There Really is a Woke Right, and it is a Grave Threat to Freedom

The evidence is solid, despite the loud and desperate denials

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about whether there is a 'woke right'. Some moderates have long used the the term 'woke right' to describe reactionary right-wing culture warriors who engage in cancel culture and other forms of free speech denial, but this term was only embraced by a small minority, until James Lindsay and several other key influencers on the right began promoting it in recent months. As you might expect, some on the right have been quite defensive, and dismissive of the idea that the right can be 'woke' too, going so far as to accuse Lindsay and others of promoting left-wing ideas (this clearly has the same energy as far-left activists trying to paint Barack Obama and Joe Biden as right-wing). It is in this context, particularly the right's defensive, tribalist and almost anti-intellectual response, that I began thinking about whether a 'woke right' might indeed exist.

When a few people began talking about the 'woke right' two or three years ago, my initial attitude was skeptical. After all, wokeness arose from postmodernism and critical theory, philosophies which are firmly rooted in the left, and have only been (openly) embraced by left-wing people and movements. Just because something looks similar to woke doesn't make it woke. I mean, Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are authoritarian and anti-LGBT, and so is fascism, but religious fundamentalism and fascism are clearly two different things.

However, over time, I have observed that the similarities between the woke left and the new movement of culture warriors on the right are simply too many to ignore. Both despise free speech, and distrust the marketplace of ideas to the point that they believe they have to actively shut down speech and ideas they disagree with, often using unscrupulous means. This, ultimately, stems from a belief on both sides that society and culture are controlled by an all-pervasive power structure, that would not allow the truth to emerge simply from free speech and free debate. There's a clear oppressor vs oppressed worldview at work here on both sides, although there is clearly disagreement on which groups are the oppressor and which groups are the oppressed. There's also a 'let's turn the tables of oppression', revenge on the oppressors is legitimate feeling on both sides, and the 'oppressors' are seen as one indistinguishable bloc, so it would be okay to hurt all of them without considering individual guilt or lack thereof. Above all, for both sides, the biggest goal of politics is to dismantle the power structure and disarm those who are propping up the power structure, and this has to be done at all costs, including costs to individual liberty, as well as actual harms to actual people. The last point is important, because not many ideologies in the modern West would condone this 'whatever it takes', 'the ends justify the means' attitude, for good reason.

It is clear from the above analysis that the woke left and the New Right culture warriors share not only superficial similarities or even just tactics, but rather, they ultimately share the same kind of worldview about culture, human nature and the general epistemology of society. Given this, I think we are talking less about two things that are only superficially similar like fascism vs religious authoritarianism here, but rather two things that actually share the same core nature, like Italian fascism and German Nazism. Just like we can put both Italian fascism and German Nazism under the same general umbrella called 'fascism', I think we can justifiably put both the 'woke left' and the 'woke right' under the same general umbrella called 'wokeism'. Indeed, failing to do so would severely limit, and even distort, our view of reality.

Building the New Woke-Critical Movement | The New Woke-Skeptic

A shared values approach is what we need going forward

In my recent article titled 'There Really is a Woke Right, and it is a Grave Threat to Freedom', I analyzed how the current batch of culture warriors on the right actually embody the essence of critical theory-style thinking, and are hence actually a 'woke right'. The 'woke right' sees a liberal 'cathedral' centered in academia, dating back to the Whigs in Britain several centuries ago, as the oppressor of what they see as 'true conservatives', and they believe the overturn of liberal values, at all costs, must be pursued. This is why they are a grave threat to freedom. With this in mind, the fight against wokeness has become at least a 'war on two fronts', broadly speaking. Moreover, besides the 'woke left' and the 'woke right', there could also be more niche versions of woke thinking that don't fit into either the left or the right as they currently exist. An example of this is extreme gender critical feminism. 'Woke TERFs' think of gender issues in a way consistent with the critical theory model, with all biological males as oppressors and all biological females as the oppressed. Their resentment of trans women stems from this ideology, and is not amenable to reasonable compromise. I think all this means that, going forward, the woke-critical or woke-skeptical movement will need to be able to consistently point out the flaws of all branches of woke thinking, in order for it to be an intellectually honest, sustainable and fruitful movement.

I believe the best way to combat woke thinking is simply to point out the flaws with thinking that way, and the associated real world harms. Critical theory-style thinking is bad because it removes the role of personal agency and personal responsibility in the determination of social outcomes, and by extension, removes the justification for virtue, morality, independent thinking, and ultimately freedom itself. Instead, it sees everything as a 'system', with individuals being no more than pieces in the system. Furthermore, give that the goal is always to take down the system as a whole, it doesn't care about harming the individuals within the system, or otherwise treating them unfairly. This, I believe, makes it a very dangerous mode of thinking. Extremists on the 'woke left' believe that all men are responsible for 'patriarchy', all white people are responsible for 'white supremacy' and so on, thus justifying their 'turn the tables of oppression' style of reverse sexism and racism. This attitude is not only divisive, it has also caused real world harms like the neglect of men's issues and needs on the left. On the other hand, extremists on the 'woke right' believe that all establishment experts are bad, thus justifying a completely anti-science attitude towards everything from environmental science to public health. Moreover, they also believe that LGBT people are products of liberal ideology, thus justifying their support of policies that are harmful and unfair to LGBT individuals. Both the 'woke left' and the 'woke right' are clear examples of why this mode of thinking needs to be thoroughly challenged, and ultimately defeated. It is for the good of humanity's future that we must win this battle of ideas decisively.

I used to mainly combat woke thinking with classical liberal values and philosophy. I actually don't think that is the best approach anymore. Don't get me wrong: classical liberal values and philosophy are indeed a good antidote to woke thinking, they are effective against both the 'woke left' and the 'woke right', and we should continue to develop those arguments. However, what we need to recognize is that political philosophy is like religion. We all have our own beliefs, some of us have stronger beliefs than others, but at the end of the day, we have to acknowledge that, in a free society, not everyone is going to share our beliefs. It is sometimes said that, in a democracy, religious people can hold views that are influenced by their religion, but they still have to make their case in terms of secular, common values in the marketplace of ideas, if they want to build support for the change they want to see. I think it's a similar deal when it comes to political philosophy. Classical liberal philosophy can inspire us to take certain positions, but we still need to build a coalition to achieve what we want, and that would have to include people who aren't true believers in classical liberalism, and people who might not even be into thinking about political philosophy at all. This is where the 'shared values' approach to combating woke thinking is clearly superior.

The 'shared values' approach to combating woke thinking lies in simply promoting and emphasizing some of society's long-standing shared values, that provide a check on the flaws and ill effects of critical theory-style thinking. For example, universal compassion would prevent people from thinking of some individuals as belonging to or associated with 'oppressor' groups based on their immutable characteristics, and treat them unfairly because of this. Objectivity would provide a check on philosophical theories that paint a picture of an 'oppressive system' based on limited anecdotal evidence, and also prevent a blanket anti-expert anti-science attitude from developing. Intellectual seriousness would prevent broad brush thinking in general, and encourage us to look into the details of each issue before coming to a judgement as to what the correct answers are. Anti-tribalism would prevent us from lazily agreeing with the people on our own side, even if their ideas are not sound. And so on. And then, there is also an additional overall effect of focusing on applying these values in our lives, in that it prevents us from succumbing to grand theories of oppressor vs oppressed thinking, or similar conspiratorial-style thinking in general. When you are dedicated to treating everyone with the same compassion, and understanding the nuanced truth of every issue, your brain gets used to thinking about issues multifactorially. You become much less susceptible to grand theories about how society works based on false simplicity.

In conclusion, critical theory-style thinking, what is often called 'woke' nowadays, is prevalent among both left-wing and right-wing culture warriors alike. This kind of thinking paints a picture of structural oppression that is simply not there empirically, and justifies illiberal means of 'tearing down the system' that inevitably harms many people along the way. Moreover, when groups of people have been assigned to be part of the oppressive power structure, harming them becomes well-justified, even if they do not personally deserve it themselves. Overall, this is clearly a dangerous mode of thinking, and one that is incompatible with the long-standing values of our society. While liberal philosophy has provided effective arguments against this mode of thinking, we need to understand that not everyone is into political philosophy, or believes in classical liberalism. If we are to win this battle of ideas, we would need as many people as possible to be allies. Which is why a 'shared values' approach, where we emphasize the role of values like compassion, objectivity, intellectual seriousness and anti-tribalism, is superior, and should be pursued going forward.

Why Centrism is the Best Antidote to the Populist Right | New Centrist View

Centrism brings balance, and balance is required for sustainable progress

Since the victory of Donald Trump in the 2024 US Presidential election, numerous left-wing commentators have blamed 'centrism' for the defeat of Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party. Given that Harris ran a relatively moderate campaign, and still lost, they reasoned that centrism must be to blame. This is despite the fact that Biden and Obama also ran relatively moderate campaigns, and won. Moreover, in Britain, Labour leader Keir Starmer also won in a landslide on a moderate platform earlier this year, recovering much lost ground from the massive defeat of Jeremy Corbyn's far-left campaign five years earlier. The fact is, centrism still has a very good track record of winning overall.

The biggest problem with popular misconceptions regarding centrism is that there seems to be quite a bit of confusion as to what 'centrism' is actually. My long-standing view is that centrism is a balance of what I call the rational progressive impulse, and organicist conservative philosophy. While these modes of thinking are generally represented by the center-left and the center-right respectively, it is not always the case that left equals progressive, or right equals conservative. Take 'neoliberal' economic policy, arguably the strongest pillar in the three-legged stool of Reaganite neoconservatism. It really is quite radical, in that it does not care about the harms it brings to working families. All it cares about is benefits in economic and productivity terms. This means that its proponents are motivated by the prospect of achieving better things, while not caring too much about the harms their proposed changes could bring. Hence, 'neoliberal' economic policy, although championed mainly by the right before 2016, is actually a form of unfettered progressivism, and like all forms of unfettered progressivism, it has led to chaos, destruction and suffering. A truly centrist perspective would have provided a check on the unrestrained and unbalanced optimism of neoliberalism, and effectively prevented the economic frustrations that ultimately fed into the rise of the populist right.

Besides economic frustrations, cultural concerns, particularly the rise of wokeness, are also providing fuel for the populist right. This represents yet another case of unfettered progressivism that would merit some checks and balances, that organicist conservative philosophy can provide. Woke ideology, rooted in postmodern critical theory, insists that the whole status quo is oppressive and must be dismantled wholesale. This is a good example of insisting on radical change, justified on abstract philosophy alone, the very thing that Burkean conservative philosophy has been warning us about for centuries. If progressives are willing to heed that philosophy, they will opt for a more practical program for reform instead, which would remove one important factor fueling the growth of the populist right. This would actually also be good from a social justice point of view, because we would actually be making progress rather than arguing endlessly, polarizing the public, and ceding more and more ground to the reactionaries in the process.

There are still other areas where the impulse for progress and change needs to be kept in check by organicist conservatism. I even admit that this would apply to libertarianism sometimes. For example, during the summer of 2020, many libertarians became sympathetic to 'defund the police' and other soft on crime policies. As we all know, these policies are now subject to a massive backlash, because of concerns about crime, in basically every major city across the Western world. This result should have been seen from a mile away. The fact is, while in an ideal society, where the people are more enlightened and crime is much less common, we probably should not spend so much on policing, we don't actually live in that society. In our current reality, defunding the police and going soft on crime will definitely mean more crime. The lesson here is that, when making or endorsing policy, we can't just look at what our ideal society, in the abstract, would look like. We also need to consider how the policy will practically play out in the society we actually have. Failing to do this will give fuel to the argument for authoritarianism.

A final important point is that being a centrist does not mean being unprincipled, as people on the far-left often accuse us of being. For example, as a centrist libertarian, my primary principle is freedom. While I'm not going to take it as far as demanding the abolition of driver's licenses like some libertarian immediatists do, I'm certainly going to fight tooth and nail against attempts to take away existing freedoms, and turn society towards a more authoritarian direction, whatever the justification. This is why I'm so opposed to the culture warriors in both the woke left and the populist New Right. I'm not going to compromise with people who want to shove their ideological beliefs down other people's throats at the expense of individual freedom, period.

Divisive Identity Politics Can Never Lead to Progress | The Fault in the Left

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2024 US Presidential Election, and winning the majority of young men according to multiple exit polls, there has been a lot of soul searching as to whether the Democrats have a problem with male voters right now. A major point of discussion is whether the divisive us-vs-them identity politics that much of the left has embraced in the past decade is to blame. Frankly, I think it is to blame.

The truth is, you can either have a win-win politics for all, or you can have an identity politics that divides society into oppressor vs oppressed groups, but you can't have both. Postmodern critical theory and the identity politics inspired by such theory is always going to lead the left down the route of divisive identity politics, which is going to alienate many potential supporters. When you swap out old-school inclusive liberalism for the kind of philosophy that labels people as privileged oppressors based on their immutable characteristics, you are bound to lose a lot of support over time. I hope they can really learn this lesson, and get rid of this faulty and harmful philosophy once and for all.
 

What Would You Do (if not for the Culture Wars)?

I think a good way to get past the tribalism and polarization of today's Western political landscape is simply to constantly ask yourself: what would you do if not for the tribalist culture wars? What would you have decided was the best outcome, if not for what you have heard about the culture wars, the strange ideological theories, the propaganda of political influencers, and so on? What would you support, if you didn't know a thing about politics before today?

Several years ago, I heard someone say that they were opposed to gay marriage, but only because the so-called 'cultural Marxists' were supporting it. Leaving aside the issue of the validity of their assertions, I think thinking about things this way is very wrong. So you decide to oppose something just because you think your enemies support it. You let this consideration overide all your values, and all your decency and compassion as a human being. I think there's something very fundamentally immoral about this. And it doesn't really make sense either. After all, if your enemy drinks water, you wouldn't stop drinking water, right?

The level of polarization and tribalism we now have in Western society is dangerous and unsustainable. If we let this continue, I fear it could lead us to really bad places. It's time to say no to all this.

What a Centrist Libertarian Program Looks Like in Practice

I think it could be more popular than right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism

In recent years, I've come to identify as both a centrist and a libertarian. I've explained numerous times elsewhere why I identify with these labels. But still, some people seem to think it's a contradiction. And it really shouldn't be. I mean, if someone told you that they identified as being on the right and a libertarian, that would make sense to most people. Alternatively, if someone told you that they identified as a leftist and a libertarian, that would still make sense at least to people who are familiar with political philosophy. In other words, right-libertarianism is not only real but also the default mode of libertarianism in the English-speaking West, and left-libertarianism is at least a very real thing that is well understood by many politically engaged people. On the other hand, most people still seem to be unable to imagine what a centrist libertarianism looks like.

To explain centrist libertarianism, I think we should start with left-libertarianism vs right-libertarianism. The differences between left-libertarians and right-libertarians ultimately lie in what they believe to be the biggest barriers to freedom. Traditionally, right-libertarians believe that the government is the biggest barrier to freedom, and left-libertarians believe that capitalism is the biggest barrier to freedom. In recent times, cultural views have also entered the conversation. Here, right-libertarians tend to believe that the 'woke' establishment and its institutions are the most important enemy of freedom, while left-libertarians tend to see the same with religion and traditional values. The clarity of who the 'enemy' is means that both left-libertarians and right-libertarians tend to have quite extreme, and therefore 'immediatist', policy positions, and they believe that if they were allowed to get their way, liberty would be realized almost overnight.

Centrist libertarians are different from both left-libertarians and right-libertarians in that, while we aim for the maximization of freedom like all other libertarians, we understand that the conditions that favor or disfavor freedom are multifactorial. We don't believe that the left or the right exclusively has the answers to what makes a society free. Rather, we empirically observe what conditions are conducive to freedom in practice, and what conditions are harmful to freedom in practice. The set of 'conditions for freedom' that we care about are much larger than the simplistic views of both left-libertarians and right-libertarians. For example, polarization, echo chambers, loss of respect for science and objective truth, and an over-commitment to abstract philosophy are all harmful for freedom. Both left-libertarians and right-libertarians fail to see all this, because they are too obsessed with their own ideology. Centrist libertarianism, in contrast, is much more empirical and practical.

This also means that a centrist libertarianism is necessarily a gradualist libertarianism. When you believe that freedom is multifactorial, and that there is no simple fix that would magically take us to freedom utopia, you understand that the road to more freedom lies in trial and error, give and take, and in both promoting new forms of freedom, as well as safeguarding existing forms of freedom. Like other centrists, we understand that making good, sustainable policy lies in balance and compromise, and aiming for overnight perfection is just a recipe for disaster. This is in contrast to both left-libertarians and right-libertarians, who mostly agree with the broader left and the broader right respectively as to who is the 'enemy', and find almost no room for agreement with the other side. This is what leads to many right-libertarians embracing policy positions very similar to that of the Republican Freedom Caucus, and many left-libertarians embracing wokeness to some extent, even though that ideology is clearly anti-free speech and individual liberty. Of course, we centrists know that both the hard-left and the hard-right are actually not that good for freedom in practice. As centrists, we are able to see the pitfalls inherent in both left-wing and right-wing politics, and their anti-freedom implications.

Centrist libertarianism also differs from pure 'centrism' in an important way. Unlike centrists who are not libertarians, we still insist on prioritizing our general goal of promoting freedom when it comes to what we are willing to support, and the kind of compromises that we are willing to make. For example, a centrist libertarian will not agree to a platform that results in clearly less freedom than the status quo, no matter what benefits its supporters claim it will bring. Also, in hammering out compromises, we will always bring the case for freedom to the table, and argue that a policy of agreeing to disagree and respecting each other's freedom will often be the best form of compromise. Finally, our commitment to freedom means that we will not fall for 'populist' policy platforms that combine social and economic authoritarianism, even if they do superficially combine policies from the left and the right. We want to take the best parts from both sides, not the worst parts.

Creating a False Consensus | Influencers vs. Truth

Beware when 'everyone' moves in lockstep.

Welcome to Influencers vs. Truth, a new series where I examine the strategies often used by political influencers to recruit viewers to their point of view. I think this is needed for three reasons: firstly, online influencers have a range of new strategies that they have been using to convince people of their positions, and these have been much more effective than the old strategies used by TV talking heads and talk radio personalities. Secondly, recent revelations have shined a light on the fact that many online influencers are likely being paid gigantic sums of money to push certain talking points. Finally, the combination of these things has meant that more and more people have been converted to extremist or otherwise unsound positions on a wide range of issues, as a result of the work of influencers aligned with the far-left or the far-right. I'm concerned that this could be a major contributor to the political polarization we are seeing, and the fact that we don't seem to be living in the same universe of objective facts anymore.

In this first installment, I'm going to talk about how influencers create a false sense of consensus, and the dangerous effects this could have. I've been paying attention to the world of online political influencers for about seven years now, and I've seen this in action many, many times. It was during the pandemic, when we were all stuck at home watching too many YouTube videos, that I first became consciously aware of this. I noticed that a certain subset of right-aligned influencers kept taking the same stances on a wide range of topics, including topics regarding the pandemic, as well as regarding things like BLM and the 2020 US Elections. Their lockstep agreement struck me as unusual, even for a group of people aligned with the Republican Party, because there was actually a much wider range of views within the Republican Party itself on these issues in the real world. For example, back in around April 2020, many Republican elected officials held the view that they should focus on sorting out the pandemic first, then campaign hard in the summer, because they expected the pandemic to go away by August back then, but none of the influencers seemed to have any sympathy for this view. Republicans were also split on whether Trump should take up one or more culture war campaigns, but all the influencers were fully in on the culture wars, with no exceptions. It became clear to me that all these influencers were only representing the views of one part of the Republican Party, not even the whole Republican Party, but they were trying to portray these views as the widespread consensus of people who had 'common sense', ignoring all the very real and very valid disagreements that were actually happening in reality.

Once I became aware that these influencers were trying to pretend that the views of one faction of one party were the consensus view, I noticed even more unusual things happening. Like how these influencers would all promote certain books at around the same time, generating a sense of buzz, when such buzz was clearly missing in the real world. I mean, most of the time I couldn't even find the promoted book at my local bookstore. Or how, in early 2021, they all jumped up and down when Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided to stop publishing six titles deemed to have racist content, even though there was almost no real world interest in this piece of obscure news. I mean, it's a stretch even calling it 'cancel culture', because it's not like somebody actually had their career ruined, or was threatened into silence and submission in any way. It was just that six of the less popular Seuss books, out of a catalog of more than sixty, would not be printed anymore. The rest of the world couldn't care less. But the influencers kept trying to manufacture outrage for about a week.

This weird lockstep behavior was happening on more fundamental issues too. For example, by late 2021, they had all turned against the 'classical liberalism' they were championing just one or two years ago, and were singing praises of the new illiberal 'National Conservatism' movement. Somehow, all of them believed, just like myself, that it was important to uphold classical liberal values against wokeness in 2019, and what the West needed was more free speech. However, all of them had a change of heart by 2021, and now saw liberalism itself as responsible for wokeness, and what the West needed was to give up on classical liberalism itself! In a roundabout way, they had all managed to become enemies of the version of themselves from just two years ago!

The first question that came to my mind was, why weren't these people challenged for their nonsense? The answer was clear: they mostly only collaborated with those who moved in lockstep with them. In other words, they were making strange behavior and awkward moves look more natural by doing it together, and holding conversations where they justified each others' talking points. What they were doing was manufacturing a false consensus. In the real world, people were not giving up on classical liberalism en masse during 2021. But somehow, in right-wing influencer world, it seemed like a real shift was really happening, and 'everyone' was getting behind it. The fact that the arguments for classical liberal values that were valid in 2019 would still be valid two years later was ignored by 'everyone', and voices from the outside that could carry this point of view were of course excluded from the show. Later on, it would turn out that all this was a prelude to the launch of a new brand of big government, illiberal culture war politics, with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's infamous War on Disney as the first big move. The aforementioned influencers would all go on to become DeSantis fans, justifying his every move, even as they seriously infringed upon the value of free speech.

I believe what we saw here was an example of a group of influencers manufacturing the appearance of a consensus, to justify a controversial political program. The goal here was to loosen the viewer's previous commitment to classical liberal values, so that they would not get in the way of the new political program. I think this is very Orwellian indeed.

The Reationary Rabbit Hole of Competitive Outrage | The Fault in the Right

It's very bad news indeed for the future of freedom in the West

Welcome back to The Fault in the Right. Today, I'm going to talk about an increasingly worrying phenomenon: the rise of competitive outrage on the right. This is perhaps one of the things most characteristic of how the populist New Right is different from old-school conservative politics. Think of it as the mirror image of the 'oppression olympics'. Instead of competing to be the most oppressed, however, it seems like many in the populist right like to compete to be the most outraged. We are seeing this phenomenon more and more often in both political influencers and actual politicians making policies. And this has some worrying consequences.

Firstly, competitive outrage always results in whipping up people's emotions, and bringing out the worst in people. It leads to irrationality, tribalism, and even open bigotry and hate towards certain groups. And because you win the game by acting more outraged than other people on your side, and promising ever harsher actions against perceived enemies, there is no circuit breaker here. Nobody can call out others on their own side for going too far, because they would be perceived as 'weak', and also lose the game of competitive outrage by definition. Hence, things can only get angrier, more irrational, more detached from reality, and more outrageous as time goes on.

Many might think that competitive outrage is only something that happens online, among political influencers and users of social media. However, it is clear that this is not the case. Populist right politicians' talking points about immigrants, LGBT people, and 'liberal elites' have been getting darker and more divisive in the past few years. And it has also affected policy making, with ever increasing numbers of anti-LGBT bills being filed every year across America and the West for example. The truth here is, populist right-aligned politicians have to keep filing these bills, even though they are unnecessary because they all look similar to each other, because they have to show that they are outraged, and will respond in a 'strong' way. If they don't do this, they could get primaried and lose their career. Over time, the content of those bills have also gotten more and more outrageous. There is clearly no room for rational thinking, compassion or compromise, even in policy making, when everything is driven by competitive outrage.

The ultimate effect of competitive outrage is likely going to be the total triumph of reactionism in right-of-center politics, and the complete death of organicist conservatism. This is because competitive outrage always ends up favoring the most reactionary points of view, and is always incompatible with the rationality, compromise and moderation required to maintain a viable organicist conservative position. Given that, as I previously analyzed, organicism is important for the maintenance of freedom, while reactionism is fundamentally incompatible with individual liberty, the triumph of reactionism over organicism on the right is going to have very adverse impacts on freedom. Therefore, I believe that, for the sake of defending freedom, we need to take a very firm stance against competitive outrage. Not only should we make sure we are not playing that game ourselves, I think we actually need to call it out whenever we see it, to prevent it from being normalized any further. And we need to keep raising awareness, to make more people aware that this is something that is happening, and is going to have a deleterious effect on freedom if it continues unchecked.

Three Things That Can Reunite Libertarians | Moral Libertarian Talk

Freedom, Peace and Honesty is our Common Ground

Today, I'm going to talk about how we can reunite different types of libertarians across the political spectrum again. Given that the usual attitude of libertarians is that 'only my version of libertarianism is real libertarianism', and that as the saying goes, if you have a room of libertarians there would be as many versions of libertarianism as there are people in the room, how can we hope to get different kinds of libertarians to come together at all? I believe the answer lies in finding, and emphasizing, our common ground. I can think of three areas where the vast majority of libertarians, if not all libertarians, can passionately agree on.

The first thing that can unite all libertarians is a fundamental belief in the importance of freedom. While this might just be stating the obvious, the rising level of authoritarianism in both the left and the right has made the libertarians on both sides increasingly uncomfortable, which could be a catalyst for the formation of a new cross-political spectrum alliance for freedom. If left-libertarians and right-libertarians can come together for the sake of defending freedom, we might even see a real fundamental re-ordering of Western politics along libertarian-authoritarian lines in the future.

The second thing that can unite libertarians is a commitment to peace. Historically, libertarianism has often gained support for taking a principled stance on unnecessary and unjustified wars. I first became sympathetic to libertarian ideas during the 2003 Iraq War, for example. While left-libertarians and right-libertarians disagree on economic issues, they generally agree on non-violence, peace, and opposing unjust wars. What we need to remember is that, if left-libertarians and right-libertarians choose to work with the authoritarians on their own side rather than choose to work with each other, there will never be any hope for world peace. What we also need to remember is that a hopeful commitment to world peace is becoming rarer among other ideologies, which means libertarians are becoming increasingly isolated on this. Neoliberals and neoconservatives generally don't believe that world peace is possible, nor do the National Conservatives of the New Right, if you examine the roots of their ideology. They all seem to think that the forever wars are inevitable, even if for different reasons. Which means libertarians probably have to go it alone to keep the hope of peace alive. This alone, I think, could be enough motivation for at least some left-libertarians and right-libertarians to work together, at least some of the time.

Last but certainly not least, an often overlooked thing that all kinds of libertarians share is a need for honesty. This honesty is actually what makes it difficult for libertarians to form coalitions of convenience in the first place. However, the fact that both the left and the right have become very tribalist, very focused on winning and 'owning' the other side, and have resorted to dishonest tactics and hypocritical positioning to achieve what they want, has gotten libertarians on both sides more and more concerned. This, I think, could be something that could make libertarians of all stripes come together, and realize our fundamental similarities, despite our disagreements. In libertarianism, you will never find the manipulative philosophical sophistry of postmodernism, or the win at all costs mentality of the New Right. True libertarians never 'hide their power level', to borrow an increasingly popular saying. While left-libertarians and right-libertarians could disagree vehemently with each other, at least you can expect that all parties will remain honest and straightforward.

Why the Critical Theory-based Model of Change is Counterproductive | The Fault in the Left

Attempts to remake society to satisfy theoretical needs are often anti-utilitarian

Welcome to The Fault In The Left, a series where I will examine the major faults in today's Western Left. I intend for this series to run parallel to my other series, The Fault In The Right, in order to ensure balanced criticism of both the left and the right.

Today, I will start the series by discussing what I have long believed to be the biggest problem with the Western Left today: the dominance of philosophical theory, and the selective inattention to realities that are not consistent with these theories. It seems that these days, there is a theory on the left for everything: critical race theory and postcolonial theory for issues concerning race, the various forms of feminist theory for gender issues, queer theory for LGBT issues, disability theory for disability issues, and so on. Many of these theories are rooted in postmodernism and critical theory, which I have specifically criticized previously. This time, however, I will focus on the issue of redefining social justice as the fulfillment of the requirements of philosophical theory, and why this model of change is ultimately counterproductive.

Attempts at encouraging the use of 'Latinx' to replace 'Latino' as a neutral, plural noun to refer to Latinos is a good example of what's wrong with the Western Left today. As you would expect, it has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Latino community, because it is both unnecessary and an unnatural imposition. It is unnecessary because, in Romance languages, the masculine form already acts as the neutral when necessary. Indeed, French President Emmanuel Macron made a point of this last year, during a debate about the use of non-gendered terms in French government documents. Macron is certainly no right-wing reactionary, yet he recognizes that it is not a good idea to unnecessarily change the rules of a language radically. In the case of 'Latinx', it is also a very unnatural imposition, because it violates Spanish grammar rules, and can't even be pronounced in Spanish! This means that it is just impossible that it would ever have been adopted organically by Spanish speakers. I have long argued that people are justifiably skeptical towards inorganic change, because it is, by definition, not something that has been well considered by multiple sections of society.

The other problem with theory-based change is that it is often anti-utilitarian, i.e. it leaves society less happy as a result. This is because, unlike changes intended to alleviate suffering or solve specific practical problems, theory-based change tends to require the complete implementation of a radical set of changes across a wide-range of contexts to be considered successful, because this is what would need to happen to make the real world conform to the demands of philosophical theory. Compare gay marriage and the 'gender neutral language' movement, for example. The legalization of gay marriage required only the change of laws specific to marriage, and it generally doesn't impact the lives of those who don't wish to enter into a same-sex marriage. It doesn't demand society-wide radical change. The fact that gay couples get to be happier, and the rest of society isn't affected much, means that the change is justified on utilitarian grounds, because net happiness is increased. On the other hand, if some theory tells us that all language, in all contexts, must be made 'gender neutral' in order to get rid of the 'patriarchal' language, then to fulfill this theory, changes would need to be made everywhere, including in places most people have never thought about. Given that the vast majority of these changes would not result in making anyone happier, but some of the changes would really upset traditionalists, the net effect would be anti-utilitarian. Unlike the legalization of gay marriage, the attempt to impose 'gender neutral language' universally is clearly unjustifiable from a utilitarian point of view.

The left's insistence on imposing changes that are unnecessary, inorganic, and anti-utilitarian to satisfy their philosophical theory has been divisive, and it has led to a backlash to many legitimate causes, that has made rational, productive change more difficult. The frustrations towards activists imposing clearly anti-utilitarian changes has also led to a general increase in reactionary sentiment, which has been harvested by the reactionary populist right to win elections in many places across the West. I think the experience of the past ten years provides a strong and conclusive case that this theory-dominant form of 'progressive' thinking is very counterproductive, and a return to a more practical model of change is in order.

The Politics of Forever Despair vs Constant Outrage

I think that, sooner or later, people are going to realize that the left and the right both have nothing good to offer us. What they offer is basically the politics of forever despair vs the politics of constant outrage.

The problem with the left is that, because of their ideological commitments and philosophical obsessions, nothing is ever going to be good enough for them, or even sort of good. Everything is oppressive, all the time, and remains just as oppressive and bad even after reforms are achieved. This leads to a state of constant despair, and ultimately burnout. This, I think, is why many people who start out as commited left-wing activists when they are young eventually end up withdrawing from politics altogether, or in a few odd cases, defect to the hard right. The left effectively burns up the passions of generation after generation of young people, and yet achieves nothing in the end.

On the other hand, what the right offers is not really better either. The right, especially the populist New Right, likes to get people constantly outraged with no end. The goal of the right seems to be to get people disproportionally outraged towards everything, including things that are really small and insigificant. For the right, every change is always bad, and every move must have a hidden radical agenda. This leaves not much room for rational thinking, or indeed, optimism for the future. To join the ranks of the right is therefore to give up on the hope that a better future is possible, and also to give up on rational thinking, which I think is a very sad thing.

I refuse to have to choose between forever despair and constant outrage. This is why I refuse to choose between left vs right. I think there is a better way, and I think more people are realizing this.

We Need to Develop the Philosophy to Support a Centrist Politics | New Centrist View

The center cannot hold unless we revive its intellectual side

Welcome to New Centrist View, a new series where I will try to contribute to the development of philosophical positions that could support a sustainable centrist politics.

Previously on Moral Libertarian View, I discussed how the Western political landscape is currently divided into four main ideologies, namely constructionism and utilitarianism on the left, and organicism and reactionism on the right. I also discussed why constructionism, the ideology of the postmodern-critical theory far-left, and reactionism, the ideology of the populist New Right, are inherently anti-freedom, while liberal utilitarianism and organicist conservatism are much more compatible with freedom. The key to defending freedom, then, would be to uphold liberal utilitarianism as well as organicist conservatism, which are the core ideologies of the center-left and the center-right respectively. Freedom will hold if the center holds. If the center does not hold, freedom might indeed be less than a generation away from extinction.

