TaraElla's Political Theory of Everything & Moral Libertarian Talk

How Classical Liberals Can Overcome the Anti-Woke Establishment

There needs to be a path out of the shadow of the authoritarians

Welcome back to the series where we look at what went wrong with the so-called anti-woke movement. Last time, we established that the anti-woke movement is a coalition of people with different worldviews, and that authoritarian conservatives (as opposed to classical liberals and libertarian conservatives) have gained the upper hand in the anti-woke discourse, because of their dominance in anti-woke media. This, in turn, has left classical liberals very concerned. After all, we oppose 'wokeism', which I believe could be more accurately called 'cultural systemism', for the sake of individual liberty and a healthy marketplace of ideas, but ironically parts of the anti-woke movement are now attacking individual liberty and free speech. So where do we go from here, and what do we do to address this situation?

Let's start with the imbalance of voices heard in the anti-woke media, because that's where the problem begins. As I said, much of the well funded anti-woke media have been providing a disproportionately large platform for the auth-right point of view. They have been featuring an increasing number of 'postliberal' right thinkers who are openly critical of classical liberal philosophy and even Buckley-Reagan style fusionism. They are mainstreaming ever more extreme pundits who call for aggressively waging the culture wars, who advocate once unacceptable ideas like 'eradicating' transgenderism from public life, moving the Overton Window towards extreme authoritarianism with every such move. And then there is the clearly biased and moral panic-inducing reporting on all the common culture war issues, which serves to justify increasingly authoritarian policies like banning books from libraries and banning drag shows in public. Another feature of anti-woke media today is that there is very little heated debate and disagreement featured. There is effectively a culture of agreement and conformity, which effectively leads to a 'consensus' that strongly leans authoritarian in light of the aforementioned developments.

Classical liberals, many who started following anti-woke media since around the mid-late 2010s, have found the overall balance and (manufactured) 'consensus' of such media outlets an increasingly uncomfortable fit with our own values and commitments. Many of us have criticized individual anti-woke public figures, whose recent changes have disappointed us. Some of us have gone further, pointing out the hypocrisy of opposing 'woke' cancel culture but having no problem with right-wing governments banning books with racial or LGBT themes. However, we haven't been able to break through and get heard beyond certain corners of the internet. Our individual voices are simply no match against the well-funded anti-woke media establishment. (I think you can justifiably call them an establishment by now, because they dominate the anti-woke discourse, and feature the same people and the same arguments over and over again.)

The harsh reality is, when most people think of anti-wokeism, they still think of certain big name media outlets and personalities, and their perception of the movement is still overwhelmingly colored by these entities, even as these entities have taken an authoritarian turn. I've had the experience of people telling me they assumed I was right-wing or opposed to LGBT rights because I said I was anti-woke. This just shows that we are effectively living in the shadows of anti-woke inc., that not only are we not making a dent in their 'consensus', we are even having trouble defending our own reputations from that which we don't even agree with in the first place. If things don't change, it could mean that we could be ostracized by progressive-leaning parts of society for the sins of anti-woke inc. with little chance to protest. It would also mean that not many people would be willing to join our side, even if they see the merit in our arguments. Being tied to anti-woke inc. and their authoritarian policies would be a social price many would not be willing to pay. We shouldn't be afraid of being ostracized for beliefs we genuinely hold. But being ostracized for things we don't actually believe in is unfair, and we need to do all we can to fight against this happening.

In other words, our problem is one of getting heard in the first place. We, classical liberals who are opposed to wokeism on classical liberal grounds, need to be heard loud and clear. This is our most important objective going forward. And to get heard, we need to say something unique and different. This is how we can get our fair share of attention, and how we stop getting drowned out by anti-woke inc. Over the past 5-7 years I have talked a lot about cancel culture, postmodern critical theory identity politics, and other aspects of wokeism, and how they are incompatible with liberal values. I think this has now been heard loud and clear. However, if we just talk about this, we don't sound different enough from anti-woke inc. Only by actively differentiating ourselves from anti-woke inc., by taking positions in clear opposition to the 'consensus' in anti-woke inc., will we be able to move outside its shadow. In other words, there must be a particularly strong emphasis on where we disagree with anti-woke inc. going forward.

One easy way to do this would be to simply stand our classical liberal ground and oppose their increasingly authoritarian policy stances. We should be taking a strong stance against any attempt to whip up moral panics and usher in authoritarian policies. Between the draconian abortion bans, the drag show bans, and book bans, and the mountains of anti-LGBT bills that have recently been introduced, there is a lot we can work with, to differentiate ourselves from anti-woke inc.

There are also other ways to stand apart from, and against, anti-woke inc. For example, we could insist on making our anti-wokeism philosophy centered, while contrasting this with the culture war centered version of anti-wokeism from anti-woke inc. The philosophical debates we can have against cultural systemism are actually highly intellectual and interesting, a refreshing counterpoint against the culture warriors' ridiculous war on Disney and Bud Light. We can also put more effort into arguing why any 'fusionism' between classical liberals and the auth-right on particular issues where we have superficial agreement on (e.g. opposition to critical race theory) are still fundamentally impossible. If the auth-right hates 20th century fusionism so much, then we need to show them that we are just as uncomfortable with fusionism as they are. If they want to tear the band-aid off, then so be it, because we have wanted to scratch that itch for a long time too. Let's bury that fusionism for good, and not just the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan kind too. Let fusionism be dead and buried for good, so that classical liberals and the auth-right can finally face off like the philosophical rivals we actually are. If anything, it's going to be more philosophically honest than what we have now, which will make the classical liberal case against wokeism much stronger too.

Finally, I want to address the use of the word 'woke'. More and more people are advocating a move away from using that word, especially since right-wing culture warriors are using it to mean everything they don't like. I have thought about this for a long time actually. I have even advocated using 'cultural systemism' to describe general wokeism, and 'critical anarchism' to describe the more extreme manifestations, and I will continue to advocate using these terms. However, I don't think we can entirely move away from 'woke' until people can agree on a new term, because we need to use terms that are most widely understood for the sake of effective communication. If we unilaterally give up on talking about 'woke', the culture warriors will have a monopoly on 'anti-woke' discourse, with likely disastrous results.

What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement

Let's go back to the basics and look at the philosophical roots again

Let's face it: The anti-woke movement has become a trainwreck. People are now confused about what 'woke' really means. Many are just sick and tired of any talk about 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' at this point. Meanwhile, right-wing culture warriors, many with religious-authoritarian motivations, have hijacked the anti-woke movement to target people and things that are not actually woke, such as Disney, Bud Light, and even the entire LGBT community. The biggest problem is that there is now almost no serious intellectual discussion on why wokeism is misguided, why we oppose it, or even what should be done about it. This is the beginning of a series where I will attempt to retrace the history of anti-wokeism, look at what has gone wrong, and what we need to do to fix things from here.

Let's start at the beginning. The reason why I started speaking up against wokeism is basically philosophical. In the past year, I have described wokeism, in its most pure and extreme form, as 'critical anarchism', in that it seeks to deconstruct and dismantle basically the entire cultural status quo, which wokeists believe is made up of interlocking systems of oppression. Some have disputed my characterization, saying that not all woke activists go to that extreme level, and I have to agree. However, generally speaking, I think wokeism, broadly speaking (that is when including the 'moderately woke' too), could be characterized as cultural systemism, i.e. an orientation towards seeing culture as primary defined by interlocking systems of dominance and oppression, rather than for example a battle between ideas, or a process of gradual moral refinement over time.

I think the conflict between woke and anti-woke is essentially a conflict between cultural systemism and those opposed to this worldview. On the systemist side are the woke, who believe that our culture primarily consists of interlocking and mutually reinforcing systems of oppression, and that to liberate women and oppressed minorities all these systems need to be deconstructed and dismantled. On the non-systemist side are liberals, conservatives (both libertarian and authoritarian), and even the progressive 'SJWs' of the 2010s. People on the non-systemist side have different and conflicting views of what culture is and what it should look like, but broadly speaking they believe that it is ideas, rather than systems of oppression, that create and influence our culture. Note that non-systemists don't always deny the systematic nature of some of the discrimination present in society, we just don't believe this is a good primary lens with which to analyze and change society. For example, for wokeists, 'white supremacy' is a system of oppression to be dismantled, while I see it as a bad idea that needs to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas. In the case of draconian abortion bans, wokeists see them as a product of the system of 'patriarchy', while I see them as the product of religious authoritarianism, an ideology rooted in unsound ideas and assumptions.

Non-systemists also have different reasons to oppose systemism. I believe that cultural systemism is bad because it inherently denies the power of ideas, the importance of free will, truth and morality, and ultimately our personal agency to make society better. My opposition to aspects of 'woke activism' like de-platforming and cancel culture also stem from my philosophical commitments. Since I believe that a free flow of ideas ultimately leads to more sound ideas winning out, I logically favor free speech. On the other hand, systemists might oppose free speech because they believe it favors speech and ideas that reinforce the systems of oppression. Of course, we who support free speech have objective evidence on our side, as seen in how we won gay marriage throughout the West in less than a generation using the power of persuasion. However, it would be difficult to convince cultural systemists using objective evidence, because many of them are highly influenced by postmodernism, and are skeptical of objectivity.

The problem with the anti-woke movement is that it is, and has always been, a coalition of people with different, and at times incompatible, ideals. Just because we all believe in the primacy of ideas and not systems in defining a society's culture, doesn't mean we can agree on what ideas we should uphold. There was a failure to acknowledge this right from the start, as seen in for example the IDW's early tip-toeing around their differences, which ended up tearing them apart just a few years later. I personally wouldn't have a problem with the anti-woke movement being a broad umbrella for anti-systemists, where different voices and perspectives are equally and fairly represented, and we agree to respectfully disagree outside of our common opposition to cultural systemism. I don't pretend that all anti-systemists are liberals or moral libertarians like myself, and I have never believed that we should seek dominance over other anti-systemists, because that would dilute and confuse the argument against cultural systemism.

The problem is, authoritarian conservatives, who are part of the anti-woke movement, obviously had different priorities. Unlike classical liberals, their agenda is not pluralistic and tolerant of diversity of thought at all. In fact, prominent 'postliberal' intellectuals have come out and openly criticized classical liberal thinkers, particularly John Stuart Mill, for defending the right of individuals to transgress against traditional social norms. While the classical liberal model supports free thought and free speech for all, and believe that the best ideas will win out in the marketplace of ideas, authoritarian conservatives have the same fear and distrust towards the marketplace of ideas as the woke. While we are anti-woke because we believe in defending the marketplace of ideas and the individual liberty required for it to work, they just oppose wokeism because they want a different, more traditional kind of authoritarianism. We have no trouble being in an alliance with libertarian conservatives, because of our shared commitment to classical liberal values. But authoritarian conservatives, who want governments to ban transgression against traditional-religious norms, are actually our biggest ideological enemy historically, and being in any alliance with them is selling out the core values and heritage of classical liberalism.

The trouble right now is that, it appears that authoritarian conservatives are more powerful than classical liberals, in terms of things like money and connections. Many well-funded and well-connected anti-woke media outlets have taken a more authoritarian conservative stance on various issues, or at least given authoritarian conservative voices a bigger platform than classical liberal or libertarian conservative voices. I think this also reflects the recent shift towards authoritarianism seen in the Republican Party and right-wing American politics in general. The increasingly authoritarian tone found in anti-woke media has served to support increasingly authoritarian policies and legislation from the Republican Party, and we classical liberals simply can't in our good conscience stay silent any longer.

Moreover, since the authoritarian right hijacked the anti-woke movement, there has been less and less space to discuss the shortcomings of cultural systemism. Instead, they have muddied the waters of what 'woke' means, making anything they don't like 'woke' (as in 'Disney is a woke corporation'). This has done great disservice to those of us who want a real intellectual debate on cultural systemism. My hope was that the anti-woke movement could build and promote the case against cultural systemism, by pushing back on the cultural systemist claims and associated behaviors of woke activists. But it seems that the authoritarian conservative voices that now dominate anti-woke media prefer to make anti-wokeness all about picking fights with Disney, banning drag performances, and banning books from libraries, all of which are things classical liberals, and even most libertarian conservatives, would instinctively oppose. The kind of anti-woke movement seen in the 'mainstream' anti-woke media is an authoritarian one, with very little space for more libertarian voices these days.

Which is why it's time to split up, and build an alternative. An alternative that is committed to individual liberty and the marketplace of ideas, and opposes wokeism on these grounds, rather than pseudo-populist reactionary sentiment. An alternative that wants to have serious debates about cultural systemism, rather than starting culture wars about Disney and drag queens.

How Wokeism Allowed the Religious Right to Return

And how to build the coalition to defeat them once again

This is the bad news: the religious authoritarians have returned in full force, and they are smarter and more cunning than ever. The evidence of their influence is all over the news: draconian abortion bans, anti-LGBT bills, and more. Looking back, religious authoritarianism last peaked around the mid-aughts (around 2004-06), and that time we successfully pushed back on their attempt to teach unscientific intelligent design theory in schools, and defeated their moral panic campaign around gay marriage, which provided a strong foundation for winning the reform later on. Looking back, the aughts were definitely an underrated example of resistance to authoritarianism, that ultimately also led to some social progress backed by widespread support. Now that the religious authoritarians are back, I think we need to revive the coalition that defeated them last time.

Of course, we also need to be aware of the different tactics that they are using this time around. One thing that is different about the religious right this time is that they are, at least when facing mainstream audiences, less open about their religious motivations. They often resort to arguments for the 'common good', or capitalize on the widespread frustration with wokeism, as their starting point. However, the religious motivations are still clearly being articulated, if you pay attention. For example, all the prominent postliberal intellectuals are deeply religious, and many have essentially argued for religious values to have a bigger influence on law and policy. On the more technical side, 'common good constitutionalism', and other similar legal philosophies based on 'natural law', are ultimately religious political ideologies too. What is happening is clear: religious authoritarians are out to make the West less liberal, and make it OK for the government to shove their religion down your throat. And they are doing it by attempting to gain power while not being fully upfront about their religious motivations.

The rise of woke thinking is actually helping the religious right hide their religiously driven motivations. This is because postmodern critical theory has no respect for the power of ideas and free will. Instead, they believe that everything is part of interconnecting systems of oppression, and that analyzing and deconstructing those systems are the only important thing to do. The woke won't seriously engage in a debate of ideas that is not connected to their theories of systemic oppression. This means that they won't take on the ideas of religious-driven authoritarianism seriously. Instead, abortion bans are to be explained by 'patriarchy', anti-LGBT bills are to be explained by 'heteronormativity', and the solution is to 'fight these systems' by deconstructing and dismantling everything. This ultimately results in distraction from the problem at hand: that reactionary religious zealots are attempting to shove their religion down our throats, and that only a serious attempt at defeating their bad ideas by rational debate will save our freedoms.

There are also other ways wokeism has allowed the religious right to return. Firstly, it was the force that was responsible for breaking up the aughts coalition against religious authoritarianism. The divisiveness of postmodern critical theory was what caused the split, with the controversy around 'atheism plus' a good example of this. (I am not an atheist so I am not familiar with the specifics of this, but the controversy was famous enough for me to know about it.) Secondly, its weakening of the classical liberal consensus has allowed the religious right to make the case for authoritarianism much more easily. Thirdly, its attempt to impose an agenda based on religion-like philosophical commitments on the rest of society has normalized the once outrageous idea of shoving religion down other people's throats. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, frustration towards wokeism is being used by the religious right to attract support, with quite a bit of success.

All this is why the new coalition against religious authoritarianism just cannot include the woke. Instead, we need to attempt to rebuild the coalition among those who will fight the religious right like it's 2004 again. I think we should try to deradicalize as many of the woke as possible, so that they come back down to reality, and become able to join our fight against the religious right. However, we also need to be realistic that this work can only be done to a certain extent, especially if we are talking about the short to medium term. Therefore, the more important work will be in making the non-woke see that the religious right is rapidly becoming a big problem, because they want to make the West less liberal and more theocratic, by participating in the culture wars while not being upfront about their motivations. Once more people realize this, we will be able to build a strong coalition to push back, just like we did two decades ago.

Woke vs Anti-Woke: The Liberal Way by TaraElla

How classical liberalism can provide a new way forward

I've often been asked how a truly classical liberal movement could be built in the current climate. Specifically, with the conversation being defined as between woke vs anti-woke, where should classical liberals stand?

One version of the story goes like this: classical liberals started opposing 'wokeism' because it offends classical liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience, and identity neutrality. Due to reasons to do with the American political landscape, the right also opposes wokeism, while the center-left often pretends that the issue doesn't exist, because they fear it might divide the base of the Democratic Party and lose them votes. Over time, the right pours a lot of money into setting up 'anti-woke' media outlets, which also attract many classical liberal followers. Such media outlets often actively call for classical liberals and the right to unite in an anti-woke movement. Their claim is that, in this climate, all anti-woke people (which would have to include classical liberals) should align with the right, because otherwise we would have to inevitably align with the 'woke' in some way. It is a claim that I have long considered dubious, but it serves their right-wing backers well. Meanwhile, center-left media outlets continue to ignore classical liberal concerns about wokeness, due to fear of giving the Republicans an advantage. Some individuals in those outlets even give occasional lip service to woke ideas (although this has apparently become less common since Trump left office, so it's likely to be just an inappropriate reaction to Trumpism). This has made the idea of a liberal-right alliance attractive to some classical liberals.

