It is endlessly amusing how the Harper's letter literally defends "the value of robust and caustic speech" and then one of its most prominent figures bemoans the existence of caustic speech as evidence of dangerous illiberalism on the rise

Not a novel point at all, but the way very real, important political differences are being fought out under the guise of a debate about free speech reflects the limits of mainstream US political culture

Of course its partially strategic for the side that actually wants to advocate for a politics that they know is indefensible in the terms of contemporary US liberalism (e.g. Tom Cotton's "send in the troops")

But I also think to a large degree its unselfconscious *insert Zizekian waving about ideology here* — one cannot say "I don't actually believe in equality" if one still holds a certain notion of equality as axiomatic

I think it's also worth being specific about the political milieu where things like the Harper's letter spring from—a segment of the elite center/right, which wants to draw a distinction between itself and those further right, even as it increasingly finds common cause with them

This is why I'm feel like talking about the collapse of "the liberal consensus" requires the caveat that it is really the abandonment of liberalism by a certain segment of the right that, even still, remains various residual commitments to liberalism

And that this abandonment of liberalism, because US politics still remains bounded by certain liberal assumptions, can only be articulated in the language of liberalism.

Hence the endless "free speech" debates.