The Biden Equity Controversy & What Andrew Yang can Teach Us | TaraElla Report S8

Today, I want to talk about the controversy surrounding President Joe Biden's recent emphasis on equity. Some have expressed worry about this 'equity' thing turning out to be about equality of outcome or group-based equality, which would mean inequality of individual opportunity. Of course, if that's the case, it would be incompatible with classical liberal values. But how valid is this concern?

Let's look at what this equity thing is all about. The Biden administration has apparently defined equity as "the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality."

Now, some people may worry about all the identity groups mentioned in the statement, but I think it's important that we don't become inherently opposed to recognizing that some people are still disadvantaged based on their characteristics, and there is still a need to make things more equal. So, let's take a more open-minded approach to this. I think the encouraging thing is that the definition opens with 'the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals', before expanding on that. Therefore, it is individual-based fairness, not group-based fairness. Theoretically at least, it should lead to an aspiration of colorblind and genderblind society. This definition would also be theoretically incompatible with critical race theory.

Of course, as some people may say, the devil is in the detail. And to be honest, I do have my concerns here as well. There have indeed been examples where people, perhaps too eager to rectify injustices, forget about the importance of the individual dignity, equality and liberty that is the bedrock of classical liberalism, even opening the door to critical theory-style practices. However, given that the intention to do it right is there, I think we should take everything in good faith, at least in the first instance. I think that, for those of us who want to rectify injustices but want to do so using classical liberal means, it's important for us to join the conversation, so that we can steer the process towards one that respects individual level liberty and equality.

The good news is, there are ways to address systematic injustices while staying true to the universalist aspirations of classical liberalism. For example, during the 2019 primaries, Andrew Yang repeatedly touted his UBI as being especially able to benefit certain communities, because of the socioeconomic disadvantage they are starting out with. Therefore, on a systematic level, it helps fix historical disadvantage. However, on an individual level, everyone is still treated equally. Everyone gets $1000 per month regardless of skin color, everyone is treated the same regardless of race, which is the most important thing. I think this is a good example of policy that addresses the equity problem, while also being consistent with individual level equality.

James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose & the Coming Rift Under Biden | TaraElla Report S8

Today, I want to talk about a very important topic, as the West inevitably heads into a new political landscape with the departure of President Trump, and the arrival of President Biden. But let's start with the disagreement between James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, two authors who rose to fame in the anti-crtical theory scene in 2020, with the publication of their book Cynical Theories.

Anyway, in recent months, Lindsay has become increasingly conservative-aligned, including his support for Trump, and Pluckrose has become uncomfortable with some of his opinions, which has become the basis for the disagreement. This, I think, mirrors a similar split in the anti-critical theory community leading up to the election: one of the publications in the anti-critical theory scene interviewed a bunch of big names in the scene, and found that they were almost evenly split between Trump and Biden. Interestingly, each camp strongly believed that having their candidate in office would be better for combating critical theory, and restoring free speech and free debate. Similarly, places like the IDW subreddit were split between Trump and Biden supporters arguing on an almost daily basis, along similar lines. Back then, I thought this was only going to be temporary, because the election would be over soon, and whatever the outcome, we would all move on.

However, it is now clear to me that this rift goes much deeper, and is likely going to be even more exposed during the Biden era. You see, the anti-critical theory movement has a liberal and moderate wing, and a conservative wing. Liberal in this sense means a classical liberal approach to social issues, which is certainly different at times from the conservative approach, as we saw during the gay marriage and video games debates some time ago. The movement even has a socialist wing, made up of old school so-called class-reductionist socialists, even though in real life they tend to be quieter on cultural issues. Anyway, I guess we can't expect these wings to agree with each other on things outside critical theory and postmodernism, given their different politics. Realistically, they would just have to agree to disagree a lot of the time. I mean, I have enjoyed a lot of what James Lindsay has had to say about postmodernism and critical theory, its history, its current impact, and its threat to things like free speech. But a brief glance at his twitter feed would reveal that he has many opinions outside of opposing critical theory, and I simply disagree with more than two thirds of those opinions. This is unsurprising, given that I am a liberal, and Lindsay is a conservative. Liberalism and moderatism are reformist, while conservatism is more hesitant and even reactionary at times. The fact that we are both very concerned about the rise of critical theory wouldn't magically resolve our other long-standing disagreements.

