The Corner

PC Culture

National Anthem Protests and the Self-Reinforcing Cycle of Intolerance

Houston Texans defensive tackle Carlos Watkins and teammates kneel during the national anthem at CenturyLink Field. (Joe Nicholson-USA TODAY via Reuters)

Whenever I write against corporate censorship, I get the same objection. It goes something like this: Don’t private corporations have a right to establish their own message? And in a free market, don’t they have an obligation to respond to customer demands? Google (or the NFL) can determine the image it wants to project. Google (or the NFL) have to respond to market pressures. So what’s wrong with firing dissenters from the corporate line? Why do you think you should have the right to publicly disagree with your employer and still keep your job?

It’s an argument with an undeniable surface appeal. After all, companies do have their own rights to define their mission and message, and I don’t have a legal right to dissent from my employer, on company time or otherwise, free from corporate reprisal. These rights are valuable, and I’m not urging legal intervention. Yet in our toxic political environment, both corporations and consumers are exercising their rights in a manner that is destroying our culture of liberty. They’re locked in a self-reinforcing cycle of intolerance.

Let’s discuss, for a moment, what I believe is the proper model of corporate-customer interaction. If I work for a bank or an insurance company or if I’m a receiver for a professional football team, then I understand that my role is to advance the commercial and competitive interests of the corporation. That means doing my job at the highest possible level, while also conducting myself publicly (even while “off the clock”) in a way that at the very least does not harm my employer’s public reputation. In other words, do good work, and be a decent person.

As a customer, I approach my bank, insurer, or football team expecting maximum competence in their respective fields. Critically, that’s all I should reasonably expect. I shouldn’t also look to these people to mirror or reinforce my world view. I should understand that when I live in a diverse, pluralistic community, there’s a high chance that when I meet with my accountant that he doesn’t always share my values. I can, however, expect him to know his way around a balance sheet. In other words, expect good work, and be respectful and tolerant.

Now, let’s corrupt this model with the politicization of everything.

The bank’s mission is no longer banking. It’s providing banking services, supporting gun control, defending a woman’s right to choose, and advocating for marriage equality. My tech company’s mission isn’t just “search” or social networking, it’s social justice. So now, as an employee I can harm my employer’s public reputation and impair its mission not just by violating norms of human decency but also by simply disagreeing with its politics.

Conversely, the customer now approaches his business decisions with his own host of demands. Speak out for (or against) religious liberty. Stand for (or against) the police. Boycott (or support) the NRA. The emphasis on politics is so great that customers are sometimes even willing to consume an inferior product for the sake of the “larger” goal.

Before last year’s parade of horribles at the quarterback position, I wasn’t convinced that Colin Kaepernick was still good enough to play in the NFL. Now it seems clear that he could help a number of teams, but “better football” is less important than better politics. When Google fired James Damore, did it improve its software engineering? But in both circumstances, key stakeholders (including consumers) got what they wanted — a more pure ideological environment — at the expense of other values.

It appears that this is the reality that many millions of Americans want. They want to consume commercial products while making a political statement or enjoying the warm embrace of their own ideological cocoon. But don’t for one moment think that this conduct won’t degrade American free-speech culture or that it won’t exacerbate American tribalism and polarization. It’s the very definition of intolerant, and it threatens American unity.

The core question here isn’t whether Americans have the right to politicize every sphere of life. They do. The question is whether they should. I say no. I say that Americans are using their free-speech rights to destroy the culture of free speech so thoroughly that the actual law will be largely irrelevant to people’s lives. “Conform to the tribe or lose your livelihood” isn’t the ethic of a free people or a free nation. It’s the practice of a balkanized, tribal land, and it’s not the future I want for the country I love.

NOW WATCH: Trump Praises NFL’S New National Anthem Policy

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most Popular


Men Literally Died for That Flag, You Idiots

The American flag’s place in our culture is beginning to look less unassailable. The symbol itself is under attack, as we’ve seen with Nike dumping a shoe design featuring an early American flag, Megan Rapinoe defending her national-anthem protests (she says she will never sing the song again), and ... Read More

The Plot against Kavanaugh

Justice on Trial, by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino (Regnery,  256 pp., $28.99) The nomination and confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was the political event of 2018, though not for the reasons anyone expected. All High Court confirmations these days are fraught with emotion and tumult ... Read More
Politics & Policy

He Just Can’t Help Himself

By Saturday, the long-simmering fight between Nancy Pelosi and her allies on one side and the “squad” associated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the other had risen to an angrier and more destructive level at the Netroots Nation conference. Representative Ayanna Pressley, an African-American Massachusetts ... Read More
White House

On Gratitude and Immigration

Like both Rich and David, I consider it flatly inappropriate for the president of the United States to be telling Americans -- rhetorically or otherwise -- to “go back where you came from.” In consequence, you will find no defense of the president from me, either. What Trump tweeted over the weekend was ... Read More

Gender Dissenter Gets Fired

Allan M. Josephson is a distinguished psychiatrist who, since 2003, has transformed the division of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology at the University of Louisville from a struggling department to a nationally acclaimed program. In the fall of 2017 he appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation ... Read More

The ‘Squad’ Gives a Gift to Donald Trump

On Sunday, Donald Trump gave the Democrats a gift -- comments that indicate he thinks native-born congresswomen he detests should “go back” to the countries of their ancestors. On Monday, the four congresswomen handed Trump a gift in return, managing to respond to the president’s insults in some of the most ... Read More
PC Culture

A Herd Has No Mind

sup { vertical-align: super; font-size: smaller; } Funny thing about my new book: I had begun shopping around the proposal for writing it long before my brief period of employment with that other magazine and the subsequent witless chimp-brained media freakout and Caffeine-Free Diet Maoist struggle ... Read More