In this collection, Rep. Dan Crenshaw draws on his unique life experience as a former Navy SEAL and current United States Congressman to offer insight into the most pressing political and cultural battles facing the United States.

I spend more time than most trying to understand differences between people. Not just differences of opinion, but dispositional differences, cultural differences, and moral differences. In my book Fortitude: Resilience in the Era of Outrage, I explored one of the most profound clashes of our time: victors versus victims. 
This divide is perhaps the most important cultural battle facing modern America, personified by those who proudly overcome adversity versus those who seek recognition for their victimhood. Empowerment versus disempowerment. Hope versus despair. Fortitude versus fragility. 
These opposing paths are a result of the stories we tell ourselves. We use narratives and stories to both set moral and behavioral standards, and interpret our experiences. Our culture, our institutions, and our friends and family drive these narratives which, in turn, form our perception of reality and drive us toward higher ideals. From a young age, your parents teach life lessons wrapped in tales of Peter Rabbit and Cat in the Hat. Jesus spoke in parables to impart lessons to his disciples. Stories are used to reinforce valuable traditions and behaviors in a society, even things as simple as getting good grades, sharing your toys, or looking both ways before crossing the street. Good behaviors and virtues stand the test of time because those who adopt them excel, while those who don’t perish. 
But in modern America, the least productive of attributes are being increasingly elevated as desirable qualities. Victimhood is not only tolerated but celebrated. Whereas previous generations attached value to overcoming adversity and keeping complaints to a minimum, modern culture does the opposite. Past Americans might have asked “how could I have done better?”The modern citizen is more likely to ask “who else is at fault?” In the past, a proud family man might return a welfare check after getting back on his feet. Now, fully-employed Americans anxiously await their $1,400 COVID payment. 
This has also led to a reinterpretation of our experiences with a bias toward victimhood and blame-shifting. For instance, a bad grade on a test elicits a different story from different people who experienced the exact same thing. I didn’t study enough. The test was really hard. The teacher didn’t prepare me well enough. Note the subtle difference in narrative that leads to a profound difference in externalizing blame versus internalizing accountability. 
The dirty little secret of this post-modern narrative construction is that it is deliberately unchained from observable facts or positive outcomes. Just look at the word choice of the modern victimhood enthusiast: “My truth.” “My lived experience.” They fiercely lash out at anyone who might question in good faith how such extreme negative emotion could be warranted by a given experience — does Ben Shapiro’s speech really threaten your mental health? This is because they cling to a story, not a reality. The facts may even be agreed upon, but the “lived experience” is not. A narrative has been constructed, and it is soaked in self-pity and fragility. 
In the relative comforts of the modern world, where true trauma and hardship are harder and harder to come by, this affinity for victimhood narrative construction manifests in more and more ridiculous ways. Safe spaces, micro-aggressions, and corporate sensitivity training have become normalized. The recent Oprah Winfrey interview in which Meghan Markle clumsily accused the British royal family of racism was less an accounting of the facts and more of a narrative construction designed to elicit sympathy. It is far from obvious that her story has any chance of standing up to scrutiny, and yet here we are, applauding those who proclaim victimhood as their “truth.”   
So why embrace a mindset that results in anger, unhappiness, and — ultimately — failure? Because it is powerful. In politics, it is a great fundraiser, as both sides have discovered. It can also be an attempt — albeit a blatantly cynical one — to connect emotionally with victimized groups for personal advantage — Elizabeth Warren’s claims of native American heritage, for instance. As a rhetorical weapon, victimhood is used to link personal trauma to unrelated policy arguments in order to manipulate the debate.
This manipulation of trauma should be seen for what it is, instead of being celebrated. 
How do we get better? The answer lies in better storytelling. When a bad thing happens — and they certainly do happen — we tell ourselves a story about it. The story shouldn’t be about changing the facts of the event or downplaying the severity of true trauma. It should be about changing our interpretation of it. We can tell ourselves a story of despair and self-pity, from which we may never recover, or we can tell ourselves a story of overcoming hardship and being stronger for it. The outcomes of each of these opposing paths are obvious. For me, one path would have sent me on permanent disability collection. The other path sent me to Congress. 
None of this is to say that no one has been victimized or traumatized, or that such claims are disingenuous. It is to say that we have no control over past events, but only how we grow from them. We have a choice: fortitude or fragility. We have a choice to empower ourselves with accountability or surrender to despair and self-pity. Admitting you do indeed have control over your circumstances is far more difficult than the easier decision to blame others. Nevertheless, it must be done. I believe America’s future is lost if we cede it to victimhood ideology, where hardship permanently disables us. A stronger America is a more prosperous America, and we can only accomplish that if we become stronger Americans.
So, live with fortitude. 
Representative Dan Crenshaw is a former Navy SEAL who serves Texas’ Second Congressional District in Congress and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Dan Crenshaw

CRENSHAW: Victimhood Ideology Is Getting Worse. Here’s What We Can Do To Fix It

Woke Culture

Political rhetoric can be laughably entertaining, especially so when each side accuses the other of the exact same charge. I’m not talking about boiler plate accusations of hypocrisy, corruption, or dishonesty, all of which can be fairly and honestly applied in a variety of instances. I am talking about deeper and more existential characterizations. In this instance, the dreaded and unwanted label of authoritarianism.
Obviously, it is difficult to see how the term could be applied accurately to both sides, in the same manner, and still be an honest characterization. The term itself carries critical definitional capacity, given that it describes a key element of a political disposition. So how can two opposing political ideologies both be described as authoritarian?
Conservatives have a simple argument against the left: every policy you favor exerts additional control over my life, thus making you an authoritarian. You want to take more of my money and spend it. You want more regulations, and therefore less freedom. You want more censorship of speech. You want to control what kind of gun I buy — if you even let me buy one at all. You think every problem has a government solution, and sometimes that the government is the only solution. You prefer mandates over incentives, and have a tendency to change the rules of the race if you don’t like the winner. Recently, Democrat Representatives Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney from the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee all but threatened telecom companies like AT&amp;T and Comcast simply for carrying conservative news networks they don’t like. Given such behavior, aren’t leftists the real authoritarians?
Seems pretty straightforward. And yet, the left constantly accuses the right of not only being authoritarians, but also fascists, Nazis, tyrants, religious zealots, and any other name that describes the most extreme kind of authoritarianism. This accusation of right-wing authoritarianism has become routine, a standard tool of vilification as opposed to a serious characterization. In the infamous Harper’s <a href="https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/">Letter on Justice and Open Debate</a>, in which a group of liberal thought leaders banded together to decry the left’s increasing hostility toward liberal values like free speech — a bold, laudable goal that ultimately fell short — they couldn’t help but also slip in the clarification, “while we have come to expect this on the radical right”. 
Excuse me?
It was not clear what kind of right-wing “censoriousness” or “intolerance” they were referring to. More likely it was simply rhetorical fodder for their left-wing audience, meant as a bona fides of sorts.
To make their case, progressives might point to research by NYU moral psychologist Dr. Jonathan Haidt which indicates that conservatives place increased moral value on a sense of “authority”. Additionally, the commonly referenced literature on “right wing authoritarianism” by psychologist Bob Altemeyer describes a “willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them.”
Even if this is true, does that make conservatives the type of “political authoritarians” that could be described as “fascist” or “Nazis?” Of course not. Haidt’s definition is moral in the religious sense, including legitimate social hierarchies and authorities. Altemeyer’s definition is similarly referencing established traditions and norms. And regarding “hostile and punitive attitudes,” does that sound more like the modern left or the modern right?
All dispositions can be taken to dangerous extremes, but these professional descriptions of “right wing authoritarianism” are rather harmless, and purposefully so. Furthermore, additional <a href="https://www.psypost.org/2018/01/study-leftists-just-likely-dogmatic-authoritarians-right-50674">research</a> demonstrates that when the relevant survey questions for these measures are adapted to liberal preferences, liberals are found to be equally as authoritarian. 
There is nothing wrong with believing in moral authority and structure. For conservatives, there is a clear sense of right and wrong, and that clarity stems from generational wisdom. We don’t believe that moral standards can be changed on a whim because they are derived from longstanding traditions, often based in the Judeo-Christian framework. Authority in this sense means a respect for the legitimate rule of law, created through a careful democratic process, and the neutral and universal enforcement of that law. For the conservative concerned with process and principle, the notion that laws might be applied selectively on an individualistic basis is outrageous and unjust. But to the modern liberal educated in critical race theory, it is preferable and even necessary. The conservative sees infinite pitfalls in such a world without standards, and therefore prefers neutrally applied authority. The leftist wants authority too, but not a neutral one.
Where does this leave us? Maybe both sides can actually accuse each other of some form of authoritarianism, albeit with competing definitions. The right is properly accusing the left of political authoritarianism, characterized by their top-down government-knows-best response when problem solving. The left is accusing conservatives of moral authoritarianism. Both sides accuse each other of cultural authoritarianism, as the left claims conservatives try to impose religious traditions, and the right charges the left with suppression of free speech and attacking our common understanding of American history.  
The question, then, is when does it become dangerous? When it comes to the left’s authoritarianism, I would argue that it already has. It is one thing for conservatives to make forceful cultural arguments to respect the flag, stand up for the anthem, and go to church. It is quite another when those preferences manifest into government mandates, as the left prefers.  There is a big difference between the conservative preference for negative preventive action — you cannot get an abortion because it harms a human life — and the leftist preference for positive coercive action — you must hire based on racial quotas because of social justice. Your average leftist fails to see the difference, but indeed the difference is large.
This division stems from a fundamentally different view of why government exists in the first place. Conservatives believe it exists to prevent individuals from infringing on the rights of others. The left believes it exists primarily to mold society toward progressive ends. As Democrat Representative Barney Frank said, “government is…what we choose to do together.” Such words seem harmless at first, but they are indicative of the leftist disposition towards increased authority. If government is what we do together, then it stands to reason that government has to have the authority to force everyone to do it together. Censorship, mandates, excessive taxation, a disdain for checks and balances and local government — these are the governing tools of the left. 
Sounds a bit authoritarian to me. 
Representative Dan Crenshaw is a former Navy SEAL who serves Texas’ Second Congressional District in Congress and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

