Three cheers for pluralism!

Right-wing libertarians glibly argue in favour of pluralism and are against all forms of censorship. The main reason they take this cause is that they prefer 'small' governments. A government which regulates the media is perceived to be intrepid. A government which regulates the market is considered to be worse still. The main reason they align themselves with these causes is that they want all types of business to flourish. They want to advance their own nefarious interests.

It is a shame that the idea of pluralism and free press has been appropriated by this political ideology. More than anything, it is a classical liberal idea advocated by John Stuart Mill. Mill envisioned a pluralist media where all voices, from the most radical to the most conservative, were voiced. There are some problems with this, though, as I will later divulge.

Like many people from the right-wing libertarian faction, I am somewhat annoyed by 'insensitivity.' I still think that all material should have its place in the media. If a certain article 'offends' a certain minority, I still do not think it is just to remove it. If it is a facile attack, then in a truly pluralist society it will be criticised by other more moderate voices in the media.

Recently, a far-right islamist was banned from appearing on television. But, if you think about it more closely, he is the beneficiary. When Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time, there was mass furore. Once he appeared in the programme, he expressed his asinine views and made a complete tit of himself. As a result, he lost his political influence and the BNP has been superseded by other far-right fringe parties. If these bigots are given air time, people can look at them objectively and they lose their political prominence.

The one 'problem' with the society Mill envisioned is that pluralist societies can allow fascism to gain political currency. After the unification of Italy in the late 19th century, there was an initiative called 'Risourgimento' wherein all voices, from zionism to socialism to fascism, were given equal power. As there were no restrictions as to what fascism could say or do, with effective propaganda it swayed millions. (Similarly, the Weimar republic in 1920s Germany was also quite enlightened.) Although pluralism can create the conditions for fascism takeover, once fascism governs it is the polar opposite of what pluralism advocates. It bans and censors. Public discourse only peddles fascist ideology.

The main incentive for pluralism is that a discourse is created wherein everyone can express their point of view. The more division, generally, the better. There should also be room for dissent.  A discourse which is too homogeneous will not be an interesting one.