What do you think?
Rate this book
The Silencing
Life-long liberal Kirsten Powers blasts the Left's forced march towards conformity in an exposé of the liberal war on dissent. No longer champions of free speech, the "illiberal Left" now viciously attacks and silences anyone with alternative points of view. Powers asks, "What ever happened to free speech in America?"
304 pages, Hardcover
First published May 4, 2015
69 people are currently reading
825 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews
June 1, 2015
Every thinking person should read this book. Most of the book deals with things that have recently been in the news - although only covered by conservative news sources. This is more powerful, however, coming from Kirsten who has always thought of herself as a liberal and has worked within the Democratic Party. Like Kirsten, I have so often reacted to these stories by thinking: "This is everything liberals are supposed to be against" or "I thought liberals were supposed to be FOR free speech, exchange of ideas, debate…." When I was young, I thought of myself as a liberal, and I still hold many liberal beliefs. But I would be ashamed to wear that label now. Instances like Brendan Eich being forced out of his job for thinking something identical to what BARACK OBAMA and HILLARY CLINTON had said at the exact same time was mind-boggling. If Brendan Eich had to lose his job for believing in 2008 that marriage was between a man and a woman, why not them when they expressed the exact same opinion at the exact same time? And Kirsten correctly points out that the illiberal left simply can not understand that people could have honest religious beliefs and not be a "bigot." She also points out the numerous example where character assassination is the tool used when the arguments are not even debated or accurately refuted. It is just chilling that we have "speech codes" in colleges rather than teaching students the value of vigorous debate and airing all viewpoints. Also mind-boggling is the lack of respect given to Christians, when Muslims are supposed to be absolutely respected - even as they throw gays off of rooftops for being gay. The left's vilification of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is particularly puzzling - she is talking about her own experiences at the hands of the Muslim culture, and the death threats she has been subjected to for discussing them. Again, her own personal experiences. But her appearance at Brandeis was cancelled due to objections. Wouldn't it be valuable to hear about her experiences? Wouldn't we all be better served by stepping outside of our bubble (or safe space) and learning about other viewpoints - and honestly having to see if our beliefs can withstand debate? As I said, mind-boggling and chilling.
December 5, 2017
The author says of her book ...this book will demonstrate, the left’s commitment to free speech is collapsing. In its place, the illiberal left is executing a campaign of coercion and intimidation. I call it “The Silencing.”
The attention-grabbing title surely attracts the readers seeking sensational exposés of current events in American history. It is written by a journalist who knows how to toggle the right keys to catch the attention. But in reality, it is a well-balanced dissection of the 'illiberal' capture of the liberal movement in America (in particular) but can also be applied to the rest of the world.
The book might be knocked off the podium by leftists who need to get it away from as many readers as possible by declaring it a Republican attack on the left's core values. In reality however, the author's Liberal Democratic approach to the current events confirms the teachings of the communist manifest of Saul. D. Alinsky in his book Rules for Radicals: A pragmatic primer for Realistic Radicals.(It is my comparison, not the author's - please note)
From the book:
AGE OF UN-ENLIGHTENMENT
The illiberal left isn’t just ruining reputations and lives with their campaigns of delegitimization and disparagement. They are harming all of society by silencing important debates, denying people the right to draw their own conclusions, and derailing reporting and research that is important to our understanding of the world. They are robbing culture of the diversity of thought that is so central to learning and discovery.
It’s sadly ironic that so many of the illiberal left view themselves as rational, intellectual, fact-based thinkers and yet have fully embraced a dogmatic form of un-enlightenment. Deviating from lefty ideology is equated to heresy and academic inquiry is too often secondary to ideological agendas. The illiberal left insert ideologically driven statistics into the media and academic bloodstream and then accuse anyone who questions them of diabolical motives. When researchers make discoveries supporting the wrong ideological conclusion, the character assassination and intimidation begin.
It is a debate within a democratic movement. Looking at the stats it is clear that a split has occurred between the moderate and ultra-radical members of the same political party. This book is significant since it was published in 2015. The migration of supporters to other parties in 2016, a voting-with-the-feet action, confirms the crises within the liberal movement.
Powers illustrates the techniques being used, corresponding with Alinsky's rules:
The illiberal left hunts down heretics, dissidents, and run-of-the mill dissenters to not only silence them, but make examples of them for the rest of society.
Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia, and, as we’ve seen, even violence. If you criticize the lack of due process for male college students accused of rape, you are a “rape apologist.” End of conversation. After all, who wants to listen to a rape lover? People who are anti–abortion rights don’t care about the unborn; they are misogynists who want to control women. Those who oppose same-sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”
With no sense of irony or shame, the illiberal left will engage in racist, sexist, misogynist, and homophobic attacks of their own in an effort to delegitimize people who dissent from the “already decided” worldview. Non-white conservatives are called sellouts and race traitors. Conservative women are treated as dim-witted, self-loathing puppets of the patriarchy, or nefarious gender traitors. Men who express the wrong political or ideological view are demonized as hostile interlopers into the public debate. The illiberal left sees its bullying and squelching of free speech as a righteous act.
This illiberal effort relies on an arsenal of delegitimizing terms. The mushrooming silencing lexicon now includes the terms “mansplaining,” “whitesplaining,” and “microaggression."
...At one point, Media Matters’ CEO David Brock told Politico that the organization’s ninety-person staff and $10 million annual budget was dedicated to the purpose of waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”13 against Fox News. A leaked MMFA memo for liberal donors detailed a strategy to destroy Fox that included plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees 14
Character assassination is the 'main' tool with which opponents are silenced. Numerous current news events are used as examples of the tactics to swipe freedom of speech, as guaranteed in the Constitution, off the table.
Women as easy targets. Examples from the book:
Women who don’t stick to the illiberal left’s scripts are subject to the same kind of delegitimization. Conservative women in particular are deemed fair game for misogynistic attacks that would normally have the illiberal left screaming “War on Women.” Republican women are dehumanized as fake women, “female impersonators,”42 or “uninflected by the experience of the female body” (whatever that means).43 Alternatively, they are treated as sex objects with no brains or will of their own. When Senator Joni Ernst—a GOP rising star—delivered the State of the Union response in 2015, MSNBC host Ronan Farrow compared the U.S. senator to a flight attendant.44
This echoed comments made by then-Senator Tom Harkin during Ernst’s campaign for the Senate that described her as just a pretty face, comparable to the then twenty-four-year-old singer and actress Taylor Swift.45 Liberal MSNBC host Ed Schultz once said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off his “bimbo alert”46 and called conservative radio host and bestselling author Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.”47 He even called me a “bimbo” for accurately quoting him in a column. It’s so much easier to insult a woman than to actually engage on the issue she raises.
While still sitting atop the MSNBC heap, television host Keith Olbermann wished conservative S. E. Cupp had been aborted by her parents48 and called conservative pundit Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.”49 Bill Maher dismissed Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a “bimbo” and called Sarah Palin the c-word and a “dumb twat.”50 What is it that makes liberal men think they can get away with treating dissenting women in the most callous possible way? It’s as if being “pro-choice” on abortion gives them carte blanche to mistreat, mischaracterize, and verbally abuse any woman with views contrary to their own. Liberals should know better, shouldn’t they? “Even mild sexism—a focus on hair and makeup—is a very lethal tool,” noted Siobhan Bennett, Women’s Campaign Fund president, to the magazine Mother Jones. “It can make a woman [running for office] drop 10 points [in the polls].”51
One of the liberal dissident woman who received harsh treatment from the liberals was Michelle Ree. She wrote a book, Radical: Fighting to Put Students First and was immediately delegitimized - her character assassinated, in unspeakable ways. They took her through the social grinder and made sure she was tainted for life. Read this article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/michell....
Another onslaught on free speech:
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr.—a liberal lion known for his outspoken progressive views—was perhaps the strongest First Amendment advocate of the modern era. Appointed in 1956, Brennan participated in 252 free speech cases during his thirty-four-year tenure on the Court. In 88 percent of these cases, Brennan sided with the free speech claim.34 In New York Times v. Sullivan, likely Brennan’s most well-known free speech opinion, he wrote: “We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open . . .”35
The illiberal left does not share this commitment. Their burgeoning philosophy in favor of government power to curtail freedom of thought, speech, and conscience is troubling. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—a graduate of one of the nation’s most elite law schools, the University of Virginia—said in a September 2014 interview of those who deny climate change, “I wish that there were a law you could punish them under.”36 Accusing the libertarian Koch brothers of “treason” for disagreeing with his view of climate change, he said they should be “at the Hague with all the other war criminals.” He asked rhetorically, “Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offense and they ought to be serving time for it.” Kennedy’s penchant for arguing for state action against those who do not share his view of climate change is not new. In 2007, he said in a speech at Live Earth that politicians who are “corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company” had committed treason and needed to be treated as traitors.37 In 2009, he deemed certain coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared that one company’s CEO should be in jail...for all eternity."38
Kirsten Powers is a VERY courageous person to stand up against the forces destroying democracy and freedom of speech within her own movement as well as in society. Even though she worked / works for Fox News as political analyst, she maintained her independence as liberal Democrat, which is evident in this book. She worked within the Democratic Party and grew up in it.
Read the reviews of other readers. Read the book and promote debate - the pillar of a real democracy, the real celebration of freedom of speech. Read this book to defy the forces who wants to kill the 'freedom of the 'heart' in Americans.
Numerous notes reference an impressive selection of publications to support the information provided in the text.
For me this is an absolute must-read!! Insightful, entertaining, informative, and eye-opening for many people who did not recognize the -ism behind many events. Sometimes it is essential to read more than just novels.
The attention-grabbing title surely attracts the readers seeking sensational exposés of current events in American history. It is written by a journalist who knows how to toggle the right keys to catch the attention. But in reality, it is a well-balanced dissection of the 'illiberal' capture of the liberal movement in America (in particular) but can also be applied to the rest of the world.
The book might be knocked off the podium by leftists who need to get it away from as many readers as possible by declaring it a Republican attack on the left's core values. In reality however, the author's Liberal Democratic approach to the current events confirms the teachings of the communist manifest of Saul. D. Alinsky in his book Rules for Radicals: A pragmatic primer for Realistic Radicals.(It is my comparison, not the author's - please note)
From the book:
AGE OF UN-ENLIGHTENMENT
The illiberal left isn’t just ruining reputations and lives with their campaigns of delegitimization and disparagement. They are harming all of society by silencing important debates, denying people the right to draw their own conclusions, and derailing reporting and research that is important to our understanding of the world. They are robbing culture of the diversity of thought that is so central to learning and discovery.
It’s sadly ironic that so many of the illiberal left view themselves as rational, intellectual, fact-based thinkers and yet have fully embraced a dogmatic form of un-enlightenment. Deviating from lefty ideology is equated to heresy and academic inquiry is too often secondary to ideological agendas. The illiberal left insert ideologically driven statistics into the media and academic bloodstream and then accuse anyone who questions them of diabolical motives. When researchers make discoveries supporting the wrong ideological conclusion, the character assassination and intimidation begin.
It is a debate within a democratic movement. Looking at the stats it is clear that a split has occurred between the moderate and ultra-radical members of the same political party. This book is significant since it was published in 2015. The migration of supporters to other parties in 2016, a voting-with-the-feet action, confirms the crises within the liberal movement.
Powers illustrates the techniques being used, corresponding with Alinsky's rules:
The illiberal left hunts down heretics, dissidents, and run-of-the mill dissenters to not only silence them, but make examples of them for the rest of society.
Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia, and, as we’ve seen, even violence. If you criticize the lack of due process for male college students accused of rape, you are a “rape apologist.” End of conversation. After all, who wants to listen to a rape lover? People who are anti–abortion rights don’t care about the unborn; they are misogynists who want to control women. Those who oppose same-sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”
With no sense of irony or shame, the illiberal left will engage in racist, sexist, misogynist, and homophobic attacks of their own in an effort to delegitimize people who dissent from the “already decided” worldview. Non-white conservatives are called sellouts and race traitors. Conservative women are treated as dim-witted, self-loathing puppets of the patriarchy, or nefarious gender traitors. Men who express the wrong political or ideological view are demonized as hostile interlopers into the public debate. The illiberal left sees its bullying and squelching of free speech as a righteous act.
This illiberal effort relies on an arsenal of delegitimizing terms. The mushrooming silencing lexicon now includes the terms “mansplaining,” “whitesplaining,” and “microaggression."
...At one point, Media Matters’ CEO David Brock told Politico that the organization’s ninety-person staff and $10 million annual budget was dedicated to the purpose of waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”13 against Fox News. A leaked MMFA memo for liberal donors detailed a strategy to destroy Fox that included plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees 14
Character assassination is the 'main' tool with which opponents are silenced. Numerous current news events are used as examples of the tactics to swipe freedom of speech, as guaranteed in the Constitution, off the table.
Women as easy targets. Examples from the book:
Women who don’t stick to the illiberal left’s scripts are subject to the same kind of delegitimization. Conservative women in particular are deemed fair game for misogynistic attacks that would normally have the illiberal left screaming “War on Women.” Republican women are dehumanized as fake women, “female impersonators,”42 or “uninflected by the experience of the female body” (whatever that means).43 Alternatively, they are treated as sex objects with no brains or will of their own. When Senator Joni Ernst—a GOP rising star—delivered the State of the Union response in 2015, MSNBC host Ronan Farrow compared the U.S. senator to a flight attendant.44
This echoed comments made by then-Senator Tom Harkin during Ernst’s campaign for the Senate that described her as just a pretty face, comparable to the then twenty-four-year-old singer and actress Taylor Swift.45 Liberal MSNBC host Ed Schultz once said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off his “bimbo alert”46 and called conservative radio host and bestselling author Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.”47 He even called me a “bimbo” for accurately quoting him in a column. It’s so much easier to insult a woman than to actually engage on the issue she raises.
While still sitting atop the MSNBC heap, television host Keith Olbermann wished conservative S. E. Cupp had been aborted by her parents48 and called conservative pundit Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.”49 Bill Maher dismissed Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a “bimbo” and called Sarah Palin the c-word and a “dumb twat.”50 What is it that makes liberal men think they can get away with treating dissenting women in the most callous possible way? It’s as if being “pro-choice” on abortion gives them carte blanche to mistreat, mischaracterize, and verbally abuse any woman with views contrary to their own. Liberals should know better, shouldn’t they? “Even mild sexism—a focus on hair and makeup—is a very lethal tool,” noted Siobhan Bennett, Women’s Campaign Fund president, to the magazine Mother Jones. “It can make a woman [running for office] drop 10 points [in the polls].”51
One of the liberal dissident woman who received harsh treatment from the liberals was Michelle Ree. She wrote a book, Radical: Fighting to Put Students First and was immediately delegitimized - her character assassinated, in unspeakable ways. They took her through the social grinder and made sure she was tainted for life. Read this article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/michell....
Another onslaught on free speech:
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr.—a liberal lion known for his outspoken progressive views—was perhaps the strongest First Amendment advocate of the modern era. Appointed in 1956, Brennan participated in 252 free speech cases during his thirty-four-year tenure on the Court. In 88 percent of these cases, Brennan sided with the free speech claim.34 In New York Times v. Sullivan, likely Brennan’s most well-known free speech opinion, he wrote: “We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open . . .”35
The illiberal left does not share this commitment. Their burgeoning philosophy in favor of government power to curtail freedom of thought, speech, and conscience is troubling. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—a graduate of one of the nation’s most elite law schools, the University of Virginia—said in a September 2014 interview of those who deny climate change, “I wish that there were a law you could punish them under.”36 Accusing the libertarian Koch brothers of “treason” for disagreeing with his view of climate change, he said they should be “at the Hague with all the other war criminals.” He asked rhetorically, “Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offense and they ought to be serving time for it.” Kennedy’s penchant for arguing for state action against those who do not share his view of climate change is not new. In 2007, he said in a speech at Live Earth that politicians who are “corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company” had committed treason and needed to be treated as traitors.37 In 2009, he deemed certain coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared that one company’s CEO should be in jail...for all eternity."38
Kirsten Powers is a VERY courageous person to stand up against the forces destroying democracy and freedom of speech within her own movement as well as in society. Even though she worked / works for Fox News as political analyst, she maintained her independence as liberal Democrat, which is evident in this book. She worked within the Democratic Party and grew up in it.