CRENSHAW: The Real Authoritarians

Readers Pass

Spend some time at the top graduate programs in foreign policy — Georgetown, Fletcher, Harvard — and mention the word “globalist” in a derogatory fashion. Students and faculty alike will probably wonder what you mean. They might even say, “What’s wrong with global cooperation? How else can we solve today’s biggest challenges? We are all citizens of the world, after all.” After that little experiment, throw out the words “America First,” and brace for the fireworks.
Now, I’m not a huge fan of the clumsy over-usage of the term globalist by many conservatives, often used as a rhetorical club to wield against any fellow conservative who differs slightly in opinion on matters of foreign policy. Similar to “neocon” or “RINO,” the term quickly loses meaning as it gives way to nothing more than insulting sloganeering and one-upmanship.  But the underlying sentiment is worth exploring given that it speaks to deep cultural divides over our priorities, and understandable misgivings about multiculturalism. 
For a growing number of Americans, globalization is just another buzzword for shipping jobs overseas and funding fancy cocktail parties for our elites on the diplomacy circuit in Brussels and Paris. It is part of an ideology rooted in sneering condescension from those with master’s degrees who studied in Madrid for one semester, know some phrases in German and Mandarin, and now think they’ve unlocked the secrets to world peace. If only those unilingual rubes running small businesses in rural Texas would listen to them, they declare. 
Examples include Secretary John Kerry <a href="https://www.jns.org/opinion/history-proves-john-kerry-wrong-again/">emphatically</a> telling us how stupid we are to believe the Arab world and Israel can achieve peace without coddling the Palestinians and complying with their ever-changing demands. Other more tangible and immediate examples include rejoining the <a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-absurdity-that-is-the-paris-climate-agreement/">Paris Climate Accord</a> or the <a href="https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/the-most-glaring-flaws-obamas-iran-deal">Iran Nuclear Deal</a>, both of which clearly place America’s needs second. 
Unfortunately, disregarding the needs of the United States in favor of the pursuit of a broader vision seems to be the goal. The “foreign policy blob” being assembled by President Biden in Washington sneers at “America First,” not just because it was Trump’s slogan, but because they honestly don’t believe it. They don’t want to harm the country, but believe our country must sacrifice more for the sake of the global community. Liberalism loves collectivism, after all, and this sentiment doesn’t stop at our borders. They call this self-sacrificing doctrine “leadership,” though skeptics might call it “foolish.” They believe that a primary goal of foreign policy should be to ingratiate ourselves to the world and that American prestige in the eyes of the diplomatic elite is of the utmost importance. It pains our liberal upper class to know that a majority of Germans think American gun laws are ridiculous, or that Arab royalty think our First Amendment is outdated. And the first order of businesses, it seems, is to apologize for it.
The cultural origins of this trace back to the college campus, where diversity is the new buzzword. International students are welcomed and exalted over the Midwestern farmer’s son or daughter, even if their lack of knowledge in American culture and politics severely degrade high-level classroom discussions. Cultural relativism — in which no objective standard exists to measure one culture’s merits against another — is the norm. The dream of the bright-eyed liberal is to go make a difference abroad and show the world that the ugly American can be likable again. 
There isn’t necessarily a problem with a kind-hearted individual whose primary interest is foreign affairs. The problem arises when there is a lack of balance and increasing departure from the sentiments of the American population. That imbalance, which begins with idealist intent on college campuses, becomes the “blob” that believes the Paris Climate Accords will actually be environmentally beneficial or that the Iran Nuclear Deal will actually lead to more security. These assumptions remain strong even after being discredited because they are built on feelings and not facts. It’s why the left wants to convince you that “globalism” is virtuous, as is “multiculturalism” and “diversity,” and anyone who disagrees must be suffering from a serious case of racist nationalism. 
Elites forget that a large segment of America does not believe we should constantly be apologizing for our country. They forget about the Americans that, on the 4th of July, sport shirts that say “Back to Back World War Champions,” and go out of their way to buy American-made products. These Americans are probably gun-owners that think European men are just a little too metro. These Americans will not be shamed into buying a Prius, especially when those doing the shaming prefer to fly on a <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/">private jet</a> to receive their climate award. And when it comes to foreign policy, commonsense realpolitik kicks in to make up for an Ivy League degree. A tough, clear, even aggressive stance toward a country like Iran is not reckless, but realistic. Conversely, naively assuming that a complex negotiation that will fizzle out in 10-15 years will fundamentally change the nature of an authoritarian terror-sponsoring state is far from realistic. 
I recall a professor from an elite university telling me that when students were asked if they were proud of their country, foreign students overwhelmingly raised their hand while American students did not. “America first” is a sentiment, first and foremost. It is a direct reaction to these students who refuse to raise their hand, and sneer at those of us who do. 
Is it a coherent set of policies? Not quite. More of a guiding principle, really. International relations are ever changing and dynamic. Incentives change, and evolving circumstances require flexible approaches. But that approach must be guided by a simple doctrine. Are we working to further our country’s best interests, or are we trying to be popular? 
If America First means prioritizing the interests of Americans, then that doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. 
Representative Dan Crenshaw is a former Navy SEAL who serves Texas’ Second Congressional District in Congress and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Conservatives Gather At Annual CPAC Event

CRENSHAW: ‘America First’ Means Choosing Country Over Popularity In The Foreign Policy Culture War

Foreign Policy

Globalization

United States

Four years ago, five Dallas Police officers lost their lives after they were targeted simply for wearing the uniform. Last September, two officers were shot in the face at point blank range for the same reason. One of them was a young mother. During the months of violent riots that one Democrat politician called the “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/goodbye-summer-of-love-11607898398">summer of love</a>,” <a href="https://www.policemag.com/585160/more-than-2-000-officers-injured-in-summers-protests-and-riots">more than 2,000</a> officers were injured. By July of last year, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officers-killed-surge-28-year-point-civil/story?id=71773405">officer deaths had risen 28 percent</a> compared to the previous year. 
There have long been violent encounters between police officers and criminals. <a href="https://apnews.com/article/fbi-agents-killed-florida-4c5b7cfc67469f9954491a04fdefe96b">Just this week</a>, two FBI agents were killed and three were injured after a standoff with a suspect in Florida, yet another reminder of the deadly encounters law enforcement agents experience every day. 
However, what we witnessed this summer was something new, and far more sinister. This recent wave of violence is the result of a pervasive, disturbing, and ultimately false narrative: the institution of policing itself is corrupt and systemically racist.
This narrative is repeated both casually and often by leaders of Black Lives Matter and Democrat politicians alike. Joe Biden <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/10/biden-root-out-systemic-racism-not-just-divisive-trump-talk-column/5327631002/">stated</a>, “For too long, black Americans have lived with a knee on their neck,” in reference to police officers, Kamala Harris <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/06/kamala-harris-disputes-barr-on-race-justice-america/5734810002/">said</a> that there is an “unacceptable incidence for generations of unarmed black men being killed” by police, and a spokesperson for President Biden’s State Department <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-state-dept-spokesperson-police-threat-national-security">said</a> that “the largest threat to U.S. national security are U.S. cops. Not ISIS, not Russian hackers, not anyone or anything else.”
Slogans such as “All Cops are Bastards” are chanted at “peaceful” demonstrations, and the claim that black men are being hunted and killed in the streets is promulgated, accepted without question as undeniable fact. 
It is unclear whether the public figures pushing these extreme narratives know — or even care — that they are inflaming the rhetoric which ultimately leads to tragedies like that of Dallas, Los Angeles, and elsewhere. If challenged, they will often backtrack by discussing the underlying problems of poverty and crime in the black community, and the inhumanity of specific injustices such as the abhorrent killing of George Floyd. This is all, of course, true and worth addressing in a rational manner. No one would argue that police officers have always acted perfectly, that there aren’t bad apples, or that certain reforms should be pursued. Why reforms could not make it through Congress is <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/25/if-democrats-cared-about-police-reform-they-would-have-advanced-tim-scotts-bill/">another story</a>.
But here’s the problem: if you’re telling people that police are trying to kill them, and that the entire institution of law enforcement is itself systemically racist and oppressive, it should come as no surprise that some people will act upon such an apparent threat. After all, wouldn’t you? If you truly believed it, then violently fighting back would appear to be your only recourse. This also explains the utterly bizarre instances this summer of white activists <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-white-protester-yell-face-black-police-officers-part-of-problem">screaming</a> in the faces of black police officers, telling them they were “part of the problem.” The Black Lives Matter movement has effectively subjugated the cause of black lives in order to achieve their primary goal of labeling all police as inherently evil. 
Words matter. The word “systemic” actually means something, and should not be thrown around casually or carelessly. It means that racism is inherent to the system, thus implicating every officer that wears the badge. It is also used to conclude that any negative incident must be the result of racism, and any context, circumstances or facts that counter that narrative must be ignored.
This narrative creates an emotionally compelling but also unsolvable problem. The conversation rarely, if ever, moves in search of a solution. The word “systemic” is used, but never clearly defined as it might relate to a law, policy, or practice. Disparities in arrest rates or police interactions are offered up as proof of systemic problems, while ignoring all other factors or statistical context. Its intentional vagueness makes the supposed underlying problem unsolvable, and the demands more and more extreme. Thus, radical slogans like “defund the police” transform into actual policy in major cities.
The results of these narratives are undeniably awful. Communities have been destroyed, citizens have been killed, and cops have been hunted down and assassinated. The voice of the black community — where <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=syndication">81 percent</a> polled want the same or greater police presence in their community — has been silenced by the extremists. Crime has spiked in major cities as left-wing District Attorneys refuse to enforce the law, all in the name of social justice. 
In the end, no justice is served. It simply means that criminals are free to prey on the innocent, overwhelmingly in minority communities. While radical white liberals spread these vicious lies, fostering bitter resentment and hatred, the communities that rely on good policing the most are left to suffer. This is the deadly tragedy of the lies being told, and it must stop. 
Representative Dan Crenshaw is a former Navy SEAL who serves Texas’ Second Congressional District in Congress and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Black Lives Matter Protest

CRENSHAW: The Lie Of ‘Systemic Police Racism’ That Kills

Black Lives Matter

Defund The Police

Police Brutality

Systemic Racism

It is the number one complaint from Republican voters: Republican politicians don’t fight enough meaningful political and cultural battles. It’s probably the main reason Trump won in 2016. As many of his supporters put it, “He fights” — he has pushed back against the left’s agenda on multiple fronts. But there is another element to this that I think too many on the right are forgetting: the point of fighting is to win. And in politics, where elections are won by getting more votes, you need to persuade people in order to win.
More and more, it seems those politicians and pundits who scream “Fight!” with the most enthusiasm are the least inclined to actually talk to people who disagree with us. It is all passionate declarations, no argumentation. Rhetoric without substance. All performance, no persuasion. 
These days, “fighting” appears to mean owning the libs in the snarkiest of fashions, eliciting the maximum number of retweets from an audience that already agrees with you. It means speaking loudly and passionately at a raucous political rally — to an audience of exactly zero independents or Democrats. 
These versions of “fighting” have their place, but I do not pretend that speaking to ourselves in what amounts to a conservative safe space will bring us anywhere close to real cultural and political progress — and it will not persuade anyone new to vote Republican. 
The dirty little secret is that some of the influencers or media pundits you follow, the ones who scream the loudest about “getting out there and fighting,” have no interest in helping to actually implement real solutions. Why? Because their dedication to the cause is based on a monetary return. They sell ads on their page or show, and to maintain cashflow they need a loyal following. By design and incentive structure, they have no motivation to persuade anyone. They have every reason to feed the beast, and the beast is especially hungry when it is angry — and, counterintuitively, when it is losing. 
Yes, that’s right, some influencers prefer to be on the losing side because it is good for their business. Losing makes people angry, and anger makes people click more. Outrage rules the day because people can cash it in. 
This has caused our movement to engage in unwinnable battles, seemingly on purpose. I recently wrote about the utter futility and pointlessness of the congressional objections on January 6th (never mind that the entire charade was also deeply unconstitutional), and how dishonest politicians and influencers convinced millions of Americans that January 6th could be the moment we finally turn it all around. 
The politicians involved in the effort to block the election knew better, and yet still they breathlessly proclaimed that “this is where we finally fight!” Apparently, the best way to fight, according to them, is to engage in unwinnable battles that persuade no one and leave their supporters even more desperate and downtrodden than before. The January 6th objections were never meant to achieve anything, but, some say, at least some politicians “fought.”
Real fighting is actually hard. It takes strategic thinking and wit. It means engaging in arguments with well-conceived, airtight logic. It means presenting our case with a moderate audience in mind, across a variety of platforms. It means actually understanding conservative principles and understanding how those principles make for superior governance and policy solutions. It means taking the time to understand how and where government works, so that people aren’t storming the Capitol to solve a problem that can only be solved at the state level. In Congress, it means taking the time and effort to write legislation that has a chance of passing and moving forward conservative principles, even if it’s not everything we want, instead of introducing hopeless pipedream legislation that never has a chance of passing, but will get an applause at a rally.
Conservatives are right: For far too long, their representatives didn’t fight hard enough. But now we need to learn how to fight effectively. You should be demanding that your politicians bring people to our side and engage in substantive debate in Congress, not just yell talking points from our favorite Fox News show. Conservatism is a winning message if we deliver it with intellectual honesty and confidence and pride. We don’t need to hide our principles or policies from moderates, as many have done in the past, but instead explain why they work. We need to learn to work proactively within the institutions that the left has so successfully taken over – academia, pop culture, and the media. We need to speak to more people than just our own tribe. It will take a lot more work, but the payoff is worth it. 
Representative Dan Crenshaw is a former Navy SEAL who serves Texas’ Second Congressional District in Congress and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

House Homeland Security Hearing Held To Examine Worldwide Threats

CRENSHAW: What It Really Means To ‘Fight’

