The dirty little secret about cancel culture is that, ultimately, it’s a choice.
It’s a choice by those attempting the cancellation, of course. But it’s also a choice for those who are targeted. At National Review, we have long believed that the best response to those who would try to remove us and our writers from the conversation is a simple “No.” This is a free country, and it is not acceptable for a small, censorious, illiberal, dishonest clique to decide who may speak in it.
I mention this because, last week, a seraglio of professional liars tried to sully Rich Lowry’s reputation by pretending that he had said something that he had manifestly not said — and that he would never in a thousand years elect to say. As a result, two venues canceled preexisting speaking engagements. One, the Badger Institute in Wisconsin, cited the “environment” — whatever that means. The other, Indiana State University, explained that it could not ensure his “safety.” We cannot prevent other institutions from engaging in this craven behavior. But we can replace their events with our own. And, with your help, that is exactly what we intend to do.
Since the lie was first spread, Rich has received a number of invitations from institutions that abhor what was being done to his name. National Review would like to send Rich to fulfill as many of these as is possible — and perhaps to add some new events of our own. In essence, we would like to organize a “Cancellation Tour” that would take Rich to Wisconsin and to Indiana, and to any other of our 50 states in which an audience is happy to gather.
So please, between now and Friday, chip in whatever you can: $20, $50, $100, even $1,000 if you’re feeling especially generous.
In so doing, you will help us strike a blow for truth, justice, and open inquiry. Contemporary Americans disagree on a great number of things — as they have from the early days of the republic. Our national debate is broad, sharp, rambunctious, and free. But this arrangement only works if the principles that undergird it are respected by all. The figures who tried to cancel Rich do not recognize those rules. Instead of engaging him within the marketplace of ideas, they tried to remove him from it. Instead of explaining why the same facts led them to a different conclusion, they invented a malicious falsehood. Instead of sending their best advocates into the fray, they tried to tarnish one of their most effective adversaries with a scurrilous charge.
Americans who value elementary liberalism are not obliged to agree with me, with Rich, or with anyone else who offers a political opinion. But what happened last week represents a line in the sand. On this matter, there really are just two sides: the one that cherishes conversation and deliberation, and the one that wants to shut it all down.
We are firmly on the side of unfastened argumentation, and, if you are too, we hope you’ll aid us in our attempt to fight back against its foes.
