A disturbing development appeared following Charlie Kirk’s assassination. People from all walks of life wrote social media posts approving or justifying his murder. Shortly afterwards, others complained to their employers about their posts. Consequently, many of these people lost their jobs. An outcry arose: the Right is now engaging in cancel culture, to which they objected when they were the targets.
There is, however, a significant difference between the two situations. Those on the Right were targeted for their advocacy of positions that are politically legitimate within a democracy, that is, they expressed different and unpopular opinions about particular issues of the day: e.g., COVID lockdowns, street violence, etc.
If you are among those now being cancelled, you need to realize that what you have done is something far more serious than expressing an opinion on an issue of the day.
By approving the murder of a man whose political opinions you detest, you have attacked democracy itself in two fundamental ways.
The agreements of human society encompass many things. With regard to murder, as Rex Stout observed, humanity “realized centuries ago that it is impossible for a man to protect himself against murder, because it's extremely easy to kill a man, so it was agreed that men should protect each other. But if I help protect you, you must help protect me, whether you like me or not. If you don't do your part, you're out of the agreement; you're an outlaw.”
When you announce that you approve of and attempt to justify the death of a man whose opinions you detest, you are announcing to all the world that you reject any responsibility under the agreement to protect that man’s life. Clearly, you’re an outlaw.
But you are also proclaiming yourself an outlaw in a second way that is at least equally important, if not even more so. By approving of this man’s murder because you disagree with his ideas, you are plainly renouncing the fundamental principle of democratic societies: namely, that political arguments are to be settled by the ballot box, not violence.
Both of these choices are your right.
But both of these choices will bring consequences in their wake.
If you refuse to accept your reciprocal responsibility under the agreement to protect others, then others have no responsibility to protect you. If democracy is to be preserved, your rejection of its fundamental principle disqualifies you from holding any position which presupposes your commitment to it, which is to say all positions of public service, whether you are in healthcare, education, the military, the police, or any other position of government employment.
Don’t worry, the Right won’t kill you because, unlike you, they respect the agreements of democratic societies. Yet because of your rejection of the fundamental principle of democratic societies, they are within their rights to do their utmost to see to it that any and all outlaws approving the normalizing of political violence are removed from positions of public trust ASAP.
And if stating your position reflects badly on your private employer’s reputation, that may have consequences too. Your employers may not be able to afford the damage, so you may well be let go.
Do you want to be more secure in your work, whether in government or in private industry? Then respect others’ rights to hold political opinions that differ from yours, even if you detest them, and reject any stand that presupposes violent change over the ballot box.
It’s that simple.
Image: David via Flickr