However, the problem with this is that the right is becoming, well, less and less in line with classical liberal values. A faction of the right is now openly 'postliberal', and as I have analyzed on many occasions, their method of doing politics is also essentially postmodern, in that they see speech as a means to power rather than to seek the objective truth. If classical liberals started out opposing wokeism in order to defend liberal values, only to end up siding with an increasingly illiberal right with many of the same characteristics as wokeism, that wouldn't make sense at all, right? (And if this was the only choice an anti-woke liberal could make, as some on the right claim, then liberalism would already be doomed anyway, making the whole exercise pointless, right?)

Classical liberals must not fall for the postliberal right's blatantly postmodern approach to anti-wokeism, which begins with stealthily redefining the word 'woke', and ends with the supplantation of traditional conservatism with a highly authoritarian and reactionary politics. What we must be able to see here is that the postmodern-postliberal right has tried to expand the definition of 'woke' to potentially encompass every socially progressive reform or idea they don't like, in order to paint all social progressivism as an extraordinary threat requiring an extraordinary (i.e. authoritarian) response. For example, if gay marriage were still an active issue today, they would certainly paint it as 'woke'. They have been able to do that by engaging in deliberately biased reporting, being uncommitted to objectivity, and using speech as a means to power rather than as a means to seek the objective truth. The fact that there is not much other well-funded anti-woke media, due to the twisted incentives in the American political landscape, certainly helps them. (I actually believe that the Democrats have overestimated the danger of dividing their base by allowing some prominent anti-wokeists among their public representatives, and that doing so could help them a lot electorally. But that is another issue for another article.)

The need to differentiate 'wokeism' from non-woke social progressivism is especially important, in the face of dishonest actors from the postmodern-postliberal right trying to capitalize on the current frustration with wokeism. Contrary to some opinions, there is indeed a way to define wokeness clearly and succinctly. Wokeness is a program of cultural change that is rooted in philosophical theory, rather than objectively evident need. The 'rooted in philosophical theory, rather than objectively evident need' part is what differentiates wokeness from normal progressivism. This part actually prevents dishonest actors from painting all socially progressive reform as 'woke'. The 'cultural' part is needed because almost all economic politics is based in some kind of theory. This definition would capture everything that most people mean by 'woke'. For example, the term 'Latinx' is woke, because its 'necessity' is driven by theories around identity and language rather than objective evidence, consistent with the fact that most Latino people don't like it. Gay marriage was a progressive reform, but it was not woke, because it was primarily driven by the objective fact that gay couples were missing out on important rights, rather than any theoretical concern.

So, in practice, how do we differentiate between wokeism and regular social progressivism? This is where the case for liberal values can be made. Liberalism, in its dedication to maintaining a free and fair marketplace of ideas, allows all proposals for social change to be given a fair hearing. It also requires that proponents for social change make a sound case for their change, a case that can convince their fellow citizens from diverse backgrounds, most of them who are not going to share their philosophical commitments. Marriage equality for gay couples was successful because it was able to do this. Many other proposals for change have justifiably failed, because they haven't been able to do this. Generally speaking, only proposals for change that are backed by an objectively evident need, like gay marriage, will be able to gain widespread support. Proposals for change that are rooted in philosophical theory not shared by most people will always fail to do so. Hence, liberalism, in practice, allows objectively necessary and sound reforms through, while making sure that 'woke' changes, which are inherently ideological and objectively unnecessary, will be rejected.

The reason why the woke movement rejects free speech and the marketplace of ideas is because it knows it will be defeated there. Instead, it attempts to redefine speech as power, and opposition to their unreasonable demands as oppression. This is what is at the root of cancel culture and de-platforming. These things, in turn, have led to widespread frustration. The postliberal right has capitalized on this frustration to recruit support for their agenda. However, their strategy actually requires them to go postmodern themselves, to shut down the objective truth, i.e. that not all progressivism is woke, and that a liberal, reasonable reformist alternative is still possible. Like the postmodern left, they aim to do this by damaging the fair marketplace of ideas.

While the postmodern left employs cancel culture to shut down certain opinions in the marketplace of ideas, the postmodern right's favored tactic appears to be to use a (metaphorical) megaphone to blast their biased reporting all over the place, and drown out those voices who might be telling the other side of the story, but are not as well-funded. In practice, both methods lead to a dysfunction in the marketplace of ideas, because all voices are not able to be equally heard and considered. In both cases, the dysfunction is deliberately caused, so that otherwise unsound and unpopular ideas can win. In both cases, it is basically a form of cheating. Therefore, while claiming to oppose wokeism, in practice, the postliberal right is basically doing the same thing as the woke, just in the service of another kind of politics. By insisting on defending a free and fair marketplace of ideas, liberals can expose both of them, and build a truly liberal movement from there.

Non-Aggression and Good Order: The Liberal Way

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.

In recent years, much has been said about the incompatibility between liberal values, and activism that is rooted in postmodern critical theory, that is sometimes called 'woke' (although I'm concerned that the w-word is now over broadly applied). As I have illustrated multiple times, for liberals, knowing the objective truth is fundamental and prior to building a good order. To know the objective truth, people must be allowed to freely explore ideas and discover things. This is why a truly free and fair marketplace of ideas is important. The postmodern critical theory worldview, where ideas are primarily seen as the product of oppressive power relations, and the activism it leads to, are fundamentally incompatible with what liberals believe in. After all, if certain ideas are seen as the product of oppressive power relations, they would need to be shut down rather than given a fair go in the marketplace of ideas. This is actually the logic behind Herbert Marcuse's famous essay Repressive Tolerance. The fact that this essay was published back in the 1960s shows that this worldview has actually been around for a while.

During this time, the influence of this worldview has led to an uneven playing field for certain ideas, which might not even be harmful. For example, there has been a particular aversion to traditional ideas as 'oppressive', which has led some to react negatively to any talk of 'family values', even when it is not used as a dog whistle against gay marriage and adoption. True liberals oppose this uneven playing field, because we believe in a healthy marketplace of ideas. Historically, we argued against the irrational negativity towards marriage that was behind the initial reluctance by some gay activists to embrace marriage equality, for example. However, in recent years, postmodern critical theory has gone mainstream, potentially leading to blatantly uneven playing fields as the new norm. This means it is now even more important to argue against this worldview as a whole.

However, there is also another reason liberals oppose postmodern critical theory, that is at least just as important. And that is non-aggression. The 'Non Aggression Principle' (NAP) at the root of classical libertarianism is actually a very specific and simplistic application of the value of non-aggression, and while classical libertarianism is under the broad liberal umbrella, most liberals probably don't believe in the NAP the way classical libertarians do. However, broadly speaking, non-aggression is actually the spirit of all kinds of liberalism. We liberals have long believed that non-aggression is essential to achieving a good order. Historically, liberalism arose as an extension of religious tolerance, that itself arose as a solution to put an end to centuries of toxic religious conflicts in Europe. As it is sometimes described, liberalism lowers the expectations of politics, and takes it away from debates about how the good life should be like, towards focusing on how we can live together peacefully despite our differences.

It turns out that this actually leads to the best life for all, comparatively speaking. Life in the West since the classical liberal consensus has undeniably been better than during the middle ages and the religious conflicts, even if it is still no utopia. The key reason why life has been better is because there is much less aggression. Life today is certainly much less violent than back in the middle ages. It is the liberal aversion towards aggression, and preference for non-aggressive means to resolve differences, that has made this possible. Besides making life less violent, non-aggression also contributes to building good order, because people can rationally work out their differences in dialogue. The stakes of speaking up and exploring new ideas are also much lower, when everyone knows that it would not lead to violent consequences, or innocent people being harmed. This, in turn, encourages the exchange of ideas, and the development of innovative solutions.

Postmodern critical theory activism is not compatible with non-aggression. De-platforming and cancel culture is aggression, by definition. Indeed, much of the theory is basically used to justify aggressive means for dealing with opponents. If words and language can be violent, then an aggressive response like de-platforming is justifiable. If ideas are actually oppressive applications of power, then aggressively shutting them down is justifiable. Taken as a whole, postmodern critical theory rejects the liberal preference for non-aggressive means to resolve our differences. This is why I believe it is essential to prevent liberalism from being contaminated with ideas from postmodern critical theory, if we want liberalism to remain committed to non-aggression.

Right now, many people are justifiably frustrated about cancel culture, and the uneven playing field for certain ideas and voices. Liberals share their frustration here. However, this does not mean that everyone agrees with us about what should be done, and hence can be seen as an ally. Given that liberals firmly believe in non-aggression, true liberals should be concerned about those who advocate using aggression to solve the current problem, or worse, use the current problem as justification for an aggressive culture war program to remake society the way they want to. Put it simply, using state power to shut down your opponents in the culture wars is aggression, and no better than cancel culture in the eyes of true liberals. Politicizing certain issues that actually affect real lives, and using state power to score points in the culture wars at the expense of those lives, is an act of extreme aggression, which true liberals need to resist with all our might. People who do these things might label themselves 'anti-woke', but their brand of anti-wokeness is certainly very different from what liberals want, and it needs to be made clear that we don't share any common ground at all. It is just as important to prevent liberalism from being contaminated by the culture war Right.

In the face of aggressive culture warriors coming from both the Left and the Right, we need to stand our ground, by arguing the case for non-aggression. Non-aggression leads to good order, because it is only when the threat of aggression is removed that people are free to explore and debate ideas, and it is only in this process that we can get closer to the objective truth, or find good solutions to problems. Non-aggression makes life much less violent, meaning that bloody tragedies are less likely to happen, and innocent people are much less likely to be harmed. Finally, non-aggression is an ongoing project, and is by definition progressive rather than reactive. When I was younger, I said I hoped to see all wars end in my lifetime, and I still truly believe in that dream. There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of moving society in the direction of non-aggression, and we must not give up hope.

The Trans Discourse and Gender Differences: The Liberal Way

Free Speech: The Liberal Way by TaraElla

From abortion to CRT, state power is making discourse toxic. We need to stop politicizing everything.

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.

In this episode, I want to examine the issue of free speech from a liberal perspective. At first glance, there appears to be nothing much to say: liberals support free speech, case closed. However, to defend free speech effectively, we must understand why it is an important priority in the liberal worldview. We also need to understand what conditions are necessary to maintain the promise of free speech, and a healthy marketplace of ideas.

Free speech is important because it is the only way we can get closer to the objective truth, no matter what topic we are talking about. Individual liberal thinkers often have different emphases and different priorities. For example, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe it is most important that we get to the objective truth on matters of morality. Other liberals might prioritize getting towards the objective truth on other matters. But the common ground for all liberals is the need to get towards the objective truth. Above all, liberals believe that getting to the objective truth is the fundamentally necessary condition that must be achieved before we can build a good order. An order that is not based on the objective truth would inevitably be unjust, inefficient, and potentially harmful.

The promise of free speech can only be maintained if speech will not lead to illiberal consequences. People should be allowed to freely explore ideas and viewpoints, knowing that it will not lead to actually oppressive consequences enforced by state power. If debate on abortion is used as a launching pad for punitive abortion bans, if valid criticism of drag queen story hour leads to legislation that bans drag queens from performing in public entirely, if opposition to critical race theory is used to justify limiting free speech itself, it raises the stakes of allowing free speech, and gives credence to the postmodern 'speech is power' worldview. After all, if free speech can indeed lead to illiberal consequences enforced by state power, then it becomes difficult to argue against its limitation on the grounds of maintaining social tolerance. This is why liberals must firmly oppose using state power to wage the culture wars, which inevitably includes coercing acceptance and obedience towards a particular viewpoint in contentious moral debates. There can be no compromise at all on this principle, because if we allow even the slightest bit of illiberalism, we would have set a precedent that destroys the promise of free speech, and fundamentally compromises our argument against the postmodernist 'speech is power' worldview.

On the other hand, liberals should insist on separating speech and political action. Postmodernism has over-emphasized the 'power' in speech and discourse, which has been detrimental to free speech. I think we can turn this around by telling people to focus on where the 'power' actually lies, i.e. the politicians who make the laws. For example, if you oppose abortion bans, your problem is not with those who argue against abortion on moral grounds. Your problem is with the legislators who introduce and pass bills to ban abortion, who often do so out of political, rather than moral grounds. Rather than de-platforming or otherwise disrespecting the free speech of private citizens with pro-life views, you should protest those politicians instead. However, you should still respect the free speech of pro-life individuals, because they are speaking from their conscience in good faith. If you disallow speech that is rooted in genuine belief on contentious moral matters, there is no longer free speech, practically speaking. While people might legitimately and strongly disagree on policy, free speech on matters of personal morality should be sacred, and treated as so. To achieve this goal, there must be a level of separation between politics and regular speech. This is another reason why liberals need to oppose the political culture warriors on both the Left and the Right, who seek to politicize everything. Their methods are a threat to free speech.

This brings us onto my final point: the right to privacy, and the necessity of separating the public from the private. Culture warriors on both the Left and the Right often seek to enlarge the public sphere, and diminish the private, by claiming almost everything as part of either a 'system of oppression' or 'the common good'. This would lead to forced conformity, which liberal thinkers going back to John Stuart Mill have long warned about. This is why we should, in principle, defend individual freedom against overly broad claims of the 'common good', especially where this so-called 'common good' isn't agreed to universally.

Critical Race Theory: The Liberal Way by TaraElla

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.

In this episode, I want to examine the controversy around critical race theory (CRT), and the various responses to it. Specifically, I want to talk about two groups of people: those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive', and those who oppose CRT and support politicians who would use state power to shut it down. Both are clearly not the liberal way, and in examining them, I hope we can clarify what a truly liberal attitude towards CRT should look like.

First, let's examine the case of those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive'. What we need to remember is that what 'sounds progressive' is arbitrary, and what sounded progressive in one era could be seen as regressive and misguided in the next. Therefore, going by what 'sounds progressive' is no different from following the fashion of the day, and forgoing independent thinking. Moreover, ideas that are the fashion of the day may also be illiberal. If so, embracing them would lead to a more illiberal future, and this is something that might not be easily correctable down the road.

The liberal case against CRT is clear. At the most fundamental level, CRT is incompatible with basic liberal values because it doesn't treat everyone the same regardless of immutable characteristics like race. Philosophically, CRT's prioritization of theories of power relations above commitment to objective truth is also at odds with liberalism's historical commitment to empiricism and objectivity, and inevitably puts long-standing principles like free speech and the scientific method at risk. Looking at it from a big picture perspective, CRT could be seen as a wedge to introduce a fundamentally anti-Enlightenment worldview into mainstream Western politics, with the aim of eventually supplanting liberalism and its associated values. This means that, if we don't want liberal values to be supplanted by postmodern values, we need to oppose CRT, period.

Next, let's consider the case of those who oppose CRT, and support using state power to shut it down. This is important to look at, because an increasing number of conservative politicians are now building an 'anti-woke' brand, based on policies like banning (vaguely defined) divisive discussions on race in schools, and banning textbooks that contain divisive content on race (again without clear and objective criteria). Previously, I've said that I'm particularly concerned about those who started opposing postmodern critical theory on liberal grounds, but have clearly lost sight of those liberal grounds they were defending. They have lost sight of why things like free speech are important, and why emotionally charged action is suspect. Instead of defending and rebuilding the liberal way, these people support illiberal means of 'combating wokeness', and are hence contributing to the erosion of liberalism in Western political culture.

The liberal way of combating bad ideas is by using our own free speech to expose their flaws, and ultimately win the argument against them in the marketplace of ideas. Using government power to shut down ideas we don't like is something liberals should never support, period. And we must remember that there is a very good reason for us to take this stance consistently. Free speech must be upheld in a consistent, universal and content-neutral way, or it will cease to exist within a generation. The other important point is, the marketplace of ideas is only credible if it is truly free and fair for all individuals and all ideas.

Of course, the lack of a strong, truly liberal movement against CRT (and postmodern critical theory more generally) has pushed some people towards the illiberal type of anti-wokeism in the past few years. This is why we must take a stance for the liberal way, and make the liberal position clearly heard. We must be brave enough to upset people and break alliances if this is what is needed to uphold the liberal way. We need to remember that the future of Western political culture is at stake here.

Drag Queen Story Hour: The Liberal Way

How a minor issue became a wedge to advance authoritarianism, and why we must fight back

Welcome to The Liberal Way, a new series by TaraElla. In this series we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is. In particular, I'm concerned that some people, who started opposing postmodern critical theory on liberal grounds, have clearly lost sight of those liberal grounds they were defending. They have lost sight of why things like free speech are important, and why emotionally charged action is suspect. Instead of defending and rebuilding the liberal way, these people have become anti-woke for anti-woke's sake, to the extent that they even support illiberal means of 'combating wokeness', thus defeating their original rationale for opposing postmodernism. Not losing sight of what the liberal way should look like would prevent us from going down that path. Moreover, I believe that revival of the liberal way could potentially end the divisive culture wars plaguing the West right now.

In this first episode, I want to examine the controversy around Drag Queen Story Hour. Specifically, I want to focus on the political reaction to it, rather than the issue itself. While it is a relatively minor issue in the big picture, it has been deliberately deployed as a wedge issue in the past four years, and is effectively responsible for some changes we've seen in US Republican Party politics, and in the Republican-aligned part of the 'anti-woke' movement. These changes have brought anti-wokeism away from the classical liberal values it once proclaimed, towards what is now being called National Conservatism, which is an authoritarian movement aligned with Trumpism, that clearly doesn't value things like free speech.

The story begins with the famous Ahmari-French debate of 2019. Drag Queen Story Hour was a prominent part of that debate. Ahmari believed that the government should act to shut it down. French, on the other hand, couldn't see what the government could do about it. This was because the free speech rights that prevented government from banning Drag Queen Story Hour were also the very rights that guaranteed things like religious liberty. "So you would undermine viewpoint neutrality in First Amendment jurisprudence?" French asked. "Yeah, I would," Ahmari said. This was the difference at the heart of the debate.

Note that this is not about one's views on Drag Queen Story Hour at all. The crucial point is this: government intervention against free speech and expression, especially when it's done in a way that is clearly non-neutral, and applied to contentious moral issues where good people continue to have strong disagreements, is simply dangerous. If you allow the government to intervene against Drag Queen Story Hour, it will set a precedent that will lead to the erosion of freedom in many other, more important areas of life. Having a universal and viewpoint-neutral consensus on things like free speech is, by definition, an all or none deal, and we must fight to uphold this consensus whenever it is under threat.

Don't get me wrong. You certainly don't have to agree with Drag Queen Story Hour itself. Those who disagree with Drag Queen Story Hour can certainly speak up about their concerns. They can certainly argue against it in the marketplace of ideas. What they cannot do is to use state power to ban it. This crosses a line, similar to how Trump's denial of his 2020 election loss crossed a line. In both cases, fundamental moral principles are at stake, and we must respond by defending those principles, and clearly condemning those who want to erode them. Also note that, once a line is crossed, it is more likely to happen again, as seen in the recent movement of election denialism in Brazil, and the ongoing worry about what is going to happen in 2024 in America. This makes pushing back against those who want to cross the line even more important.

To build a strong consensus for liberal principles, we need to show that the application of such principles will be fair to everyone, and the promise of freedom will apply to everyone equally. This is why ensuring that there is free speech for all is so important, and why I have been so against cancel culture, de-platforming, and the postmodern critical theories that have supported these practices. In fact, the NatCon Right has been using the postmodern Left's violation of liberal values to argue their case for authoritarianism, and successfully inserting themselves into the mainstream of Republican politics, to the extent that multiple Republican states are now considering banning drag performances in public venues, or even taking away the parental rights of parents who expose their kids to drag. Let's face it: the postmodern Left's cancel culture has contributed to this dangerous state of affairs we now find ourselves in, and the only way this will end is by a re-embrace of liberalism, especially free speech for all.

A truly free and fair marketplace of ideas requires that all kinds of voices be heard, including those you don't like. As a Moral Libertarian, my views on social and cultural issues start from the eternally correct view that none of us are perfect, that none of us are always right on every matter, and therefore none of us have the moral right to coerce others to agree with us, either in words or action, when it comes to morally contentious matters. This is the reason I have been fighting against cancel culture from the Left. However, there is now clearly an even bigger threat to the marketplace of ideas of the West, and we must recognize it before it's too late. State-enforced book bans, legislated restriction of cultural activities, and especially intrusion into parenting rights are now being done in the name of 'fighting wokeness', and true liberals need to recognize, and speak up against, the scary implications of this kind of politics.

Why the IDW Failed | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from The Problem with the Anti-Woke Movement Right Now by TaraElla.

About the time when I started actively opposing postmodernism's erosion of free speech norms, there was an interesting group of people that I considered fellow travelers back then: the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW). Dave Rubin was considered to be part of the IDW, as were figures like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. The New York Times even did an article on it. The IDW started out with a good idea: that we should be having conversations and debates about difficult topics, and we should do so in a way that is in good faith, open-minded and respectful of our differences.

However, the IDW fell apart in less than three years, torn apart by the drama of the 2020 US elections, and the rise of new forces like National Conservatism, among other things. So what went wrong? And if we could start the IDW over, what should we do different this time?

I guess the first thing I would change is the diversity of thought represented, so that it would be truly reflective of the marketplace of ideas out there. The IDW ended up being unable to withstand certain challenges because it didn't maintain an Overton Window that was broad enough and balanced enough. This meant that much of the discussion didn't take into account the broad range of diverse views and attitudes out there. There was too much agreement on important issues, which led to unreasonable expectations of mutual agreement developing over time. In turn, this led to disagreements being taken personally, and relatively minor developments being able to upset the consensus of respectful debate.

I guess the lesson of the IDW is that, if you want to start a movement based on the idea of a free marketplace of ideas, then your Overton Window should be broad and balanced enough to encompass the whole marketplace out there, with only limited exclusions. This would also ensure a balance of perspectives, and hence sustainability in the long run.

Audience Capture and the Anti-Woke Movement | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from The Problem with the Anti-Woke Movement Right Now by TaraElla.

As I often say, tribalist peer pressure is the most dangerous thing in this world, and we need to be able to resist it if we are to have a healthy cultural and political discourse. However, this is often easier said than done, especially for those whose living depend on like-minded people paying to read their work. Perhaps those whose income isn't dependent on their audience in this way, like myself, need to work extra hard to counter this.

An additional problem is, your audience does not always stay the same either. What you need to remember is that, they too can be exposed to biased reporting from various media sources, and their own Overton Window could be unconsciously shifting as a result. In the world of anti-woke media, this situation is particularly of concern, given the unevenness of the playing field. Much of anti-woke media, like most other English-speaking news media, is either based in America or has heavy American involvement, and is therefore inevitably connected to certain parts of American politics. In the current American political landscape, forces aligned with the Republican Party are much more likely to want to invest in setting up anti-woke media outlets, given that wokeism actually divides the base of the Democratic Party due to demographics. It is simply a matter of political self-interest. This means the most well-funded anti-woke media outlets tend to be Republican-aligned, with Democratic-aligned anti-woke media being almost non-existent, even though there are many anti-woke Democrats out there. This situation, in and of itself, creates a strongly uneven Overton Window, where there is an overall effect of ideas and voices from the Right being treated more generously than those from the Left, in the anti-woke world.

To be the lone liberal anti-woke voice pushing back against Republican-aligned anti-wokeism requires principles and bravery, principles and bravery that unfortunately many commentators don't have. Personally speaking, I started opposing wokeism because of my commitment to the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for every individual, which required me to take a strong stance against postmodern activists' challenge towards free speech norms in many parts of Western society. I guess the fact that I entered anti-wokeism on the basis of principle means that my work has been less affected by tribalist forces.

How Tribalism Defeated 2010s Classical Liberalism | TaraElla Clips

About five to seven years ago, there was a lot of energy around the idea that we should seriously explore and debate big ideas, that nothing should be taboo, and more good faith debate can only lead us closer to the truth. It really felt like a classical liberal revival was in the air, with irrational postmodernist forces being the only thing that could stand in our way.

Yet, by 2020, this energy seems to have receded, and after the 2020 US Elections, I haven't even seen a hint of this optimism anywhere in (relatively) mainstream media. Nowadays, everywhere you look, there is negativity, us-vs-them sentiments, moral panics, and more negativity. The thing is, when one embraces negativity and fear, classical liberal values no longer make that much sense. They could even be seen as showing weakness towards the enemy. The summer of optimism for big ideas has given way to a harsh and bitter winter.

So why has this happened? I think, unfortunately, the answer is that too many people have fallen for something that I consider to be the root of most of the evil in this world: something we can broadly call tribalism. Tribalism has destroyed meaning, and created fear of the unfamiliar in its place. As a result, too many people adhere to dogma that they probably know is wrong (or at least questionable) in their hearts, just to demonstrate loyalty to their tribe. For these people, nothing matters, except being part of their tribe. I think this is very dangerous. I mean, major errors have been made, minorities have been persecuted, wars have been started, and people have been killed, all because of this kind of tribalism.

What's Next for Free Speech and Classical Liberalism | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from Two Perspectives: The People Don't Want Culture Wars by TaraElla.

Many people out there have been talking about a 'vibe shift' throughout this year. Even President Obama has become bolder on pushing back against extreme wokeness. I mean, cancel culture still exists and is still a problem, and woke voices will always be part of the cultural landscape absent attempts at censorship, but the ideological movement has met great resistance, and support appears to have somewhat collapsed, at least for now. With high profile 'woke' incidents becoming less and less common, the 'anti-woke' energy among classical liberals has diminished. A void has been left behind, and it has been taken up by hardline right-wing forces aligned with movements like National Conservatism, Christian Reconstructionism and Catholic Integralism.

So where do those of us who were opposed to 2010s wokeness go next? There are two options, basically. Given that the original criticisms about 'woke' cultural changes were rooted in classical liberalism, we could simply rebuild the classical liberal consensus, and move on from the 'woke vs anti-woke' disruption of the previous decade. This would prove that our intentions in pushing back against the 'woke' were noble after all, and that social justice minded people really have nothing to fear from our victory over wokeism. Or we could allow the 'anti-woke' movement, now dominated by reactionaries, to continue to drive the conversation, pushing the pendulum way to the other direction, and discrediting the original premise on which we opposed wokeism in the first place. History is actually full of these over-corrections, and allowing them to proceed is certainly not a good idea. Indeed, the 2010s 'woke' wave are sometimes thought to be due to the overreach of the Religious Right in the 1980s to 2000s. If we don't prevent over-correction towards the reactionary side, there will certainly be another, perhaps even bigger, 'woke' wave in the not too distant future.

Creating Space for a Liberal Conservatism | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

To include liberal conservatives in the liberal discourse doesn't mean that progressives need to give up their values, beliefs and policy goals. It merely requires that conservative ideas and voices be given an equal hearing, as long as they are within the classical liberal consensus. It would also require progressive liberals to be aware of, and consciously reject, some ideas that have their roots in postmodernism and critical theory. These include Michel Foucault's idea that speech and discourse are exercises of power, and Herbert Marcuse's idea that indiscriminate tolerance is repressive, expressed in the famous Repressive Tolerance essay. These ideas were gradually mainstreamed by radical activists in the past 50 years, and they have caused a crisis of confidence in old-school liberal values like free speech and freedom of conscience, as well as a distortion in how liberalism is practiced more generally. These ideas need to be consciously rejected once and for all, by those who are truly committed to liberalism.

Within the framework of classical liberal norms, there is still much unique ground a liberal conservatism can cover. Liberalism must remain committed to values like individual liberty, free speech, equality before the law, and civil rights guarantees for everyone, including minorities. These principles must not be compromised, and we must take a firm stance against the illiberal positions of culture war reactionaries. On the other hand, there is still plenty of room for a conservatism that doesn't violate the aforementioned principles. For example, there can be a focus on building stronger families, curing the problem of high divorce rates, restoring public decency and modesty as a norm, and so on. Indeed, without the divisiveness of culture war politics, we can better bring people into a coalition to achieve these aims.

How to Win the Argument with the Illiberal Right | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

While those on the Left often end up basically attacking all of conservatism, I believe this is the wrong approach. Conservatism represents a basic pattern of human thinking, and many people are inclined towards that way of thinking, at least to some degree. Conservatism exists because it is evolutionarily adaptive, and it is not going to go away, despite the wishful thinking of the Left. Therefore, the only way to fight against an illiberal conservatism is to build up a liberal conservative alternative.

It all starts with making room for conservative minds and voices within liberalism, and ensuring that they are on an equal playing field. One thing I have advocated for over the years is the inclusion of liberal conservatives, i.e. conservatives who agree to uphold the classical liberal consensus, in liberal culture and politics.

Liberalism is actually a set of commitments, based around respecting individual freedom of conscience, favoring objective evidence over superstition and dogma, and building a good order based on these principles. As such, it actually does not exclude conservative-leaning minds, as long as they too support these principles.