Who is Responsible for the Culture Wars?

Both sides are guilty, and we need to push back equally

Like many people, I'm sick and tired of the culture wars. As a classical liberal who believes in free speech and a healthy marketplace of ideas, I'm especially frustrated that culture warriors on both sides are hampering free speech, and poisoning the marketplace of ideas. Finding a way to end the culture wars has become my number one political priority in recent months. To borrow a popular saying, I'm now thoroughly not left, not right, but anti-culture war.

The first obstacle to ending the culture war is that neither side would admit to being responsible for it. The left likes to say that they are only trying to make society better and more just, and the problem lies solely with the reactionary right. The right likes to say that they would be minding their own business if not for the left's attempts at changing everything in a radical way. However, based on my recent analyses, it is clear that both sides are very much responsible. We can't end the culture wars without properly acknowledging this.

Let's talk about the left first. While the (cultural, rather than economic) left might truly think that they are only working for social justice, what they are effectively doing is imposing a radical new culture on society without most people consenting to it. This would, by definition, amount to waging a culture war. The problem here is not their commitment to social justice, but the influence of postmodernism and critical theory in their worldview. That ideology calls for the most radical deconstruction and dismantling of all existing cultural institutions, social structures and linguistic norms. According to postmodern critical theory, social justice cannot be achieved without this radical change. However, this does not align with observed reality. Universal suffrage, women's rights, the civil rights movement, gay marriage and so on were all successfully achieved without the massive destruction of the social fabric advocated by postmodern critical theory. Instead, these reforms were all won via the power of persuation, along the lines of normally accepted logic, in the marketplace of ideas. There is no objectively valid reason to abandon the successful track record of liberal reformism at all, except in the twisted philosophy of postmodern critical theory.

In fact, the mainstreaming of postmodern critical theory has made it very difficult to advance social justice causes. Take trans acceptance, for example. The existence of postmodern philosophical theory has complicated the whole thing, and let the reactionary right win arguments that they shouldn't have won. For example, my own honest view on the 'what is a woman' question is simply what appears to be similar to the women I've known before. As I've previously argued, this is actually the common sense answer, and also aligns with how the term has been used since time immemorial, at least until the postmodern and right-wing culture warriors sought to impose their own definitions respectively. My definition, the common sense definition, would actually have included the majority of trans women, at least in the social context (even if not where biological sex matters), and it would have been great for promoting trans acceptance.

But no, it isn't good enough for the postmodernists, because of their obsession with anti-essentialism. They want to deconstruct everything, which is to say make everything mean nothing at all, because of their philosophical (i.e. ideological) needs. So now both 'women' and 'trans women' have to mean nothing, at least among the trans activist establishment. This has created a vacuum for the right-wing culture warriors to come in and impose a strict biological sex definition, which is actually rooted in neither common sense nor tradition, but culture war-style animosity towards trans people. Yet, when compared to the postmodern activists' offering of essentially 'nothing' for their answer, the Matt Walsh definition at least looks more sound on paper, which is why it has become so popular lately. In other words, I hold postmodernism entirely responsible for the success of Matt Walsh et al's otherwise flimsy arguments. This is a good example of why we need to challenge postmodern critical theory, all the way up to its origins in elite academia. We can't rest until it is all soundly debunked, and firmly placed in the dustbin of history. (This, in turn, is why I offered some support to Jordan Peterson when he first raised the issue a few years ago, despite disagreeing with him on quite a few things. We desperately need people to seriously challenge postmodernism, especially on the academic front.)