Read the reviews of other readers. Read the book and promote debate - the pillar of a real democracy, the real celebration of freedom of speech. Read this book to defy the forces who wants to kill the 'freedom of the 'heart' in Americans.
Numerous notes reference an impressive selection of publications to support the information provided in the text.
For me this is an absolute must-read!! Insightful, entertaining, informative, and eye-opening for many people who did not recognize the -ism behind many events. Sometimes it is essential to read more than just novels.
May 19, 2015
Lots of food for thought here! I, too grew up as a liberal Democrat. And over time I've noticed the issues Ms. Powers brought up. But I withdrew in disgust from even mentioning my own viewpoints as the rhetoric got nastier, until I'm pretty much a hermit, today.
One wonders how the 'illiberals' can convince even themselves of anything. Have you ever seen anyone change his/her mind about anything, because a rabid 'true believer' is spitting invective and illogic into his face? I haven't.
I no longer care what most anyone thinks of me. Bring on the nasty labels and smears. This book has encouraged me into a whole new direction of my own newest novel. (Yes, I know you've never heard of me, but that's fine. I write because I want to.)
Thank you, Ms. Powers.
One wonders how the 'illiberals' can convince even themselves of anything. Have you ever seen anyone change his/her mind about anything, because a rabid 'true believer' is spitting invective and illogic into his face? I haven't.
I no longer care what most anyone thinks of me. Bring on the nasty labels and smears. This book has encouraged me into a whole new direction of my own newest novel. (Yes, I know you've never heard of me, but that's fine. I write because I want to.)
Thank you, Ms. Powers.
June 6, 2015
I've long admired Kirsten Powers as a thoughtful, eloquent voice of reason from the left. She has the courage to vigorously defend her point of view and, unlike most pundits from the left and right of the political spectrum, the integrity to refuse to defend the indefensible. Her new book should be required reading for all thinking persons regardless of ideology and is all the more compelling for having been written (and buttressed with facts rather than broad assertions) by a person of unquestionably Liberal credentials and sufficient courage to challenge the hypocrisy of those who only drape themselves in the borrowed clothing of an ideology they betray, preaching tolerance while silencing all who disagree by any means necessary.
Although I do not share her political philosophy, I find it far more interesting and enlightening to listen to (or read) what she has to say than almost all other commentators with whom I happen to agree. Too many conservatives will applaud the book for all the wrong reasons, and too many (if not most all) liberals will lambast it for all the wrong reasons as well. Because the well documented arguments she makes in defense of Liberalism and in condemnation of what she calls the illiberal left are irrefutable, they are sure to engender ad hominem attacks against her. These, which are as predictable as night following day, will only serve to prove her point. Highly recommended.
Although I do not share her political philosophy, I find it far more interesting and enlightening to listen to (or read) what she has to say than almost all other commentators with whom I happen to agree. Too many conservatives will applaud the book for all the wrong reasons, and too many (if not most all) liberals will lambast it for all the wrong reasons as well. Because the well documented arguments she makes in defense of Liberalism and in condemnation of what she calls the illiberal left are irrefutable, they are sure to engender ad hominem attacks against her. These, which are as predictable as night following day, will only serve to prove her point. Highly recommended.
April 18, 2022
First, I have to commend Ms. Powers on taking the risk of writing this book. As a liberal, by taking on the threats to the 1st Amendment posed by what she refers to as the "illiberal left" she is standing up to a very powerful group. The book is well researched and I find her very even-handed. We do not share many of the same political views, but she is fair and willing - always - to have respectful debate. In The Silencing, she addresses what we have all seen - the destruction of debate and discussion for the total vilification for anyone who does not toe the left's agenda. I would recommend to anyone who is interested in free speech.
May 24, 2015
Excellent
I especially like author,s who back up their work with cited research. Powers backs up every fact or assertion with sources. I assume this is at least part that which makes her an outstanding reporter.
I especially like author,s who back up their work with cited research. Powers backs up every fact or assertion with sources. I assume this is at least part that which makes her an outstanding reporter.
May 24, 2015
Excellent investigative reporting by a Liberal Democrat, critical of the strong-arm tactics of the illiberal left that consistently destroys any person who offers a different opinion. Free speech under assault from those who claim to be champions of free speech. Sections on the suppression of the free press and assault on the First Amendment by the Obama White House.
February 24, 2016
A sobering look at how the illiberal left is using name calling and intimidation to silence those they disagree with. Columnist and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers chronicles stories from the last few years of this trend to name call, demonize, and shout down those who don’t follow liberal dogma to the letter. She shares stories from college campuses, feminism, and the war on Fox News.
There is little editorializing in the book. Instead, she lays out story after story of how people are being attacked for saying things that aren’t deemed correct. The result is a book that anyone who cares about America should read with their eyes wide open.
Read my full review at Carstairs Considers.
There is little editorializing in the book. Instead, she lays out story after story of how people are being attacked for saying things that aren’t deemed correct. The result is a book that anyone who cares about America should read with their eyes wide open.
Read my full review at Carstairs Considers.
June 1, 2015
By far, M's. Powers is one of the very first liberals to acknowledge a tremendous bias on the part of some liberals (she calls them Illiberals) to totally shut down those viewpoints they have any disagreement with, often without any factual basis to back up their positions. At best they appear to be Orwellian and at worst they are likened to a lynch mob which at times they have verbally been. Powers argues rightfully that without civil discourse and proper and respectful debate, we may be finished as a country of We The People. I fear she may be right.
June 5, 2015
Outstanding. Should become required reading at all schools starting at high school. Ms. Powers expresses with well documented facts that thoughts I have had for years. I have felt silenced by the liberals around me among family, friends and co-workers. I worked in both private sector and public sector and find that public sector is much more restrictive when it comes to opposing points of views.
October 14, 2015
Everyone should read this book, especially people who don't think it's for them. It's a thoughtful and insightful look at where America stands on freedom of speech at the present time. At the beginning of one of the chapters Powers adds a quote about "thoughtcrime" from "1984," and it's utterly chilling to see how close we are coming to that dystopia.
July 12, 2015
No matter which way you lean, this is a scary book. Truly frightening. Powers and I disagree on so much, but the point of her book is dead on.
August 13, 2021
I will begin my review with a few words about how I feel about this very difficult and contentious issue. First of all, I am not a conservative. For most of my life I have considered myself a liberal, althou in recent years I am beginning to see myself more as a moderate with a strong belief in protecting the natural world. I am not a supporter of political correctness / cancel culture, and I have looked on in anger and disgust as many liberals have jumped on board a movement that seeks to undermine our constitutional right to freedom of speech. I saw firsthand (in graduate school at a leading American university) how those who did not agree with certain leftist perspectives learned pretty quickly to keep their mouths shut about it if they did not want to become persona non grata - or worse.
Well, Kirsten Powers feels the same way, and in this book she marshals a lot of evidence that the group that she calls "the illiberal left" is viciously and wrongly demonizing a lot of people for committing the sin of expressing conservative views. It is a very well researched book. Powers is a reporter (and a former liberal herself) and she gathers a lot of news stories and anecdotes of people who have been attacked and, in some cases, fired from their jobs or booted from their schools for opposing liberal orthodoxies. It does add up to a pretty scathing indictment, one that is backed up with facts. Some of the situations she shares are pretty darn despicable, but a reader does not really get to see both sides of the conflicts. She also gets into the very tricky subject of policing sexual activities and university regulations on conflicts arising from unhappy sexual situations, et cetera - it is very brave of her!
I am not giving this 4-5 stars for a couple of reasons. First of all, this is primarily a stack of news clippings about people who have run afoul of the political correctness crowd. Powers never really digs deeper and looks into the ideologies and motives of the people involved. Secondly, there is no examination of the right in these pages. Most of the anecdotes are set in academia. But there are places in our society where conservatives have the upper hand, like most of the business world for example. I am sure that if I were the employee of a bank, and I went around spouting leftist views, e.g. calling for people to join labor unions or questioning the company's track record on the environment or hiring people of color, I would probably get the axe, possibly without even any warning. Powers barely even mentions organizations other than schools or news outlets.
I am hopeful that things will eventually improve, and that common sense and freedom of speech will ultimately prevail. For one thing, it is in the Constitution. Also, these people that have supposedly been marginalized are now often in positions of power. Additionally, Donald J. Trump is no longer the president. He went around deliberately goading and infuriating liberals, and fanning the flames of cultural conflict. I think he enjoyed doing that. It makes sense to assume that some anger will dissipate following his departure from the scene. One can hope so, anyway.
Well, Kirsten Powers feels the same way, and in this book she marshals a lot of evidence that the group that she calls "the illiberal left" is viciously and wrongly demonizing a lot of people for committing the sin of expressing conservative views. It is a very well researched book. Powers is a reporter (and a former liberal herself) and she gathers a lot of news stories and anecdotes of people who have been attacked and, in some cases, fired from their jobs or booted from their schools for opposing liberal orthodoxies. It does add up to a pretty scathing indictment, one that is backed up with facts. Some of the situations she shares are pretty darn despicable, but a reader does not really get to see both sides of the conflicts. She also gets into the very tricky subject of policing sexual activities and university regulations on conflicts arising from unhappy sexual situations, et cetera - it is very brave of her!
I am not giving this 4-5 stars for a couple of reasons. First of all, this is primarily a stack of news clippings about people who have run afoul of the political correctness crowd. Powers never really digs deeper and looks into the ideologies and motives of the people involved. Secondly, there is no examination of the right in these pages. Most of the anecdotes are set in academia. But there are places in our society where conservatives have the upper hand, like most of the business world for example. I am sure that if I were the employee of a bank, and I went around spouting leftist views, e.g. calling for people to join labor unions or questioning the company's track record on the environment or hiring people of color, I would probably get the axe, possibly without even any warning. Powers barely even mentions organizations other than schools or news outlets.
I am hopeful that things will eventually improve, and that common sense and freedom of speech will ultimately prevail. For one thing, it is in the Constitution. Also, these people that have supposedly been marginalized are now often in positions of power. Additionally, Donald J. Trump is no longer the president. He went around deliberately goading and infuriating liberals, and fanning the flames of cultural conflict. I think he enjoyed doing that. It makes sense to assume that some anger will dissipate following his departure from the scene. One can hope so, anyway.
February 21, 2016
Powers, a former liberal turned conservative, wrote this book as a manifesto against the rise of “politically-correct” culture; coining the term the “illiberal” who works vehemently to silence, rather than debate, against conservative viewpoints.
As a former liberal (now independent) myself, I was intrigued by the premise of this book.
Granted, Powers makes some excellent points regarding the distinction between institutional vs. cultural free speech. Free speech is essentially gained under conjecture and refutation. I agree with Powers premise that our educational systems are becoming too accommodating to the leftist belief system, censoring lively debate in fear of destroying student’s egoes. Without even the basis to question beliefs, the liberal-dominated education system essentially is a rejection of free speech.
Under the premise that unfamiliarity breeds contempt, and that it’s “easier to demonize their opponents and sanctify themselves as higher moral beings than treat differences of opinion respectfully,” she examines the “illiberal viewpoint” which includes attacking pro-lifers, Christian wedding cake bakeries; basically anyone who disagrees with a fundamentally leftist view point. So in today’s age, no wonder why politicians like Donald J. Trump are embraced as a breath of fresh air, despite their radical and crazy assertions.
However, I did not think Powers was very original in her approach. She basically argues the same point over again, that liberals have destroyed the premise of free speech. She does not bring forth any fresh insight, merely stating what has been established as her thesis over and over again. When she does bring in examples, they tend to be very dry and she applies the same level of analysis to each. For instance, she brings up the topic of Chick-Fil-A bannings in major liberal-dominated cities. She applies the same line of reasoning to silencing of speech, but fails to examine the viewpoint of public vs. private sector and other facets of reasoning, therefore belying her argument as one-sided and too basic.
It was an interesting read, but hardly original in insight.
Time Spent: 2 hours
Rating: 2 out of 5
Tags: non-fiction, politics
As a former liberal (now independent) myself, I was intrigued by the premise of this book.
Granted, Powers makes some excellent points regarding the distinction between institutional vs. cultural free speech. Free speech is essentially gained under conjecture and refutation. I agree with Powers premise that our educational systems are becoming too accommodating to the leftist belief system, censoring lively debate in fear of destroying student’s egoes. Without even the basis to question beliefs, the liberal-dominated education system essentially is a rejection of free speech.
Under the premise that unfamiliarity breeds contempt, and that it’s “easier to demonize their opponents and sanctify themselves as higher moral beings than treat differences of opinion respectfully,” she examines the “illiberal viewpoint” which includes attacking pro-lifers, Christian wedding cake bakeries; basically anyone who disagrees with a fundamentally leftist view point. So in today’s age, no wonder why politicians like Donald J. Trump are embraced as a breath of fresh air, despite their radical and crazy assertions.
However, I did not think Powers was very original in her approach. She basically argues the same point over again, that liberals have destroyed the premise of free speech. She does not bring forth any fresh insight, merely stating what has been established as her thesis over and over again. When she does bring in examples, they tend to be very dry and she applies the same level of analysis to each. For instance, she brings up the topic of Chick-Fil-A bannings in major liberal-dominated cities. She applies the same line of reasoning to silencing of speech, but fails to examine the viewpoint of public vs. private sector and other facets of reasoning, therefore belying her argument as one-sided and too basic.
It was an interesting read, but hardly original in insight.
Time Spent: 2 hours
Rating: 2 out of 5
Tags: non-fiction, politics
May 19, 2015
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." - George Orwell
The author, Kirsten Powers, although a liberal, strongly condemns what we called for a while political correctness and what she considers censorship and calls Silencing. Her thesis is that it's easier for people "to demonize their opponents and sanctify themselves as higher moral beings than treat differences of opinion respectfully." This applies to the right as well as the left, but it's the left she's going after in this book.
If people are punished for saying something that offends someone else (and they are) and if "offended" is undefined except by the person who takes offense, that is a critical loss of free speech. Powers doesn't quote it but the point she makes is that power corrupts and when you give college students the power to have a septuagenarian professor suspended because of "micro-aggression," you need not be surprised if things escalate and they attempt to destroy others for less and less significant "offenses."
A good book, a little unorganized, filled with examples we have seen in the news in recent years.
The author, Kirsten Powers, although a liberal, strongly condemns what we called for a while political correctness and what she considers censorship and calls Silencing. Her thesis is that it's easier for people "to demonize their opponents and sanctify themselves as higher moral beings than treat differences of opinion respectfully." This applies to the right as well as the left, but it's the left she's going after in this book.
If people are punished for saying something that offends someone else (and they are) and if "offended" is undefined except by the person who takes offense, that is a critical loss of free speech. Powers doesn't quote it but the point she makes is that power corrupts and when you give college students the power to have a septuagenarian professor suspended because of "micro-aggression," you need not be surprised if things escalate and they attempt to destroy others for less and less significant "offenses."
A good book, a little unorganized, filled with examples we have seen in the news in recent years.
June 8, 2015
I suspect that many of my friends on the left will dismiss this book as a "faux news" rant. That would be very short-sighted. If you don't like Powers, who is a liberal democrat but also works for FOX then how about Juan William's book on the same topic?
Powers goes through a rather long list of sins of the illiberal left - from the ist/phobic rants (where if you don't like your opponent you don't engage in the argument but simply and reflexively condemn them for supposed wrongs from liberal doctrine - you are a racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, or homophobic. Because one disagrees with the current orthodoxy does not mean that you are any of these terms - but when the left can't engage it calls names.
A lot of this book is a description of how the left has limited free speech on campuses. They have fiddled with college campuses to create speech codes - which in typical fashion are exactly the opposite what any thinking person would call them - the limit the speech and have a proscribed list of naughty words which can never be used. The problem goes on to require professors to put "trigger warnings" on the syllabi and required texts when anything might disturb the little darlings. They have also adopted the bizarre notion of "privilege" meaning anyone who is not in their favored sphere has created their position by oppression.
