Back in October, weeks before the election, my dad, the Manhattan Contrarian, came home from his office and announced that he had purchased 6 MAGA hats. He wanted to know if anyone else in our family wanted one. 

My dad lives in downtown Manhattan and commutes to his office in the financial district most weekdays via subway. Everyone in the family had the same immediate reaction: “You can’t possibly wear one of those in public - to your office or on the subway. You will get beaten up. This is not a joke. It’s dangerous.” 

My dad, as he often does, dissented. His argument was that we need to show that we won’t be silenced.  We can wear whatever we choose. This is a free country.  If someone harasses us or bullies us for doing something as peaceful and harmless as wearing a hat, they’re in the wrong, and they need to be called out.  Sure, in the short term, it might be easier to avoid doing anything controversial. We could keep our heads down, keep our mouths shut, and go with the flow. But where is this current taking us?

He has a point. Throughout history and in the modern era, when we look around the globe, the silencing of any who disagree with The Party has been a hallmark of all authoritarian, dictatorial, and fascist regimes. Current examples range from China to North Korea to Venezuela, among many others (this list could get too long).

In a twist on the usual pattern, in our country, the government isn’t silencing the opposition, but rather an alliance of the media, cultural institutions, the permanent bureaucracy, the Democratic Party, and Maoist mobs are silencing the (current) President and his supporters. And claiming they need to do so in order to protect the public from Trump’s fascism. If Trump were the fascist you’d think he would at least have control of the airwaves. Instead, his tweets are flagged, his press conferences are “fact checked,” and we are no longer allowed to hear from him without a filter.

As just one example of information citizens need to be “protected from” in case they draw the wrong conclusions: There has been truly astonishing suppression of all discussion surrounding the allegations of voter fraud in the recent election. On my own Facebook and Instagram accounts, any mention of the election (even on posts that favor Biden) gets flagged with a notice directing the viewer to a page with the official results. The page does not directly address any current claims of voter fraud. Instead we get a list of tendentious “facts” written by an organization called the Bipartisan Policy Center which includes statements such as:  

“Differences between final results and initial vote counts are due to it taking several days after polls closed to ensure all votes are counted.”

“Voting in person and voting by mail have a long history of trustworthiness in the US. Voter fraud is extremely rare across voting methods.”

“It’s a common strategy for adversaries to try to make voting systems appear vulnerable as an attempt to shake people’s confidence in the election process.”

Meanwhile, the page has no mention or discussion of credible allegations that are out there, such as exclusion of Republican election observers from vote counting during critical overnight hours on November 3-4 in places that include Detroit and Atlanta.

Mainstream news outlets, and even Fox, which has a longstanding reputation of being partisan in favor of Republicans, cut away from a White House press conference discussing potential voter fraud. On Fox Business, anchor Neil Cavuto made the call, saying “Unless [Kayleigh McEnany] has more details to back that up… I can’t continue showing you this.”

Dave Smith, host of the Part of the Problem podcast, said on his show (paraphrased): No matter how you feel about the President, whatever he says is newsworthy because he’s the President. Aren’t we, as American citizens, entitled to know what he’s saying, given that he’s the leader of our country and can make decisions that have consequences for us all? Shouldn’t we be able to make up our own minds about whether or not we agree with those decisions? 

One would think that if the media wanted to regain the trust of those who question the legitimacy of the election, it would help to explore the claims and discuss their validity. Instead, they have gone the route of complete dismissal and refusal to engage with the story.  Headlines on the subject contain unsubtle remarks that these claims are  “dangerous”, “baseless”, or a “conspiracy.” The claims are not worthy of investigation. All of Trump’s efforts to contest results are a “clown show.” 

Just now, I did a google search for today’s news on the subject and came up with this: 

CNN: “Clyburn says Graham’s claims of voter fraud in Georgia show he’s ‘lost grip on reality.’

NBC: “Pro-democracy advocates angered by Trump’s election fraud claims.”

WJCL (Savannah News Network):  “Trump’s election attorneys chose to mislead the public about voter fraud.”

Business Insider: “Trump’s fired election security officer compared the President’s false claims about voter fraud to Russian disinformation.” 

The propaganda is so agenda-driven it’s impossible to ignore. In a conversation with my leftist, Bernie-supporting cousin recently, she said to me, “I wonder why the media think they benefit from fueling this rhetoric. I get that they want clicks, but it seems so shortsighted.”

Their conduct seems shortsighted to me too, when you consider the trust they’re losing with anyone outside The Party, and how rapidly they must be alienating any viewers who question their biases. This is a dangerous path for the fabric of our society. 

These days, I often feel like our country is playing an extended game of Opposite Day: The fascists tell us they’re protecting us from the fascists. The dictators accuse those who dissent of being the dictators.  Every institution currently acting in the role of a noble savior, rescuing us from tyranny, is the tyrant.

Before the election, Glenn Greenwald had wanted to publish an article fairly examining the Hunter Biden corruption allegations and their legitimacy and potential relationship to Joe Biden.   The Intercept -- the site that Greenwald had co-founded -- attempted to edit his piece to remove any criticism of Joe Biden. They also let him know they would not publish the article unless he accepted the edits. The draft of the article that The Intercept refused to publish is here. Greenwald also published his email exchange with the editors here.  In that moment, Greenwald decided to leave the Intercept and become an independent journalist. As soon as he set up his own website, I became a paid subscriber. 

It takes courage to speak up, especially when it means going against your self-interest by leaving a secure job and income. It takes courage to tell the truth. 

In his truly awesome resignation letter from the Intercept, Greenwald wrote:

“To say that such censorship is a red line for me, a situation I would never accept no matter the cost, is an understatement. It is astonishing to me, but also a reflection of our current discourse and illiberal media environment, that I have been silenced about Joe Biden by my own media outlet.”

That was before the election. The level of censorship and suppression that we’ve seen since the election is something I believe no American should be willing to accept, no matter the cost. We have history to tell us what happens next. 

Anyone who supports Trump should wear his or her MAGA hat just to stick it to the man. As long as those of us who don’t support The Party are willing to speak up, we have an opportunity to prove we can’t be shut up. That’s a statement worth making.