Progressive Betrayals of Civil Liberties
By Anthony Gregory • Monday July 30, 2012 9:33 AM PDT • 25 Comments
In the last two weeks, we have seen the weakness of many left-liberals’ support for civil liberties. Last week, progressive bloggers, activists, and politicians piled on Chick-fil-A, whose president Dan Cathy has spoken critically of and supported groups that oppose gay marriage. For his stance on this issue, which is not all that different from Obama’s stance just a year ago, many in the gay rights movement decided to boycott his fast food chain. Whatever one thinks of this, it is well within the rights of people to vote with their dollars. The Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans argues that the boycott is poor strategy, however, because “turning a chicken sandwich into Public Gay Enemy Number One makes LGBT people look superficial, vindictive and juvenile—everything that we as a community have worked hard to overcome.”
Yet far more disturbing to anyone interested in civil liberties was the threat of a government crackdown on the basis of the business owner’s political opinions. Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston mayor Thomas Menino both indicated a willingness to keep the restaurant out of their cities, using their power as government officials to fight the culture war.
While the most consistent left-liberal voices for civil liberties, among them the ACLU, have defended Chick-fil-A’s right to open a business regardless of the proprietor’s political views, there has been far too much silence or even enthusiasm toward these threats of political coercion, which carry potentially totalitarian implications. A government that can prohibit people from engaging in peaceful commerce based on traditional cultural and conservative political values is as big a threat to civil liberties as anything the left imagines a conservative Big Brother poses. Most strikingly, left-liberals often, with a lot of justification, decry the Red Scares in American history—the private and public ostracism and at times oppression that befell communists, communist sympathizers, or anyone deemed too far radically left in America. Communism posed a real threat to world peace and liberty, and its political leaders collectively murdered close to a hundred million people in the 20th century. If Americans should have a right to pursue work despite their sympathies for such a violent ideology, surely Chick-fil-A shouldn’t be blacklisted simply for holding traditional views on marriage.
So last week we saw the limits of left-liberal tolerance and belief in the First Amendment. The week before, the typical disdain for the Second Amendment was on full display. After the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the call for more gun control reached a fevered pitch. Putting aside the incoherence of gun laws as a method of stopping people bent on committing the most severe of all crimes, mass murder, we see here a willingness to ditch a precious civil right in the name of safety. Just as conservatives were all too willing to cheer on a nationalist police state after 9/11 in the misguided attempt to achieve pure security from terrorism, so too have liberals been enthusiastically willing for decades to abandon a principal human right in the foolish attempt to maintain perfect safety at home. The way gun control is enforced always results in great injustice—violations of rights to privacy, the erosion of due process protections, the disadvantaging of poor and minorities who do not regard the police as adequate protectors of life and liberty. The history of gun control as a method of oppressing the weak and disenfranchised, particularly racial minorities, should give all humanitarians pause before they jump on the civilian disarmament bandwagon.
Civil liberties are grounded in key principles of a free society, including an unflinching distrust in secular government and a respect for property rights. Without property rights, bodily integrity, freedom from censorship, and guarantees against lawless prosecution are impossible to maintain. Without distrusting government, society loses sight of the importance of civil liberties in the first place. The left has long attempted to marry a loyalty to civil liberties with a trust in government and an attitude toward property ranging from ambivalence to hostility. This contradictory approach to the principal issues of a just society fundamentally explains the unreliability and hypocrisy so often seen with many progressives when civil liberties are under attack.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Criminal Justice, Culture, Fascism, Law, Liberalism, Morality, Natural Law, Personal Liberty, Police, Progressivism 
Thank you – very well written & very much worth sharing. Blessings.
Linda McDermott Enscoe | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
While all of our civil liberties are under attack from all branches of government this article is disingenuous. We incarcerate about 5 million Americans at any given time, we have 450,000 children in foster care at any given time, our emails are scanned regularly, our cell phones are regularly, jobs are leaving the country (which means our dollars are leaving the country when we buy the items these jobs previously produced here). Shall I go on?
Xoro | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
I don’t see how what you say contradicts anything i said.
Anthony Gregory | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Get over yourselves. All they did was state their beliefs, not deny service to homosexuals. That is the essence of free speech. Even if you don’t agree with what they say you must defend the right to say it.
andrew | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
I do not think government is a problem. It is the kind of government and whether government stays within limits and the checks and balances of our Constitution. “Secular” should not be used because good government is good government.
angie vandemerwe | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Mayor Menino of Boston understands he can do little to prevent CFA from coming to Boston. He’s going to do what he can. So is D.C. Mayor Grayon. & Chicago & San Francisco. Personally, I’m proud of these cities. Discrimination is wrong. Fight back, join the boycott.
Sarah | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Great article! I have to respect their right to free speech just like I do anyone else, irrespective of my personal beliefs. It scares me how easily we give away civil liberties. Freedom of speech is essential to the survival of a republic or democratic society. If you can’t discuss issues freely then the government will have no accountability as long as they can dictate the language of the argument.
Also, I am not really seeing how what Xoro said makes this article disingenuous.
Jacob | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Sarah, Obviously you did not understand the premise of the article, the “concept” of civil liberties , OR The Constitution. Do you really want Gov’t “banning” businesses because of an owner’s particular belief system? If that’s the case, then a Gay owner should be banned from opening a business because of his or her “beliefs”, right?
If you want to “ban” Chick-fil-A, you have the “right” not to eat there!
Revo1117 | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
In the many years that I have been following Political Philosophy, Political philosophers, Political pundits and Politicians I’ve learned many things. But the one major lesson I have learned is that the Political World is full of hypocrites and hypocrisy. Both the Right and the Left. And the biggest hypocrites of all? These are the Limousine Liberal Progressives who stand, at different times with different positions on the same subject, being political chameleons in order to justify their politically correct lust for power.
libertarian jerry | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
The issue here isn’t that local governments will ban a business because of speech. In fact the public statements and letters written by said local politicians (exercising their own personal right to free speech and opinion I might add) does nothing to prevent the fast food from coming to town. In the case of Chicago the issue is more about compliance with city traffic flow and other business and zoning ordinances, which are fully within the purview of the city.
Or have we come so far with all of this liberty talk, that the existing members of a neighborhood get no say in what might happen in their neighborhood. The essence of the Constitution was to enable communities to exercise both individual and community right in a manner in which that community chooses to live. If you don’t like it you are free not to go there.
Unfortunately, both the LGBT folks and the Social conservatives have blown this whole issue way of of proportion. If Cathy wants to run his mouth let him, if you don’t like it don’t eat his sandwiches. Choosing to not do business with someone is absolutely acceptable.
Frank | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Anthony,
What does the CFA flap have to do with the 2nd Amendment. After all I do not think that a Well-regulated militia is necessary to preserve CFA. Oh wait, I forgot. The gun people always leave out the part before the comma. That is how they justify their irresponsible gun craziness. After all, if you remember the a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state, then of course the you would also have to remember that keeping and bearing arms actually requires a certain level of citizen responsibility, and that simply won’t due in modern-day America.
Frank | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Yeah, civic rights should only be given if people deserve them. I mean, can you believe how many people we let vote in this country? People with barely any education, people with zero property or permanent investment in the community, people who only vote because of racial or religious reasons, people who haven’t even bothered to get government-approved IDs. It’s crazy. We might as well give them cans of gasoline or keys to the bank safes. And some of these crazy sub-citizens have guns! The Founders would be rolling over in their graves- they knew that you have to make people be responsible before they can have political power. Otherwise, the ignorant masses might decide they don’t even need their betters and superiors, and then anarchy would take over. All those poor people and minorities would be on top, like in that Batman movie. The terrorists would win, too. We definitely can’t have that. Fortunately, we have lots of right-thinking Americans to keep crazy liberal ideas from getting out of hand, and making sure the little people stay properly powerless and beholden to their responsible betters.
Jonathan | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Frank, the CFA flap has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, directly. Anthony was talking about how people –like you apparently– like to pick and choose their amendments–so it was a rhetorical and literary device called c o n t r a s t –to make a point. In addition, did you read where he pointed out the 1st Amendment support/or non-support from many progressives changes when it comes to who is saying what? Since you are apparently a fanatic opponent of people enjoying the right to keep and bear arms. It is simply a fact that you cannot disprove the ample record showing that the authors of the Constitution supported the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Despite your whining about the militia language, you are wrong on this matter in fact, in morality and natural rights theory. And–this part should interest you– the matter has been settled in law. Haven’t you been listening to the Supremes? Good job, Anthony, as I often say to you.
Jeff | Jul 30, 2012 | Reply
Why are we mourning the death of free of speech now? It was murdered and replaced by political correctness several decades ago.
Henry Bowman | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply
I’m not sure what that person was going on about, either. So to answer his or her question, yes, please go on.
Rob Nabakowski | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply
He’s going to do what he can? That is the problem, Sarah. You’ll make a fine fascist.
Rob Nabakowski | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply
Anthony, “left-liberals” aren’t liberals at all but leftwing illiberals, and each is illiberal in proportion to his or her sympathy for welfare statism, for the rigging of commerce on behalf of this or that group of victims, and, of course, for socialism. Your “left-liberals” are people who fear and loathe liberalism so greatly that they care not a jot that others of their ilk helped to clear the way for Hitler and Mussolini, who were nationalists but not rightwingers or conservatives.
In fact, it’s been many decades since leftists in America adopted the word liberal to cloak their plans and objectives. You of all people should understand this well enough not to follow their lead when they abuse the language with deceitful claptrap.
Paul T | Aug 1, 2012 | Reply
A disheartening aspect of the gun-control rhetoric is that it is now being couched in terms of “the mentally ill,” as if there is some kind of objective measure to this concept, and as if being labelled as such is sufficient to take away that person’s right to own a weapon. They always go after the group that is the most maligned. Our rulers do this, I think, for two reasons. First, they share in the same prejudices of the general population. Second, they calculate that appealing to these prejudices increases and consolidates their political power.
Sean | Aug 1, 2012 | Reply
Yes, discrimination is wrong. Discriminating against someone for expressing his personal opinion is wrong. You don’t have to agree with him (I don’t) but you should respect his freedom to say it. And government at any level should respect this constitutional right.
Jim P | Aug 3, 2012 | Reply
What do your claims have to do with what was written? The fact is that both the American Left and American Right have little use for civil liberties and as far as I can tell their primary disagreement is about who should be in charge. The point made by the author is that the American Left has failed to be tolerant of the expression of views that its members do not like and has used government monopoly power to intimidate and punish those it feels are guilty of having those views. How is that any different than the Right using government monopoly power to intimidate and punish individuals that its members oppose?
Vangel | Aug 3, 2012 | Reply
“I do not think government is a problem. It is the kind of government and whether government stays within limits and the checks and balances of our Constitution. “Secular” should not be used because good government is good government.”
As has been said on many occasions, men are not angels. That is why unless you give it very limited powers government will always be a problem. People should be free to believe what they want. They should not be free to impose their views on others. End of story.
Vangel | Aug 3, 2012 | Reply