Nearly Half Of Young Americans Say It’s Okay To Fire People Who Support Trump

[Gingersnap]

Nearly Half Of Young Americans Say It’s Okay To Fire People Who Support Trump
JULY 31, 2020 By Glenn T. Stanton


The Cato Institute just released a new report showing that 62 percent of Americans are inclined to self-censor what they say politically “because others might find them offensive.” Even moderate leftists report they feel increased fear of offending the offendable, while only the most “staunch liberals,” as Cato described them, feel free to speak their minds. The “very conservative” have been pushed deepest in the closet: they are most likely to refrain from saying what they think politically, at nearly twice the rate of the “very liberal.”

Buried deeper in the report, however, is a stunning data point that might be one of the most troubling current cultural indicators. Forty-four percent of Americans younger than age 30 believe a company is correct in firing an executive because he or she personally donated to President Trump’s reelection campaign.

The companion finding was also disturbing. Twenty-seven percent of people under 30 said they were fine with an executive being fired because he or she donated to the Joe Biden campaign. The means that of Americans under 30 years old, 73 percent think it would be wrong to fire an executive from a company for donating to the Biden campaign, while only 56 percent believe it would be wrong to do so for a Trump donation.

While this problem is most pronounced among those under 30, it isn’t exclusive to young people. Across all age ranges, 78 percent said it would be wrong to fire an executive for making a personal donation to Biden, while only 69 percent believe it’s wrong to fire one simply for being a Trump donor.

This means a remarkably high number of fellow citizens believe it’s virtuous to punish you for your personal political beliefs, even if you express them merely through one private political donation, with the loss of your family’s livelihood.

People throw the word “fascist” around today much too carelessly for it to be useful. If that word can be applied to an everyday person, however, someone who believes you should lose your job based on who you vote for is a pretty sturdy working definition. Of course, this has less to do with the names of the 2020 candidates and more to do with how an alarming number of Americans today seem to know precious little about what it means to live in a representative democracy.

This brings us to the second most disturbing revelation of this report: the declining cognitive and logical rigor of today’s youth. Would these findings have been any different if the question had been, “Would you support firing a business executive solely for holding political beliefs you disagree with?”

There is only one right answer among decent people. “Yes” and “It depends” are unacceptable. But a disturbingly high number of Americans think such a firing would be perfectly fine when triggered by specific politicians’ names.

Every single American should be outraged by this because it subverts every classical liberal idea we believe in.

If a person can hold this idea, they can hold the idea of crushing any ideas that he or she disagrees with and hounding the idea-holder into poverty or much worse. We have many current examples of just this kind of thought operating on the world stage today.

We call those regimes dictatorships.

The Federalist

[scott]

The woke are fascists, they just think they are correct and therefore justified.

[Newman]

The woke are fascists, they just think they are correct and therefore justified.

Death of free speech in the US: How a terrifying revolution sweeping newsrooms sees journalists who deviate from the new liberal orthodoxy hounded out - while 62 per cent of ordinary Americans are too frightened to speak their mind

. . . But nothing can be taken for granted amid the toxic maelstrom now sweeping through American journalism, from the lofty heights of the New York Times to the least consequential website. They're calling it The Great Awokening and it endangers not just thousands of experienced, hard-working reporters and editors but the future of the industry they work for. It even threatens American democracy itself.

This is a country where freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed under the First Amendment. But it is also a nation where the statues of Washington and Jefferson, the great architects of the Republic, the guarantors of the liberties that woke warriors take for granted, have been pulled to the ground and smeared with graffiti.

America brought popular journalism and the true scrutiny of power to the world, yet never have the country's newsrooms been so threatened – or so cowed – as today. So great is the pressure to conform to messages put forward by movements such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo that any deviation leads to instant vilification online. And, ultimately, the chopping block.

One exasperated newspaper editor told The Mail on Sunday: 'There is a revolution going on in newsrooms across the US and it goes against everything freedom of the press stands for.

'Surely the whole point is to tell both sides of a story, even if it means publishing the views of someone who doesn't believe the things you do? Well, in today's culture all that is out the window.'

The prevailing atmosphere is so toxic that white writers are now fearful of publishing anything controversial in case it kills their career. One long-time editor at a major East Coast publication said: 'No one is against change and everyone realises white middle-aged men have dominated editorial boardrooms for too long. But this 'Great Awokening' is causing irreparable damage.

