A Brief Note on Today's House Hearing

In a House hearing on speech, a weird, unpleasant microcosm of American politics breaks out

Hours into my latest turn as a witness in Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee, I tried to pass the time by playing a game. Every time a Democratic member described digital censorship as a joke or a non-issue, I scratched a notation. By the end, I had a notebook page full of entries:

“Bullshit.”

“Distractions.”

“Wasting time.”

“Induces insomnia.”

“Dumb.”

“A waste of time.”

Ranking member Jamie Raskin in his opening mentioned I’d been deamplified by Elon Musk, and suggested he hoped to ask me about that. Ultimately he didn’t, possibly remembering that Committee Democrats were busy threatening me with jail around that same time.

Democrats hit three themes: Musk, Trump, and weirdly, the price of eggs. Republicans went after the Biden administration and Europe. At times it devolved into pure crosstalk, but Jordan at least tried to call attention to suppression of non-conservatives, bringing up figures like New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. Democrats engaged exclusively with witness Craig Aaron of Free Press (this one, not that one). The only question a Democrat asked me was if Congress is part of government. Michael Shellenberger, Rupa Subramanya (of the other Free Press) and I were repeatedly told any non-Trump, non-Musk censorship story was both “debunked” and in the past.

Today reminded me why Democrats of this generation will always scare me more. They genuinely don’t see the issue, and that lack of self-awareness makes them more dangerous. There’s of course a layer of partisan politics here (Republicans are laser-focused on sins of the left, while Democrats say everything is either Trump’s or Musk’s fault), but the deeper issue continually came out in Democrats’ statements. Whether it was references to “referees” throwing flags on misinformation, or pleas about how Trump’s behavior on J6 cost lives, or especially Raskin’s closing about America being a society of determinable “facts,” it’s plain these members really think truth is a mathematical entity that righteous minds can determine with precision.

As Rupa mentioned, polls in recent years have shown a big change in attitudes on this question. 55% of Americans now endorse laws against wrong information. To favor such measures one has to believe both that identifying disinformation is logistically possible, and that government should hold that role. The former idea is metaphysically crazy, the latter unconstitutional. Members in both caucuses used to have roughly similar thoughts on that score, but the cult of binary thinking that’s conquered Europe and Canada and Australia has spread here to constitutional lawyers like Raskin. These people believe. Worse, they believe something stupid, i.e. in this creepy dream of global factual consensus.

Fifteen years ago I interviewed a Democratic Senator. The instant my tape clicked off he relaxed and he began firing jokes like a person. There’s no hidden human underneath Dan Goldman or Ted Lieu. What you see is what you get, all the way down. The characters in Flatland are more complex. It never stops being a surprise.

Lastly, there was a time when members took their jobs seriously and respect was earned across the aisle when investigations were well done. Republicans behind the scenes were always impressed by Carl Levin’s finance probes, and even Democrats who disliked Chuck Grassley’s politics conceded his team knew how to protect whistleblowers and dig for Pentagon corruption. Jordan’s team worked its ass off on this issue. Their fight to get documents out of the likes of Facebook and Stanford will go down as classically impactful congressional inquiries that reflect well on the whole institution. I could swear I sensed tinges of collegiality at these moments in the past. Now, not so much. It’s a shame.

Anyway, still slogging home. Have a good night, everyone.