The Crucial Midterm Issue Candidates Aren’t Talking About

Midterm elections are upon us, and voters will soon head to the polls, shaped by unpredictable combinations of enthusiasm, resentment, party loyalty, and patriotism. Pundits say the major issues driving next month’s turnout will be the economy, the war in Iraq, the candidates’ character, and, of course, views on the current incumbents.

One issue that’s sadly not being pressed — from our television screens and podcasts, X posts, or bully pulpits — is the one that should be of overriding concern in any election, but especially this one.

That issue is the focal point of this week: National Free Speech Week. Freedom of speech underlies all others, and it’s especially endangered in our current political culture. Without that freedom, we have no way to advocate for anything else. Silencing speech throttles our ability to address all the other issues that concern us, as individuals and as a people.

Our candidates largely know this, yet some go to great lengths to disguise their determination to control their constituents’ personal and political conversations. Many politicians don’t just disagree with their opponents; they want to use the power of government to silence them.

Colorado, for instance, is a poster child for this kind of governing. Officials there have repeatedly made it clear that parents should not be allowed to ask about public school arrangements for their children; that bookstore owners should be compelled to address people by false pronouns; that counselors should not be free to decide what’s best for the young people who come to them for help.

They want to dictate what cake artists write and design on their own culinary creations, and what graphic artists post on their websites. This is a state where many officials appear to hold not only their own people but the First Amendment itself in contempt, demanding ironclad control over the communications of their citizens.

They’re not the only elected officials working toward that end — nor do they lack for examples from other parts of the world. Consider England, where ordinary people are being arrested for standing on sidewalks, silently praying. Or Finland, where a former cabinet minister is being tried for sharing a biblical view of sex in a booklet written for her church — 20 years ago.

Or Australia, where a man’s X account was blocked because he questioned a political appointment. Or Nigeria, where a man faces death for sharing lyrics to a song he wrote.

Around the globe, censorship is a tide rolling across the political landscape. And in America, the waters are rising everywhere: from basketball courts to classrooms, pulpits to private homes. The candidates who win these upcoming midterms may well exert decisive influence — at the city, state, and national level — on how much further this censorship engulfs our freedoms.

Speeches can be telling, and debate is healthy. But candidates are much more than their soundbites. Voters should watch how candidates stand up to encourage and protect free speech — for their opponents as well as their friends.

Examine your candidates’ past performance. Look at who stands with them; listen to who speaks for them. What speech-related legislation are these people pressing for? What measures do they feel justified in using to silence social and political views they disagree with? Are they open to censorship if it curtails analysis they don’t want voters to hear on certain questions?

Political discussion should have room for informed perspective, an appreciation for history and traditions, and a genuine respect for the rights and opinions of those who see the world differently than we do. Thoughtful voters should look for those essentials in their candidates’ words and conduct, tracing patterns of character and behavior beyond the platitudes of a platform.

Yes, that takes time and a little homework. We have to pay attention. But, in the end, it’s a small price to pay for good government. Candidates who would censor their opponents and silence our speech are not competing for the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens — they are looking to rule them. Their dismissal of free speech shows a profound contempt for the people who would elect them.

If we elect them anyway — if we give them power and influence simply because we can’t be bothered to see them for who they really are, we arguably deserve what we get — including the increasingly freedomless future to which we’re sentencing ourselves and our children.

***

Tyson Langhofer is senior counsel and director of the Center for Free Speech with Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal).

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org