One of the most bizarre trends is the differentiation between devout Christians and Moslems. The left goes out of its way to condemn Christian beliefs and practices that are accepted when they are practiced by Moslems. So if you don't support Gay Marriage you are homophobic but if your country routinely murders homosexuals and subjugates women that is somehow ignored.
Powers is at times very interesting - but the book could have stranded from a bit more editing. Many of her anecdotes show up more than once. Also, while there is not a large a body of these incidents from the right - there would certainly be a case to be made that some of these sins come from the right. The fundamental strength of our system is the ability to disagree with others in a civil manner.
Powers goes through a rather long list of sins of the illiberal left - from the ist/phobic rants (where if you don't like your opponent you don't engage in the argument but simply and reflexively condemn them for supposed wrongs from liberal doctrine - you are a racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, or homophobic. Because one disagrees with the current orthodoxy does not mean that you are any of these terms - but when the left can't engage it calls names.
A lot of this book is a description of how the left has limited free speech on campuses. They have fiddled with college campuses to create speech codes - which in typical fashion are exactly the opposite what any thinking person would call them - the limit the speech and have a proscribed list of naughty words which can never be used. The problem goes on to require professors to put "trigger warnings" on the syllabi and required texts when anything might disturb the little darlings. They have also adopted the bizarre notion of "privilege" meaning anyone who is not in their favored sphere has created their position by oppression.
One of the most bizarre trends is the differentiation between devout Christians and Moslems. The left goes out of its way to condemn Christian beliefs and practices that are accepted when they are practiced by Moslems. So if you don't support Gay Marriage you are homophobic but if your country routinely murders homosexuals and subjugates women that is somehow ignored.
Powers is at times very interesting - but the book could have stranded from a bit more editing. Many of her anecdotes show up more than once. Also, while there is not a large a body of these incidents from the right - there would certainly be a case to be made that some of these sins come from the right. The fundamental strength of our system is the ability to disagree with others in a civil manner.
August 28, 2015
My brother recommended Kirsten Powers' The Silencing on his Facebook. It's a highly rare occurrence for him to do so. I knew that this book had to be worth checking out, at least. I already knew of Powers and enjoyed her.
The Silencing makes this argument: the Liberals are going too far in their quest to equalizing everything. Instead of respecting other people's differing opinions on matters such as LGBT and Women's rights, they disparage and degrade those into silence. Everybody must think like the liberals, who Powers cleverly dubbed the "Illiberal."
It's pretty scary to think about. Much scarier when Powers makes and proves her argument. The Illiberals rather destroy a person and bully them into silence than hear their opinions or beliefs and respect them for having it even if they ultimately disagree with it. The Illiberals will even turn on one of their own if they start to be objective on certain topics.
The Silencing was a bit of an eye opener for me. It was amazing to see such brutal acts of censorship making way for Groupthink. It was appalling. It really did feel Orwellian in nature.
It starts off small but there is a pattern emerging. It's a systematic takedown to become more Hive brained. What's good for one, is good for all. Powers did a great job describing this ominous reality that shows no sign of slowing down.
Now, I understand why my brother recommended this.
The Silencing makes this argument: the Liberals are going too far in their quest to equalizing everything. Instead of respecting other people's differing opinions on matters such as LGBT and Women's rights, they disparage and degrade those into silence. Everybody must think like the liberals, who Powers cleverly dubbed the "Illiberal."
It's pretty scary to think about. Much scarier when Powers makes and proves her argument. The Illiberals rather destroy a person and bully them into silence than hear their opinions or beliefs and respect them for having it even if they ultimately disagree with it. The Illiberals will even turn on one of their own if they start to be objective on certain topics.
The Silencing was a bit of an eye opener for me. It was amazing to see such brutal acts of censorship making way for Groupthink. It was appalling. It really did feel Orwellian in nature.
It starts off small but there is a pattern emerging. It's a systematic takedown to become more Hive brained. What's good for one, is good for all. Powers did a great job describing this ominous reality that shows no sign of slowing down.
Now, I understand why my brother recommended this.
December 9, 2024
This is one of the worst books I've ever read in my entire life. Powers uses the word, "illiberal" like the Bible uses the word, "lord." The content and writing style is mundane. Powers, herself admits in her prelude that her parents divorced only after a few years, but remained colleagues.
One could infer that Powers' lack of a "traditional American upbringing" could certainly have had a huge impact on her turn to Christianity in her quest for meaning and purpose in her own life especially within the realm of news and media.
Powers ends her boring prose by suggesting her audience try befriending unconventional people or those we normally wouldn't agree with. I talk to hundreds of strangers from all over the world every day for my line of work and have certainly been receptive to new points of view. My biggest concern is how narrow-minded a large populus of American people are in regards to interpreting the Bible so literally, even though it reads as if it is written by tons of different authors, not "God" himself/herself.
One could infer that Powers' lack of a "traditional American upbringing" could certainly have had a huge impact on her turn to Christianity in her quest for meaning and purpose in her own life especially within the realm of news and media.
Powers ends her boring prose by suggesting her audience try befriending unconventional people or those we normally wouldn't agree with. I talk to hundreds of strangers from all over the world every day for my line of work and have certainly been receptive to new points of view. My biggest concern is how narrow-minded a large populus of American people are in regards to interpreting the Bible so literally, even though it reads as if it is written by tons of different authors, not "God" himself/herself.
February 7, 2017
If the introduction is any indication, this will be a great read. I rarely agree with Ms. Powers when she provides commentary on various news programs but think this may be an exception.
July 9, 2015
Kirsten Powers is a liberal journalist and former Democratic staffer who calls out the illiberal left for their campaign to silence anyone who has opposing views. She presents numerous examples of silencing tactics.
“Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia, and, as we've seen, even violence. If you criticize the lack of due process for male college students accused of rape, you are a 'rape apologist.' End of conversation. After all, who wants to listen to a rape lover? People who are anti-abortion rights don't care about the unborn; they are misogynists who want to control women. Those who oppose same-sex marriage don't have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act's 'contraception mandate' it wasn't due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a 'War on Women.' The illiberal left sees its bullying and squelching of free speech as a righteous act.”
“The purpose of demonizing opponents is to make them radioactive to the broader culture. The illiberal left uses character assassination to ensure their opponents won't be treated as sincere or thoughtful contributors to the national conversation. The illiberal left doesn't desire debate, it wants a monologue on one side and silence on the other.”
“What used to be mere policy disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on abortion, equal pay, the minimum wage, and government funding of contraception are now described as being part of a 'War on Women.' According to the illiberal left, nobody opposes abortion out of a concern for the unborn. As the National Organization for Women and NARAL Pro Choice regularly tell us, 'pro-life' Republicans are 'right-wing extremists' and 'anti-women.' And if the 'pro-life' Republicans are men, obviously their convictions stem from their desire to control women or a deep-seated misogyny. But think about that for a minute. If you think an unborn child has a right to life, that's hardly an 'extreme' position or a misogynistic one. That's a difference of opinion on a very serious subject that deserves respect.”
“The illiberal left isn't just ruining reputations and lives with their campaigns of delegitimization and disparagement. They are harming all of society by silencing important debates, denying people the right to draw their own conclusions, and derailing reporting and research that is important to our understanding of the world. They are robbing culture of the diversity of thought that is so central to learning and discovery.
It's sadly ironic that so many of the illiberal left view themselves as rational, intellectual, fact-based thinkers and yet have fully embraced a dogmatic form of un-enlightenment. Deviating from lefty ideology is equated to heresy and academic inquiry is too often secondary to ideological agendas. The illiberal left insert ideologically driven statistics into the media and academic bloodstream and then accuse anyone who questions them of diabolical motives. When researchers make discoveries supporting the wrong ideological conclusion, the character assassination and intimidation begin.”
“Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America, ... observed that America owes its freedom not so much to the law as to the 'habits of the heart' of freedom-loving American citizens.
The illiberal left is eradicating these 'habits of the heart' so Americans won't even remember what it was like to be able to speak freely without fear of retaliation from a silencing mob or a few disgruntled lefties. 'Mankind ought to have a rational assurance that all objections have been satisfactorily answered; and how are they to be answered if that which requires to be answered is not spoken?' asked British philosopher John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. 'Or how can the answer be known to be satisfactory, if the objectors have no opportunity of showing that it is unsatisfactory?'
The more success the illiberal left has in terrorizing people who express dissenting views, the fewer objections there will be. Most people understandably just want to do their jobs and support their families. Given the choice between being shunned by their peers or losing their job for a personal view, they will almost always choose silence over confrontation. Because of this, society should always err on the side of respecting people's right to determine their own beliefs and express them without fear of official or unofficial retribution. Debate and persuasion should be the reflexive response to disagreement and even harmful propositions, not an authoritarian impulse to silence. It should be so not only because it is just, but because no society can flourish without the clash of ideas.
Harvard psychology professor and bestselling author Steven Pinker invoked the critical role free speech plays in a democratic system in a 2014 speech. We acquire knowledge through a 'process that Karl Popper called conjecture and refutation,' said Pinker. 'We come up with ideas about the nature of reality, and test them against that reality, allowing the world to falsify the mistaken ones. The conjecture part of this formula, of course, presupposes the exercise of free speech. We offer conjectures without any prior assurance they are correct. It is only by bruiting ideas and seeing which ones withstand attempts to refute them that we acquire knowledge.'
The illiberal left seeks to short-circuit this process. They don't want to defend their views, nor do they want to allow forums for other people to present views that are at odds with the conclusions they have drawn on an array of issues. Sometimes, the mere suggestion of holding a debate is cast as an offense.
Pinker singled out university campuses for their hostility to free speech, likening them to the worst authoritarian regimes in history. 'It may seem outlandish to link American campus freedom—which by historical and global standards is still admirably high—to the world's brutal regimes,' Pinker said.
'But I'm here to tell you that the connection is not that far-fetched. This morning I woke up in Oslo, after having addressed the Oslo Freedom Forum, a kind of TED for political dissidents. I met people who escaped from North Korea by walking across the Gobi desert in winter; people who were jailed for a single tweet; people whose families were thrown in prison because of their own political activity. These stories put the relatively minor restrictions on campus speech in perspective. But the American commitment to unfettered speech, unrivaled even by our democratic allies in Europe, stands as a beacon of inspiration to the world's dissidents, one of the few features of the American brand that still commands global admiration. At least one speaker at the Forum singled out speech codes and other restrictions on expression in the United States as a worrisome development.'”
Powers barely touches on the roots of the illiberal left talking about the contribution of Herbert Marcuse. To learn more about where leftist intolerance comes from I would recommend the book of former liberal turned conservative, Andrew Breitbart, Righteous Indignation, Excuse Me while I Save the World! Quoting Breitbart:
“Marx and Hegel had paved the way for the Progressives, who in turn paved the way for the Frankfurt School, who had then attacked the American way of life by pushing 'cultural Marxism' through 'critical theory.' The Frankfurt School thinkers had come up with the rationale for radical environmentalism, artistic communism, psychological deconstruction of their opponents, and multiculturalism. Most of all, they had come up with the concept of 'repressive tolerance,' aka political correctness.”
“Marcuse's mission was to dismantle American society by using diversity and 'multiculturalism' as crowbars with which to pry the structure apart, piece by piece. He wanted to set blacks in opposition to whites, set all 'victim groups' in opposition to society at large. Their mission as tearing down traditional Judeo-Christian values and accepted traditions of Western culture, and placing in their stead a moral relativism that equates all cultures and all philosophies – except for Western civilization, culture, and philosophy, which are 'exploitative' and 'bad'.”
Then from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals there is this: “Rule 12 - Pick the target, freeze it, personalize, and polarize it”. By the way, both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton were followers of Alinsky.
“Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia, and, as we've seen, even violence. If you criticize the lack of due process for male college students accused of rape, you are a 'rape apologist.' End of conversation. After all, who wants to listen to a rape lover? People who are anti-abortion rights don't care about the unborn; they are misogynists who want to control women. Those who oppose same-sex marriage don't have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act's 'contraception mandate' it wasn't due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a 'War on Women.' The illiberal left sees its bullying and squelching of free speech as a righteous act.”
“The purpose of demonizing opponents is to make them radioactive to the broader culture. The illiberal left uses character assassination to ensure their opponents won't be treated as sincere or thoughtful contributors to the national conversation. The illiberal left doesn't desire debate, it wants a monologue on one side and silence on the other.”
“What used to be mere policy disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on abortion, equal pay, the minimum wage, and government funding of contraception are now described as being part of a 'War on Women.' According to the illiberal left, nobody opposes abortion out of a concern for the unborn. As the National Organization for Women and NARAL Pro Choice regularly tell us, 'pro-life' Republicans are 'right-wing extremists' and 'anti-women.' And if the 'pro-life' Republicans are men, obviously their convictions stem from their desire to control women or a deep-seated misogyny. But think about that for a minute. If you think an unborn child has a right to life, that's hardly an 'extreme' position or a misogynistic one. That's a difference of opinion on a very serious subject that deserves respect.”
“The illiberal left isn't just ruining reputations and lives with their campaigns of delegitimization and disparagement. They are harming all of society by silencing important debates, denying people the right to draw their own conclusions, and derailing reporting and research that is important to our understanding of the world. They are robbing culture of the diversity of thought that is so central to learning and discovery.
It's sadly ironic that so many of the illiberal left view themselves as rational, intellectual, fact-based thinkers and yet have fully embraced a dogmatic form of un-enlightenment. Deviating from lefty ideology is equated to heresy and academic inquiry is too often secondary to ideological agendas. The illiberal left insert ideologically driven statistics into the media and academic bloodstream and then accuse anyone who questions them of diabolical motives. When researchers make discoveries supporting the wrong ideological conclusion, the character assassination and intimidation begin.”
“Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America, ... observed that America owes its freedom not so much to the law as to the 'habits of the heart' of freedom-loving American citizens.
The illiberal left is eradicating these 'habits of the heart' so Americans won't even remember what it was like to be able to speak freely without fear of retaliation from a silencing mob or a few disgruntled lefties. 'Mankind ought to have a rational assurance that all objections have been satisfactorily answered; and how are they to be answered if that which requires to be answered is not spoken?' asked British philosopher John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. 'Or how can the answer be known to be satisfactory, if the objectors have no opportunity of showing that it is unsatisfactory?'
The more success the illiberal left has in terrorizing people who express dissenting views, the fewer objections there will be. Most people understandably just want to do their jobs and support their families. Given the choice between being shunned by their peers or losing their job for a personal view, they will almost always choose silence over confrontation. Because of this, society should always err on the side of respecting people's right to determine their own beliefs and express them without fear of official or unofficial retribution. Debate and persuasion should be the reflexive response to disagreement and even harmful propositions, not an authoritarian impulse to silence. It should be so not only because it is just, but because no society can flourish without the clash of ideas.
Harvard psychology professor and bestselling author Steven Pinker invoked the critical role free speech plays in a democratic system in a 2014 speech. We acquire knowledge through a 'process that Karl Popper called conjecture and refutation,' said Pinker. 'We come up with ideas about the nature of reality, and test them against that reality, allowing the world to falsify the mistaken ones. The conjecture part of this formula, of course, presupposes the exercise of free speech. We offer conjectures without any prior assurance they are correct. It is only by bruiting ideas and seeing which ones withstand attempts to refute them that we acquire knowledge.'
The illiberal left seeks to short-circuit this process. They don't want to defend their views, nor do they want to allow forums for other people to present views that are at odds with the conclusions they have drawn on an array of issues. Sometimes, the mere suggestion of holding a debate is cast as an offense.
Pinker singled out university campuses for their hostility to free speech, likening them to the worst authoritarian regimes in history. 'It may seem outlandish to link American campus freedom—which by historical and global standards is still admirably high—to the world's brutal regimes,' Pinker said.