All this is to say that postmodern critical theory has brainwashed many people on the left to support what is effectively a wholesale culture war on the status quo that is not necessary, and even counterproductive, for achieving social justice causes. When you don't respect the objective truth anymore, but instead insist that there can be a difference between 'your truth' and 'my truth', you are inviting people to abandon the common ground of objective truth, and make truth claims subject to culture war tribalism. When you refuse to debate things using the commonly accepted logic, but insist on endlessly questioning the common sense, you make rational discourse impossible. When you force society to change its language and culture without most people really agreeing with the changes in their hearts, you are in effect waging culture war on society, and all you are going to get is backlash. (The backlash is often suffered by disadvantaged minorities, with the privileged activists just walking away, looking for the next fight elsewhere.) Hence, getting rid of the influence of postmodern critical theory would go a long way in ending the culture wars, which would also be very good for social justice in the real world. We need to make those on the left aware of this. We need to unplug them from the postmodern programming.

Now, let's talk about the right. The right isn't innocent either. As I've discussed on multiple occasions, the US Republican Party has particularly leaned hard into culture war issues to build their voting coalition ever since the 1960s, often with the side effect of introducing authoritarian policies too. There was the distasteful alliance with segregationists during the period of the 'Southern strategy', the deprivation of civil liberties during the 'war on terror', and the empty moral panic over gay marriage, just to name a few shameful chapters of this history. The counterfeit conservatism called 'fusionism' was essentially an attempt to hide a very radical economic and foreign policy with reactionary culture wars, and selling the package as 'conservative' to voters distracted by cultural issues. It is this long-term encouragement of culture warriorism that has led to Trumpism, the popularization of various conspiracy theories, and the rise of reactionary populist movements that are borderline fascistic in character. Even if those on the left suddenly became reasonable again, it is unlikely that this populist, culture war right would be able to engage with more reasonable reformist proposals at all. This is why ending the culture war needs to be a both sides thing.

In particular, the establishment Republican Party might not like to admit it, but they are responsible for creating these monsters. The GOP, their counterparts in other Western countries, as well as their media allies are all very much responsible, and the least they could do is to change course and help end the culture wars. Sadly, with even anti-Trump Republicans backing candidates like Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence, it seems that they haven't even learned their lesson yet.

Hence, the other half of the answer to the question of how to end the culture wars, is to help the right rediscover the real conservative tradition, the tradition of thinkers like Edmund Burke. To this day, Burke is revered as the father of conservatism. But imagine if Burke was more like Trump and DeSantis. Imagine if he was instead the kind of person who encouraged populist reactionary sentiments, and built a political career around those sentiments, while attacking the civil rights of minorities along the way. Would he still be the respected figure he is today? Would he even be remembered? I'm sure there were other politicians who were more like Trump and DeSantis in Burke's day. It's just that we don't even remember the names of those people anymore, because they are not worthy of our memory at all. Burke is remembered and revered because he was a person with a good conscience, a man who actually cared about the people. His conservatism is respectable because it came from a place of caring about society, not a place of reactionary anger and hatred. Those on the right must be reminded of this truth, especially in times like these.

To end the culture wars would require those of us who are still awake to its harms to speak the truth. We need to bravely speak the truth, in the face of the increasingly unreasonable stance of the culture warriors on both sides, and bring everyone back down to the common ground of reality. Given the culture wars are being encouraged on both sides by people with power, money and influence, the act of speaking against culture warriorism would indeed be a good example of speaking truth to power. We need to do it more before it's too late.

Looking for the Political Philosophy to End Tribalist Culture Wars

We need to rediscover our common ground in the classical liberal and conservative traditions

The combined effects of the postmodern left and the culture-war right means that Western society is now divided between two kinds of people: those who want to fight a tribalist culture war to 'own' the other side, and those who still believe in finding common ground and working towards practical solutions for our problems. The first group, the culture warriors on both sides, are a lost cause at this point, and I think we must separate ourselves from them going forward. We, people on both sides of the political spectrum who are still dedicated to finding common ground and finding good solutions, need to be able to have constructive dialogue with each other, rooted in a commitment to objective reality and a wish to find practical solutions. We would also need to put our ideological differences aside to achieve this. To do all this, we need a clear vision of the society we want, and how to get there.

Using the Classical Liberal Tradition to Rebuild our Shared Objective Reality

Right now, many people are concerned about the rise of fake news, and biased reporting that might not be fake but is deliberately biased so as to provoke an emotional reaction, often to support certain policies. A new, worrying trend is that there seems to be an increasing alignment between the 'postliberal' right and this kind of biased reporting, with certain media outlets (including both traditional and online outlets) reliably acting as a bloc to deliver the emotionally charged moral panics that justify highly illiberal policies and actions. The recent moral panic around certain LGBT issues, and the resulting illiberal policies in many red states across America, as well as the movements to boycott Bud Light and Target, is a good example of this. (The Target boycott is particularly notable here because it was partly fueled by fake news.) As classical liberals, we just can't let this continue unchecked, because it would represent the total destruction of important classical liberal norms, from the commitment to objective truth, to the need for the state to respect individual liberty, to the freedom of private businesses to do business as they see fit.

Many social media platforms have resorted to varying levels of censorship, which has generally been disastrous in practice. Not only does this not stamp out fake news, it is totally useless against biased reporting that does not cross into fake news, but nevertheless represents a distortion of reality. Moreover, such action has led to criticisms of disrespect of free speech rights, which inevitably lead to even more conspiracy theories. Furthermore, there are always platforms where censored ideas can still be spread. Particularly now that Twitter is owned by Elon Musk and has an anti-censorship ethos, there is certainly no way censorship can be part of the solution to combat fake news. Censorship was misguided in the first place, and now it has become worse than useless.

I think the only way to combat fake news and biased reporting is to recommit to the classical liberal tradition. Specifically, we must value free speech, the marketplace of ideas, and finding common ground in being dedicated to the objective truth. To put it bluntly, I think we are in the situation we are in now partly because of the influence of a certain strain of postmodern and critical theory thinking, that originated from far-left sections of academia. That strain of thinking values subjectivity over objectivity, and paints all social norms and objective truth as oppressive constructs in the service of privileged groups. This is the way which leads to a loss of shared reality, a society where there are competing 'truths' that are all 'relative' to one's social affiliations, and ultimately fertile ground for fake news and biased reporting to take hold. All this is not to discount the role of 20th century 'fusionist' political conservatism either. Fusionism was essentially a counterfeit version of conservatism that masked radical economic policies with reactionary culture wars. The reactionary culture wars became a norm for Republican and conservative politics, and the use of biased reporting and tribal 'truths' became normalized within such culture wars.

As I said earlier, we, people on both sides of the political spectrum who are still dedicated to finding common ground and finding good solutions, need to be able to have constructive dialogue with each other, rooted in a commitment to objective reality and a wish to find practical solutions. We would also need to put our ideological differences, and our political affiliations aside, to achieve this. If we can build a movement of rational and constructive dialogue that cuts across ideological factions, then I think we would have something that can outcompete the fake news and biased reporting model. If that happens, we wouldn't have to fear fake news anymore, because it would just die out from being unpopular.

Building a Practical Progressive Conservatism

One of the major reasons the culture wars have gotten so heated and unhealthy is because the left is no longer liberal, and the right is no longer conservative. Since the 1970s, the Western Left has been gradually transformed by abstract philosophical theories produced in academia, and the progress being advocated for is often grounded in theory but ignorant of the nuances of reality. Such change tends to hurt innocent bystanders in some way, and therefore generate backlash. The mainstreaming of postmodern critical theories in the 2010s, which also challenged traditional liberal values like free speech, made things even worse. Also, since the 1980s, the 'fusionist' right has been whipping up reactionary culture wars to hide their radical economic agenda. This is not what the Burkean conservative tradition is about, and the proper understanding of conservatism, where change that is rooted in practical need and consistent with a given nation's traditions is accepted, needs to be restored.

The combination of a return to old-school liberal values on the left, and a return to a genuine understanding of conservatism on the right, leads to the possibility of a practical progressivism that is rooted in both the classical liberal tradition and the Burkean conservative tradition. Conservatism demands that change rooted in abstract theory and alien to a nation's traditions be rejected. Liberalism, with its free speech and marketplace of ideas, allows the people to reject such change. On the other hand, conservatism would accept change that arises from practical need, and done in a way that is consistent with a nation's traditions. Again, liberalism's marketplace of ideas is the place where the solution for such change can be developed, with the rational and conscious input of stakeholders from all walks of life.

With this ideal in mind, we are on firm ground to reject the culture warrior approach from both the theoretical, cultural systemist left, as well as the reactionary, now borderline-fascistic right. We know that we can have something better, and we should work hard to make it a reality.

What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement (Part 2): The Fusionism Factor

We can't make things right without dealing with the aftermath of fusionism

In recent weeks, I've talked a lot about why the anti-woke movement, or at least some parts of it, descended into an authoritarian reactionary politics. However, one important reason that is often overlooked is the background all this is happening in: the rot of conservative politics in the 20th century thanks to 'fusionism', and its possible deterioration into something even worse going forward. In hindsight, I guess I should have been more aware that an anti-woke movement that operated in this atmosphere, with strong influences from organized right-wing politics, could be easily pulled into reactionary authoritarianism. To stop this from happening, I think we need to seriously deal with the reality of 'fusionism' and its legacy of failure.

In recent years, a lot has been said about 20th century 'fusionism', how it has failed, and where we should go next. On the last point, in particular, is where classical liberals like myself and the 'postliberal' right strongly disagree. Fusionism, otherwise known as the 'three legged stool', was a combination of 'neoliberal' economics, 'cultural conservatism', and a hawkish foreign policy, and claimed to be a 'fusion' of classical liberalism and conservatism. In this article, I will demonstrate why fusionism, while arguably the dominant ideology of the 20th century, especially in the latter part of the century, was essentially a dishonest ideology, and our current problems are largely its product. I will also discuss the path we should take in moving beyond fusionism, and why the postliberal solution is misguided and dangerous.

What Was Fusionism?

Fusionism claimed to be a fusion of classical liberalism and conservatism. However, in reality, there was never any need for this 'new' fusion, because the English-speaking conservative tradition and the classical liberal tradition were already highly compatible, as long as classical liberal reforms didn't take place along theoretical, abstract lines. To understand what fusionism actually was, I think we should examine, in depth, the 'three legs' of the 'stool'.

Firstly, we had the neoliberal economics, which was a clear example of libertarian reform along abstract, philosophical lines, in clear violation of the conservative tradition. It was the very type of change that a conservative should have resisted. Secondly, we had the 'cultural conservatism', which in practice pandered strongly to reactionary elements in the post-desegregation south as well as the Roe v. Wade era religious right. This meant the 'cultural conservatism' was reactionarily opposed to basically all cultural change, which is not in line with the conservative tradition either. Finally, we had the hawkish, interventionist foreign policy, which is not going to be my focus here. The only thing I want to say is that this type of foreign policy was totally alien to the American tradition before World War II, and was by definition radical. This just shows how insincere 'fusionism' was about being truly conservative.

Therefore, fusionism was basically an intellectually inconsistent set of ideas used to gather a voting coalition for the Republican Party in America, and to some extent similar parties in other Western countries. Its function was basically to hide a very radical change in economic (and foreign) policy by promoting reactionary culture wars. The supplantation of real conservatism by fusionism led to economic policies that devastated local communities across America, Britain and other Western countries, eventually providing fuel for the rise of Trumpism, Brexit and the European 'New Right'. Meanwhile, the reactionary culture wars started by fusionist politicians took on a life of their own, and have evolved into an authoritarian movement with worrying similarities to fascism. The reactionary culture wars also provoked a strong counter-reaction among the younger generations, leading to postmodern 'woke' ideology becoming mainstream, and a vicious cycle of polarization forming between the woke left and the reactionary right. I believe all this can be blamed on fusionism, which is why it should never be revived.

Classical liberals and the postliberal right agree that fusionism was bad, and must end. But while classical liberals believe in restoring the true Burkean-Lockean conservative-liberal tradition that prevailed before fusionism, the postliberal right believes in getting rid of classical liberalism altogether, and fully embracing the reactionary culture wars that are themselves a product of fusionism. Hence, while classical liberals believe in reversing the mistake, the postliberal right believe in getting deeper into it, by embracing the most toxic part of the fusionist legacy, even if it means burying the whole Burkean-Lockean tradition, and supplanting it with foreign ideas borrowed mainly from Eastern Europe, in doing so. This would represent a change that is both very radical and very destructive, and should be strongly resisted by all liberals and conservatives alike.

The conservative-liberal solution to fixing the mistakes of fusionism is twofold: we need to reign in the neoliberal excesses of the past 40 years, and we also need to end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change. The problem is, the right is no longer conservative, and we should be brave enough to say so loudly.

The Relationship Between the Classical Liberal Tradition and the Conservative Tradition

I want to expand on what I mean by 'end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change'. Last time, I said that the true conservative, in the context of the 21st century Western English-speaking society, is necessarily a classical liberal, because our societies have long been underpinned by a classical liberal consensus. However, some of you might ask, while it is not controversial that conservatives should defend existing freedoms, how should we approach the ongoing classical liberal demand to expand individual freedoms over time? After all, classical liberalism is ultimately an abstract, philosophical position to some extent, and the conservative tradition is skeptical of all abstract, philosophical cases for change. So how do we reconcile these two positions?

As the British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli noted, society is inevitably in an ongoing process of change, and new demands for individual liberty and equal treatment under the law will inevitably be made over time. Looking at history, it is the acceptance of such demands that has strengthened our traditions, and made our society what it is today. Even the most ardent conservative would have to agree that the abolition of slavery, the extension of the vote to all adults, and the end of legally enforced racial segregation, were all proper and necessary changes, even though they were indeed major changes to how society functioned at the time. This means that the conservative must not reject all social change by default, and must not even reject all major social change by default. If we did, we would risk making the same mistake as those who were pro-slavery and pro-segregation, for example. Furthermore, if society has up until now accepted certain demands for change, and we decide to take a reactionary, 'just say no' attitude to all social change now, this would actually represent a break with long-standing tradition, which is clearly not the conservative thing to do. Therefore, conservatives have to accept at least some social change. The question is what kind of change to accept.

One important point I made last time was that conservatism isn't opposed to all change. It is only opposed to change that is rooted in abstract ideas that are removed from practical reality, and philosophical theory that is alien to a nation's traditions. For example, when cultural systemists demand that our long-standing respect for free speech give way to a worldview where speech is seen as a tool of the privileged to maintain an oppressive status quo, rooted in postmodern critical theory, we must firmly resist. However, when change is rooted in practical need, and the solution is consistent with the spirit of long-standing traditions, then the change should be accepted.

This principle is actually very useful in informing our practice of classical liberalism. Under the classical liberal umbrella, there are libertarian immediatists who wish to immediately transform our societies into libertarian utopias, where driver's licenses are abolished, police and fire departments are privatized, and the economic safety net is entirely withdrawn, all in the name of achieving the smallest government possible, and/or getting as close to the non-aggression principle (NAP) as possible. The conservative, though a classical liberal, would necessarily have to oppose this kind of change, not only because it is radical, but also because it is rooted in abstract philosophy rather than practical need. Such proposals for change thus ignore the complexity of both individuals and society, and puts philosophy ahead of reality. On these points, the immediatist libertarian is in fact just as guilty as the cultural systemist. History has taught us that this kind of change rarely ends well, which is why we should reject it. This is why the conservative, while being a classical liberal, cannot be a libertarian immediatist.

On the other hand, during the gay marriage debate, I often argued on the side of what is now commonly known as the 'conservative case' for gay marriage, although I wasn't as aware of the conservative philosophical tradition back then. The demand by gay couples to access the institution of marriage was a new social development, which naturally arose from the freedom granted by a society steeped in classical liberal traditions. This development forced us to consider adjustments to social and legal norms, with people responding in a variety of ways. Some reactionary 'conservatives' would force these gay couples to go back into the closet, but I argued this would violate our long-standing norms of individual liberty and fairness, and hence gravely harm our traditional values. Others argued that we should tolerate gay couples, but not extend the institution of marriage to them. I argued that this would make marriage a discriminatory institution in the eyes of many people, especially among the younger generations, which would injure the commonly held value of marriage as a fundamental building block of society. The fact that marriage boycott movements were propping up in many places demonstrated this harm. Having looked at the issue from every angle, there really was not a truly 'no change' solution to the demand of gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would in fact be the path most consistent with upholding our traditions, including individual liberty, compassion, equality under the law, respect for marriage as an important institution, and so on. In other words, accepting the demand for change would be the only way to truly uphold and strengthen our long-standing traditions, while all other paths would actually lead to the injury of such traditions.

Let's compare abolishing driver's licenses and legalizing gay marriage. The case for gay marriage was rooted in practical demands, from gay couples who realized they were missing out on important rights as couples. Nobody is demanding the abolishment of driver's licenses from a practical point of view, as far as I'm aware of. Nobody needs driver's licenses to be abolished so they could live their lives in a better way. Therefore, the demand for gay marriage was rooted in practical reality, while the case for abolishing driver's licenses is purely based on philosophy. Moreover, as I demonstrated, refusing to legalize gay marriage would actually injure some of our traditions, which made the legalization of gay marriage necessary from the point of view of the preservation of these traditions. I can't see how refusing to abolish driver's licenses would injure our traditions in any way.

In summary, I think that conservative liberals should only accept change when it is clearly rooted in practical need, and not when it is primarily rooted in abstract philosophical justifications. This means that, as conservative liberals, we shouldn't be randomly going around society looking for things we can make more 'libertarian' in theory, when there is no practical need for change in reality. On the other hand, when there is a demand for change rooted in practical need, that is when we should use our classical liberal principles to determine if the case for change is sound. As conservative liberals, we should insist that any social change needs to be in accordance with our long-standing classical liberal values. This is why we still need to be committed to classical liberal values, and we should also be used to thinking about social issues from the classical liberal perspective. (This, in turn, is what the future development of classical liberal philosophy should be aiming at.)

We Need to Talk About What Conservatism Is

And why it should be neither reactionary nor fascistic

The events of recent years have got me thinking lately. The many ways the anti-woke movement went wrong, the way the IDW imploded, the way the political right has taken an authoritarian turn, the emergence of a 'National Conservatism' that is neither nationalist nor truly conservative but highly authoritarian, and so on. Why did all this happen? And what can we do to fix things from here?

Exploring the Conservative Tradition

The common element in the aforementioned cases appears to be the rise of a harshly authoritarian strain of thinking in the political right. Therefore, I think we need to examine the conservative philosophical tradition first. After all, it is what is supposed to underpin the political right. I think we should start with the ideas of 18th century British thinker Edmund Burke, because he is often considered the father of conservatism. Burke was actually a member of the Whigs, the main liberal party in Britain at the time. He was outspoken against the British government's oppressive policies towards the American colonies, and the damage the East India Company was doing to India. He opposed slavery and supported Catholic emancipation, and took a leading role in arguing against unrestrained royal power. He even worried that democracy would lead to tyranny over unpopular minorities. All this earned him the respect of liberals both in his time and long after his death. As you can see, Burke cared about individual liberty and justice for everyone, including minorities. He was certainly no reactionary who opposed all change and wished to use government power to turn back the clock. His approach to the controversies of his day would hardly fit in with today's populist, culture war orientated part of the right. If Burke represents what real conservatism is, then Trumpism, 'National Conservatism' and the postliberal right are simply not conservative movements at all.

The reason Burke is revered by conservertaives is because he staunchly opposed the French Revolution, correctly predicting the chaos and authoritarianism that would follow. Burke's opposition to the French revolution actually took his fellow liberals by surprise, again proving that he was not a reactionary who predictably opposed all change. The reason he opposed the French Revolution was because he saw that the radical upheaval, the total destruction of tradition, the focus on abstract ideas rather than practical reality, and the denial of the complexity of people and society, would eventually lead to tyranny. I think there are very real parallels between Burke's story, and today's classical liberals who are anti-woke. Like Burke, we started out being passionate about liberty, concerned about the overreach of government power (particularly during the 'War On Terror'), and advocated for the inclusion and equality of minorities against the conservative establishment. We did all this because we believed in individual liberty. However, in the 2010s, 'wokeism', more accurately known as cultural systemism, began to demand changes to society that were harmful to free speech and individual liberty, and we felt we had no choice but to take a stand against this development. Like Burke more than 200 years ago, we saw a revolution that was rooted in academic philosophy, ignored the complexities of reality, and was hellbent on deconstructing and banishing all traditional values, including even free speech itself. Like Burke, we predicted that it would not end well for liberty. If Burke's opposition to the French Revolution represents the core spirit of conservatism, then we anti-woke liberals are the very best expression of the conservative tradition in this day and age.

Of course, the conservative tradition is not limited to Burke. Let's look at another very well respected figure in that tradition, 19th century British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. He is famous for saying that 'the great question is, not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines'. In other words, it is not change in general that is to be opposed, but that only change rooted in abstract philosophy and doctrines, removed from reality and alien to the traditions of the nation, that should be opposed. This is entirely consistent with the way Burke approached politics, even though Disraeli was speaking almost a century later. Clearly, Burke and Disraeli belonged to the same tradition.

In fact, this tradition of conservatism, as it should be properly understood, has never entirely died out. More recently, 11 years ago to be exact, then-British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron famously stated that 'Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.' Cameron supported gay marriage because it was an exercise in extending traditional values, and specifically traditional British values too. Being committed in a life-long relationship is a traditional value, and the role of legal marriage in securing that commitment has a long tradition in British law. The reform of gay marriage, while being a social change, is a change that is entirely consistent with British traditions, and not an alien imposition rooted in abstract philosophy. The logic of what change to accept here is again similar to what Burke and Disraeli represented. Again, today's anti-woke liberals are in strong agreement with this philosophy. It is why we are open to new ideas and supportive of reforms to make life better for everyone in general, but opposed to the kind of radical and theory-driven change that cultural systemism represents. This is why a strong case can be made that today's anti-woke liberals are the real heirs of the conservative tradition, properly understood.

The Origins of the Authoritarian Right

If today's anti-woke liberals are the real heirs of the conservative tradition, then today's authoritarian right necessarily represents a distortion or corruption of the conservative tradition. I believe an analysis of the history of Western politics, particularly American politics, of the past several decades actually supports this view. In the mid-late 20th century, the US Republican Party gradually adopted a culture-war based politics, where reactionary sentiments to any and all change are encouraged and magnified, for the sake of electoral gains. A series of strategic moves laid the foundation for this transformation, including the 'southern strategy' that took advantage of post-desegregation reactionary sentiment, the making of abortion into a central culture war issue after Roe v. Wade was decided, the 'war on terror', and the aughts scare campaign around gay marriage. This meant that, by the aughts, Republican politics no longer represented conservatism as properly understood, but a populist reactionism that fundamentally opposes all social change, something very different to the Burke-Disraeli approach to politics. This reactionary version of conservatism also had some, but not total, influence in other Western countries.

In the aughts, reactionary conservatism was focused on preventing change that was yet to happen. Gay marriage was its first and foremost target. Yet, as history teaches us, change is inevitable, sound ideas will win out in the end, and reactionaries never successfully stop all change. So gay marriage became legal in almost all of the West, despite aggressive resistance by the reactionary right. The reaction of the true conservative might have ranged from actually welcoming the change (like Cameron did), to reluctantly making peace with it, seeing that it is now what the people support, and predictions of negative effects on family values haven't come true either. But the reactionary cannot accept any change, and views it as a defeat. This is why the culture warriors on the right are now saying that gay marriage won because the right was not aggressive enough, and that they now need to wage the culture wars, especially on LGBT issues ever more aggressively.

The wish to use state power to wage the culture war aggressively has, by definition, turned reactionary conservatism into something that is completely alien to the conservative tradition, by turning its back on everything from the principle of limited government to the classical liberal values that Anglosphere conservatives going back to Burke held as a central pillar of their politics. The movement looks up not to English-speaking conservatives like Burke, Disraeli, Reagan and Cameron, but to right-wing figures in Eastern Europe like Viktor Orban. This politics hence represents an unwelcome import of authoritarian foreign norms into the Anglosphere to supplant our own liberal values and traditions, something real conservatives should resist unconditionally.

Most concerningly, the tactics that the movement has adopted, including stoking populist negativity towards certain minority groups, obstructing the freedom of private businesses to do business as they see fit (including Disney, Bud Light and Target alike), not taking a stand against the fake news and biased reporting that is creating a post-truth political discourse and encouraging hateful sentiment, and continuing to stoke passions even as violent individuals and groups have threatened businesses and organizations in the name of fighting this culture war, have alarming parallels to the fascism of 1930s Europe. Given that conservatives should, by principle, oppose all fascistic behavior (as Winston Churchill famously demonstrated), the true conservative needs to stand against what the culture war right has become today. While I think that today's culture war right can't be called 'fascist' (they don't support a fascist economic system, nor do they appear to be antisemitic, for example), it is certainly not to be considered a form of conservatism, because true conservatives do not condone fascistic behavior.

What Needs to Happen

The first thing that needs to happen is the revival of the conservative tradition, as properly understood. As I have demonstrated, today's anti-woke liberals are the natural heirs of the conservative tradition, and we should unapologetically take it up. If we do not, we would be allowing the culture war right to pretend that they are conservative, which would serve to hide their radicalism from the general public. Taking up the conservative mantle would not harm our ability to identify as classical liberals, or argue for classical liberal positions. There is no conflict between conservatism and classical liberalism, in the context of the 21st century English-speaking West. Even going back to Burke's time, English-speaking conservatism clearly had a liberal character. After several more centuries of the classical liberal consensus, a conservative in our society would definitely have to be a classical liberal, trying hard to conserve this important part of our political tradition for future generations, against assaults from both the left and the right.

The lack of a healthy conservative tradition has also led to today's polarization, where many people feel like they have to choose from either wokeism or the increasingly authoritarian right, or else shut up about their views. The revival of the conservative tradition would go a long way to fix this problem. Bringing back a conservatism that allows the possibility of gradualist progress would also provide an alternative to the kind of progressivism that is rooted in abstract, and hence unsound, cultural systemist theories.

We also need to call out, and ultimately aim to defeat, the authoritarian culture war right, for two reasons. Firstly, they are the reason why so many young people immediately react negatively when they hear 'conservative'. They are the reason why we classical liberals still fear embracing the c-word, even though it fits us very well. The image of conservatism has been tarred by several decades of reactionism, as well as the recent authoritarianism, and we need to work hard to rehabilitate its image. We can't do that without calling out the authoritarian culture war right. Secondly, some in the authoritarian culture war right are now resorting to fascistic behavior out of a desire to forcibly turn back the clock of society. Even though they are not actually fascists, embracing fascistic behavior should be unacceptable to conservatives, and we should make it clear. As Winston Churchill demonstrated, conservatism can only be credible if it takes the strongest stance against fascism. We too can take a credible stand for conservatism in today's world by firmly opposing the fascistic behavior that we are seeing from the authoritarian culture warriors right now.