Unsurprisingly, Freedom House is critical of Donald Trump. Freedom House advocates a globalist or interventionist philosophy, while Trump represents a nationalist philosophy.
Globalism is fine up to the point at which it causes expansion of the state apparatus. That is, the optimal balance between globalism and internationalism can be found in one of two ways, which are the same:
(1) the point at which the balance between globalism and nationalism minimizes the scope, tyranny, and intervention of the state and
(2) the point at which the balance between globalism and nationalism maximizes economic and political performance.
The question of whether there is a difference if the maximand is total freedom internationally or total freedom domestically is complex. It is possible that some international interventions reduce freedom at home but increase it internationally. Hence, Trump's presidency is likely to expand freedom at home, yet it may not reduce it overseas, contrary to Freedom House's claims.
For instance, US globalist involvement in World War I led to the imprisonment of Eugene V. Debs and other war protesters. World War I led directly to totalitarianism around the world. Globalism and freedom are not always--and maybe not often--equivalent.
Despite its name, Freedom House supports globalist institutions that reduce freedom. One example is American universities, which are hostile to political freedom for conservatives but claim to have academic freedom. Academic freedom is a myth, a code for a socialist-, globalist-only faculty and suppression of freedom for all who disagree with socialism and globalism. American universities are a globalist force that reduces freedom.
In its country rankings, Freedom House claims that the US has an optimal degree of academic freedom.* This is nonsensical. American universities are one-party institutions, as Dan Klein and I show in a paper on social science departments, and as I show with respect to liberal arts colleges. Organizations that refuse to employ one-half of the population because of political intolerance are not free.
Moreover, intolerant, Democratic Party-only practices riddle the US government-subsidized technology and media industries. Calling one-party, government-subsidized organizations that increasingly dominate the US economy and culture characteristic of a free country may be globalist but does not support freedom. Freedom House sees no problem in social media's exclusion of conservatives because government-supported organizations like Facebook and Quora are globalist.
For half of the US population, there is no academic freedom, there is no freedom of employment, and there is no press freedom. Academics who run afoul of the prejudices of the Democratic Party are likely to be attacked and their removal demanded by Democratic Party bigots.
Freedom House's globalist prejudices trump its belief in freedom.
*This is what the report says about academic freedom in the US:
Is there academic freedom, and is the educational system free from extensive political indoctrination? 4 / 4
The academic sphere has long featured a high level of intellectual freedom. While it remains quite robust by global standards, this liberty has come under some pressure in recent years. University students at a number of campuses have obstructed guest speakers whose views they find objectionable by shouting them down or holding strident protests. In the most highly publicized cases, students and nonstudent activists have physically prevented presentations by controversial speakers, especially those known for their views on race, gender, immigration, and other sensitive issues. University faculty have also reported instances of harassment—including on social media—related to curriculum content, textbooks, or statements that some students strongly disagreed with. As a consequence, some professors have allegedly engaged in self-censorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment