The Illusion of Consensus – When Critical Thinking Becomes Unpatriotic

By Mika Horelli, LEUVEN

Democracies are founded on the ideals of free discussion, criticism, and the ability to question without fear of repercussions. However, this ideal is not always realized. While authoritarian regimes may suppress dissent overtly, Western democracies can also experience limitations on free speech—not through legislation, but via social pressure and the branding of dissenting voices as unpatriotic.

I have witnessed this firsthand. The atmosphere in the United States following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks serves as a textbook example of how opinions diverging from government policy can be perceived as near-treasonous. At that time, I was in New York City, an eyewitness to the devastation amidst chaos and shock. I observed how the administration of President George W. Bush swiftly formulated its response—and how even minimal criticism of this response became politically perilous.

When the United States initiated the War on Terror, it breached international agreements, established the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and sanctioned practices euphemistically termed "enhanced interrogation techniques," widely regarded as torture. In the early stages of the war, opposition was nearly impossible. Those who questioned the administration's actions were quickly accused of unpatriotic behavior and "supporting terrorists."

Journalists, scholars, and even war veterans who criticized the Bush administration's policies found themselves blacklisted. National discourse became rapidly polarized. This occurred in a nation that prides itself on freedom of speech.

A prominent example is Professor Ward Churchill, who became embroiled in controversy following the attacks. Churchill, then a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, authored an essay titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." In this piece, he argued that U.S. foreign policy contributed to the attacks. In 2007, he was dismissed from his position, officially due to allegations of research misconduct. However, many believe that the true impetus for his termination was the public uproar over his 9/11 comments. 

This case sparked extensive debate in the United States about academic freedom and freedom of speech, particularly concerning the extent to which professors can express controversial opinions without fear of job loss. It is worth noting that I view with apprehension how far the current administration might go in curbing academic freedom and the independence of the media in the coming years.

While 9/11 was an extreme instance, similar pressures for consensus and suppression of critical thinking are evident in other democracies—including Finland.

Finland's NATO Debate: The Chains of Consensus

In Finland and Sweden, as in many other countries, the demand for unanimity subtly undermines freedom of speech. This is not about overt censorship, but rather a quiet pressure to conform to the prevailing narrative.

In Finland, the NATO debate long exemplified silent consensus. I am not criticizing Finland's NATO membership, which I have supported since the country joined the European Union. Here, I am purely commenting on the societal discourse—or lack thereof—surrounding the issue.

During the Cold War, Finland's defense policy officially relied on non-alignment, though in practice, Finland—and especially Sweden—were closer to Western military alliances than was publicly acknowledged. Nevertheless, advocating for NATO membership was a taboo for decades, at least in political discussions.

In Finland, the most notable exception was the center-right National Coalition Party (Kokoomus), which, since 2006, was the only parliamentary party clearly advocating for NATO membership. Before 2022, Kokoomus's pro-NATO stance was largely symbolic, as support for membership was minimal among other parties and the public. Politically, the topic was so sensitive that Kokoomus could not actively promote membership even when part of the government.

It was only in February 2022, following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, that the attitudes of other Finnish parties shifted almost overnight, and support for NATO became a nearly unanimous stance in Parliament. What had recently been labeled as provocation and unnecessary saber-rattling suddenly became a national necessity.

Once the decision for membership was made, discussions about its long-term implications were minimal. How, for instance, will defense cooperation between Finland and the United States alter our position? What are the consequences of Finland accepting the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory? Such debates were scarcely held—not because the topics lacked importance, but because they might have appeared disloyal to Finland's new course.

How Does the Unpatriotic Label Operate?

One of the most effective methods to silence dissenting opinions is to accuse their proponents of being unpatriotic. This is particularly potent in crisis situations, where people seek comfort in simple answers and strong leadership.

This tactic has been employed at various times and places:

- McCarthy's Communist Witch Hunts in the United States: In the early 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy launched a campaign accusing thousands of individuals of communist sympathies. This created an atmosphere where even moderate criticism of the government could be interpreted as treason.

- Brexit Debate in the United Kingdom: When the UK decided to leave the EU, the press and politicians frequently labeled pro-EU voices as "unpatriotic," just as opponents of Brexit accused its supporters of "blind nationalist fervor."

- Opposition in Russia: In Russia, "unpatriotic" has been taken to the extreme. President Vladimir Putin's administration has effectively eradicated nearly all opposition by invoking national security rhetoric. Opposition figures are branded as foreign agents, even when they are merely advocating for democratic values.

The Value of Critical Discourse in Democracy

Democracy thrives or withers based on discourse. If government actions cannot be freely criticized without fear of being labeled unpatriotic, then what remains is no longer a genuine democracy but a society where certain viewpoints are silently suppressed.  

This does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that every criticism is justified. There is misinformation and deliberate propaganda. But the way to combat false narratives is not by silencing them, but by confronting them with facts and reasoned arguments.  

In politics, the media, and society at large, there should be more room for critical thinking without fear of being branded as a traitor. In democracies, we should be able to discuss security policy, the economy, social issues, and many other topics without the immediate threat of public shaming, blacklisting, or— as is now increasingly common— vicious online harassment and targeted attacks.  

The demand for consensus makes us vulnerable. It creates blind spots that lead to poor decision-making and diminishes society’s ability to learn from its mistakes. That is why keeping critical debate alive is essential in democracies, even when it means confronting uncomfortable truths.  

---

Subscribe to the blog to receive the latest posts directly to your inbox.