In fact, I think the Biden era is going to see a big resurgence in traditional liberal vs conservative disagreements. You see, while I'm not a fan of Trump, I have to give him some credit for cutting across traditional divides, because he is such a heterodox figure. Trump was certainly divisive in his own right, but ironically his presence put a brief pause to many of those decades-old liberal vs conservative arguments. However, Biden is now in charge, and his politics is deeply rooted in old-school establishment liberalism. And it's not just Biden: his opposition is also going to be made up of mostly establishment Republicans, in both congress and the media, and these people also think in the establishment liberal vs conservative mould. Therefore, I think we are going to see politics argued and divided more like during the Bush era or the Clinton era. So we're talking about rewinding at least 13 years politically. You know, back to when liberals and conservatives disagreed on things like gay marriage. Of course, we won't be revisiting gay marriage, but it will be some similar things. These things, whatever they may be, will take up the lion's share of attention in the mainstream consciousness, and I guess people like James Lindsay and people like myself aren't going to agree on a lot of them.

And then, the critical theory wars will still be going on, away from the stage of mainstream politics driven by Biden and his opposition, but instead in crucial cultural battlegrounds. And we all know that politics is ultimately downstream from culture, so these battles, waged away from the spotlight of mainstream media, are going to have major consequences some time in the future. The outcome of these battles are going to determine the future of free speech, free debate, science vs postmodernism, indeed the shape of Western civilization itself in the future. So it's really important that, even though we are going to be divided on many mainstream political issues, and that the disagreement is legitimate and real, we don't lose sight of the bigger critical theory threat. In other words, we need to remain united against critical theory, even as we agree to disagree on many other fronts. The disagreement between Lindsay and Pluckrose, and also the fallout between Sam Harris and some members of the IDW late last year, are early reminders of the need to manage this situation, if the anti-critical theory movement is to survive.

This is what I think will need to happen. There needs to be space to discuss and co-operate, and there also needs to be enough space to disagree, so that there is enough room for everyone in the movement, and also that tensions don't boil up like a pressure cooker. The whole Dave Rubin-style pretending that we're all fine as long as we all support free speech is not going to work. It will only make the movement collapse under its own tensions. Instead, we need to acknowledge that liberals and conservatives are inevitably going to disagree sometimes. Conservatives are inevitably going to be more suspicious of any reform, while us moderates and liberals would be often more supportive and open-minded. On the other hand, there is still much room to co-operate on the front of critical theory. Therefore, for the sake of our collective future, liberals will need to resist the tendency to cut off conservatives for disagreeing, and vice versa. I promise I will continue to converse with people I don't agree with on everything, and everyone needs to do the same. After all, it's demanded by our commitment to free speech and rational debate.

The other problem is that, some conservatives may overly read critical theory into liberal reforms where there is none. This may strike many moderates and liberals to be a move in bad faith. However, I think it would be more productive to actually engage with the facts, and explain our more open-minded perspective in good faith. Again, we may not come to agreement every time, but let's make it a workable relationship, with an interesting conversation keeping it all alive.

Andrew Yang and Jonathan Haidt Show a New Way to do Politics, End Polarization? | TaraElla Report S8

Today, I want to talk about the recent conversation between Andrew Yang and Jonathan Haidt, one of my favorite contemporary political theorists, on Yang Speaks. Basically, as many of you may already be familiar with, Haidt is most famous for his view of how people have innate inclinations towards prioritizing certain moral values, which would naturally predispose them to certain politics. It's a view that I have found to be true based on my own observations, and one that I think more people should take seriously. It's really something that could help solve the polarization problem. I have been saying this for years, and I wish more people would listen. Which is why it's indeed a very good thing that Yang has brought Haidt onto his show.

Indeed, in a way, Yang's own campaign, his political messaging, provided further proof for Haidt's theory. That Yang, a progressive Democrat, was able to attract many Republican supporters, was because he pitched his policies in a way that would resonate with the moral foundations of conservatives, for example their strong emphasis on family. In turn, it's because he respects that people have those moral foundations, while some other progressives, especially in recent times, essentially hold contempt for conservative moral views. This is why Yang is so much better.

The fact is, if Haidt is right, then there really is no point in converting others to your particular values. Furthermore, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe in every individual having Equal Moral Agency, so it should be every leader's commitment to respect other people's strongly held moral views. Indeed, those who want to build a political movement or run a campaign rightly need to be able to appeal to people with different values and worldviews, respecting that this diversity is a fact of life. A culture of respect for diverse views and free speech naturally results from that, which is why the Yang Gang gets along well despite their differences. Yang was able to build a big tent precisely because he was able to respect people's moral foundations. I think it's a thing we should demand of our politicians and leaders, going forward. The world would be a much less polarized place.

I think one thing that wasn't explored in the conversation, is the role certain problematic ideas or theories are now distorting the way some people apply their moral foundations, with the result of making things even worse. Haidt's description of the different moral foundations of progressive-liberals and conservatives are based on what could be described as mainstream Democrats and Republicans, and these groups made up the whole political mainstream in most Western countries, at least up until 2010 or so. But the thing is, in the past 5 or 10 years, there has been a change.

For example, people on the left used to apply their concern for justice as fair treatment under the law, equal opportunity for everyone, and of course, an equal right to free speech. That's why, back when I was in college, the left was seen as more supportive of free speech. However, since postmodernism and critical theory went mainstream, some people on the left have started to apply their concern for justice using the lens of various critical theories, which end up justifying unequal treatment, unequal opportunity, and even taking away free speech, in some circumstances. This has actually caused a major rift in the left. However, since the critical theory people are well organized, they have had an upper hand culturally in recent years, with those uncomfortable with critical theory either staying silent or quietly leaving the left. Furthermore, given that critical theory is sometimes actively against things like family values, it would lead to people on the left increasingly unable to appeal to conservative morality. Indeed, Yang himself has been attacked by parts of the left for swimming against this tide.

This example shows that, the proliferation of faulty ideas could have an equally important impact on politics as people's natural moral inclinations, and the two can interact with each other. I wish Haidt would explore this more in his work.

The Real Source of Polarization | Re Tulsi Gabbard / Rubin Report | TaraElla Report S8

Today, I want to talk about polarization, what has gotten us here, and how to get out of it. In light of recent events, Tulsi Gabbard and Dave Rubin had a chat about the current levels of polarization, and the seriously negative consequences it has had. Indeed, Tulsi has been very concerned about this issue for some time now, and I think she is correct to be so worried. I guess, after all that has happened in the past few years, I think most of us can agree that polarization is bad, even dangerous. We should all work to put an end to it. But to do so, we need to think about where it comes from. What drives people to think of their fellow human beings as the enemy?

The answer, I think, lies in conformity thinking. The current polarization that is happening across the West is bad, because many people are sorted into two main camps, each with a set of expected positions on a wide range of issues, including the economy, the environment, cultural issues, and to some extent, even foreign policy. I need to stress that not everyone is neatly divided into these two camps. I personally take pride in the fact that I have my own positions, based on my own conscience and reasoning, for every issue, and I also congratulate all others who refuse to be sorted into the two big, opposing camps.

As a Moral Libertarian, I strongly believe that it is our moral duty to be independent thinkers, to arrive at our own conclusions with our own consciences. But the fact remains that a substantial number of people are now sorted into the two opposing camps, and that members of one camp are sometimes effectively considering members of the other camp as enemies. Now, this is a very unhealthy way of thinking indeed. So how did we get to this point?

It's because political parties function as coalitions. They have to, because in representative democracies, a political party has to secure majority support to govern. This is why, even though affirmative action and environmentalism are not inherently linked, they exist in the same party. I'm not saying one can't support both of these things, it's just that they are not logically linked. Similarly, even though religious conservatives and neoconservative hawks don't always agree with each other, they exist in the same party, which makes things awkward at times. Given that it is in the interests of establishment politicians to smooth over this awkwardness, they are naturally inclined to encourage people in one faction of their party to support the positions of all other factions of their party. Therefore, religious conservatives were also encouraged to be pro-Iraq War during the Bush era, for example. The establishment backed mass media has traditionally played the role of this messaging, and nowadays even social media is being used for this purpose, again backed by big establishment money.

Now, this kind of coalition politics makes life easy for establishment politicians, but it's very bad for producing morally sound policy, and the sharp divisions it creates is very bad for the soul of nations. Indeed, I consider coalition political thinking the root of much of today's political ills, including the dangerous levels of polarization. I mean, it's one thing that political parties have to build coalitions. It's certainly not healthy that the coalition becomes permanent and fixed across election cycles, and built into a cultural package that some people swallow whole as a default. It's certainly not healthy that the mainstream media echo chambers, and even some social media echo chambers, keep pushing the establishment's coalition politics down people's throats, as if they should naturally accept the whole package of positions. It dumbs down politics, and creates a permanent us-vs-them attitude that leads to today's extreme polarization.

Therefore, I think the best solution to deal with polarization is simply to encourage independent thinking. When you encourage independent thinking, people are naturally going to come up with a collection of positions that don't neatly align with one party or another. Somebody with such a collection of positions will find that different people become allies on different issues, and almost nobody would be a permanent enemy. Of course, the establishment won't like this. But society itself will become much healthier. Now, on a final note, Tulsi appears to be an independent thinker, but I am worried that Rubin is aligning himself too closely to the Republican party line, even though he doesn't think of himself as a Republican. I hope he seriously reconsiders this.

John Locke | The Liberal Project by TaraElla

Written by TaraElla in November 2020

In this episode, we will examine the ideas of John Locke. John Locke was a British philosopher, physician and government official who is widely considered the father of liberalism. His 'Second Treatise of Government' is often considered the first articulation of liberal principles in writing. He also provided substantial contributions to the philosophical traditions of empiricism and reason, and also religious tolerance.

Locke's two Treatises of Government provided a rebuttal to supporters of the idea that monarchs should hold absolute power over their subjects. In particular, in the Second Treatise, he outlined his beliefs of the origins of government in natural rights theory and social contract theory. From there, he derived principles which set limits on the legitimate powers of government (which was in the form of monarchy rather than democracy back then). Locke believed that a legitimate government has to be instituted by the consent of the governed, who willingly give up some of their natural rights in order to escape the hazards of life in the primitive, natural state.

Locke was a firm believer in empiricism and reason. His reputation as one of the greatest early empiricists rests on his famous work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke believed that the human mind is a blank slate at birth, and all ideas and knowledge come from experience. Locke was ardently committed to the truth. Indeed, he was so committed to the truth that he once said he would be the first to throw what he wrote into the fire, if he no longer believed it to be true.

Locke's commitment to the objective truth illustrates the important link between liberalism and the pursuit of the truth. It is the free debate, free thinking and free action guaranteed by liberalism that allows the discovery of objective truths. Furthermore, truth and morality are intrinsically tied. If we believe in an objective morality, there must logically then be an objective truth, because only the objective truth could reveal what the objectively moral course of action would be. Only by knowing the truth about things could we know what is moral to do. This fact, in turn, links into the Moral Libertarian claim that liberalism is the most moral ideology, simply by allowing equal and maximum liberty to every individual. This is because, when every individual is allowed to pursue the truth independently, to live their life according to what they believe is the truth, and when ideas are allowed to be competitively debated on an even playing field, the moral truth of what is right and what is wrong gradually becomes clear. Given enough time, sound ideas will eventually triumph over bad ideas, and sound moral practices will show themselves to be sound through the fruits of those practices.

Locke was a devout Christian, but he also believed that reason is a more reliable determinant of truth than blind faith in distant religious revelation passed down through the generations. Therefore, he believed in using reason to judge whether a revelation is genuine. Locke was also an early advocate for religious toleration, which would become arguably the most important foundation pillar of liberalism. He justified this partly on the argument that every church would claim to be the true church, and that only God would be able to determine whose claim was correct.

Locke's commitment to religious tolerance, and the reasons he justified it with, arguably provides one of the most important cornerstones of liberal philosophy. Indeed, the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency is essentially derived from the same principles, but for the modern world, where not everyone is religious, and not every individual's ethical positions are derived from religious beliefs. Locke reasoned that every church would claim to be the true church but no human being on Earth was able to determine whose claim was correct. Similarly, in the modern world, there are multiple claims of morally correct answers to every controversial social question, but no human being is able to reliably determine which one is the correct answer. To ensure that every claim starts on an equal ground, and therefore that the competition is on a level playing field meaning the results are fair and true, every individual must be allowed to have their equal share of moral agency to promote, defend and practice their claims, which is the core idea of Moral Libertarianism. This is to say, in a world where nobody has the moral insight to reliably determine right from wrong every single time, equal tolerance to the promotion and practice of every claim, and the use of empirical results to determine the soundness of each claim, is the most moral way. I believe this should be the core principle of liberalism in our time.

Welcome to The Liberal Project by TaraElla

Hi everyone, and welcome to The Liberal Project by TaraElla. In this project, we look at the ideas and contributions of great liberal thinkers from various times, and also examine how their ideas are similar, different, or otherwise interact with, the core Moral Libertarian ideal of Equal and Maximum Moral Agency for every individual.

I believe such a project is needed because we need to revive the intellectual and academic side of liberalism. As I have often said, liberalism, being an ideology that has a large footprint in mainstream Western politics, has in recent times overly focused on practical policy, and has neglected developing philosophy, theory and new ideas. Compare liberalism to socialism, which had been marginalized in Western politics until recently, but has an outsized influence in academia and intellectual circles, and you will see what I mean.

Most importantly, liberalism is the thought system that underlies many assumptions of the Western liberal democratic system, so a healthy appreciation of liberalism is needed to keep the system functional.

There needs to be a culture of debating liberal ideas, formulating liberal philosophy and theory, and so on, because that's what will keep liberalism alive in the long term. My Moral Libertarian ideas and theories were developed with this aim, and I hope that, with a revival of intellectual liberalism, there will be others who would do similarly, so that, in the not too distant future, liberalism will be an intellectually engaging, philosophically deep, and overall vibrant ideological scene again. My hope is that, by looking at great liberal thinkers and their ideas, appreciating their profoundness and grandeur, it will inspire us to take on this challenge. 

These are the thinkers we want to cover, eventually:

John Rawls
John Locke
Adam Smith
Edmund Burke
John Stuart Mill
Robert Nozick
Milton Friedman
Ludwig von Mises
Ayn Rand
Karl Popper
Friedrich Hayek
Herbert Spencer
Adam Smith
Isaiah Berlin
Amartya Sen
Ronald Dworkin
Joseph Raz
James Buchanan
Bruce Ackerman
Raymond Aron
Ken Galbraith
Wilhelm Ropke