With some ambivalence, Ross Douthat introduces us to the concept of “soft totalitarianism” in today’s NYT. The gist of this extreme right-wing theme is that an unholy alliance of tech giants, the cultural establishment (the MSM and Hollywood), and young left-wing academics is threatening the freedom of speech of conservative Americans. In their view, they are entitled to hold political power indefinitely in order to keep the cultural enemy in check. Is there any validity to this?
No, because:
- By definition, there is no such thing as “soft totalitarianism.” A totalitarian wants complete control over every sphere of life within his country. Even the proponents of this theory don’t go that far. The argument focuses on Facebook and Twitter, not Joe Biden.
- Totalitarianism requires a monopoly of political power and force, not just near unanimity on cultural issues. In other words, it operates through government, not business.
- The theory assumes that Mark Zuckerberg cares more about left-wing ideology than maximizing his profits, which is clearly false.
- The right still has vast areas of cultural and media safe space (Fox News; talk radio; religious media, etc.) that is not in any danger of intrusion by the left even if you incorrectly assume that Facebook and Twitter have turned against it.
- What has political power–in particular, the Trump presidency–done to eliminate this problem, to the extent that you believe it exists? Nothing, to date.
There is a dangerous subtext to the concept of “soft totalitarianism.” Using that bogus label provides a justification for supporting a hard totalitarianism on the right. It is clear that the proponents of the theory really want to go far beyond Trump and terminate the First Amendment rights of the majority of Americans, because that is the only way they can turn the tide in the culture wars. Look for them to support a candidate who is openly in favor of illiberal democracy, or even fascism, in 2024.