’s position in the world are all at stake.”

That counteroffensive was a sluggish battle of attrition which quickly turned into a slaughter. There was no reason to believe that the campaign would be successful - the Russians were completely dug in. And yet from such a far distance from the front lines, Anne Applebaum and Jeffrey Goldberg definitively pronounced to readers of The Atlantic that the counteroffensive would succeed and that it was worth sending off a generation of young Ukrainian men for. 

Looking through her bibliography, it becomes apparent why a paper like Jeffrey Goldberg’s The Atlantic is the perfect home for Anne Applebaum and all the fabulous foreign policy ideas she’s proposed over the years.

In 2002, Israel pummeled Gaza with bombs (a good reminder that the current conflict did not begin on October 7), targeting dense civilian centers. One of the targets of that campaign - much like the targets of Israel’s current campaign - was the press, and in January of 2002, Israel destroyed Gaza’s main radio station, Voice of Palestine. While free press groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the destruction of the radio stations, Anne Applebaum offered her passionate endorsement of the attack in an article for Slate titled “Kill the Messenger: Why Palestine radio and TV studios are fair targets in the Palestine/Israeli war.” This is what she said:

—the official Palestinian media is the right place for Israel to focus its ire. In fact, in the reporting of the Middle East conflict, which almost always focuses on yesterday’s violence and today’s body count, the crucial role of the Voice of Palestine—the official broadcasting arm of the Palestinian Authority—has often been overlooked. Nor is the problem just radio and television. If you want to understand why the Oslo peace process failed, or where suicide martyrs come from, it is worth taking a closer look at all the Palestinian Authority’s official media….

 

Establishing a credible media will be, for the Palestinians, part of what it takes to establish a credible state. Until then, the Voice of Palestine will remain what it has become: a combatant—and therefore a legitimate target—in a painful, never-ending, low-intensity war."

Anne Applebaum advised that Israel treat journalists as “combatants” and “legitimate targets,” and ultimately, Israel agreed, and has been routinely targeting the press in all of its wars through its current one, which CPJ notes is the deadliest conflict for journalists on record. But advocating that militaries target the press is just one of Anne Applebaum’s many “indispensable contributions to the preservation of democracy and peace” (to quote her prize description). Another “contribution” can be found 10 months later in October of 2002 when, notably much earlier than most liberals at the time, Applebaum called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq.

Although I dislike the modern tendency to compare every mad dictator to Hitler, in this narrow sense, the comparison to Saddam might be apt. Are you sure Saddam would not risk the destruction of his country, if he thought, for some reason, that he or his regime was in danger? Do you want to wait and find out?...We really don’t know whether deterrence will work in the case of Iraq. Megalomaniacal tyrants do not always behave in the way rational people do, and to assume otherwise is folly.

 

If I have any real qualms about the potential war in Iraq, they are not so much about the central issue—should we fight or should we not (I think, with caveats, that we should be prepared to do so)—but about the peculiar way in which the administration has until now gone about making its case for the war."

To reiterate, Anne Applebaum had no opposition to the question of “should we fight or not,” but rather, “about the way in which the administration” had presented the case for war. Presumably, if she were Bush, she simply would have made a better power point presentation to argue for that war which, let’s remember, killed over a million people, spilled over into neighboring countries, and spawned ISIS.

In 2016, the by that point established peace activist Anne Applebaum took to The Washington Post to mourn what she called “The disastrous nonintervention in Syria.” 

Maybe a U.S.-British-French intervention would have ended in disaster. If so, we would today be mourning the consequences. But sometimes it’s important to mourn the consequences of nonintervention too. Three years on, we do know, after all, exactly what nonintervention has produced: 

 

Estimates of war casualties range from about 155,000 to 400,000, depending on who is counted…According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there were 4.8 million registered Syrian refugees as of Aug. 16…the country has been destroyed. Schools and hospitals have been leveled."

Notably, the casualty range she provides for the Syrian conflict is roughly half of the total of those killed in the Iraq War, which as we just saw, she proudly stood with hardline neocons like Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney to support. But more importantly, the account of events that Applebaum provides here, is pure fiction. When she uses the conditional tense to say things like “intervention would have ended,” like x, or uses phrases such as “our disastrous nonintervention,” I honestly do not know what she is talking about. Her article takes place in a universe so far from our own that I’m convinced this may be Applebaum’s attempt at science fiction.

Despite her misleading headline, the US government did intervene in Syria - that has been thoroughly documented by every mainstream outlet. The New York Times for instance, reported 7 months before Applebaum’s column in an article titled “U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels” that “Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria’s embattled rebels in 2013,” and that 

Mr. Obama gave his approval for the C.I.A. to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the C.I.A. took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles.”

That Anne Applebaum wields Syrian conflict casualty statistics as an argument for more war, while deliberately concealing the US role in producing those statistics, shows just how desperate Applebaum is to send other people’s children to fight in foreign conflicts.  

