The Problem with “It’s 2014”
A dangerous and anti-intellectual way of thinking about change is becoming increasingly popular in progressive circles. It assumes that social progress is inevitable, and therefore inherently good. Anyone who disagrees isn’t just wrong—they’re “on the wrong side of history.”
Often, that sounds something like this:
“It’s 2014. Let’s just legalize gay marriage already.”
“Why won’t the Washington Redskins change their name? It’s 2014!”
“It’s 2014. Women’s employers shouldn’t get to dictate their sex lives.”
It’s worth noting that often, “It’s 2014” is mere rhetoric. Someone who says gay marriage should be legal “because it’s 2014” doesn’t necessarily lack a logically sound rationale for her opinion. She’s probably just trying to sound punchy and persuasive.
So I’ll give progressives the benefit of the doubt and assume they only use the “It’s 2014” strategy for rhetorical purposes. Regardless, it’s a horrible way to debate social issues—irrespective of one’s stance on the specific issue at hand. At best, to use “It’s 2014” to shut down an argument is intellectually weak. At worst, it is destructive and wrong.
It can be tempting to sympathize with those who use “It’s 2014,” because they often do so to strike down absurd or oppressive opposition. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an intellectually cowardly tactic. When someone says “It’s 2014” to shut out an opposing argument, he isn’t engaging his adversaries in a critical evaluation of the issue at hand. He’s just trying to make them seem out-of-touch. “You’re wrong because it’s 2014” is essentially another way of saying “your opinion is wrong because it’s unpopular in this day and age.” It says nothing about actual merit of the argument being posed.
Shouldn’t bad ideas die because they are demonstrably bad, not because they’re unpopular? I’m not a progressive, but I share some progressive values. If an anti-progressive argument is absurd or immoral, I want to see its horrors exposed in all their wretched ugliness by an intellectual and enlightened criticism. That’s a lot better than “shut up you old fart, it’s the 21st century.”
Consider the NFL’s Washington Redskins. I find that football team’s name incredibly offensive, as do many others. But if I tell a supporter of the name that she’s wrong because much of America disagrees with her, I’m ducking the question of whether there is actually anything wrong with the name. A true intellectual should have no trouble using logical reasoning to make the case that the name is offensive. Why don’t more progressives do so?
Progressives often use “it’s 2014” to combat arguments that do have merit. In these cases, this rhetoric functions as a silencing tool. It seeks to preemptively shut down debate on important, difficult questions. Fortunately, it is often ineffective in situations like these.
Such was the case in the debate over the contraceptive mandate. Even before its implementation under the Affordable Care Act, the mandate—which requires employers to cover the cost of certain contraceptives under their health insurance plans—had been hotly disputed. Critics of the mandate argued that it infringed upon the freedom of employers who opposed contraception on religious grounds, while supporters countered that access to contraception was a basic right.
There were two very legitimate sides to this debate. Were women entitled to affordable contraception, even at the expense of their employers’ religious freedom? Reasonable people could disagree here. But you wouldn’t know that from the way certain progressives treated the issue.
There was an uproar from the left when the contraceptive mandate was ultimately struck down in June of this year, under Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Jon Stewart devoted a characteristically predictable segment to blustering hysterically over the decision. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman accused Republicans of trying “to push us back to 1894.” The New Yorker’s Andy Borowitz mocked the Supreme Court for siding against women in a case that was ostensibly “at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.” These and countless other progressives couldn’t seem to fathom that “It’s 2014” had failed to trump the careful consideration and Constitutional knowledge of five Supreme Court justices.
But what if the mandate had succeeded? Progressives would have gotten their way. Change would have been advanced. However, I would hope that no intellectually responsible progressives would have celebrated such as a “victory.” There is no dignity, and certainly no glory in bullying, shaming, and silencing one’s opponents en route to a political victory.