I recently had a fascinating conversation with Joel Rakow, author of Life in Woke America: A Family’s Story of Truth and Betrayal Under Fire.
This discussion may come in a little hot for some people’s taste but that is okay, we do that here. Our discussion covered some pretty big topics: free speech, censorship, political polarization, China, the Constitution, and what happens when institutions begin deciding which ideas are acceptable and which ones should be pushed aside. Whatever your political perspective, I think these are conversations worth having because the questions surrounding truth and free expression affect all of us.
One of the most interesting parts of our conversation centered on the COVID-19 pandemic and the way information was handled during those early years. I told Joel that I could understand why political leaders initially relied heavily on medical experts during a crisis. When something potentially catastrophic is happening, nobody wants to ignore legitimate scientific advice. But as time went on, I believe it became increasingly difficult to separate public-health decisions from politics. Joel described a similar turning point for himself, particularly as he watched information and opinions that challenged the prevailing consensus get dismissed or attacked. For both of us, the larger issue wasn’t necessarily whether every controversial theory was correct. It was whether people should be allowed to ask questions and examine competing information without being silenced.
That idea of censorship became an important part of our discussion of Joel’s book. The novel is a work of fiction inspired by real events, including the discovery of a Chinese biological laboratory in California that became the subject of a congressional investigation. Joel uses that premise to tell a much broader story about a soldier, an orphan, institutional pressure, and the consequences of challenging powerful organizations. He also described what he believes has happened to his own book during the publishing and online distribution process, including what he calls “shadow banning.” His concern is that censorship doesn’t always look like someone explicitly saying “no.” Sometimes, he argues, it looks like a story simply disappearing from view, receiving little attention, or becoming difficult for people and even artificial-intelligence systems to find. Whether every example has an intentional explanation or not, the larger question is certainly worth examining: How do we know what we are not seeing?
We also talked about political movements and the Constitution. I made the point that I don’t think this is exclusively a left-versus-right issue. Both sides of American politics have had periods when movements have gone too far. Good intentions can produce bad outcomes, particularly when people become so convinced of their own righteousness that they stop listening to anyone who disagrees with them. Joel’s response was to focus on the Constitution as a framework for evaluating government and political power. That led to one of the more intriguing ideas of our conversation: his development of what he calls the Liberty Scorecard, an AI-based concept designed to examine government officials, candidates, institutions, and even cultural products according to constitutional principles. The goal, as Joel explained it, is to move beyond partisan opinion and give people another tool for evaluating whether actions and policies align with constitutional values.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from my conversation with Joel Rakow is that we are living in an era when everyone has a voice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone has access to the same information. Social media and artificial intelligence have dramatically changed who gets to participate in public conversations. That can be both empowering and dangerous. We have more information available to us than at any other point in history, yet we also have more opportunities to be isolated inside information bubbles that reinforce what we already believe. For me, the answer isn’t to silence opposing viewpoints. It’s the opposite. We need more open discussion, more questioning, and more willingness to hear ideas we may strongly disagree with. Truth doesn’t need protection from questions. If something is true, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. That was one of the central themes of my conversation with Joel, and it’s a subject I believe deserves considerably more discussion.
Perfect Media Productions, LLC 