'Newspapers such as the New York Times have always prided themselves on publishing 'All the news that's fit to print'. And that means telling both sides of a story in a fair and impartial way.

'The Times has always been liberal but now the woke brigade is eating its own. It's happening in publications large and small.'

The bodies are piling up. . . .

I'm embarrassed to read the reporters here (Caroline Graham and Andrew Roberts) worry that what's happening in America could (will) infect Britain.

Just think about that: an overwhelming majority of Americans – across all political persuasions –have political opinions that they are afraid to share. It is positively Orwellian. How long until the same thing happens here – if it has not already? Even liberals are afraid, with a majority – 52 per cent – feeling they have to self-censor before speaking or writing. The same applies to 64 per cent of people who consider themselves moderates, and 77 per cent of conservatives.

These numbers are higher than they have ever been – representing a true threat to democracy. And even more worrying for those who value the future of openness and political diversity is the intolerance of the young, who are driving so much of this frightening new trend. Forty four per cent of Americans under 30 support firing company executives if it is discovered they privately donate their own money to President Trump. Fifty per cent of people who call themselves strong liberals support firing Trump donors from their jobs.

This tide of aggression towards people who merely happen to hold opposing views cannot be written off as a blip, for it is clearly part of a wider trend that has engulfed other Western nations.

When America sneezes, it is never very long before Britain catches a cold. A British political tradition that has for decades prized tolerance of other people's opinions –even when, or indeed especially when, we disagree with them – is about to be tossed away.

What this intolerance will do is to force the teaching of history underground. Indeed it already has: Professor Nigel Biggar of Oxford had to hold an academic conference on the British Empire as a private seminar amid fears of how it might affect the careers of the historians who took part. Academic papers will one day be distributed surreptitiously, like samizdat underground newspapers behind the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

That is the kind of world we are moving towards. For the truly concerning thing about the Cato Institute survey is not that quite so many people fear that they might lose their jobs if they express their opinions, but that they are clearly right to feel that way.

Shades of Fahrenheit 451.

[80zephyr]

From Newmans link:

What this intolerance will do is to force the teaching of history underground.

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

George Orwell

[Gingersnap]

From Newmans link:


The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

George Orwell

Or there will be no history.

In 1984 it was the Party and inner and outer party members who were concerned with history. The inner members knew it was all lies but the outer party members believed it or had to act as though they did. The proles just ignored all of it.

[Lanie]

Okay. I call BS on that one. Qualifications for a job should be about experience, education, an willingness to learn. It should not be about politics unless you're working for a party.

I remember in 2016, the CEO at the company I was at came under fire for saying her employees were terrified of a Trump presidency. She apologized and HR sent us all an email. I emailed back saying that I wish our employer would stop being so political because it marginalizes people. I do have a lot of co-workers who don't like Trump and recently got into it with one who did support Trump, but it was all outside of work. I'm not going to report it to work. I'm not going to bring it up at work meetings. I come to work to work not to be an unprofessional political asshole.

[Gingersnap]

Most people in work environments try to avoid contentious topics. Sadly, not all. Just as few would want a colleague to actively attempt to convert them to a particular religion or denomination, so few want or need any political/social issue advice.

It's even worse when employers cave to pressure from a handful of outside agitators to fire an employee for what he or she said online (not about the company) or what he or she donated to in a perfectly legal act.

I hate cancel culture. I may not patronize a company that actively has a corporate policy statement that denigrates me or espouses a political argument that I disagree with but it's their business. If I don't own their stock, I'm not calling for any heads to roll.

Everyone would be a lot better off if companies (and government agencies) would stick to their core missions and focus on hiring and retaining the best employees regardless of how those employees managed their skins, sexual habits, voting preferences, or donation histories.

If it's a crime, call the police. If it's an opinion, get over it. Corporate should shut up about these issues. If I wanted to be involved in these issues, I'd teach Middle School.

[Lady Marva]

'The Times has always been liberal but now the woke brigade is eating its own. It's happening in publications large and small.'

Hence goes the faster killing of print / newspaper media.

How do these "all-for-firing" employees even find out who someone else has donated money to..........................

[Novaheart]

Hence goes the faster killing of print / newspaper media.

How do these "all-for-firing" employees even find out who someone else has donated money to..........................

The FEC and Facebook mining.

[Lady Marva]

The FEC and Facebook mining.

OH, OK, thanks.