'But I'm here to tell you that the connection is not that far-fetched. This morning I woke up in Oslo, after having addressed the Oslo Freedom Forum, a kind of TED for political dissidents. I met people who escaped from North Korea by walking across the Gobi desert in winter; people who were jailed for a single tweet; people whose families were thrown in prison because of their own political activity. These stories put the relatively minor restrictions on campus speech in perspective. But the American commitment to unfettered speech, unrivaled even by our democratic allies in Europe, stands as a beacon of inspiration to the world's dissidents, one of the few features of the American brand that still commands global admiration. At least one speaker at the Forum singled out speech codes and other restrictions on expression in the United States as a worrisome development.'”
Powers barely touches on the roots of the illiberal left talking about the contribution of Herbert Marcuse. To learn more about where leftist intolerance comes from I would recommend the book of former liberal turned conservative, Andrew Breitbart, Righteous Indignation, Excuse Me while I Save the World! Quoting Breitbart:
“Marx and Hegel had paved the way for the Progressives, who in turn paved the way for the Frankfurt School, who had then attacked the American way of life by pushing 'cultural Marxism' through 'critical theory.' The Frankfurt School thinkers had come up with the rationale for radical environmentalism, artistic communism, psychological deconstruction of their opponents, and multiculturalism. Most of all, they had come up with the concept of 'repressive tolerance,' aka political correctness.”
“Marcuse's mission was to dismantle American society by using diversity and 'multiculturalism' as crowbars with which to pry the structure apart, piece by piece. He wanted to set blacks in opposition to whites, set all 'victim groups' in opposition to society at large. Their mission as tearing down traditional Judeo-Christian values and accepted traditions of Western culture, and placing in their stead a moral relativism that equates all cultures and all philosophies – except for Western civilization, culture, and philosophy, which are 'exploitative' and 'bad'.”
Then from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals there is this: “Rule 12 - Pick the target, freeze it, personalize, and polarize it”. By the way, both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton were followers of Alinsky.
September 22, 2015
Powers puts into print what many in this country are coming to see for themselves - namely, that many who have preached tolerance are the most intolerant themselves, and getting more vicious in their attacks. That she is a life-long Democrat and liberal herself, I think makes her arguments more valid than, say, a conservative or Republican (or Liberatarian) who would just be seen as simply whining were they to argue this in one of their books. I have watched Powers for years on Fox News and have to say that, whether one agrees with her opinions or arguments, she is always a good debater exhibiting grace, respect, and a keen intellect. Her book is written in the same style with which she debates on air.
Using the term, "illiberal left," she distinguishes them from traditional liberals. As I have come to see that the Democratic Party (those idea dying themselves as Liberal or left-leaning) has been sort or high-jacked by a minority of persons with extreme values and hateful dialogue, I think this is wise on her part, lest readers think that she means that ALL left-leaning Americans fall into the category which she describes. Powers pulls no punches and speaks candidly and plainly about what she sees as hypocracy of many in the extreme Left who espouse tolerance (and preach it to all of us ignoramuses) while themselves are very intolerant of any opinions that differ from their own. Giving voice to many of those - on BOTH side s of the aisle, mind you - who have fallen victim to VERY vicious (and usually unfair) attacks simply by speaking their minds or following their conscience on a variety of matters, such as the environment, same-sex marriage, racial relations, abortion, and so forth.
Powers gives a varity of examples, discussing both sides of each particular issue, giving background of each event and its participants, the role of media & social media, and sometimes possible solutions that might have been less damaging to those involved. In cases where the attack was totally unwarranted, she offers no apologies and simply states just how ridiculous the attack simply was.
What did I ultimately glean from this book.....? I'll quote her directly here: "The illiberal left isn't just ruining reputations and lives with their campaigns of delegitimization and disparagement. They are harming all of society by silencing important debates, denying people the right to draw their own conclusions, and derailing reporting and research that is important to our understanding of the world. They are robbing our culture of the diversity of thought that is so central to learning and discovery."
Why does she think this is happening...? Again, to quote her directly: "So many liberals are so isolated from the marketplace of ideas, that when confronted with a view they don't like, they feel justified in doing whatever they can to silence that speech"
There's a certain irony that those crying foul (or calling those w/ opposing views bigots, racists, elitists, etc) are deploying those very tactics on those who oppose them. Complaining of hate-speech, yet doing the very same. I'm glad that some are now voicing a growing concern that is becoming more and more disturbing. Is Fee Speech in danger? This reader certainly thinks so!
Using the term, "illiberal left," she distinguishes them from traditional liberals. As I have come to see that the Democratic Party (those idea dying themselves as Liberal or left-leaning) has been sort or high-jacked by a minority of persons with extreme values and hateful dialogue, I think this is wise on her part, lest readers think that she means that ALL left-leaning Americans fall into the category which she describes. Powers pulls no punches and speaks candidly and plainly about what she sees as hypocracy of many in the extreme Left who espouse tolerance (and preach it to all of us ignoramuses) while themselves are very intolerant of any opinions that differ from their own. Giving voice to many of those - on BOTH side s of the aisle, mind you - who have fallen victim to VERY vicious (and usually unfair) attacks simply by speaking their minds or following their conscience on a variety of matters, such as the environment, same-sex marriage, racial relations, abortion, and so forth.
Powers gives a varity of examples, discussing both sides of each particular issue, giving background of each event and its participants, the role of media & social media, and sometimes possible solutions that might have been less damaging to those involved. In cases where the attack was totally unwarranted, she offers no apologies and simply states just how ridiculous the attack simply was.
What did I ultimately glean from this book.....? I'll quote her directly here: "The illiberal left isn't just ruining reputations and lives with their campaigns of delegitimization and disparagement. They are harming all of society by silencing important debates, denying people the right to draw their own conclusions, and derailing reporting and research that is important to our understanding of the world. They are robbing our culture of the diversity of thought that is so central to learning and discovery."
Why does she think this is happening...? Again, to quote her directly: "So many liberals are so isolated from the marketplace of ideas, that when confronted with a view they don't like, they feel justified in doing whatever they can to silence that speech"
There's a certain irony that those crying foul (or calling those w/ opposing views bigots, racists, elitists, etc) are deploying those very tactics on those who oppose them. Complaining of hate-speech, yet doing the very same. I'm glad that some are now voicing a growing concern that is becoming more and more disturbing. Is Fee Speech in danger? This reader certainly thinks so!
December 29, 2016
This was a book that was written by a self-proclaimed liberal who is trying to reform who she calls the "illiberal liberals" I probably wouldn't have picked this book up if it was a book to solely bash an opposing party, but the idea of reforming a party from within sounded interesting, so I took a look at "The Silencing" and was happy I did. It really almost goes without saying that a new wave of silencing of free speech in the cloak of "hate speech" has been sweeping the western world in a way we are not accustomed to in recent history. Terms of "triggering" and "microaggression" have put an end to civil discourse, only allowing for several culturally popular narratives to be heard. Powers claims this is completely illiberal, noting specific (and horrifying) examples where this has been taking place. One instance: at a university, a Christian organization was told they needed to show more "diversity" by allowing people of other faiths to lead, atheists even. Of course, Powers notes in a tongue of cheek way, you will never see this occur on the flipside where an atheist group would be policed into having a Christian lead their group. Many of these examples to silence are eye-opening warnings. As the saying goes, if you persecute one group, who's to say your group won't be persecuted in the future?
August 15, 2015
Kirsten Powers does an incredible job of documenting how the left is actually silencing free speech in this country. From academia, to politics, to the media to the arts, the group that should actually be encouraging free and open discussion is doing everything possible to silence it. That is , if it offers a counter idea. Powers is a breath of fresh air and one of the liberal commentators I love to listen to. She is not afraid to speak openly and honestly on all topics and has a deep passion for her topic. She has been vilified by her liberal and feminist friends for daring to speak out and for her personal convictions. A solid, well documented expose. It will not make you happy.
October 10, 2015
See Wendy's review below. Kudos to Kirsten Powers for her thorough documentation of these damaging examples of "illiberalism". There was nothing surprising here to me except the depth of the attacks on Fox News, a legitimate and sometime exemplary news organization. But according to the left, Fox News isn't legitimate and conservative women aren't women. Ok Alice in Wonderland. In my reading of both conservative and liberal news reports and commentary, hate speech only occurs on the left side.
