We can condemn neo-Nazis without sanctioning the far-Left’s mob justice
America is a nation of superlatives; we construct skyscrapers and supersize our cheeseburgers, because more is better. Our political dialogue reflects this mantra. The Left offers more government involvement in day-today life, more stability, more free stuff. The Right promises more freedom, more opportunity to succeed, more distance from government. Pledging to maintain the status quo would get you nowhere in US politics. The tension between these two camps, over three branches of government, has kept Washington (mostly) functional for more than 200 years.
Civil society largely replicates the patterns of politics. Freedoms of assembly, association and speech have guaranteed that for every Planned Parenthood, there is a pro-life Susan B Anthony List. For the most part, these groups recognise and respect the First Amendment free speech rights of those who disagree with them, because they understand that their own existence depends on these rights being upheld.
So, the rise of Antifa – a militant, far-Left, violent, anarchic political movement, which has no interest in the maintenance of these rights, is legitimate cause for concern.
An anti-fascist movement sounds, prima facie, like an obvious idea: isn’t everyone anti-fascist? But the problem with this movement is not their opposition to another illiberal tumour on the American body politic. If their words and deeds stopped with peaceable resistance to the Ku Klux Klan, the Department of Homeland Security would never have classified their activities – which include burning vehicles, smashing windows and assaulting police – as “domestic terrorist violence”.
Antifa are not simply anti-fascist; they are also anti-capitalist anarchists who conflate ordinary commerce and police activities with a totalitarian state, and therefore feel empowered to take matters into their own hands. They are, compared with neo-Nazis, the lesser of two evils. But, nevertheless, they are evil. One can wholly reject Nazism without sanctioning mob justice.
That Antifa have, up to this point, mostly focused their wrath on other hate groups does not lessen their commitment to the ruination of “ordinary” elements of American society. After all, part of this movement calls for the overthrow of government. Just weeks ago, in Berkeley, California, Antifa members were not only beating up Trump supporters who had turned up at a rally, but attacking reporters who were there to cover the event. If their ideology is deemed to be acceptable in the face of a greater evil and allowed to flourish, we cannot predict which institutions they might attack next.
Despite our polarisations, this sort of extreme Left and extreme Right-wing violence is not the norm in America. Mainstream politics are mainstream for a reason, and even those politicians (like the president) who run on an outsider’s platform are not suggesting the whole system of government should be binned. Antifa – and their far-Right counterparts – are
at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion uninterested in sober conversations about race, the criminal justice system, or economic opportunity, and should therefore not be included in our national political dialogue.
So if we are not going to accept these groups as legitimate actors, how do we move forward? First, we must recognise that these groups are fundamentally un-American and it is everyone’s job to denounce them and their violence. We do not condone the destruction of private property any more than we excuse racial hatred. We can simultaneously reject the extreme Left and the extreme Right – while also being careful not to include the more moderate groups in those criticisms.
Secondly, America should adopt the excellent tactics British police have developed for dealing with such groups. Keeping protesters and counter-protesters apart reduces the potential for violent conflict, so starving extremists of the media attention they crave.
Finally, we must ensure that these groups have the continued right to exist. The American attitude towards freedom of speech is itself the most extreme in the world, which is why we are committed to protecting the rights of those people whose views we find abhorrent. However offensive we may find their rhetoric, anything less than immediate public danger is not sufficient reason to stifle it.
Almost 400 years ago, a band of pilgrims fled religious persecution in England and formed a colony where dissent would be enshrined as a fundamental right. The strength of America’s institutions is derived from this bedrock of integrity in our public debate. But this public debate is closed to those who would seek to dismantle it altogether.
Why did Oxford University vice-chancellor Louise Richardson feel obliged to mount such a desperate defence of how much she is paid? If I had been in her position, my response to the critics would have been far blunter: mind your own business. But that would have meant swimming against the tide, and academics these days aren’t very good at doing that.
For the Government hasn’t launched its insane plan to force universities, under threat of fines, to justify the salaries of their top leaders because it will fix our dysfunctional higher education system, or because these institutions are bankrupt, or because vice-chancellors are public servants who should share the burden of spending cuts. Universities are independent, albeit highly regulated, organisations, which receive a minor proportion of their funding direct from the state. If government now intends to meddle in the salary policies of any body that performs any function it has any interest in, no one in the private sector is safe.
No, this is yet another tragic manifestation of a far baser trend: that everyone thinks they have the right to an opinion about what other people are paid.
Once upon a time we believed in supply and demand; that remuneration should be based on our productivity. This was inevitably specific and private: if we were so
‘If their ideology is allowed to flourish, we cannot predict which institutions they might attack next’
‘If government intends to meddle in the salary policies of any body it has any interest in, no one in the private sector is safe’
at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion