David Glaess
John Stuart Mill’s Views on Post-Election America
Post-election America has been one of upheaval, feelings of disappointment, and acts of aggression. While reflecting upon this myself, I found that John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” contained interesting viewpoints ― especially in regards to modern day America. Due to John Stuart Mill’s belief that one should not try to silence another based upon differing beliefs, he would find that our current society has become too fragmented and partisan.
Mill would be horrified by the new wave of polarization that faces America today. A culture has been created where it has become socially acceptable to discredit someone simply because you don’t agree with them. Mill opens “On Liberty” by plainly stating that the goal of “[his] Essay is to assert one very simple principle… self-protection” (pg. 13). What he means by this is that people have a right to express their opinions and to disagree with others without feeling unsafe. The only time someone should be restrained is if “any one does an act hurtful to others” (pg. 14). Whether this act be physical or mental, if there is harm inflicted then Mill views that as wrong. The 2016 election created upheaval in America that hasn’t been seen for many years. With this came the attempt to limit freedom of thought and discussion.
After the election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States there was much speculation on the “cause” behind it. One such theory was the that mass polarization of white voters had led them to either not vote or to vote for Donald Trump. Unfortunately, race tensions are nothing new to America, but with the rise of movements such as “Black Lives Matter” and the general socially-progressive trend of being “Politically Correct” more people than ever have felt like their way of life is under attack. This has led to both sides of the spectrum interacting more aggressively and discounting the opinions of others based on as little as differing political allegiance.
After election night, on Facebook someone made the comment that “If anyone that I know voted for Trump or voted third party I no longer want to be associated with them.” They not only were actively refusing to accept that other people held different values from them, but they were also trying to shield themselves by blocking out opposing viewpoints, efficiently creating an echo chamber where only those that they agreed with could participate.
While they are entirely entitled to hold such an opinion and take such actions, Mill would argue that this behavior is dangerous because it aims to suppress beliefs that you don’t agree with. Mill would say that just because you don’t hold the same opinion as someone else, it doesn’t mean that their viewpoint doesn’t hold some truth to it. We live in a society that has become so polarized that “people feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them” (pg. 25). The internet is a place full of partially informed members who wish to participate. They feel like they must hold an opinion, and if they cross an opinion that doesn’t line up with the one that they have formed, then they feel as if it is their duty to attack it. The problem, especially with politics and general issues in the political sphere, is that it is rare that an issue is simply black and white.
While the problem is rarely black and white, some may feel that way when it comes to race issues in the United States. Since 2012, with the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement, race issues have been given a center stage in America. To some, movements such as BLM work as tools to increase race tensions and many, often white, individuals have felt alienated by a message they interpret to mean that that “only black lives matter.” This has led to the rise of “movements” such as “All Lives Matter” which serves primarily as a vehicle for opponents of BLM to voice their discontent with the movement. The problem with both movements is that they act as echo chambers where only one opinion is ever voiced. Neither side truly understands the arguments of the other one because they’ve never bothered to listen.
“Black Lives Matter” isn’t saying that only black lives matter; it’s saying that black lives matter too. The movement is about the promotion of equality, not superiority. “All Lives Matter” is a creation of people who feel who feel alienated by the BLM and communities that are similar. Their support of “All Lives Matter” doesn’t mean that they are racist, bigoted, or uneducated, it is simply that BLM hasn’t made them feel included or has made them targets instead of trying to make them allies.
This all plays into Mill’s thoughts on freedom of expression and the importance of differing viewpoints. By not even acknowledging that there may another side to the argument, you are claiming yourself infallible which, in itself, is wrong. “To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same as absolute certainty” (pg. 21). Often, neither side is completely correct and Mill would say that it is important for one to at least understand the arguments of those that oppose you if only to strengthen your own.
An argument to this would be that there should be a duty to uphold certain messages that represent progress and the public will even if it means suppressing an opinion, because, the public good would benefit from doing so. If the total utility gained from suppressing speech that some viewed as hateful outweighed the cost of doing so, then it could be argued that this should be done. Mill would say is that there is still an importance to understanding why some people hold views that you may see as hateful. As previously stated, all statements hold some truth and if you can understand why some members of society feel a certain way you may be able to adjust policy so that their costs aren’t so great or even may benefit a little as well.
To further show the importance of making sure all views are treated fairly Mill invokes memories of Socrates and Jesus Christ ― both prosecuted for holding “radical” views different to those that were popular at the time. Looking back, we can see that there was truth and wisdom in the teachings of both, but in their respective ages they were looked down upon for going against what was seen as the “norm” of time.
In conclusion, while Mill is supportive of progressive societies, he also beliefs in everyone’s right to freedom of expression if it doesn’t harm others. With the current political atmosphere of America Mill would find that our current society has become too fragmented and partisan. He would remind us to allow ourselves to hear opinions we don’t agree with even if it’s to simply strengthen our own arguments. At the end of the day, differing opinions are what allow our society to prosper and grow.