cancel culture for conservatives?
by Alexa Hankins
May 2021
Cancel culture. It’s most likely a phrase you're sick of hearing. It started on Twitter, and somehow it’s ended up on Fox News and in political discourse. What is cancel culture anyway, and why does it have Sean Hannity so freaked out?
Although the definition of cancel culture seems to have taken on a life of its own, it once, in essence, meant a call to boycott a trend or public figure when it first appeared on Black Twitter during 2016. Lisa Nakamura, a modern media professor from the University of Michigan, agrees, calling cancel culture “a cultural boycott”. This changed a bit when Merriam Webster added the term to their dictionary and connected it to the #METOO movement, which dramatically inflated it’s frequency of use in 2018.
Still, it’s true purpose never really changed. If you disapprove of an action of a public figure or corporation, then you stop supporting them with your business. And like all boycotts, it’s a way in which the disenfranchised and those without a platform can make their voices heard and oust people in power who aren't being held accountable for their actions. Sounds pretty democratic overall, right? Not everyone agrees.
Conservative politicians and media frequently cite the practice of “cancel culture” as the bane of our free American systems. Some conservative personalities on Twitter dog-whistle by connecting this term to other scarier ones such as “woke mob” and “culture war”. And therein lies their anti-cancel culture argument. Cancel culture is interpreted as mob rule because, yes, in theory it is majority opinion ousting minority opinion. This is a valid concern for the Republican Party to have since they’re currently America’s minority party (25% of Americans identify as Republicans compared with 31% Democrat, according to Gallup) and seem to make up a minority of the rich and powerful, too. America’s celebrities, or those with an outsized platform, seem to be majority left leaning.
But from where I stand, this position hasn’t hurt the Republican party at all. A Republican presidential candidate hasn’t won the popular vote in the first term since the first Bush. In the last 80 years Republicans were only the majority party in all branches of government once, which was briefly at the beginning of the Clinton administration. The Republican’s previous incumbent president lost the last election by over 7 million votes. Yet Republicans control 21 state legislatures to Democrat’s 15, and the US Congress is virtually tied in the House and literally tied in the Senate. Despite being the minority party, Republican’s aren’t in danger of losing any sort of political power.
Although I think our electoral process needs reform in order to properly reflect the demographics of America, I’m not advocating for a winner-takes-all system by any means. Allowing minority opinions to exist is one of the essential features of any democracy. With cancel culture, the phrase “Orwellian” is often used to describe the conservative fear that, if the more powerful party can completely censure the other, America is on the road to becoming a one-party totalitarian state. This argument, when used to attack “liberal” cancel culture, isn't nuanced enough for two major reasons.
First, the higher-ups in the Democratic Party aren’t spearheading the left wing “cancel culture” movement. The whole reason Fox News commentators call the perpetrators of cancel culture “the woke mob” is because they know they’re usually a large number of ordinary citizens amplifying their voices through a social media platform such as Twitter. Individual corporations cando essentially the same thing, and they frequently do: they may refuse to fund a person or product that they suspect will tarnish their image and hurt their business as a result.
Remember the Doctor Suess cancel culture controversy? In March, Dr. Seuss Enterprises made the decision to pull a few books from publication due to racist imagery, including “If I Ran the Zoo” and “The Cat’s Quizzer.” This horrified many conservatives, including Marco Rubio, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson, the latter two of whom dedicated most of their show on March 2 discussing it. Senator Ted Cruz even signed and sold copies of “Green Eggs and Ham” for 60 dollars each, which is 55 dollars more than the average price of this item despite the fact that it’s not even one of the books being pulled.
Many more public figures took to twitter and erroneously claimed that Democratic politicians and “The Woke Mob” were trying to cancel Dr. Suess. One Fox news viewer reported on Twitter that he counted “139 mentions of Seuss” on March 4th. The only result of this alleged cancelling? The week of the announcement, 9 out of 10 of Amazon’s best selling books were by Dr. Seuss, according to Newsweek. This result speaks to the influence of the fear mongering done by people like Ted Cruz more than anything else.
