It now seems that so-called “progressives” only support civil liberties when the exercise of such liberties helps their cause. If civil liberty protections get in the way of the progressive agenda, they get thrown out the window. Exhibit A is Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act in February to break up the Freedom Convoy protests against his vaccine mandates..Not only were some convoy protest leaders arrested, but over 200 bank accounts were frozen. As Justice Minister David Lametti said at the time, Canadians who were members of “a pro-Trump movement” donating money to the convoy, “ought to be worried” about their bank accounts. If you hold the wrong political views and donate money to protests against Trudeau’s government, your money is not safe..What all Canadians really “ought to be worried” about is the authoritarian direction of progressive politics. Invoking the Emergencies Act to break up the Freedom Convoy may be just the beginning..In 2021, Ross Mittiga, an assistant professor of political science at the Catholic University of Chile wrote an article entitled “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change” for the American Political Science Review, one of the most respected academic journals in the world. This article provides a rationale for progressive politicians to run roughshod over almost all of the historic rights and liberties enjoyed by people living in democratic countries..By the way, Mittiga is not Chilean, he just happens to teach in Chile. He is an American and a Democratic Party activist. In fact, his 2017 campaign to get the Democratic Party nomination for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates garnered the attention of the Washington Post. His views undoubtedly represent a segment of North American progressivism..Mittiga argues that the foundational premise of political legitimacy requires that a government protect its citizens. A government that cannot ensure the safety of its citizens loses its legitimacy. Therefore, since climate change is such a dangerous threat, government may rightfully resort to authoritarian methods to prevent it. Authoritarian powers will enable governments to guarantee safety and thereby maintain their legitimacy. .As Mittiga puts it, “having a government unencumbered by democratic procedures or constitutional limits on power could be advantageous when it comes to implementing urgently needed climate action." .According to Mittiga, freedom is a threat to progressive climate policies. Why? Well, for one thing, in some countries referenda or public protests have been used to defeat carbon taxes. Besides that, free speech protections have enabled people who are skeptical of climate change to communicate their concerns to others. Furthermore, individual autonomy has allowed people to maintain their regular diets rather than changing to climate-friendly foods. In other words, with freedom, people live and talk in ways that do not conform to progressive directives. .Since freedom is the problem, it must be restricted – permanently. Mittiga writes that “the climate crisis may not just lead to temporary and localized suspensions of (for example) democratic processes or individual rights but precipitate a more substantial and enduring shift in what counts as an ‘acceptable’ use of political power.”.That is a nice way of saying that our individual rights and liberties will be gone for good..What kind of policies would a progressive government implement? As one possibility, Mittiga suggests that “governments might impel citizens to make significant lifestyle changes. One pertinent example concerns curbing meat-heavy diets, common in the Global North, given the enormous carbon footprint of animal agriculture.” Good-bye Alberta beef, in other words..Property rights will also be restricted so that governments can enact strict climate policies, especially for the energy and agriculture industries..Objections to these policies may not be heard by other concerned citizens because Mittiga proposes the enactment of “a censorship regime that prevents the proliferation of climate denialism or disinformation in public media. This may well conflict with standard conceptions of freedom of expression or of the press.”.Well, then, couldn’t we simply elect new leaders to overturn these authoritarian policies? Nope. Mittiga wants a “litmus-test” for people seeking public office. Those who don’t support the climate agenda are automatically disqualified. You must agree with government policies before being allowed to stand as a candidate..And it gets even worse: “More strongly, governments may establish institutions capable of overturning previous democratic decisions (expressed, for example, in popular referenda or plebiscites) against the implementation of carbon taxes or other necessary climate policies.” You read that right: “democratic decisions” could be overturned by the authoritarian-progressive government. How is that different from a dictatorship?.Proposals of this kind would normally be published in obscure far left periodicals that are unworthy of notice. But this one was published in the American Political Science Review, a flagship academic publication. Mittiga’s scheme is worth understanding as an indication of the direction that some of our political elites would like to take us, and it ain’t pretty.
