Breaking Free of the Left-Right Binary

What we need to remember is that the ‘non-left’ is not necessarily the ‘right’. Operators working for the political right, from YouTube influencers to those working in think tanks, make it look like you must pick a side, that if you are ‘non-left’ you need to join the right. They only say that because of their political incentives. There is no truth to this. In fact, the corralling of non-left people into the ‘right’ has only served to limit their individual free thinking, and lead to more tribalism and polarization, with power-hungry politicians and the vested interests they serve being the only entities that benefit from this. This is why I believe ‘non-left’ people need to not only resist joining the ‘right’, but also to critique and challenge it way more than we do now. But this is something I will leave for another article. My point here is that, ‘non-left’ doesn’t equal ‘right’, and a ‘non-left’ worldview and political program does not need to be right-wing or reactionary. This must be made clear.

I think that, going forward, what we need to do much more is to articulate a philosophically non-left progressive vision. One that can serve as an alternative to both the woke-left’s philosophy and activism, as well as the ‘populist’ right’s reactionary politics. One that is based on non-left philosophical traditions like classical liberalism, libertarianism, reformism, and Burkean conservatism, but strives to look forward and make things better for everyone.

I would call the worldview and its associated reformist program a ‘philosophically non-left progressive vision’. It is ‘philosophically non-left’ because we are not going to be beholden to the many maladaptive philosophical assumptions of the contemporary Western-left. On the other hand, it is still a ‘progressive vision’ because we still believe there should be less discrimination and more freedom for everyone, and we still wish to end racism, sexism, anti-LGBT and other forms of bigotry (using liberal means). The goals of this vision are ultimately going to have some common ground with the progressives on the left, even if there are still going to be plenty of differences, like our absolute commitment to free speech and freedom of conscience, things which the contemporary left clearly don’t respect enough. The most important thing is that the way we are going to get there is going to look very different.

What we need to remember is that the ‘non-left’ is simply those who are philosophically in disagreement with the ‘operating system’ of the contemporary Western left. This ‘operating system’ includes things like using an identity-as-class oppressor vs oppressed lens to examine things by default, seeing almost everything as interlocking oppressive social constructs rather than allowing that some things might have evolved as useful adaptations, seeing tradition as inherently oppressive and to be deconstructed, celebrating rebelliousness and subversion for the sake of it, hating on the ‘neoliberal logic of the market economy’ even in contexts where no worker is being oppressed or exploited, and so on. There are really too many of these philosophical assumptions that are generally accepted in the left as it exists, which have accumulated over the 100+ year history of the left. I oppose having to work within this ‘operating system’, because it polarizes society, compromises free speech, and most importantly, has proven to be generally ineffective, and even counterproductive in some cases. Instead, I primarily take my inspiration from older philosophical traditions, like classical liberalism, reformism, and yes, even Burkean conservatism, because it ensures that progress is sustainable rather than chaotic, and minimizes the resulting backlash that can actually hurt real people in the real world. This is why I’m ‘non-left’.

A philosophically non-left progressive vision would necessary involve ending racism, sexism, anti-LGBT-ism, and all other forms of bigotry, and would also necessarily involve an aspiration for world peace, rather than the forever acceptance of the ‘might makes right’ status quo among countries. Despite being constantly critical of the philosophical left, there is logically no way for those committed to these goals to fall into the trap of right-wing reactionism, due to the very clear incompatibilities. This means a program of critiquing wokeness that is committed to these goals would definitely not see a repeat of what happened to 2010s anti-wokeness.