>So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

>Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.

The article[1] goes on the state both parties started changing stances to try and win the new Western states.

[1]https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-part...

I think an argument could be made that Republicans, or at least conservatives, have now become the defenders of free speech while "the left" seems not just comfortable with but intent on increasing censorship, at least certain kinds.

I will note that this isn't a complete slam dunk of an argument, I would say the left in the 60's was motivated more by the general principle of free speech, whereas I would say the right today is more motivated by self-benefit. And also I suppose it doesn't go without saying: the first amendment and the general principles of free speech / censorship are similar but distinct ideas.

Most here at HN think of the left as wanting more censorship in order to avoid hurtful speech, but that's not generally how the left thinks of it. On the left, the view is that the practice of maximizing freedom of speech by tolerating extreme speech, has the effect of reducing the freedom of expression of the non-extreme, non-powerful constituencies.

In other words, protecting freedom of expression by politely tolerating hate speech has the effect of making the targets of hate speech less free to express themselves in practice. Like a heckler's veto, the presence of hate speech dissuades minorities and the less powerful from engaging at all. It's not freedom from being offended that the left wants, it's a less corrosive public sphere that doesn't demand that the weak struggle through a painful headwind in order to be heard at all.

Having a extremism-based standard for measuring freedom of expression creates a requirement that participants tolerate the material harm of extremist expression. The left wants to shift the standard of measurement to tolerating more speakers of different kinds, rather than more subjects of varying extremism. The left still believes in maximizing freedom of expression, they just recognize that there are different metrics that may apply.

This is exactly correct, but unfortunately, because your first sentence is true, you're getting significantly downvoted.

It is an example of the paradox of tolerance: If a group believes in tolerance, absolutely, to the point that they tolerate intolerance, then over time, those who are intolerant will tend to gain power within the group and the tolerance will be eroded (except, of course, the tolerance of those intolerant beliefs that usurp them).

Absolutism of any kind is generally going to lead to problems in our imperfect, non-absolute world. Free speech maximalism is just one example of that. If we put people and their genuine needs before abstract principles, that will tend to be a better guide for how to make a society that serves everyone—and, indeed, allows the greatest freedom for the greatest number.

The argument I made was originally formulated by Andrea Dworkin, testifying to Congress about pornography, and formulating it that way--what metric are you measuring freedom by--has done a lot to expand my thinking.

Another is the saying "tolerance isn't a virtue, it's a peace treaty", which I think really cuts through the apparent dilemma you highlight.

If people put there own needs first you end up with a selfish group that doesn't serve society only themselves. People believing in an abstract idea can rally society around important causes.

I'm not suggesting to put one's one needs first, but rather those of other people—or all people. To the extent a principle, abstract idea, or cause is useful, it must be examined in light of its effects, both direct and indirect, on people.

Sometimes, policies that follow from abstract ideas do harm to some people, in the interests of helping others (hopefully more), or do harm in the short term, in the interests of helping in the long term. Sometimes, these tradeoffs are good to make; other times, they are not.

There is no hard and fast Golden Rule that can serve as your bedrock if you treat it as something to be applied in all situations without critical analysis. The closest I can come is "care about people", but even that requires careful application, because there are situations when you must do things that hurt some people—even people you do care about—in order to do what is best for all.

They believe in maximizing group speech in the largest diverse group as possible.

This is what happens with religion. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to believe these truths and questioning them will get you kicked out or ex-communicated or at best ignored and re-educated.

More accurately, I believe it's fair to say your description is a steelmanned version of "the left's" argument. I happen to be in very high agreement with what you've said.

Some issues I see with this perspective:

- a very small percentage of people, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, think about these matters in anything approaching the level of complexity displayed in your comment. This thread is absolutely full of people who seem to have lost the ability to distinguish between reality itself and an extremely lazy interpretation of reality. I can appreciate the frustration that's brought them to this point, but the ability for a small percentage of people like you to skillfully articulate a steel-manned version (that may not actually be technically accurate let's not forget) of the beliefs of an emotional mob doesn't give me a lot of comfort

- not all powerful actors are behaving in a completely honest or as well thought out manner, or may believe that censorship "overreach" is strategically justifiable, from an "ends justify the means". And this may very well be a reasonable and even correct belief, at this snapshot in time, and under these particular circumstances - but what about the future? What if we get another Trump-style leader in the future exploits well-intended limits of free speech toward an undesirable end?

- by not extending any effort towards understanding the real and extremely psychologically complex motivations that are actually behind the emotional lashing out of people (that we all know very well happens with humans, that can be observed throughout history, and on this very forum), often along "racist" lines, those who propose to curtail free speech may be acting in an overly enthusiastic manner (not to mention, if people can't be bothered to even consider calming down and making a serious effort to understand what is actually going on, why should I trust they have the mental capacity to make wise decisions on something as important as free speech?)

The world is incomprehensibly complex, and getting worse at a rapid pace. I think extreme caution is warranted on any matters related to something so fundamentally important as free speech. If some of these ideas are really so bad, why can good ideas not win out in the marketplace? I have this constant feeling that there is a lack of serious effort, and that there are often not-easily-seen reasons why such an effort cannot be made (Thomas Frank, Jonathan Haidt, and Mark Blyth would be a few people worth listening to if one was interested in starting to get some depth in this perspective).