Really, the thing that stood out most when reading through the backlog of Applebaum’s articles is the bizarre blindspot she has for much of recent history. At first glance her approach appeared to be deliberately cherry picking events in order to downplay the role of the US in shaping much of the suffering in the world. But reading even more of Applebaum , it becomes clear that what she writes is a reflection of a much more serious mental pathology - one shared by many elites. It has become a common tactic of establishment elites to project the blame of domestic failures on foreign governments. That was the whole point of Russiagate conspiracy theories in 2016, of which Applebaum was a fanatical supporter. This elite pathology is maybe best represented in one of Applebaum’s latest articles for The Atlantic where she explains her theory for who is to blame for a decline in America's global standing and popularity, (Spoiler alert: it’s Russia and China!)

…the story of how Africans—as well as Latin Americans, Asians, and indeed many Europeans and Americans—have come to spout Russian propaganda about Ukraine is not primarily a story of European colonial history, Western policy, or the Cold War. Rather, it involves China’s systematic efforts to buy or influence both popular and elite audiences around the world; carefully curated Russian propaganda campaigns, some open, some clandestine, some amplified by the American and European far right; and other autocracies using their own networks to promote the same language."

Anne Applebaum’s writing should not be studied by political scientists, it should be studied by psychiatrists; the level of delusion on display here is remarkable. This is a royal member of the US foreign policy elite, whose signature policy has been intervention around the world and support for despised and outcast governments like Israel. I just showed you all the wars she’s advocated for in just a 20 year period. And when confronted with bubbling anger and bitterness toward her country from the rest of the world, Anne Appplebaum is incapable of making a cause and effect connection between that resentment and the US foreign policy she has successfully cheerled. Rather, Applebaum insists that the  “Africans—as well as Latin Americans, Asians, and indeed many Europeans and Americans” are the victims of “Russian propaganda campaigns,” and “China’s systematic efforts to buy or influence” them. In other words, implies Applebaum, Africans, Latin Americans, Asians, and some Westerners don’t really harbor any resentment for American foreign policy at all, they only feel that way because of a Russian and Chinese propaganda campaign which, apparently, they are too stupid to notice, unlike the wise and educated Anne Applebaum, who sees the propaganda campaign with clear eyes and benevolently offers to unshackle the minds of people in the third world. 

That such a deranged and delusional person has advocated so many terrible and destructive policies only to move upward in corporate media is not surprising (advocating destructive policies and success are directly correlated in Washington). That she wins awards for peace should make you disregard these sorts of establishment awards completely.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
13
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
TONIGHT: Submit Your Questions for the Friday Mailbag!

We look forward to seeing what’s on your mind. Please feel free to submit more than one question.

August 14, 2025

Thank you Glen for your fearless voice on Gaza. My support and respect for you is ongoing.

17 hours ago

Why do you always have this negative obsession with Israel and why do you only have guests that support your distorted opinion. At least get guests that disagree with you like Ben Shapiro. Do you have the same opinion about the killing of Christians, Druse, and Gays in Islamic countries. There are a billion Muslims and a few million Jews in the world, and it take a Gay Jew to add fuel to the hatred of Israel. How sick is that.

post photo preview
Should Obama Admin Officials Be Prosecuted for Russiagate Lies? Major Escalations in Trump/Brazil Conflict
System Update #498

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

The Russiagate fraud is receiving all sorts of new attention and scrutiny thanks to documents first declassified and then released by Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. As we reported at length last week, these documents were quite incriminating for various Obama officials, such as former CIA Director James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director Jim Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as they reveal what was a deliberate attempt to weaponize intelligence findings for purely partisan and political ends in 2016, namely, to manipulate the American electorate into voting for their former Obama administration colleague Hillary Clinton as president, and more importantly, defeating Donald Trump, and then repeatedly lying about it to Congress and the American people. 

Yesterday, it was reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi is not only investigating, which is kind of meaningless, but what's not meaningless is that she's also apparently empaneling a grand jury to investigate whether there was prosecutable criminality at the highest levels of the Obama administration. We'll examine that obviously important question. 

Then, we’ll examine what's driving all his complex escalation of Trump’s decision for 50% tariffs on Brazilian products and what's at stake, and the potential consequences for all sides. 

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

AD_4nXcMLHddBcYrOQkGBrftza6Qmzy1fTdJQYf__iGj6ghLK6A5bXi0gHsAdFB4QQg9QIS86OS8NB9osGCnH9eBJ-eq249C6MDSOU7yW1FeA7Fc3dHzrytPwkzWr928FUUPA3BRlx4Q2CPAJI7vGYnjUtg?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

I believe it's been obvious, pretty much from the very beginning of the Russiagate hoax, the Russiagate fraud, which I'll remind you, again, was driven by the core conspiracy claim that the Trump campaign officials collaborated and colluded and conspired with the Kremlin to hack into the DNC email server as well as John Podesta's email and disseminate those emails to WikiLeaks and by the broader conspiracy theory that Trump was being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin with sexual material, compromising financial information, personal blackmail as well, and that therefore the Kremlin was basically, once Trump got elected running the country, was a completely unhinged and deranged conspiracy theory from the start for which there was no evidence. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Admin Unleashes More Policies That Prioritize Israel Over American Citizens; The Smear Campaign Against Gaza Aid Whistleblower with Journalist Mel Witte
System Update #497

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

That the U.S. government and multiple state governments are devoutly loyal to Israel is hardly a secret. Anyone who pays even minimal attention to American politics knows that. The Trump administration has severely escalated this framework. The administration does not just send billions of dollars and massive amounts of arms to Israel, but they go much further: they have been routinely punishing American citizens and jeopardizing American interests to serve and protect Israeli interests. 

Our guest is Melissa Witte. Last week, I praised her work and independent journalism. Mel Witte is a strong believer in the America First ideology that was sold by Donald Trump, whose candidacy and MAGA movement she has supported. But unlike many, if not most, Trump supporters, she actually took seriously the core promises of America First, and she has been scathing in her denunciation of the Trump administration for deviating so brazenly from them, but also quite relentless and meticulous and detail-oriented and evidence-based in her reporting on all of these matters. We have wanted her on our show for some time and she is our guest for this show. 

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

Foto editada de homem de terno e gravataO conteúdo gerado por IA pode estar incorreto.

I don't think people realize how many policies there are already in place in the United States that punish American citizens and deprive American citizens of certain benefits and certain rights if they'd refuse to either sign a loyalty oath to Israel, where they agree never to boycott the state of Israel, even though they're allowed to boycott every other country on the planet, even other American states, you just can't boycott Israel. 

There are also many programs that will dismantle crucial programs beneficial to American interests in order to shield Israel from criticism or to claim that, by allowing protest against Israel, an institution is being antisemitic. And it doesn't matter how valuable these programs are, if they're associated with an institution that Israel supporters dislike for having allowed some protests against Israel, they will dismantle and defund the program. Let's start with the second policy that happened on Friday night as an example, just to illustrate how extreme this has become. 

Here's Paul Graham, a very successful investor in Silicon Valley, who has been very supportive of Republican and conservative policies, but also quite outspoken about the Trump administration's financing of Israel. On August 3, 2025, he said this:

AD_4nXd1KxbYwNTldwdVTbxmNs7o6aXiCSWEnfwaYH1L594H51aluoFUZfDOfLGeb3nxVxQShRi2zuz89da_TuPJMaIoHzLtg-i8x7GAQKp1eSzJJA5YEKYZJie0vIfLAXn9Waq9jiaJOXl6FU2_aBUWRp4?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

 Terrence Tao is probably the most important and accomplished mathematician on the planet. Maybe there are two or three people who compete with him. He's an Australian American citizen. He works inside the United States, on research programs funded by the U.S. government, which the government funds because applied mathematics is one of the most crucial fields to all sorts of programs that the United States needs to compete with China, from AI and cryptography to detecting financial fraud or managing financial transactions. 

The Allies were able to break Nazi codes using cryptography because of mathematicians during World War II. That's the equivalent of who this person is and what this program does. Yet, the Trump administration just announced that they're defunding it, not because they say that it's wasteful or that it's not producing benefits. And it's no part of some broader attempt to defund research programs at universities. The Trump administration is funding all sorts of research. Instituting programs at universities is something the U.S. government has always done for its own benefit. 

The only programs they're defunding are ones that they claim are attached to institutions like UCLA, which they claimed are antisemitic. They claim that about Harvard, filled with Jewish students and Jewish administrators, five of the last seven presidents of Harvard are Jewish, yet somehow the Trump administration decided that's an antisemitic institution because they allowed protests against Israel. Same with UCLA. Anyone who knows UCLA knows how robustly represented Jewish students and Jewish faculty members are. 

Read here what Terence Tao said on his social media account about why this was done. This was on August 1. 

