IIRC, that his socialist colleagues were not “all good liberals” is the same realization that precipitated Orwell’s writings.

Change is hard for everyone.

Note all the “National Review” types who couldn’t cope with Trump’s populism and decided their only choice was to break off from the post-Trump GOP or even vote Democrat.

I think much of this is loyalty to the tribe they thought they belonged to.

Would you be able to hold to your principles if all your friends and political allies suddenly were against them?

I did and I lost more than 80% of my social support. I didn’t realize I was taking such a risk. I was a serious progressive, but I assumed we are all good liberals when it came to disagreements.

If I had known the risk, I believe I would have done so anyway — Joan of Arc is my patron saint — but I would have given it more thought and perhaps tried to find a softer landing.

Well, at least heretics in America aren’t burnt at the stake just yet.

He is dancing around that realization.
https://www.racket.news/p/where-have-all-the-liberals-gone

Opening comments to the general public to ask a question, in sincerity: what changed the minds of society’s former First Amendment advocates?
…
There can’t possibly be controversy at this point as to whether or not this censorship program is going on. Whether it’s the FBI forwarding the SBU asking for the removal of Aaron Maté, or the Global Engagement Center recommending action on the Canadian site GlobalResearch.Ca, or the White House demanding the takedown of figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the same types of behavior have now been captured over and over.

In light of this, I have to ask: where are the rest of the “card-carrying” liberals from the seventies, eighties, and nineties — people like me, who always reflexively opposed restrictions on speech?

Is your argument that private companies can do what they want? Then why did you think otherwise in 1985…

A sampling of contrasting actions follows, showing that “his leftist bed-mates” have totally reversed their positions, because of course their only real position is “what advances the Left’s Agenda.”

The change in thinking of traditional American liberals is the only part of this censorship picture that still doesn’t quite compute for me. I’d like to hear from anyone who has an explanation, a personal testimonial, anything. Comments are open to everyone here.

2,534 Comments

I didn’t try to read them all — I do think this one is on target.

Lillia Gajewski
Writes And So It Goes . . .
Jul 12
I think the answer is simple. Where once you had liberals who were Democrats, today you have Democrats who call themselves liberals but aren’t really. It’s party over principle. If you notice all those other things you mentioned, the free speech there didn’t really hurt the Democrat Party, and by defending it, they could signal their virtuousness. But today, all the things being censored, are a danger to the Uniparty in general, but the Democrat Party in particular. So now they rationalize curtailing “free speech rights” any way they can.

In short, you’re confused because you assume people in parties have principles. They don’t, other than the perpetuation of party power. That’s it.

LIKE (572)

Resisting has incredible costs with little rewards. The media “cons” tickle the left and punch right which leaves the unaligned with a very narrow field.

I’m sure there have been plenty of conservative censors in past eras who enjoyed the comfort of a position of advantage and didn’t want to let it go of the power. But on the whole, I think conservative thinkers understand the importance of accepting different viewpoints as valid and worthy of consideration, perhaps even worth eventually incorporating. It’s a little ironic that conservatives are perhaps more inclined to allow change, if it’s constructive. They are certainly more willing to argue and debate in good faith.

Meanwhile, the Progressive Left openly channels Marxism, Leninism, Maoism and folds those principles into its daily activities.

I do sometimes get frustrated with Taibbi, and also with Taibbi & Kirn on their weekly broadcast, because they sometimes seem a little dense, slow to recognize these strategies as they are unfolding, as they comment on the unseemliness of the behavior that identifies it, without connecting the dots. Sometimes, they just don’t seem to get it.

…and WE decide and define—since WE are the ONLY ONES who can be relied upon to do so—exactly who (and what) the hoi polloi, the riff-raff and the white supremacists are.

That way WE can protect OUR democracy…(oh, and OURSELVES)…while ensuring that OUR uber-toxic opponents—INSURRECTIONISTS and DANGERS TO DEMOCRACY all of ’em—are kept at bay.)

File under: L’etat, c’est NOUS.

Yes, just so . . .

“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
— Frank Herbert, Children of Dune