Cordon Sanitaire And Cancel Culture

The New Intolerance

Cordon Sanitaire

One of the most dangerous diseases that afflicts the public sphere in western societies is the loss of valuation of debate and discussion. Political and social activists tend to talk only to people like themselves and at times give the impression that they are actually scared of engaging in discussion with people who hold views are sharply different to their outlook.

The reluctance to engage with the views held by opponents transcends the political divide. However, intolerance towards opponents’ views if most strongly marked amongst the cosmopolitan-oriented cultural and political elites. They are in the forefront of cancelling people, publications and meetings of their political adversaries. They do this as a matter of routine and are not in the least troubled by the implication of their censorious behaviour for democracy and free speech.

One of the most interesting features of the contemporary manifestation of intolerance is that it most developed amongst the upper classes of society. This trend is evident on both sides of the Atlantic. In a fascinating study reported in The Atlantic, in 2019, Amanda Ripley found that the most politically intolerant Americans ‘tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves’.[i] She noted that the most politically intolerant county in the USA, was liberal Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes Boston.

Ripley’s study echoes research by the University of Pennsylvania professor Diana Mutz, who has found that white, highly educated people tend to be relatively isolated from political diversity. They don’t routinely talk with people who disagree with them. They live in self-contained bubble and are insulated from people who are not like them makes it easier for them to caricature their ideological opponents.

In recent years polarisation has intensified to the point that opponents are often regarded as enemies rather than merely political adversaries. In Britain for example, Remainers regard supporters of Brexit with the kind of contempt that borders on hatred. In Europe leftists and centrist parties characterise their conservative opponents as far right and treat sovereigntist parties as illegitimate.

The unapologetic intolerance that drives Cancel Culture has led to the elaboration of the promotion of the so-called cordon sanitaire in the European Union. The cordon sanitaire is used to throw a quarantine around right-wing political parties and their representative. In the EU, a cordon-sanitaire has been imposed on Patriot Group of political parties. Within the nation-states of Western Europe a similar approach has been adopted in many places in order to deprive elected parliamentarians from right-wing parties of any influence.

The Cordon Sanitaire represents the apotheosis of Cancel Culture. Its entire purpose is to cancel democratically elected parliamentarians from having a role in public life. It cancels the outcome of democracy and brazenly negates the votes of people who dared to vote for the wrong kind of people and the wrong kind of parties.

By preventing elected representatives from gaining any institutional influence, the authors of cordon sanitaire seek to reverse the outcome of the electoral process. Moreover, through publicly acclaiming their action they are indicating to their electorate that it is pointless to vote for politician who will never be allowed to possess any electoral influence.

The principle of the cordon sanitaire is justified on the ground that it protects democracy from the threat posed by extremist political movements. This principle is based on an argument that claims that when democracy is under threat supporters of democracy are justified to adopt undemocratic means to protect.  Promoters of the cordon sanitaire assume that democratic procedures do not apply to their opponents and that they should be treated as political pariahs.

It never occurs to the supporters of the cordon sanitaire that the application of undemocratic means to negate the outcome a democratically held election represents a danger to democracy itself. What’s implicit in the behaviour of advocates of cordon sanitaire is the conviction that far from a sacred principle, democracy is a negotiable value. In this way the benefits of democracy are differentially distributed between the deserving and undeserving representatives of the people.

As its Cancel Culture cousin, the cordon sanitaire represents an elite sanctioned form of democratic back-sliding. That is why in recent times elections are frequently represented as a threat, a source of instability and as a harbinger of populist influence.

The politics of fear that animates supporters of Cancel Culture is underpinned by a profound sense of alienation from the lives of people in society. Instead of engaging with the views of dissident members of the public placing them under quarantine is perceived as a preferable option. In this way democracy becomes emptied of meaning and public life becomes robbed of the vital ingredient of genuine discussion and debate.

It has become personal

As some of my reader know, the launch for my book The War Against The Past: Why The West Must Take Control Of Its History, was cancelled last minute by the owners of the Brussels book-shop Piola Libri.

In the general scheme of things, the cancellation of my book-launch is a relatively small matter that only affects me, my publisher, friends and would be guests to the event. What I found disturbing about this relatively minor act of intolerance was the causal manner with which the owners of the bookshop treated the act of cancellation. The owner of Piola Libri bookshop had no inhibition about boasting about their pro-cancellation policy. Indeed, he told the media that there was nothing unusual about the shutting down of my book-launch on the ground that they cancelled events all the time. In an email he wrote to Politico, stating that they cancel events all the time but that it ‘just doesn’t usually cause so much stir’[ii].

That the bookshop owners imagined that those who are cancelled will take it lying down and not cause ‘too much stir’ indicates that they believe that their behaviour is the new normal.

That is why causing a stir and refusing to be placed under a quarantine is essential. This is necessary not only to freely hold book launches but also to ensure that elected representatives are able to act in accordance with their democratic mandate.

---

[i] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/us-counties-vary-their-degree-partisan-prejudice/583072/

[ii] s://x.com/mcc_brussels/status/1839203783496061252?s=46