In theory, pro big business Republicans should support Dr. Seuss Enterprise’s decision. This was the case of a powerful, independent entity making a strategic business decision in order to maximize sales. And despite pressure from influential politicians and others, they stuck to their guns. This is a business decision, not a cancelation.
Second, cancel culture is itself misrepresented by conservative media. They describe it as a recent phenomenon, but it’s nothing new. When popular culture shifts, offensive and outdated media is usually replaced. It’s just an occurrence that is bound to happen in any developing society. It’s why the first color film ever made isn’t still one of America’s favorites—digital minstrel shows didn’t exactly survive as a national pastime. As the demands of consumers change, popular culture changes along with it. Cancel culture is also described as a dangerous and unconstitutional political tool used by leftists. But in doing so, they’re ignoring a fundamental truth—cancel culture is used by both sides of the political spectrum.
One of the biggest complaints by conservative politicians is the fact that cancel culture prohibits free speech. For example, when Simon and Schuster Publishing cancelled Senator Josh Hawley’s book deal, he blamed it on cancel culture and complained about his free speech being violated (even though it too was a decision made by an individual company). Following this logic, why does the Lil Nas X controversy exist? When Lil Nas X released his newest song, “MONTERO (Call Me By Your Name),” he did so with a music video featuring Christian imagery and themes. The video ends with him giving the devil a lap dance and then killing him to take his place. Nas X also released Satan themed shoes as part of a promotional drop. Conservative pundits like Candace Owens and Kaitlin Bennett accused him of “corrupting youth” and promoting satanism (hm, sounds like they want people to boycott him). The Republican governor of South Dakota even tweeted, “Our kids are being told that this kind of product is, not only ok, it’s exclusive. But do you know what’s more exclusive? Their god-given soul. We are in a fight for the soul of our nation… we have to win.”
However, I'd like to offer a counter argument straight out of their book. As an American citizen, Lil Nas X is entitled to exercise his free speech. If people are offended by the religious references in his music, then they don’t have to listen to it. Nike suing over the Satan Shoes is the exact same thing as S&S Publishing canceling Josh Hawley’s book deal. It’s hypocritical for anyone to support one and condemn the other.
In September of 2018, 49ers football player Colin Kaepernick was thrust back into the spotlight when he became the star of a Nike ad campaign. Two years prior, he had started kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality. This offended conservatives, including former president Trump, who called for Kapernick’s firing via twitter. The NFL’s stock also plummeted in the days and weeks that followed due to a decline in viewers. After Kapernick’s face was used in Nike ads, people voiced their anger on social media platforms in droves. They tweeted about never supporting Nike again, using the hashtag #boycottnike. Videos of people burning their Nike shoes and cutting Nike logos off their socks went viral. Sounds a lot like cancel culture, right? A group of people morally disagreeing with a public figure and using their voices and power as consumers to protest said figure having a platform.
Nike’s controversial Colin Kapernick ad. (ABC News)
I’d argue that the cancellation of Colin Kapernick was successful, too. He opted out of his contract with the 49ers over four years ago and hasn’t been in a game since. He sued the NFL in October of 2017, accusing them of blackballing him, and was unsuccessful. The only resulting change to the NFL is a new rule that players must stand for the national anthem or expect to face punishment. Let me repeat that: a Black man protesting police brutality has been blacklisted from working and his former employers instituted a rule banning similar peaceful protests. Not exactly a win for the “woke mob.”
Out of everyone I'd expect to be cancelled by the right, I never saw Liz Cheney coming. She was never known as a moderate voter in the House. In fact, her track record is far more traditionalist than the woman set to replace her. She supported Trump in both his election bids. She’s not exactly socially progressive either—her sister is married to a woman and yet Cheney outspokenly opposes gay marriage. None of this mattered when, during Trump’s second impeachment trial, she sided with House Democrats.