Republicans

We don’t agree on the virtue of free speech anymore, and that’s a problem. 
Freedom of speech is a key principle of the American founding, and Americanism more broadly. It originates from the crucial insight of the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from God, that our rights are “natural,” not derived from the benevolence of the government. Practically speaking, the free speech principle serves as a bulwark against tyranny, and as a public “pressure release valve” that effectively mitigates the feelings of resentment that a silenced people would feel.  It is a defining principle both because it is right, and because societal harmony is derived from the ability of everyone to be heard. 
Freedom of speech has not always been properly protected by government either. Abraham Lincoln imprisoned journalists during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson was outwardly hostile to the Constitution, and imprisoned thousands under the Sedition Act for speaking out against the government during WWI. In these cases, it was the government which overstepped its bounds, using war as an excuse. In modern times, it is not the government attacking speech — despite the frantic and deeply disingenuous claims by the left that Trump “attacked” the press — but rather the social media oligarchy.
It’s a new problem that very few could have foreseen just decades ago. Due to their success, the vast majority of our interactions and news come from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter. With the flick of a switch, these companies have the power to silence whatever voice they want, and send you down whatever algorithmic rabbit hole they desire. As a society, as a human race, we are struggling with how to deal with this new way of communicating, with mixed <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7012622/">results</a>. 
But the biggest problem of our time is this: Democrats and Republicans don’t even agree on free speech as a principle anymore. While reporters lazily observe the “bipartisan outrage at big tech,” they overlook a key point: we are mad at big tech for totally different reasons. While Republicans scold Jack Dorsey for the vague and subjective “community guidelines” that are enforced with glaring political bias, Democrats do the opposite. They demand that big tech censor more, not less. 
The problem with Democrats, in my estimation, is that they are no longer the “liberals” they claim to be. Freedom of expression, after all, is a classically liberal value. But the progressive disposition has little patience for such universal values. Why? Because the goal of progressivism is progress, specifically toward utopian ends. At their core, progressives believe that such universal principles can only be tolerated to a point, that is, until they prevent the deliberate and intentional molding of public opinion that is necessary to achieve progressive ends. Those ends tend to change as the whims of the progressives change, but the disposition is the same: a prioritization of outcomes, not of principles. 
A conservative is concerned with process and principles. The outcomes will be what they may, according to the conservative. Just because the same runner keeps winning the race — assuming the rules of the race are neutrally applied and fair to all — does not mean there is an injustice at play. The progressive believes there is an injustice, and is willing to change the rules of the race to achieve a more equitable outcome, even if that means suppressing core principles. In this case, free speech.
The conservative wants to protect free speech, even the messy and unpleasant kind — so long as that doesn’t obviously and objectively incite violence or criminal behavior. We understand the futility of attempting to harness the chaos of human expression. But progressives have no such humility, and no qualms about restricting speech that does not adhere to their political leanings. The levers of social media “community guidelines” are the closest progressives have come to finding a way to change the rules of the race without directly violating the First Amendment. 
What we do about this cultural divide is less clear. It is difficult to compromise with political opponents who have fundamentally different goals and values than you. It should give us pause that Democrats, including <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-biden-administration-means-for-section-230-2020-11">Joe Biden</a>, have also called to abolish Section 230, as Donald Trump has recently done. It should be a clue that such an action probably doesn’t meet the conservative end goal of more free speech and less censorship. Our efforts might be better focused on narrowing the scope of Section 230. Perhaps a better approach might be focused on consumer protection rights, arguing from the premise that the arbitrary and subjective nature of community guideline enforcement is a violation of the contract between the consumer and the platform. Libertarians may be right that more competition is the answer, but it is impossible to imagine a truly influential competitor gaining traction anytime soon. And to be frank, conservatives are ready for more action than just “letting the market work,” if for no other reason than a sense of cosmic justice. 
It is time for a serious conversation about the right solution. Once we agree on that, we need to start making the cultural argument to the American people, especially those who have been fooled into thinking that free speech is a “weapon” meant to harm your fragile feelings and expose your delicate insecurities. As David Harsanyi writes, “a Facebook user no more ‘weaponizes’ speech than a criminal weaponizes due process.” We need to convince our next generation of this.
Free speech is a universal principle, perhaps one of our most important. We better figure out a way to protect it. 
Representative Dan Crenshaw is a former Navy SEAL who serves Texas’ Second Congressional District in Congress and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

CRENSHAW: Democrats and Republicans Have Different Definitions Of Free Speech. That’s A Problem.

