Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture, from a Moral Libertarian perspective. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Welcome to the new TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. We'll be doing this on most days of the week, subscribe if you're interested.
Today, I want to respond to a recent interview of Michael Malice by political commentator Lauren Chen. There are a few points where I strongly disagreed with Malice, and I think Chen also didn't explore in enough depth. In that interview, Malice described something he calls the 'New Right', which is more united by their shared opposition to what is sometimes called the New Left than by any common shared belief. I mean, what he describes is effectively diverse groups of people who have in common an opposition to postmodernism, identity politics and Critical Theory thinking. I think it's sufficient to state this plainly, and using a new label like the 'New Right' ironically risks encouraging identity politics. Besides, many people who are opposed to postmodernism, identity politics and Critical Theory don't necessarily identify as any type of 'Right'. I personally refuse to identify as either left or right, for example. I believe that thinking in terms of left vs right unnecessarily limts our horizons either way, and I rather like Andrew Yang's idea of 'not left, not right, but forward'. It should also be noted that, when this 'New Right' idea was raised by an article in Quilette earlier this year, many people responded that they wouldn't want to be a part of some 'New Right', because while they oppose identity politics and postmodernist thinking, they are lifelong Democrats, and they believe in Democratic policies on most issues from health care to climate change. In effect, the adoption of a label like the 'New Right' needlessly divides the coalition that opposes identity politics and postmodern critical theory, and is a most unwise move.
Malice went on to say that, one of the most important differences between the 'New Right' and the 'Old Right' is that the 'New Right' is much more skeptical and unforgiving of mainstream establishment media. However, this phenomenon is not just confined to the right. Rather, younger generations across the political spectrum have become very skeptical of the establishment media and its agenda. This awareness is strong on the right, the left, and even the moderate center. There are very few pro-establishment young people either way.
Another criticism I have of Malice is that he seems to think that political polarization and escalation may be a good thing because this way the center 'can't hold' anymore. This echoes an increasing feeling on both the left and the right that perhaps it might be a good thing for the status quo to give way to chaos, and for all out political war to break out, because they would be the winners in the end. However, this fantasy portrays a lack of understanding of history. Imperfect as it is, even the current status quo represents the accumulation of thousands of years of trial and error in human history, and an abrupt break with the past without careful consideration and consensus would almost certainly bring more losses than gains. Furthermore, history teaches us that periods of chaos are most often followed by long periods of authoritarian rule, and it may take a very long time just to get back to where we are today.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
