Why Anti-Woke Politics is Ultimately Harmful for Free Speech | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Previously, I argued that the postmodern critical theory approach to politics, which has been behind what some have described as extreme 'wokeness', is essentially a kind of anarchism. Elsewhere, I expanded on this argument, focusing on the fact that it is the rejection of all forms of coercion and hierarchy, and the intention to deconstruct the status quo (without a concrete goal to build something else) that makes postmodern criticalism a form of anarchism. I also said that:

"...the order upheld by liberal society must be a good order, one that is fair to all and one where individuals living under it can truly thrive. Critical anarchists in particular have used liberal society's past and present injustices to justify attempts to dismantle it. The best way to disprove the case for critical anarchism is therefore to maintain a good and just order. This is why reactionary 'anti-woke' culture war politics isn't helpful."

To summarize, the best argument against all forms of anarchism, including this new postmodern critical anarchism, is to demonstrate that order is conducive to justice in practice. We need to demonstrate that, in practice, the social contract of the classical liberal consensus can fulfill its promises of liberty, equal opportunity and the chance to pursue happiness for all.

Why Free Speech Shouldn't be an Anti-Woke Thing | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Far too often, cancel culture that comes from the supposedly 'non-woke' is not taken as seriously. It's like how when, earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis used the power of the state to 'punish' Disney for speaking up against his Don't Say Gay law, and 'anti-woke' free speech forces didn't unite to oppose the move as some might have expected. This just shows how the 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' lens is of limited utility in defending free speech, and well past its expiry date, in a time when cancel culture can almost equally come from all sides.

This is why it's time we moved away from a 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' narrative, towards a narrative that opposes cancel culture and defends free speech on the grounds of traditional classical liberal ideals. We should highlight the fact that free speech holds the promise of getting us closer to the truth, and also therefore building sound consensus and good order in society. Cancel culture destroys this promise, no matter what direction it is coming from, and no matter who is being targeted. Moreover, taking sides in culture wars would also harm this promise, because this would make it impossible to be committed to the objective truth, and building a good order for all. This is also why we need to be very wary of people who want us to join a tribe and play the culture war game.

Why Cancel Culture Isn't About Accountability | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Cancel culture isn't simply holding someone accountable. The aim of cancel culture is silencing people, rather than holding people accountable. It's an attempt by activists to silence voices and ideas they don't like, with an intention to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas. The (unspoken) logic of cancel culture is simple: if the opposition's argument isn't heard, it would be easier to win the debate. It is therefore basically a form of cheating. As I previously said, the promise of free speech is that it will get us closer to the truth, and lead to good order in society. However, this would only work if ideas are truly put on a level playing field, and the flow of information isn't hindered or distorted. This is why cancel culture is the enemy of truth and good order. It's a shame that too many 'intellectuals' in the West don't seem to understand this nowadays.

The Key to Liberalism is Diversity of Thought | Rebuilding Liberalism

The marketplace of ideas is the key to a successful reformist politics

Welcome to Rebuilding Liberalism, a series where we look at how to rebuild the classical liberal consensus, and build a rational and successful reformist politics on top of this consensus.

Recently, in an article about the 2022 US midterm election results, I've analyzed how 'woke' activists are creating a dilemma for the Democrats (as well as their counterparts in other countries). The 'woke' agenda, consisting mostly of postmodern critical theory inspired activism, is broadly unpopular, and the Republicans have successfully painted the Democrats as supportive of it. Even if they stay silent on cultural issues, they can't seem to shake off the 'woke' vibe. This is because, unlike back in the 1990s, party establishments don't control the conversation in the media anymore, and hence can't control how they are perceived. The solution I suggested was to develop an alternative platform that addresses the social justice demands out there, but rooted in the long-standing classical liberal consensus instead of postmodern critical theory, including upholding values like free speech and freedom of conscience.

However, one might still ask, how would the (classical) liberal alternative be heard over the postmodern critical theory agenda? The answer actually lies in one of liberalism's most cherished values: diversity of thought. Of all the ideologies that have existed in the history of the West, liberalism is uniquely committed to diversity of thought, as reflected in its values like free speech, freedom of conscience, encouragement of rational debate, and so on. Until recently, liberal media was well known for giving all sorts of unusual views airtime, in contrast to conservative media's habit of running the same message over and over again. This kind of coverage was well suited to liberal audiences, because of their open-minded nature. However, in recent years, this liberal diversity has greatly diminished. I believe it has a lot to do with the rise of cancel culture. Journalists and media outlets, who used to take interest in diverse viewpoints across the spectrum, have been increasingly leaning towards the argument that 'harmful' ideas shouldn't be platformed. As to what is harmful, it could range from actual racism (which I agree shouldn't be entertained), all the way down to proposals for compromise solutions on issues related to racial justice and LGBT issues (which are probably essential to building consensus for reform). Activists have also attacked liberal media outlets that feature 'harmful' voices, leading to the calculation that, for reputation's sake, it might be better not to invite certain people on. All this has meant that progressive-side media has increasingly toed the activist line. I even suspect that this is actually one of the biggest reasons for the current polarization.

Restoring the diversity of thought in liberal media would stop the conservative attempt to paint everyone to their left as 'woke' on everything. The 'everything is woke' narrative would naturally be discredited in a world where diversity of thought and sincere debates are clearly the norm among those who want to reform society. Yes, 'woke' voices would still be there, they will still be part of the conversation, but it would be clear that they are not the only perspective on offer on the progressive side. Free debate would also lead to the exchange of ideas, the refinement of proposals, and yes, the formation of compromises most people can get behind, which is what needs to happen for any progressive reform to occur, or indeed, to stop reactionary policies from winning. For example, parents are rightly concerned that sex education in schools need to be age appropriate, and they need to have a say in it. Polls have repeatedly showed that a majority of Americans agree with this position, for example. However, activists on the left have made the issue taboo to discuss in liberal media. This has created an opening for people like Ron DeSantis to come up with 'Don't Say Gay' bills. A similar dynamic also exists in relation to discussions on history and race, again allowing reactionary politicians to run a culture war in that area. Restoring liberal diversity would short circuit these dynamics, and likely stop the rising tide of reactionary culture war politics.

The other important thing is that, those in favor of social reforms should welcome a re-diversified landscape, and adapt to it accordingly. This way, they can potentially greatly expand the coalitions supporting their policy goals. To do this, they need to learn to build coalitions in favor of reforms, which can include a diverse range of views about the underlying reasons for embracing particular policies. For example, I have long argued that the pro-environment coalition needs to include people who are still skeptical of climate change, but would support climate action as an 'insurance policy'. Similarly, the pro-choice coalition needs to include people who are personally against abortion, but believe the government shouldn't be involved, or otherwise believe that banning abortions isn't the answer. The LGBT rights coalition should welcome people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman in the religious sense, or who don't believe that 'trans women are women', but are still compassionate enough to support civil rights to make life easier for LGBT people, for example. The attitude they should take is, 'you shouldn't have to agree with us on philosophy to agree with us on policy'. This is the only way to build broad coalitions to achieve needed reforms.

Finally, it is only to be expected that critical theory-aligned activists will not be kind towards any attempt to develop and articulate an alternative progressive agenda that doesn't entertain their ideological point of view. Those advancing a truly liberal agenda must be prepared for smears of not being committed to social justice, or even throwing minorities under the bus. The best way to argue against these smears would be to show a genuine commitment to equal opportunity for everyone in society, regardless of race, gender, or other immutable characteristics. It is the only way to win the argument against postmodern critical theory.

Why Liberalism is Anti Chaos | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article by TaraElla.

In the most basic terms, liberalism is a belief that society should be built on a social contract that ensures an ordered liberty, where all can equally enjoy this liberty. Different factions within liberalism differ on what the social contract should include, or what liberties should be upheld, but one common element present in all versions of liberalism is the belief that liberty's existence is dependent on the existence of order. Thomas Hobbes, who argued that an absolute sovereign was necessary to avoid the brute natural state of "the war of all against all", is often considered an important thinker in the liberal cannon. While modern liberals are certainly more democratic than Hobbes, we still agree fundamentally with his belief that an order needs to be imposed, in order to ensure a sustainable liberty.

In this way, liberalism stands in stark contrast to anarchism, the other major ideology that has some notion of freedom at its center. Unlike liberalism, anarchism does not believe in an ordered liberty. Indeed, it does not accept the need for any enforced order at all, because its ultimate goal is to remove all 'coercive' and hierarchical relationships between humans. Given that any imposition of order must inevitably be 'coercive' and hierarchical to some extent, anarchists reject the liberal goal of an ordered liberty as oppressive in their worldview. As to how to avoid the natural state of "the war of all against all", anarchists have never provided a convincing answer.