Matt Johnson

*This article was originally published on The News Hub, March 1, 2016

I don’t have a problem with labels. Without a way to efficiently describe groups of people, ideas, behaviors, etc., every conversation would be bloated with pedantic recitations of our positions and affiliations. Not only would this be unattractively self-regarding – it would also exhaust the patience of even the most forgiving audiences.

Labels are necessary, so it’s important to guard against their misapplication. For instance, next time you read about Donald Trump’s “fascism,” I hope you’ll note the historical illiteracy – or plain dishonesty – of the author who’s making the argument.

Fascism (apparently, this is a reminder I need to provide – if you actually know what the word means, skip to the next paragraph) is an explicitly totalitarian ideology that relies upon organized violence and overt suppression to impose complete state control. Its record is one of vicious xenophobia, anti-Semitism, genocide, leader worship, paranoia, and jingoism. Oh, and it spawned the most cataclysmic conflict in human history. Unpleasant as he is, Trump doesn’t quite meet the above criteria.

The squalid, careless invocation of the word “fascism” isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum. Christina Hoff Sommers and Ben Shapiro recently described a few whiny, misbehaved college students as fascists. Milo Yiannopoulos thinks you’re a fascist if you wish to outlaw discrimination against gay people. And Abby Martin – the faux leftwing journalist who used to work for a Russian propaganda outlet – frequently derides “Israel’s fascist society.” These vacuous misrepresentations trivialize the most destructive system that humanity has ever produced, and they’re outrageous affronts to the millions of people who’ve been tortured and murdered by fascist regimes and movements.

Words matter, and their abuse should never go unchallenged.

Last Wednesday, I was again reminded of the perils of irresponsible language. I had just listened to Sam Harris’s podcast with Maryam Namazie, and I wanted to see what people were saying about it. I immediately knew something had gone awry when I signed into Twitter and saw Harris’s plea for civility: “Podcast listeners: Please be respectful to @MaryamNamazie. It was a difficult conversation. Insults and personal attacks are not helpful.” When I checked Namazie’s profile, it didn’t take long to see what Harris was talking about. Here’s a quick, depressingly representative sample:

“I wouldnt stick up for her. She cares more about muslims feelings than anything. Quite frankly, a bad person.” – @ContrarianScot

“Funny how that cow blocks other’s from speaking at events but somehow she needs special protection. HATE HER” – @ADandyWaffle (Namazie’s response).

“What an insufferable bitch.” – @HPatrickh42

“It’s clear @MaryamNamazie is just running her own special branch of the #RegressiveLeft” – @JonathanLarrive

This torrent of vitriol would be troubling even if it wasn’t directed at a tireless secularist, campaigner for women’s rights, and advocate of free expression. Don’t get me wrong – I thought Namazie was extremely unfair to Harris, Douglas Murray, and everyone else who shares their concerns about immigration, multiculturalism, and a slew of other issues. She resorts to sordid smear tactics (charges of “racism,” “bigotry,” etc.) far too easily and she seemed determined to misunderstand Harris during their discussion. She constantly hedged her ugliest allegations, but she made them nonetheless: I’m not saying you’re a bigot, Sam – it’s just that your arguments are powerful engines of bigotry.

Still, Harris was right to call their dispute an instance of “friendly fire” – he and Namazie share large tracts of common ground, and it’s a shame that so much animosity has built up between them. Both are exponents of true liberalism at a time when pseudo-leftists like Nathan Lean and Glenn Greenwald are busily making excuses for the atrocities carried out by Islamists. Namazie calls for unfettered free expression in the face of theocratic censorship, the advancement of secular principles around the world, staunch resistance to the Regressive Left’s obscurantism and moral confusion regarding Islam, the protection of apostates, an end to Islamist misogyny from Cologne to Kabul, and solidarity with anyone who suffers under religious persecution.

If you believe in the propositions I just listed, Namazie is not your enemy. She certainly doesn’t deserve to be labelled a member of the Regressive Left, and Harris’s fans shouldn’t have flung that accusation at her so recklessly. The whole unpleasant episode demonstrated how easy it is to slip into tribalism and groupthink – even for secularists who know how insidious these forces can be. I have substantial disagreements with Namazie – I’m not a communist, I believe in an interventionist foreign policy, and I don’t think western societies can sustain a massive influx of immigrants from the developing world. However, as Christopher Hitchens noted in Why Orwell Matters: “…politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.” It’s Namazie’s principles that I admire, even if they lead her to a few disagreeable conclusions.

If, on the other hand, you think these conclusions make Namazie indistinguishable from the disgraceful members of the Regressive Left (Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, etc.), you’ve forgotten what the term means. Like the people who shout “fascist!” at every available opportunity, you’ve bastardized an important label to demonize someone (in this case, a potential ally) because she doesn’t subscribe to all of your personal orthodoxies. Just don’t be surprised when people stop listening to your warnings about real Regressive Leftists.