When explaining her decision, Cheney said, “A former president who provoked a violent attack on this capitol in order to steal the election has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him. He risks inciting further violence. They have only heard his words, not the truth, as he continues to undermine our democratic process.” Republicans everywhere immediately denounced her as a traitor, and early this month she was voted out of her position in the House solely for her vote in the second impeachment trial. Cheney’s situation is unique among cancellations because it’s what every conservative politician and talking head claim to fear.
Unlike previous examples of “cancellation,'' Liz Cheney’s situation is a case of already powerful individuals using that power to silence opposing viewpoints. Fox News hosts love to point fingers at the “Dems'' for abusing their power by silencing opposing viewpoints, but the Republican party’s ousting of Cheney is exactly that. The party didn’t like a dissenting opinion, so they got rid of it.
Honestly, I don’t think “cancel culture” is as earth-shattering as anyone portrays it to be. The only difference between what people call cancel culture and activism is the new medium in which the action is taking place. The internet has enabled people to amplify their voices and organize powerful boycotts like never before in history. As a result, movements gather strength more rapidly and people make more noise. Throughout history, moral crusaders have called into question current systems, people, and practices they thought were unfair. As social norms change, systems change with it. Who knows? Maybe “cancel culture” will be seen as the new muckraking in a few decades. But my guess is that this label isn’t here to stay—I think many people realize that certain offenses can be forgiven.
Either way, it’s despicable for conservative pundits to use this expression to rile their base and create a war where none exists. In the age of social media being used as a political tool, both sides of the aisle (and politicians and ordinary citizens alike) are guilty of using tactics that would fall under the cancel culture definition. If conservatives are truly worried about the effect that silencing alternate opinions will have on our free democracy, they should be more concerned about Liz Cheney’s removal than “The Cat’s Quizzer’s.”
Out of everyone I'd expect to be cancelled by the right, I never saw Liz Cheney coming. She was never known as a moderate voter in the House. In fact, her track record is far more traditionalist than the woman set to replace her. She supported Trump in both his election bids. She’s not exactly socially progressive either—her sister is married to a woman and yet Cheney outspokenly opposes gay marriage. None of this mattered when, during Trump’s second impeachment trial, she sided with House Democrats.
When explaining her decision, Cheney said, “A former president who provoked a violent attack on this capitol in order to steal the election has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him. He risks inciting further violence. They have only heard his words, not the truth, as he continues to undermine our democratic process.” Republicans everywhere immediately denounced her as a traitor, and early this month she was voted out of her position in the House solely for her vote in the second impeachment trial. Cheney’s situation is unique among cancellations because it’s what every conservative politician and talking head claim to fear.
Unlike previous examples of “cancellation,'' Liz Cheney’s situation is a case of already powerful individuals using that power to silence opposing viewpoints. Fox News hosts love to point fingers at the “Dems'' for abusing their power by silencing opposing viewpoints, but the Republican party’s ousting of Cheney is exactly that. The party didn’t like a dissenting opinion, so they got rid of it.
Honestly, I don’t think “cancel culture” is as earth-shattering as anyone portrays it to be. The only difference between what people call cancel culture and activism is the new medium in which the action is taking place. The internet has enabled people to amplify their voices and organize powerful boycotts like never before in history. As a result, movements gather strength more rapidly and people make more noise. Throughout history, moral crusaders have called into question current systems, people, and practices they thought were unfair. As social norms change, systems change with it. Who knows? Maybe “cancel culture” will be seen as the new muckraking in a few decades. But my guess is that this label isn’t here to stay—I think many people realize that certain offenses can be forgiven.
Either way, it’s despicable for conservative pundits to use this expression to rile their base and create a war where none exists. In the age of social media being used as a political tool, both sides of the aisle (and politicians and ordinary citizens alike) are guilty of using tactics that would fall under the cancel culture definition. If conservatives are truly worried about the effect that silencing alternate opinions will have on our free democracy, they should be more concerned about Liz Cheney’s removal than “The Cat’s Quizzer’s.”