February 16, 2018
10/5 Stars!
This book is decades in the making and I am happy that Ms. Powers had the b@!!s to write it.
Loaded down with well researched material, Ms. Powers discusses the zealot tactics of the far (illiberal) left on numerous topics from university free speech zones to Fox News. As a Libertarian, who sees these tactics from zealots on both sides of the aisle, all I wanted to do was jump up and scream AMEN!
This book is decades in the making and I am happy that Ms. Powers had the b@!!s to write it.
Loaded down with well researched material, Ms. Powers discusses the zealot tactics of the far (illiberal) left on numerous topics from university free speech zones to Fox News. As a Libertarian, who sees these tactics from zealots on both sides of the aisle, all I wanted to do was jump up and scream AMEN!
July 14, 2015
This book was an education, and I am so glad that I read it. I knew things were bad when it came to free speech and freedom of religion in America today. I did not know the many particulars that are shared in this book. Powers identifies herself as a lifelong liberal and a Christian (newer, I believe), and she doesn't pull any punches when it comes to who she calls "the illiberal left."
July 24, 2015
An interesting read. It had its 'yes' moments. It had its 'no' moments. It had its 'yes and no' moments.
June 30, 2015
Excellent! In light of so much that is happening in our country today, I would highly recommend reading this book!
June 11, 2015
Well supported. Thoroughly discussed. The last paragraph is perfect.
August 30, 2019
Trigger warnings, safe spaces, micro aggression, cultural appropriation, white privilege and other moronic views is a huge problem today. I normally ask people "Where are you from originally", this is considered micro aggression? Powers, a Liberal, blew the lid off of what Conservatives and independents like myself have seen for years. "Free speech for me, not for thee" and "Tolerance for me but not for thee" is apparently the new new-liberal motto.
Conservatives have been denied speaking at universities because of their beliefs or political affiliation. In other words, we need to practice exclusion to attain inclusion. This is insane. Universities used to be a place where freedom of speech was not only encouraged but many of the battles for the same were fraught. Today it's the complete opposite.
So the illiberal oppose Christianity but support Islam which we know is anti-LGBT and have zero respect for women. I guess enemy of my enemy is my friend. Selective Outrage much? The new left has even gone after Bill Maher for not following lockstep with their new illiberalism. Maher? He is ultra liberal but it only shows to what level the new left has gone.
In my opinion anyone who requires to have trigger warnings, and are offended by anyone that does not agree with them are not ready to be part of society and honestly require severe mental health help. We have failed our future generations. We have been bad stewards of freedoms and rights. We have been able to unravel what has been a beacon for the world for centuries. I will address the typical triggered response, I do not want to go back to slavery or Jim Crow. I live by a strict motto; "no groups, no colors, no hyphenations and no labels". ~me.
This book was written during the Obama administration. Ironically, she writes about how Obama was attacked by negative stories from Fox. Wow. Fast forward to today and Trump, Obama had a honeymoon for 8 years.
I commend Powers for taking on a subject considered a third-rail in her circles. She has laid out a concise, well documented, and honest book sure to rock the snowflakes that have corrupted society and have contaminated the future of this country. I can only hope that a miracle occurs and these drones realize how wrong they are. Not only is it bad for the country but the future of other countries looking at us, will be emboldened to attack us because they will know that the people here would fold like a cheap suite.
If this continues, the new left will live in an echo chamber. The irony is that just because you use force and intimidation to stifle the speech, you do NOT change the belief. For instance if you have a person that is a racist, you would never know where this person stands. Given the right situation and opportunity, that racist would act on their true feeling. Not only that but the inability to speak your mind and your thoughts as offensive as they may be, I believe multiplies those thoughts. Those thoughts coupled with ridiculous snowflake antics could be devastating.
Powers decimates the media and whistleblowers. Ironically she is now working for CNN. She states that Obama's was the most closed WH heretofore. Probably different today with Trump although not sure. Obama had his own videographer that spin the message. He gave far less interviews than Bush and Clinton. She is rightfully critical of Obama's narcissism and the lack of transparency. Anyone with a pulse would have seen that. With regards to whistleblowers, Powers writes about the aggression with the whistleblowers while leaking other information for political gains.
When it comes to climate change, the fact that a media organization is allowed to block opposing talk, letters or articles is such a scary situation. It is a double-edged sword. I was utterly shocked when I read Northern Kentucky Professor pro life rant. “Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor to how I felt when I saw it" WTH is this crap? How self absorbed do you have to be. The more I read about these things the more I believe that political party or affiliation should be a protected class. Furthermore if a women's group grossly discriminate against a conservative woman and does not fight for the Conservative woman in the same vigor as a liberal, those groups should lose their tax exemption as should any group purporting to protect a group of general users. If the women's or Hispanic or black or whatever else is ONLY for a particular party, they should be called out and shutdown as a racist organization. Although that attacks their 1st amendment, I do not see another way.
Conservatives have been denied speaking at universities because of their beliefs or political affiliation. In other words, we need to practice exclusion to attain inclusion. This is insane. Universities used to be a place where freedom of speech was not only encouraged but many of the battles for the same were fraught. Today it's the complete opposite.
So the illiberal oppose Christianity but support Islam which we know is anti-LGBT and have zero respect for women. I guess enemy of my enemy is my friend. Selective Outrage much? The new left has even gone after Bill Maher for not following lockstep with their new illiberalism. Maher? He is ultra liberal but it only shows to what level the new left has gone.
In my opinion anyone who requires to have trigger warnings, and are offended by anyone that does not agree with them are not ready to be part of society and honestly require severe mental health help. We have failed our future generations. We have been bad stewards of freedoms and rights. We have been able to unravel what has been a beacon for the world for centuries. I will address the typical triggered response, I do not want to go back to slavery or Jim Crow. I live by a strict motto; "no groups, no colors, no hyphenations and no labels". ~me.
This book was written during the Obama administration. Ironically, she writes about how Obama was attacked by negative stories from Fox. Wow. Fast forward to today and Trump, Obama had a honeymoon for 8 years.
I commend Powers for taking on a subject considered a third-rail in her circles. She has laid out a concise, well documented, and honest book sure to rock the snowflakes that have corrupted society and have contaminated the future of this country. I can only hope that a miracle occurs and these drones realize how wrong they are. Not only is it bad for the country but the future of other countries looking at us, will be emboldened to attack us because they will know that the people here would fold like a cheap suite.
If this continues, the new left will live in an echo chamber. The irony is that just because you use force and intimidation to stifle the speech, you do NOT change the belief. For instance if you have a person that is a racist, you would never know where this person stands. Given the right situation and opportunity, that racist would act on their true feeling. Not only that but the inability to speak your mind and your thoughts as offensive as they may be, I believe multiplies those thoughts. Those thoughts coupled with ridiculous snowflake antics could be devastating.
Powers decimates the media and whistleblowers. Ironically she is now working for CNN. She states that Obama's was the most closed WH heretofore. Probably different today with Trump although not sure. Obama had his own videographer that spin the message. He gave far less interviews than Bush and Clinton. She is rightfully critical of Obama's narcissism and the lack of transparency. Anyone with a pulse would have seen that. With regards to whistleblowers, Powers writes about the aggression with the whistleblowers while leaking other information for political gains.
When it comes to climate change, the fact that a media organization is allowed to block opposing talk, letters or articles is such a scary situation. It is a double-edged sword. I was utterly shocked when I read Northern Kentucky Professor pro life rant. “Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor to how I felt when I saw it" WTH is this crap? How self absorbed do you have to be. The more I read about these things the more I believe that political party or affiliation should be a protected class. Furthermore if a women's group grossly discriminate against a conservative woman and does not fight for the Conservative woman in the same vigor as a liberal, those groups should lose their tax exemption as should any group purporting to protect a group of general users. If the women's or Hispanic or black or whatever else is ONLY for a particular party, they should be called out and shutdown as a racist organization. Although that attacks their 1st amendment, I do not see another way.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews