Liberals Killed Free Speech? Free Speech Killed Liberals

Liberalism dominates our present world. It is the defining feature of the US, the dominant superpower of the world, and post-Cold War victory America has successfully impressed liberalism upon all other states but a very small few. Let’s not mince words — this was not achieved because liberalism is just the best and that’s that. Liberalism began in violence in the 1848 revolutions fighting against feudalist powers, then expanded further by fighting the fascists in World War Two and then truly consolidated at the end of the Cold War in fighting the communists. Liberalism’s hegemony has come with a profound amount of bloodshed much like all ideologies.
If you ask a liberal what their beliefs are, most will say something to the effect of the following items: freedom of speech, where the state cannot persecute individuals for their beliefs, and free democratic elections, where enfranchised citizens are able to choose amongst themselves who shall represent them in government without outside interference. Liberalism’s genius comes in capturing the conflict that naturally comes about between ideologies (fascists fighting communists, communists fighting liberals, liberals fighting both, conservatives fighting social democrats, etc) by containing it within social interaction and the state apparatus. This has a twofold effect — the liberal government now can exercise its power not just on everyday actions and internationally, but also in the very “battlefield of ideas” by setting these freedoms. While this does not enable them to simply shut down the opposition, this causes the second effect of legitimacy. If you refuse to participate in elections or deny freedom of speech to others, no matter what your reasons may be, you are not playing by our fair rules. You’re a totalitarian hack, you’re illegitimate, you’re not worth being listened to at all. Liberalism’s greatest strength is its hands-off approach here.
There is a problem, however. “Freedom of speech” in the liberal sense simply states that we should permit all different kinds of ideologies to speak their minds without persecution by the state. This says nothing about the rights of those to shut down such “free speech” — it is only the right to speak, not the right to be listened to. This has, unfortunately, been reinterpreted in recent years to mean that if someone speaks their mind, no intervention of any kind by any party can be acceptable. No matter the reasons, no matter the validity, no matter whether it is by a state, a firm, or individuals. You are censoring them if you even try.
The usual justification for why on earth any liberal would enable their opposition in this uncontrolled way, as opposed to the original way detailed before, is based upon faith. I know my beliefs, I believe that they are true and the right thing to do, therefore they will succeed and I have no reason to censor others — it’s just unnecessary violence in the political theatre.
There is a disconnect here on 3 separate counts. The first, faith is not how liberalism won; violence is how liberalism won. Liberals won lots of wars against their rivals, that’s how they got to how they are today, not because their beliefs are somehow “right”. If liberals wish to preserve their position, faith alone simply will not do, violence is required as it is with all ideologies (the US State Department has clearly recognised this, invading most countries who deviate from the American liberal line). Secondly, even if you do think it is right, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will succeed. Many people have believed in many failed causes over the years, and indeed liberalism has failed many times too. Thirdly, to see liberalism triumph after its enemies are defeated, it must be enforced — simply having faith in the liberal society to stand independently is just not enough.
The consequences of this new shift in approach can already be felt. Thanks to Cold War-era sentiments lingering on, liberals see the increasingly large socialist movement still as the only real threat and thus the outlined strategic behaviour from before is still in full use, but this is not done for the far-right. Many liberals of the modern day simply believe that the Neo-Nazi movement of the 21st century will not, cannot, win because they are wrong. Because of this, liberals do very little to prevent any further growth of this toxic movement and sometimes verge into the territory of actively enabling them. How do they do this? By using the new strategy to reprimand and quieten anyone who speaks out against the fascists.
Effects from this phenomenon are continuing to spread even today. Fascism has experienced a near-explosive rate of growth in popularity and mainstream acceptance which has been caused, in part, by mass disillusionment from the centre. Those who remain, confused and disoriented by the sudden loss of political dominance, are now beginning to show signs of fanatical and desperate denial, insisting that only they can win elections, that only they have the one reasonable way out, and oh if only Tony Blair was here! Liberal behaviour against the left may have prevented any heads free from this groupthink from being able to form some electoral anti-fascist front, as leftists see only hypocrites who oppressed their beliefs while letting fascism flourish when they see liberals today.
Without a serious change of course soon, liberalism would seem to be in terminal decline. Some may dress up their new approach to the opposition as pacifism and therefore a good thing; it is nothing of the sort. At best it is just laziness, at worst it is enabling the enemies of humanity. Regardless of political stance, the one clear thing of this behaviour coming from those who claim to be the most responsible leaders of society is the extremely unpredictable future for everyone that it entails and is delivering upon every day. At this rate, liberalism may be fighting for its life once again; a fight it has already lost.
