Diversity for Biden and the political Left is a rather limiting concept. It includes only certain groups of people and, of course, the principles it attempts to promulgate are anything but open-minded and embracing of an authentic diversity. Instead, it is based on the principle of political correctness. The main concern is not the variety of thought but the strict adherence to ideology by people of varying skin tones and sexual proclivities.
Biden’s statement about the erasure of history and book banning lacks all self-awareness because most of the book bannings and artist cancellations these days are coming from leftist ideologues who are creating an atmosphere of hatred. Even the liberal authors' group PEN America admitted that although most “canceled” literary works can be easily found, there is still a soft and psychologically painful censorship at play.
Recall recent attempts by the publishing houses to “clean up” the classic works by writers such as Agatha Christie, Roald Dahl, and Ian Fleming. In some cases, the actual meaning of sentences was even changed, as in Dahl's The Witches. Here's Dahl's original acidic quote: "You can't go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just try it and see what happens." And here's what the "sensitivity readers" changed it to: "Besides, there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."
Was the bald community really crying out for this kind of censorship, or was the point a bungled attempt to produce shame? After all, someone is bound to be offended by something found in practically every book, and the anti-American Stasi wants to make sure you know you are in the wrong (!) if you enjoy those works in their original form.
Can we all really be that sensitive? Doubtful. Most of the reactions are a result of the invasive narcissism in our society, and because the alleged sensitivity to certain materials allows censors to exist in the first place. Being compassionate for someone who is “triggered” is not the actual objective of such bans. The point is to burn words out of existence, without the unsightly spectacle of burning entire books. Concern for art never enters the picture; only politics does. Never mind that while some sections of classic literature make us uneasy, permanently revising an original work on pseudo-moralistic grounds is an assault on both art and the artist who created that work.
The attack on the artist’s inherent right to create (and yes, even to offend!) is at the center of censorship. For a true artist, the impulse and the path to creation are often unexplained, even mystical. To impose on an artist a set of parameters soaked in a thick liquid of ideology is to deny that path and gift, and to nullify the passion that moves said artist to create. Today’s censorship is the result of primitive emotionalism. Someone who is deeply affected by a supposed offense may have an internal dialogue that looks something like this: “I’d like to get rid of anything that makes me uncomfortable. I don’t want to be free. I want to be safe.”
The desire for safety is not the only element of silencing an artist. It’s also an indication of envy and most of all, mediocrity. Ideologues, by nature, are mediocre beings consumed with envy and eager to sacrifice the possibility of creation. Of course, nothing negates mediocrity more than genuine art. As Angelo Codevilla wrote, ideology is created only for the explicit purpose of “empowering and celebrating those very ideologues.” The only “art” that exists for an ideologue is one that embraces and perpetuates ideology.
Which is not to say that art must be offensive to be great. Gratuitously offensive content is the mark of mediocrity, not genius. However, to be so visibly offended and shocked by real, great works of art, mere words or images that challenge us, is a highly immature act that lacks all awareness of aesthetic subtleties. Moralistic lectures deny the joy of life itself. An artist always pushes the boundaries not for gratuitous offense but because his purpose is the illumination of aesthetic expression. Naturally, sometimes these expressions demonstrate the incoherence of the human condition, which is rarely pleasant. But therein lies freedom, which is always on a higher plane than safety.
