Approaching the Cusp—Part II

Attacks on free speech may lead the way

Many parameters affect the workings of a free society:

• the freedom to vote and speak freely, so that citizens can elect representatives that reflect their aspirations and priorities;

• an economy that provides jobs and wealth to the populace, allowing all citizens to improve their lives without the direct assistance of the government;

• courts at the local, state, and federal level that resolve legal disputes, and do so in a manner that does not apply their rulings in an asymmetric manner;

• law enforcement at the local, state and federal level that keeps the peace, works to reduce criminal behavior, and does so without political bias or direction;

• effective border controls that enable the society to manage who enters the country and establish criteria for new immigrants to ensure that they become productive citizens and do not break the law;

• a foreign policy that puts our country first, even as it attempts to encourage peace and stability without appeasing or capitulating to bad actors, and

• a military that is chartered with the protection of the nation, is wholly non-partisan, and focuses on it primary goal of defense and deterrence and not on unrelated issues that are in fashion ideologically.

Small changes —some for the good and others for reasons that are not good—to these and many other parameters occur regularly. As long as those changes are small and spread over long periods of time, societal stability is maintained. But when changes occur along extreme ideological lines, when they are implemented via mandates that remove free choice¹ and demand compliance under penalty of law, when they are not accepted by a clear majority of the populace, bad things can and do happen.²

In my last post, Approaching the Cusp—Part I, I discussed a strategy that is being applied across the West. The strategy is already leading to the first signs of societal instability. In the worst of all instances, it could lead to societal chaos and collapse. And yet, its proponents see nothing wrong with the strategy and think its application is a form of virtue. Because they are fantasy thinkers, they cannot conceive that their changes, enforced and promulgated by their many allies Big Five, could lead to very bad outcomes for all of us.

In my post, I presented a few examples that skirt the edges of Catastrophe Theory, a offshoot of systems theory that looks at multi-parametric systems that experience small but continuous changes to multiple variables. As the changes occur, the behavior of the entire system begins to adapt—at first in small increments. and then more quickly as time passes. If the “small” changes modify effective societal parameters in a way that leads to bad outcomes, the system becomes increasingly unstable as multiple aspects of the system are effected by each parameter.

For example, changes that lead to fewer police (think: the Democrat’s “Defund the Police policies) mean that fewer law enforcement resources are available to combat crime. This invariably leads to political decisions that decriminalize bad behavior like shoplifting (using “disparate impact” to justify the policy). And that leads to social instability in many big cities as businesses leave. Interestingly, shopping patterns also change as businesses put most products behind plexiglass due to increasing theft. The ‘friction’ associated with shopping in brick and mortar stores increases, revenues drop, and a death spiral begins. Stores close and shopping options are reduced, particularly for the group that the leadership of blue cities claims to care about most.

For those who are not used to considering multi-parametic systems, a simplified depiction of catastrophe theory can be represented with a single parameter as shown in the figure below:

This graph represents one system/societal parameter, but it does not act in a vacuum. Many other parameters are operating on the system at the same time (hence the ‘multi-dimensional surface’ represented in Part I. But the simplistic representation in the 2D graph shown above makes the cusp easier to understand. Positive changes to a parameter lead to system stability and better performance. But if those changes become negative, we cross an invisible boundary (represented by the double dashed thin line). Societal stability and performance go negative. In the worst case, we reach a ‘cusp’ and experience a discontinuity (the dashed vertical line) that can lead rapidly to chaos and instability.

The basic “values” and “freedom” (as Kamala Harris talks about them³) of one political party are leading us toward a cusp. In Part I, I provided an example of those values in the context of Harris’ “opportunity economy.” In this part of our discussion, I’d like to discuss an even more ominous system parameter that has already led to dangerous portents in Europe and Brazil—the leftist attacks on free speech that have been enforced by authoritarian government action.

Our constitution enshrines 'free speech’ as a fundamental right in its first amendment.⁴ The progressives’ favorite propaganda sheet, The New York Times, recently had an article entitled, “The Constitution is Sacred. Is it also dangerous?” For leftists who kinda like authoritarian control, the answer is “Yes!” That’s why they view a Supreme Court that upholds the constitution as corrupt.

Unfortunately, the “values” that Harris alludes to have a fundamental problem with that some aspects of our constitution and specifically, with the First Amendment right to free speech.. Here’s her V.P., Tim Walz, on the subject:

“I think we need to push back on this. There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,⁵ and especially around our democracy.”

Kamala’s comments on the subject aren’t a whole lot better. I guess being anti free speech is a new left-wing “value,” and it’s a value that now is more than just talk. It’s being translated into distinct actions by supposedly democratic governments in the U.K and France. Free speech is under assault, people who champion social media that promulgates free speech are as a minimum demonized and increasingly feel the weight of government sanctions or criminal indictment. The evolving leftist government of Brazil has decided that dissenting opinions or criticism of wannabe dictator (a.k.a “president”) Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a no-no. Since a lot of the criticism can be found on social media site, X, it follows that X must be shut down and that anyone who accesses X via a VPN be criminally fined (this authoritarian move was recently rescinded).

The Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media remain oddly silent on these events. Could it be that they approve? We’ll have to ask Walz whether he’s okay with indicting the Left’s nemesis, Elon Musk, for championing our right to free expression. It would be nice to ask Kamala as well, but she’s too busy avoiding any questions whose answers can’t be posted on her teleprompter. If Harris and Walz are having problems with the First Amendment, their future policies will be just another perturbation of the free speech parameter and an inexorable move toward the cusp.

It’s interesting to note that the values alluded to by Kamala are very flexible. For example, although Kamala et al, really, really dislike Elon for taking away their playground on Twitter, they are champions of free speech when it comes to the left-wing, pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic groups that have formed on college campuses.⁶ The pro-Hamas crowd’s vandalism, trespassing and physical intimidate of Jewish students is to be defended. It’s “free speech,” don’t you know.

And that leads us to the last parameter I’ll discuss (ever so briefly) in this context—the asymmetric application of the law—yet another Democrat “value.” One approach for favored groups. Hands-off and excuses made. Another approach for disfavored groups— indictment, trial, and imprisonment. The justice system parameter gets tweaked, and little by little, we move across the catastrophe surface toward the cusp.

Of course, it’s possible that we’ll never reach the cusp. It’s possible that the Left has been correct all along, just like they were “correct” about Venezuela, or Cuba, or Iran, or Brazil or leftist governments in Europe where country after country ceded their centuries-old culture to those who came illegally and refused to assimilate. Yeah, nothing to worry about. It’ll all work out in the end … or … it won’t.

1. In general, most of this kind of mandate emanates out of the Left, but one serious example comes out of the Right—anti-abortion laws and mandates. Like forced Covid vaccinations and school closures, intrusive climate change mandates, social media censorship (all coming out of the left) or many others, right-wing anti-abortion ideology removes freedom of choice based on an ideological difference of opinion.

2. A recent example is the unintended and uniformly negative aspects of the Covid lockdowns and school closures that were encouraged and later mandated by the Democrats.

3. She never explicitly describes them because they are unacceptable to many voters.

4. Congress [shall] “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

5. Of course, under the new “values” espoused by Harris and Walz, only they and their party apparatchiks get to define exactly what “misinformation” and “hate speech” actually is. “Misinformation” is anything (no matter how accurate) that opposes the “facts” they present. “Hate speech” is any criticism, no matter how justified, of a group they favor. The “freedom” Harris alludes to is there, but only if you adopt the Democrats’ “values” and never-ever criticize their governance approach.

6. As an aside, it’s worth noting that V.P. candidate, Tim Walz, you know, the ‘everyman’ hero of the Democrats, was asked by one of the few reporters that still has an ounce of integrity left what he thought of the recent murder of six Israeli hostages by Hamas. Walz literally ran away without uttering a word on the subject. That would be the same Tim Walz whose AG in MN is noted anti-Semite, Keith Ellison. See here, here and here for my thoughts on Ellison. Then again, anti-Semitism is very in fashion among some on the Left, so there’s that.