E-Pluribus | Mar. 31, 2021
Here is a round up of the latest and best writing and musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
Jesse Singal: Of Course Suspected Criminals Should Be Allowed To Raise Money For Their Legal Defenses Online
That it is better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to suffer (via Voltaire and/or Ben Franklin) is one of the principles undergirding legal representation for all in this country. Jesse Singal is concerned about a trend that seeks to deny those accused of crimes (or at least crimes with political overtones) the ability to use crowdfunding to pay for their defense.
The nice thing about liberalism is we have principles and we stick to them. The dark thing about… whatever the hell this is, is that wildly different standards appear to apply solely on the basis of tribal affiliation, which is a sure recipe for further division and societal corrosion. There was a fair amount of left-wing violence and destruction in 2020, including, in Portland, crimes that weren’t that different from what the Capitol breachers did: “Portland Protesters Set Fire to Federal Courthouse, Cops Declare Demonstration a Riot,” reported The Daily Beast. As far as I’m aware, there were zero articles from progressive outlets arguing that these defendants shouldn’t be able to raise money online. It’s completely and utterly an in-group/out-group thing.
Someone accused of setting fire to a federal courthouse should be able to crowdfund their legal defense. Someone accused of breaching the U.S. Capitol should be able to crowdfund their legal defense. Anyone should be able to crowdfund a legal defense. The burden should be on those arguing otherwise to make their case. The USA Today article doesn’t come close to doing so, and now — as often happens — the online conversation isn’t about whether or not this deeply illiberal argument makes sense, but about whether someone was too mean to someone else online. This is a diversion.
Read it all here.
The Washington Post, Tracy Jan: Corporations are working with social media influencers to cancel-proof their racial justice initiatives
Given that social media often drives “cancellations” for political or cultural transgressions, it’s perhaps both ironic and logical that corporations have begun paying “influencers” to prejudge corporate public engagement ideas and plans in an effort to head off potentially embarrassing and costly faux pas. The Washington Post reports on how these “cultural navigators” operate.
“Traditional market research is not built for this cultural moment,” DuBois said. He and co-founders Brandon Andrews and Alfred Dunn recently launched a “cultural navigator” platform called NXTLAB of more than 10,000 opinion-makers whom companies can tap confidentially for candid feedback to spare themselves possible embarrassment.
Their expertise covers multigenerational, multiracial perspectives on racial equality as well as LGBTQ, gender and women’s rights. Among the platform’s thought leaders: April Reign, who launched the #OscarsSoWhite campaign for more diverse representation in Hollywood; Jamilah Lemieux, a millennial writer focused on race and gender; and David Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, a civil rights organization focused on Black LGBTQ people.
The influencers are paid between $500 and more than $1,500 for one-on-one consultations and $10 to $100 for survey responses, DuBois said. Gauge charges companies a subscription fee (starting at $5,000 a month for nonprofit groups) that includes daily emails encapsulating key news developments, access to a website featuring experts weighing in on those moments, and a set number of custom research projects.
Read the whole article at the Post.
Wall Street Journal, Chun Han Wong: China Rewrites Hong Kong Election Rules to Keep Opponents Out
While the new voting law in Georgia has Democrats and Republicans trading barbs over reforms versus restrictions (including when handing out water to a voter constitutes a crime,) the Communist Chinese (CCP) legislative body left no doubt about its intentions to limit Hong Kong’s ability to self-govern. The Wall Street Journal reports that the new rules dramatically shift the power in Hong Kong’s governance away from the city itself and to Beijing.
The changes, approved Tuesday, will curtail democratic representation in Hong Kong by slashing the share of directly elected seats in the local legislature, while giving unelected political bodies more influence over the city’s governance. Local national-security officials will also get effective veto power over election candidates, allowing authorities to bar opposition figures from elected office.
These measures formalized Beijing’s plans to tighten its grip on Hong Kong with electoral overhauls that ensure only “patriots” can govern the Asian financial center. China’s national legislature approved the proposal during its annual session this month, paving the way for senior lawmakers to finalize the details this week.
Opposition groups say the electoral changes are part of Beijing’s systematic erosion of many rights and freedoms that Hong Kong residents were promised for the half-century following Britain’s handover of the territory to Chinese rule in 1997.
Beijing has sought to crush dissent in Hong Kong since antigovernment protests caused citywide chaos in 2019. After imposing a national-security law on the city in June, authorities have rounded up scores of pro-democracy figures and disqualified several opposition lawmakers.
Read it all here.
Around Twitter
University of Vermont professor Aaron Kindsvatter, under fire for his video decrying “anti-whiteness” at his school did an interview with UnHerd:
Update on the ongoing controversy over translations of inauguration poet Amanda Gorman’s work:
Long thread from a new organization formed to fight political activism and extremists in K-12 schools:
