The Problem with Leftist Video Essays

I think the biggest problem with leftist video essays is that they are full of theory. Like whatever issue they talk about, it's almost always just an excuse to talk about theory. And I think this prioritization of studying theory over looking at situations objectively, without prior bias, is one of the biggest faults of the contemporary left.

The problem with force-fitting events in the world out there to pre-existing philosophical theories is that you inevitably end up with a biased view of events. You end up with a biased and incomplete understanding of what is actually happening. And that is not helpful for achieving anything. It would just make everyone confused, which would make progress and good outcomes even more out of reach. Thus the theory left, far from being 'progressive', actually leads to pointless and needless detours in our quest to understand the truth and make things better.

Moreover, leftist cultural theories are often rooted in postmodernism and critical theory, which is under the umbrella of what is called the 'conflict theory of sociology', which sees human relations as driven more by conflict than by consensus. Thus leftist cultural theory has a strong tendency to pit one group against another, which would only lead to more polarization in the real world. This polarization is harmful if what we want is to find some common ground to move forward on. What I'm most worried about is that the polarization caused by leftist theory makes a rational and productive discourse essentially impossible, thus prolonging the conflict and suffering on all sides needlessly.

Furthermore, leftist theory is ultimately tied to a wider agenda. I think there are actually many people out there, like myself, who are fed up with people with an agenda in general, and just want us to be free of all these agendas. Both the left and the right have a set agenda that is rooted in their long-running ideological obsessions. The clash of these obsessions are the root of the culture wars, which, let's face it, normal people don't want at all. This is why many of us wish that those agendas and those ideological obsessions would just go away. From this point of view, leftist cultural theory is certainly part of the problem, and not part of the solution. 

Two Philosophical Arguments Against 'New Left' Politics

The Enlightenment liberal tradition provides the most apparent arguments to rebut the postmodern critical theory worldview. That free speech is conducive to understanding the objective truth, and that understanding the truth is necessary for practical progress, is itself a self-evident truth that is provable by the study of history alone. It is for this reason that we must always stand firm for free speech. Also, there are good reasons why we should require objective evidence before we can agree that claims being made are sound. Postmodern critical theory's insistence that society is made up of interlocking systems of oppression simply doesn't meet this standard, and thus should be rejected. Besides, viewing society as being made up of interlocking systems of oppression is simply counterproductive, if we want to bring people together to resolve society's most sensitive conflicts, by finding solutions that would be satisfactory for every party. 

The conservative philosophical tradition, going back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, also provide important arguments against the postmodern critical theory worldview. It speaks to how the top-down, inorganic imposition of social change, driven by abstract philosophical doctrine, can be harmful to freedom, and also make things worse in unexpected ways in reality. This is why change must be gradual, rooted in practical need rather than abstract philosophy, and implemented in a way that respects society's long-standing values as much as possible. This lesson is one that progressives would do well to learn. This, in turn, is why I have long argued that the philosophical insights of the conservative cannon should be re-integrated into progressive thinking, and this would make for a good foundation for a sustainable reformist politics. Note that the conservative philosophical tradition is very different from what is wrongly called 'conservative' politics in the contemporary West, which is clearly more authoritarian-reactionary than conservative. True conservative philosophy would lead to a moderate reformist politics. 

Why Moderates are Necessary for Free Speech

It is an objective fact that both the left and the right have gotten more extreme in the past decade. Ideas previously considered taboo have been increasingly mainstreamed from both directions. What all these ideologies have in common is that they have no use for studying the objective truth as it is, or learning from the viewpoints of other people. They are already certain of their own correctness and righteousness, and the only thing left to do is to impose their vision on the rest of society, by force or other illiberal means if necessary. Such ideologies have no use for free speech.

On the other hand, moderates have a consistent interest in defending free speech. This is because moderates don’t have a pre-established commitment to an extreme ideology. This makes it more possible to be truly open to the different viewpoints that exist out there. After all, it is only natural that, when coming to a topic without preconceived commitments, one would want to gather as much evidence as possible, in order to arrive at a more accurate understanding of the objective truth. Moreover, given the lack of commitment to an overarching view of how things must be, moderates don’t always agree with the ideas of any one tribe. I mean, moderates don’t even always agree with each other on every topic! The fact that moderates don’t ever feel comfortable to join a tribe, and that disagreements are a normal part of life for moderates, also mean that they would have more incentive to embrace free speech. This is because free speech is both a mechanism for resolving our differences, and also a way to agree to disagree peacefully when we must.

Herein lies an important paradox: free speech allows people to reject moderation. Putting it another way, free speech must allow people to not be moderates, but if too few committed and outspoken moderates remain, free speech itself might cease to exist. In this way, some doomers might even say it is inevitable that free speech eventually digs its own grave.

Is there a way we can resolve this paradox, so that free speech doesn’t end up digging its own grave? I guess we can both uphold free speech, and also promote the virtues of political moderation within the bounds of respect for free speech. There is no contradiction in these things, as long as we are using the free market of ideas to promote moderation, rather than using censorship to force people to be moderate. Indeed, I believe one of the biggest mistakes of the 2010s free speech movement was a lack of discussion about the virtues of the kind of political moderation which would naturally support a culture of free speech. In the 2010s, free speech activists often talked about things like respecting the ‘marketplace of ideas’ when we opposed de-platforming and cancel culture, but we didn’t talk enough about why we should respect the marketplace of ideas. This, in turn, allowed bad faith actors to pretend to be one of us, in order to defend the speech of people they agreed with, only to later turn around to support anti-free speech actions from their own tribe, thus discrediting the whole movement, and setting the cause of free speech back even further. 

The Moderate Argument Against Leftist Politics

As I've pointed out many times before, the whole politics of the 21st century Western far-left is rooted in two branches of philosophy: postmodernism and critical theory. Therefore, the key to winning the argument against the far-left is to intellectually win the argument against these two worldviews. The way we can approach this is two-fold: firstly, by demonstrating the intellectual unsoundness of these worldviews, and secondly, by demonstrating the real world harms of activism and political action rooted in these worldviews. 

Postmodernism rejects the pursuit of objective truth, and sees speech and discourse primarily as exercises of power. Identity-based critical theories, often drawing on postmodernism, imagine society as being made up of interlocking 'systems of oppression', where people are defined as oppressors or the oppressed based on their immutable characteristics. Together, these two overarching philosophical views lead to seeing culture as constructed to oppress the marginalized rather than organically evolved to serve the needs of the people, seeing society as a sphere of powerplay rather than a marketplace of ideas where the objective truth can be pursued, and seeing people as inherently divided into oppressor vs. oppressed groups rather than individuals with their own needs, desires and agency. 

Unsurprisingly, a politics rooted in this outlook is often hostile to free speech, and is generally counterproductive in terms of resolving society's most sensitive conflicts. One needs to look no further than 2010s wokeness, its harmful impacts on free speech, and the backlash it ultimately brought, to prove this point. Other previous instances of the far-left causing similarly deleterious effects include the 1960s-70s New Left (which led to the backlash of the 1980s), the 1930s left in Europe (which led to the rise of fascism and World War II), and the actions of the Jacobins during the French Revolution (which led to Napoleon and the restoration of the monarchy). The far-left's formula has produced the same result again and again, and I think it would be irresponsible to allow them to experiment with society one more time. 

Building Bridges is the Key to Stop the Reactionary Tide

Dear Left, We Need to Build Bridges, Not Burn Them!

Katie: You often say you are very concerned with the rise of the reactionary populist right and its culture warrior politics. You know, the left is actively fighting this. Do you see them as fellow travelers, then?

Tara: Yes and no. Yes to the extent that we should all speak up on the threat of rising authoritarianism, in whatever way we can. But also no, because firstly, I think what the left is doing could be counterproductive, and secondly, the left's failure to keep its own authoritarians in check discredits their whole effort.

Katie: Where do you think the left is being counterproductive?

Tara: The first thing is building bridges. I believe the best way to resolve our political polarization, which would be the key to stop the rise of all kinds of extremism, is to build bridges. This is why I actually want to build bridges with people who have different views. However, with the way the left is right now, it isn't easy at all. It's like how some people already have a pre-conceived notion of what I believe in, based on their impression of some of the things that I've said, even though they don't actually understand my position. It happens on both the left and the right, but to be honest, I've encountered a lot more of it on the left, especially in the past decade.

Katie: Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?

Tara: It's like how some people who identify as 'leftists' would automatically assume that I'm the 'enemy', just because I've described my politics using words like 'centrist', 'moderate', 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian'. I think that's very tribalist. I use these labels because I think they help me describe for others where I'm coming from, and the philosophical traditions that have influenced me. But I think using labels to automatically exclude people is very unhealthily tribalistic. It also makes building bridges basically impossible.

Katie: Could it be because they have had bad experiences with people who identify with those labels, especially those who do so in bad faith?

Tara: I think that could be part of the reason. Like every true libertarian I know is very frustrated with the populist right's attempt to hijack that label these days. Some populist right influencers have also self-identified as centrist, moderate, or even classical liberal, during various phases of their evolution. However, just because questionable people self-identify with these ideologies, it doesn't make these ideologies bad. We have no choice as to who chooses to identify with what label, and short of just ceding the whole ideology to these bad actors, which I believe would be a big mistake, there is no way we can fix this situation. On the other hand, I think it is still incumbent upon everyone who wants to participate in the political discourse, to learn the truth for themselves, rather than just rely on mistaken stereotypes as an excuse to refuse to build bridges. Which means my criticism of the left still stands. 

Political Labels are Encouraging Tribalism? | TaraElla Clips

The Moderate Argument Against Reactionary Right Politics

If we look at history, reactionary movements have a uniformly bad track record. They always lead to irrational policies, gross injustices, and often conflict and war. This is because they are emotionally charged and irrational, and often deliberately so. 

Reactionary politics often takes advantage of widespread frustration with a certain phenomenon (wokeness being the most recent example), and turn it into fuel for a destructive politics that serves those with a questionable agenda, by using emotion to bypass rationality. In moments of reactionary emotion, the normal rational function of humans is impaired, and what would normally be rejected can often be accepted. This effect is often deliberately enhanced further by the use of peer pressure, tribalism, and exaggerated portrayals of the 'enemy' or the issue causing concern. 

Moderates need to be able to neutralize the tactics used to build reactionary political movements. We also need to be able to address the frustrations being seized upon by reactionaries, in order to stop them from being able to mass recruit people to their cause. I believe moderates are much more effective at doing this than the far-left, simply because we are practical, empirical and evidence-based, and aren't blinded by ideological dogma like much of the far-left is. 

How the Left can Stop Alienating People

Common ground is possible, but there are clearly barriers

Katie: While you've been quite critical of how the left exists right now, you have also said that you support the general idea of progress, as in making society more inclusive and better for everyone gradually. You have also said you want to build bridges and find common ground with the left, where possible. So under what conditions do you think you will be able to find that common ground?

Tara: The most important issue, the absolute make or break thing here for me, is that the left needs to truly embrace free speech and open-mindedness. They need to be able to accept people who want progress in good faith, but might have a different view on how it's best done. More specifically, they need to be more open towards people who have a different worldview, a different model of change, or simply don't accept the core tenets of contemporary leftist theory. If there is to be common ground, it has to be on wanting progress, while still allowing differences of opinion as to what that progress looks like. To put it simply, the left needs to stop letting leftist theory get in the way of being truly open-minded.

Katie: Can you elaborate more about what you see as 'leftist theory getting in the way of being truly open-minded'?

Tara: Leftist theory, as developed in the past half a century, has been essentially ruled by overarching ideas like how so-called 'respectability politics' is bad, how 'tone policing' is bad, how speech and discourse is about power dynamics rather than seeking the objective truth, how almost everything in the status quo is an oppressive social construct that should be deconstructed, and so on. When you so fundamentally believe in all these things, you simply aren't open to criticism that says otherwise. The objective fact is that the aforementioned beliefs are counterproductive. To remain in denial of this fact, when the evidence is mounting so quickly, the left has resorted to tribalism. This, I think, is also basically the root cause of the left's embrace of authoritarian methods like de-platforming and cancel culture, and more recently, simply saying that they are 'exhausted' and refusing to even communicate.

Katie: I know you aren't a fan of contemporary leftist theory, but how does theory come into this? Isn't tribalism just part of the uglier side of human nature?

Tara: Yes, tribalism is part of the uglier side of human nature. But the way the left is trying to hold onto fundamentally flawed theory is exacerbating it. It's like how some religious cults develop a strong suspicion of all outsiders, to be blunt. This actually brings me to a related point: perhaps due to the echo chamber effect, the left is very maximalist in its demands at the moment. It is in no mood to compromise, and it is doing a very good job of pushing away those who disagree with not only its policy positions, but also their underlying philosophical beliefs, which are frankly irrelevant to policy outcomes. I believe this is a major factor fueling the growth of the reactionary right.

Katie: What you call 'maximalist demands', others might argue to be necessary for justice. How would you respond to this?

Tara: What we need to remember here is that justice is a practical thing, not a theoretical thing. Which means that, to assess whether a particular course of action is conducive to justice, we need to look at its practical effects. And right now, the actions of the left are objectively not conducive to justice, because they are not only not convincing society to become better, they are actually fueling a reactionary backlash that is making society worse. If only for the sake of justice, the left should really be at least open to listening to others' criticisms, rather than pushing everyone else away in a tribalist way, which is what they are currently doing. I think we should also pay particular attention to how certain aspects of leftist theory is making the left behave in this counterproductive way. 

The Biggest Problem with Leftist Theory | TaraElla Clips

The Problem with Organized Conservatism

Organized conservatism is simply not how conservatism is supposed to be, according to the actual philosophical cannon of conservatism that runs all the way back to thinkers like Edmund Burke. Burke himself was actually quite an open-minded thinker for his time, and he was clearly not reactionary at all. Contrast this to the typical 'conservative' politician or influencer today, whose mode of operation is often simply to take the most reactionary stance possible towards any proposal for reform, in order to sink any prospect of reform, while also scoring a win over the opposite party. As I've said many times, it is actually the centrists and the classical liberals who most resemble the approach of Burke in today's political landscape, while those who self-identify as conservatives are often reactionaries.

In other words, organized conservatism, as it exists, has actually become a vehicle for radical reactionism rather than conservatism. This is a natural and inevitable consequence of its self-identification against all progressive politics. This means that, if we want to revive true conservatism, and reject radical reactionism, we cannot do so within an organized movement that functionally identifies as anti-progressive. True conservatism simply cannot be completely anti-progressive. Rather than opposing all forms of progress and change, conservatism directs the impulse for progress towards reform over deconstruction, and further guides reform towards pathways that are consistent with the long-standing values and traditions of a given society. Given that conservatism needs to be able to choose between good and bad progressive ideas, it simply cannot reject all progressive ideas by default.

I maintain the need to continue to uphold a healthy and intellectually robust form of conservatism in society. However, to turn the conservative impulse into a political movement, especially one that stands against organized progressivism in a two-party system, inevitably sends us down a pipeline to radical reactionism, thus turning conservatism into its opposite. This is why I believe the best way to practice conservatism is to integrate its insights into the way we think about reform and progress. We need to start thinking of conservatism not as an enemy of the progressive impulse, but rather a force to guide this impulse into practical and fruitful avenues. 

Can the Left & Libertarians Find Common Ground?

Why the Left is All Doomer Nowadays

There's no denying it: the left is in an absolutely doomer phase. Gone is the optimism for 'revolutionary change' that pervaded leftists spaces in the late 2010s. The 'resistance' to the second Trump era has been a lot quieter, not because people are not as opposed to his actions, but because the loudest voices of the first 'resistance', the leftist protestors, are now sitting at home in despair.

So how did the left get here? Objectively speaking, we are in a similar place right now compared to the late 2010s. If leftists are doomers today, then they should have been equally doomer back in the late 2010s. I think the only way to explain the discrepancy here is that the left was under the illusion that a magical breakthrough, a shortcut to utopia, was soon to come back in the late 2010s, because they were convinced so by their flawed theories. That the promised change hadn't come all these years later has finally killed all hope of it actually happening at all.

It isn't even like this is the first time the left's empty promises of an instant magical shortcut to utopia 'inspired' a generation to misguided forms of activism, and eventually left them all burned out, after the promises of utopia didn't come true. A similar thing happened back in the 1960s to 70s, an era of radical cultural change, protests about almost everything, and general societal upheaval, with all that eventually resulting in the conservative backlash of the 1980s.

What the left doesn't understand is that there is simply no shortcut to utopia. Sound and sustainable improvement, especially in terms of cultural issues, can only come about as a result of gradual, step-by-step changes, taken in a cautious way, with every detail carefully considered before the change is implemented. Consensus needs to be built by changing hearts and minds one by one. It is long-term hard work, because it has to be. 

Why the Right is Not Conservative

This is a discussion I had with my friend June about what we are currently seeing. June is a fan of conservative philosophy and conservative and libertarian-ish ideals, but she is skeptical of what she is currently seeing in the political 'right'.

Tara: You say you generally agree with 'conservative philosophy' and hold 'conservative and libertarian-ish ideals', but you don't really like what you see of the political 'right' at the moment. What do you not like about the 'right'?

June: I think they are not really practising conservative values. They are divisive, irrational, and sometimes even hateful. They also often don't respect the rule of law or the importance of consensus, if they don't get their way. This is not conservative. It is radical and destructive. It is certainly not the conservative values I grew up with. And I know that many people who believe in true conservative values really don't like what the right stands for right now.

Tara: Tell me more about the conservative values you grew up with, and how they differ from today's 'right'.

June: It's things like caring for families, caring for each other. It's things like maintaining healthy communities, so people can thrive. It's about keeping with the spirit of traditions, which includes having love for each other. This certainly isn't what the right-wing culture warriors are doing. And it certainly doesn't include mindless destruction of long-standing institutions and safeguards, the denigration of experts and what they have to offer, and the refusal to listen to and consider different points of view, and bring about social consensus. 'My way or the highway' is the least conservative way to approach controversial issues.

Tara: Interesting point about the culture warriors. I agree that they self-identify as conservative but they're not really conservative by historical or serious philosophical standards. Indeed, I think this is creating a major problem for 'conservative' parties around the world. Many moderate old-school conservatives have said time and time again that they want to steer clear of the culture wars, even as the New Right is pretty much leaning in, following the lead of Trump.

June: I think Trump is a bad influence on the right. They were by no means perfect, but they certainly weren't like this back in 2015. Under Trump, the right has no use for conservative values or philosophy. They just want to 'own the libs'. Which, again, is not what conservatism is. I'm worried that new generations are growing up, thinking that Trumpian culture wars is what conservatism is. It's poisoning their minds.

Tara: I think it's worth talking a little bit about 'what conservatism is', or in a broader sense, 'what the right is'. Conservatism, rightly understood, is the cannon of philosophical thinking that goes back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, who have basically nothing in common with the reactionary culture warriors we have today. On the other hand, I have long held that the 'right', as we know it, is an artificial social construct that lumps in genuine conservatives, libertarians, and seriously reactionary people like the Trumpian New Right, people who have very little in common with each other otherwise, except that they are not the left. It is this artificial construct that we need to challenge. From what I've seen, the space to challenge this construct only seems to open up when the 'right' is decisively defeated, like in the recent Australian election. As you can see in that example, people actually come out and try to define and defend what they see as true conservative values, or true classical liberal values, saying that their party needs to return to those values, and stay away from the culture wars.

June: On the other hand, after last November's Trump win, in America the Republicans have leaned all in behind Trump, without much room for such critical thinking. This is why I'm thinking that, perhaps, a decisive defeat of the right as it currently exists is the only way we will have the room for such important discussions. And these conversations are really worth having, because the replacement of the meaningful tradition of conservatism with mindless reactionary culture war 'own the libs' politics would be a real tragedy of historical proportions.

Conversation to be continued...

Why Millennial Nostalgia is Actually Good

I think Millennial nostalgia, or 1990s nostalgia in general, is actually a good thing, because it reminds us that society can be better, and that it doesn't have to be the way it is now. Our task, I believe, is to move beyond simply wallowing in nostalgia, and actually doing something useful about our current situation. What conditions made the 90s great, that we don't have anymore now? Or conversely, what conditions are making our society horrible right now, that we didn't have back in the 90s? These questions often inform my own politics, and my views on various social issues.

Why We Need to Dissect the Political Right | TaraElla Clips

I think it's worth talking a little bit about 'what conservatism is', or in a broader sense, 'what the right is'. Conservatism, rightly understood, is the cannon of philosophical thinking that goes back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, who have basically nothing in common with the reactionary culture warriors we have today. On the other hand, I have long held that the 'right', as we know it, is an artificial social construct that lumps in genuine conservatives, libertarians, and seriously reactionary people like the Trumpian New Right, people who have very little in common with each other otherwise, except that they are not the left. It is this artificial construct that we need to challenge. From what I've seen, the space to challenge this construct only seems to open up when the 'right' is decisively defeated, like in the recent Australian election. As you can see in that example, people actually come out and try to define and defend what they see as true conservative values, or true classical liberal values, saying that their party needs to return to those values, and stay away from the culture wars.