Big Tech

First Amendment

Free Speech

Social Media Censorship

Lockdowns are back. To many of us, it would appear as if the entire human race has learned absolutely nothing in the past eight months. Despite the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890">overwhelming evidence</a> that the cost of lockdowns far outweighs the limited benefits, many policymakers lack the backbone or creativity to come up with any alternative. Internet memes have shrewdly asked: If a lockdown worked the first time, why are we doing it again? If a lockdown didn’t work the first time, why are we doing it again?
One of the most striking observations of the pandemic is that our society’s reactions have fallen almost completely along partisan lines. Conservatives tend to be anti-lockdown and anti-government mandates, while liberals take the opposite view. Conservatives seek to contextualize COVID-19 data on deaths and infections with additional considerations, such as age, risk factors, and proportionality (i.e. total numbers versus cases per 100,000). Liberals obsess over total deaths and case counts, but nothing else. 
The initial explanation for such stark differences was a familiar one — whatever Trump favors, the left opposes. While this is often true, it doesn’t offer a full explanation. Over the past eight months, I have seen for myself who is truly frightened and who is not, and who is asking the government for more action and who is not. I have seen how the demeanor of New Yorkers and New Englanders differs to that of my fellow Texans. In Washington, D.C., I regularly see people wear masks while walking alone in a park. In Texas, I almost never observe this, probably because there is no scientific basis for it. I presume the well-educated population of D.C. also knows there is no scientific basis for wearing a mask outdoors with no-one around you (only to take it off when you’re finally seated at your favorite restaurant), and yet they do it anyway. Why?
The why is the more interesting question. Why do liberals favor lockdowns, aided by sensationalist headlines? Why are many genuinely more fearful of the virus? Opportunistic anti-Trump partisanship simply cannot explain many of the real and non-political reactions I have witnessed. This is more than just a childish symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is indicative of deeper cultural and psychological differences between the left and the right.
At the heart of the disparity regarding our attitudes to the COVID-19 response is the subject of risk assessment. The perception of risk differs widely between liberals and conservatives, as well as the decisions made when confronting risky situations. <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052970">Research</a> shows that Democrats and Republicans differ in the neural mechanisms activated during risk-taking exercises, specifically in the amygdala region. This demonstrates measurable physiological differences when confronted with risk. 
But what about the actual choices we make? To assess risk tolerance, a better indication might be the <a href="https://abonica.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/occupational_rankings1.jpg">careers</a> that liberals and conservatives choose. Conservatives overwhelmingly fill the ranks of physically riskier jobs such as the military, law enforcement, and loggers. 
This is all a lengthy way of explaining this simple observation: conservatives appear to be less risk averse to physical threats, and therefore far less likely to favor more extreme actions to mitigate that risk. This leads us to the next major cultural division, which is the extent to which government should involve itself in societal problem solving. 
The essential disposition of the liberal mind is a belief that almost anything can be solved by government. Conservatives reject this as unmitigated hubris resulting in unrealistic goals and excessive costs. The liberal favors action, even at a high cost, and even better if that action is collective in nature. Rhetorically, everything becomes the moral equivalent of war — the war on poverty, the war on inequality, the war on COVID-19 — because only in war do we plan and execute with feverish collectivism. 
This preference for collective action means that the need for proper cost-benefit analysis is cast aside. Rational questions about the effectiveness of lockdowns, or whether their benefit exceeds their cost, are ignored and even considered offensive. “If it saves one life!” is the battle cry of the left, because their language is the language of (assumed) morality and compassion, not proper risk analysis or rational decision-making. 
And this surfaces yet another major difference between conservatives and liberals: our moral preferences. Performing hundreds of thousands of surveys across different countries, social psychologist Dr. Jonathan Haidt consistently <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092">found</a> that liberals overemphasize “caring” and “fairness” above other moral considerations. Conservatives, on the other hand, favor all moral categories more equally, placing emphasis not just on compassion, but on fair processes, moral authority and tradition, liberty, and loyalty. Conservatives are more morally balanced, while liberals measure the worth of an action by its corresponding measurement of signaled compassion. So, it is no surprise that liberals routinely denigrate contextualized COVID-19 data — such as accounting for age and co-morbidities when assessing fatalities — as “downplaying the virus” or “covering for Trump’s failures.” After all, rational discussions become impossible with someone who views you as morally inferior. 
Psychological dispositions matter. Cultural differences matter. They lead to vastly different policy outcomes. If we are to successfully persuade someone of our view, it behooves us to understand these differences and attempt to frame the debate accordingly. Only then can we answer the profound question of the internet memer we discussed earlier.
If lockdowns didn’t work the first time, why are many Americans calling for more? And why are so many “leaders” in government obliging?
Representative Dan Crenshaw is a former Navy SEAL who serves Texas’ Second Congressional District in Congress and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu

The Crenshaw Collection

CRENSHAW: Victimhood Ideology Is Getting Worse. Here’s What We Can Do To Fix It

CRENSHAW: The Real Authoritarians

CRENSHAW: ‘America First’ Means Choosing Country Over Popularity In The Foreign Policy Culture…

CRENSHAW: The Lie Of ‘Systemic Police Racism’ That Kills

CRENSHAW: What It Really Means To ‘Fight’

CRENSHAW: Democrats and Republicans Have Different Definitions Of Free Speech. That’s A Problem.

CRENSHAW: To Understand Illogical Lockdowns, We Must Understand The Left’s Thinking