You didn’t quote the important modifier, which was “as far as government policies go.” If anything, it shows how important it is for government to aspire to do less and just get out of the way whenever possible.
Results don’t lie. Just like training.
It makes little difference to me if it is by private sector proxy or direct government law or policy. The outcome is the same, and these forces in government and private sector are clearly working in tandem. The outcome is that you can effectively silence your political opponents while leaving the constitution intact. That’s actually more terrifying to me than if they were to out-right repeal the 1st Amendment. The former requires a level of deception and government cooperation that’s out-of-the-public-eye, whereas the latter would have to be done openly where it would raise a lot more concern.
You can also argue that silencing your political opponents is, in fact, explicitly endorsed by the government due to their failure to reign it in by re-visiting the 1997 communication law and section 230 of it. This law was voted on by guys like Ted Stevens, who infamously believed the internet was a series of tubes. Or Strom Thurmond, a racist old coot who was old enough to have ran for President against Roosevelt. Or Robert Byrd, the last open Klansman to grace the Democratic party until 11 short years ago.
Yet we have people who insist that the collection august figures I mentioned somehow got the 2021 social media landscape right in 1997, when it didn’t even exist.
“Deserve” has nothing to do with it. And if you really believe he deserved it, how many other politicians do too? What about terrorists or CCP members? Do they “deserve” it?
A sitting president was silenced. The outcome we are living with is that one party has the ability and willingness to silence their political opponents. If you aren’t on social media in 2021, you aren’t a viable candidate. This notion is completely antithetical to the core American value of free speech.
I remember when liberals loved the phrase “I may disagree with you, but I’ll defend your right to say it.” Where did those liberals go? Who knows, maybe they’re all conservatives now, like me.
It was a mixed bag. A handful of experts in a narrow field raising concerns about Presidential conduct/policy affecting their narrow field is one thing. An “expert” speaking about policy that’s completely out of his wheelhouse is another thing. I’d have to know which person and which letter you’re talking about to make a call on it.
In this case we’re talking about retired flag officers, presumably well-versed in civics, presumably having lived lives of high integrity, also having careers literally spent working closely with the highest levels of elected and unelected government. This is a group with obvious insights into the workings of government that, for instance, the best epidemiologists in the world will not have.
Anyone who is able to immediately dismiss the concerns of a group like this is a fool. I repeat. A fool. It necessitates a void of wisdom, humility and meaningful lived experience to assume you know better unless you have lived a similar life with similar levels of meaningful experience, responsibility and ability to reach the highest levels of military leadership.