 Again, this is so ironic. The conservative movement spent a full decade mocking claims of racism, mocking claims that people on college campuses need anti-discrimination protection, then the Trump administration gets in and makes it one of their very top priorities to declare that there's a racism epidemic in the United States, but only against one group. There's only one genuinely marginalized, true victim group in the United States, and that's American Jews and the Trump administration has been doing everything, no matter how much it harms American citizens or American interests, to purge the world of this one form of bigotry that it claims has pervaded all American institutions. And it will sacrifice anything to do so. This is not new. This is just how extreme these things can get in the framework of American politics. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Stephen Miller's False Denials About Trump's Campus "Hate Speech" Codes; Sohrab Ahmari on the MAGA Splits Over Antitrust, Foreign Wars, and More
System Update #495

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast platform.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

One of President Trump's most powerful advisers, Stephen Miller, last night claimed that I had posted what he called "patently false" statements about the Trump administration’s policy. Specifically, earlier in the day, I had pointed out – and documented, as I've done many times – that the Trump administration has implemented a radically expanded "hate speech" code that outlawed a wide range of opinions about Israel and Jewish individuals and, even worse, that they have been pressuring American universities to adopt this expanded "hate speech" code on campuses to restrict the free speech rights, not of foreign students, but of American professors, American administrators and American students. It's a direct attack on the free speech rights of Americans on college campuses. 

I also pointed out – as I have covered here many times – that the Trump administration has also adopted a policy of deporting law-abiding citizens, not for criticizing the United States, but for criticizing Israel. All of my claims here are demonstrably and indisputably true. Yet after I pointed them out yesterday, and various MAGA influencers began responding to them and promoting them, White House officials began contacting them to convince them that my claims weren't true. When that didn't work because I was able to provide the evidence, the White House late last night dispatched one of its most popular officials – Stephen Miller – to label my claims “patently false." 

The policies in question, adopted by the Trump administration, especially these attacks on free speech on American college campuses through hate speech codes, are of great importance, precisely, since they do attack the free speech rights of Americans at our universities, and the actual truth of what the Trump administration should be demonstrated. So that's exactly what we're going to do tonight. 

Then: The emergence of Donald Trump and his MAGA ideology in the Republican Party led to the opening of all sorts of new ideas and policies previously anathema in that party. All of that, in turn, led to vibrant debates and competing views within the Trump coalition, as well as to all new voices and perspectives. One of the most interesting thinkers to emerge from that clash is our guest tonight: he's Sohrab Ahmari, one of the founders of Compact Magazine and now the U.S. editor for the online journal UnHerd. We’ll talk about all of that, as well as other MAGA divisions becoming increasingly more visible on economic populism generally, war and foreign policy, and much more. 

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

Sometimes, government policy is carried out with very flamboyant and melodramatic announcements that everyone can listen to and understand, but more often it's carried out through a series of documents, very lengthy documents, sometimes legal documents, that have a great deal of complexity to them. 

Oftentimes, when that happens, the government, if it has a policy or is pursuing things that are unpopular, especially among its own voters, can just try to confuse things by claiming that people's descriptions of what they're doing are untrue and false and trying to just confuse people with a bunch of irrelevances or false claims. A lot of people don't know what to make of it. They just throw up their hands because most people don't have the time to sort through all that. Especially if you're a supporter of a political movement and you hear that they're pursuing a policy that you just think is so anathema to their ideology that you don't want to believe that they're doing, you're happy to hear from the government when they say, “Oh, that's a lie. Don't listen to the persons or the people saying that. That's not actually what we're doing.”

Yet when that happens, I think it's very incumbent upon everybody who wants to know what their government is doing to actually understand the truth. And that is what happened last night. 

I've been reporting for several months now on the Trump administration's systematic efforts to force American universities to adopt expanded hate speech codes. Remember, for so long, conservatives hated hate speech codes on college campuses. They condemned it as censorship. They said it's designed to suppress ideas. 

Oftentimes, those hate speech codes were justified on the grounds that it's necessary to protect minority groups or that those ideas are hateful and incite violence. And all of this, we were told by most conservatives that I know, I think, in probably a consensus close to unanimity, we were told that this is just repressive behavior, that faculty and students on campus should have the freedom to express whatever views they want. If they're controversial, if they are offensive, if they are just disliked by others, the solution is not to ban those ideas or punish those people, but to allow open debate to flourish and people to hear those ideas. 

That is a critique I vehemently agree with. And I've long sided with conservatives on this censorship debate as it has formed over the last, say, six, seven, eight years when it comes to online discourse, when it comes to campus discourse, free speech is something that is not just a constitutional guarantee and according to the Declaration of Independence, a right guaranteed by God, but it is also central to the American ethos of how we think debate should unfold. We don't trust the central authority to dictate what ideas are prohibited and which ones aren't. Instead, we believe in the free flow of ideas and the ability of adults to listen and make up their own minds. 

That's the opposite of what the Trump administration has now been doing. What they said they believed in, Donald Trump, in his inauguration and other times, was that he wanted to restore free speech. Early on in the administration, JD Vance went to Europe and chided them for having long lists of prohibited ideas for which their citizens are punished if they express those views. And the reality is that's exactly what the Trump administration has been doing. 

I want to make clear I'm not talking here about the controversies over deporting foreign students for criticizing Israel. That's a separate issue, which is part of this discussion, but that's totally ancillary and secondary. I've covered that many times. That is not what I'm discussing. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals