In Praise of the Politics of Rejection

Rejection is often thought of as a negative word. However, it recently dawned on me that the formative events of much of my own politics were actually rooted in rejection. In the aughts, my politics revolved around rejecting the Iraq War and the broader 'War on Terror' narrative. Later on, it also encompassed rejection of the religious right, because they insisted on re-electing the administration responsible for the war as long as they opposed gay marriage. By the teens, it was the left's turn to be the target of my rejection, with the rise of cancel culture, oppressor vs. oppressed critical theories, and anti-science postmodern philosophy. More recently, the populist right's divisive culture wars, willingness to use authoritarian state power to wage these culture wars, and general anti-science attitude have become the latest targets of my rejection.

While all three groups of phenomenon that I rejected were promoted by different political factions, there are actually several things common to all of them. Firstly, all three were attempts to seize on very real frustrations and worries in the community to justify a grandiose, unjustifiably broad, and deeply authoritarian agenda. Secondly, in all three cases, those promoting the grandiose authoritarian agenda tried to shut down free speech that questioned their agenda. This is because the agenda simply wouldn't survive rational scrutiny. Thirdly, the grandiose authoritarian agenda in question is actually rooted in deeply ideological and philosophical positions, rather than being actually rooted in the immediate issues and frustrations. This means that their promotion as a solution to these issues and frustrations is deliberate and opportunistic, rather than honest and organic. This is another reason why those promoting the grandiose authoritarian agenda have been unfriendly to free speech, in all three cases. Finally, in each case, to stand against the grandiose authoritarian agenda being presented is (was) actually essential for the preservation of free speech, freedom of conscience, objectivity, scientific integrity, compassion, and more. 

All three examples are very good examples that demonstrate the necessity of rejection of bad ideas, especially where they are packaged into a broad 'transformative' agenda to be achieved by authoritarian means, in protecting our long-standing freedoms and values. They demonstrate that skepticism towards grandiose authoritarian agenda, especially when they are backed by the forces of well-funded media outlets, limitations on free speech and/or peer pressure in any shape or form, plays a crucial role in preserving our freedoms and values. Far from being negative, rejection is the immune system of society, defending what we have from being destroyed by rogue actors and actions. This is why I believe it's time we actually formally recognize the importance of rejection as part of our arsenal of political tools to defend and promote freedom, and give it the pride of place it deserves in history.