It is truly a difficult time to be a centrist right now. Just look at the fact that there are many more far-left and far-right influencers, podcasters, writers and personalities than centrist ones. Most people wouldn't want the thankless task of trying to recover sanity in a world gone mad, when they could be much more popular, and indeed chase after lucrative career opportunities, by choosing one of the extremes and catering exclusively to its supporters. As a centrist, not only are you likely to have a much smaller audience and no income for your hard work, you are also likely to be labelled as a weak, stupid, brainwashed, privileged defender of the status quo. Trust me, I've been called all of these things.

One of the major reasons why centrist politics is in this state is because it lacks a strong philosophical backing. At least in the past seventy years or so, center-left and center-right ideologies have been defined mostly not by intellectual thinkers who think about issues on principle, but by politicians who take politically calculated positions and make unprincipled deals all the time. In contrast, both far-left constructionism and far-right reactionism were marginalized ideologies without much formal political power until recently, and their recent history was thus dominated by thinkers rather than politicians. This, in turn, means that their stances appear to be much more intellectual and principled, at least to certain people. This is a major reason why centrism is seen as unprincipled, perhaps even untenable in the long run, by more and more people. I truly fear that the center cannot hold if we don't develop a robust intellectual tradition to support it again.

Looking at the ideologies we consider moderate or centrist, which is mainly liberal utilitarianism and organicist conservative-reformism, they once were intellectual powerhouses that had to contend with a very different status quo in times past, in order to gain support. For example, once upon a time, the human pursuit of happiness was not considered a legitimate goal, rather, people were expected to obey religious laws as interpreted by the official state church, whether they liked it or not. To argue against this could lead to charges of heresy. Similarly, people were expected to know and accept their place in the very hierarchical order of society. Any disobedience against this hierarchical order could be seen as a sign of rebellion, which was generally punishable by death. Thankfully, we don't live in a society like this anymore, because more liberal ideas about how society should be organized ultimately won out. Since then, however, the development of liberal, utilitarian and organicist philosophy and thinking seems to have slowly come to a stop. Liberal reformism became the status quo, which then became stale and despised. What needs to happen is a renewal on the philosophical, intellectual side. Given that the philosophies which underpin liberal reformism once won the battle of ideas, I'm sure it can happen again, but we really need to work to make it happen.

Given the resurgence of essentially medieval ideas about how society should be organized on the far-right, we really need to revive the arguments our predecessors used to defeat the ancien regime of arbitrary power, and update them for the 21st century. On the other hand, 'progressive' intellectualism has come to be dominated by ideas that are basically revolutionary rather than reformist, and often anarchist-adjacent, which share the common assumption that tradition is inherently oppressive, and challenging and dismantling tradition is necessary for progress. However, history has demonstrated that this is not necessarily true. A liberal reformist program that aims to preserve and respect the spirit of traditions, underpinned by an organicist conservative philosophy, can also effectively advance social justice, and a radical rupture with long-standing norms might not be necessary. It is up to us to make this argument, if only to balance out the excessive and counterproductive radicalism that has become the fashion of the day in many 'progressive' circles.

On Pro-Freedom vs Anti-Freedom Views of Society | Moral Libertarian Talk

We need to argue for utilitarianism and organicism against the anti-freedom ideologies

One thing that I have repeatedly emphasized and explored in recent months is that freedom does not exist in a vacuum. You can't just talk about freedom in a theoretical sense, and expect it to apply well to the real world. Instead, we need to look at what is happening in the real world, and think about how we can advance freedom in the specific context of our society, in the here and now.

Today, I want to build upon my recent observation that there are actually four competing ideologies or philosophies in the Western political landscape right now, and discuss how we can defend and advance the cause of freedom in this particular landscape. Basically, the four ideologies are constructionism and utilitarianism on the 'progressive' or 'left' side, and  organicism and reactionism on the 'conservative' or 'right' side. Constructionism is the belief that society is made up of interlocking systems of oppression which are socially constructed, and the dismantling of these social constructs is required for the liberation of women and minorities. Utilitarianism is the belief that policy decisions should be aimed at increasing happiness, or at least reducing suffering, as much as possible. Utilitarian liberalism has a long history, going back to the 19th century British thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Organicism is the belief that society, as it exists, is the product of many centuries of lived experience and wisdom, and on this ground it opposes attempts to abruptly and radically change society, especially if it is rooted in abstract philosophy alone. It is the core essence of classical conservative thinking, going back to thinkers like Edmund Burke. Finally, reactionism is the belief that society is fallen, and nothing good can come out of it, so all proposals for change must be rejected, except for proposals to turn back the clock to a previous glorious age. Given that reactionaries think that modern society, with its guarantees of individual freedom, is a fallen state, they have no problem with trampling on long-standing guarantees of freedom to achieve their backwards-looking utopia. So this is a summary of the four ideologies we have. You can read my previous article if you want a more detailed explanation.

Of the four ideologies, constructionism and reactionism are fundamentally illiberal. Constructionism demands that existing society, as a whole, be deconstructed for the sake of what they see as justice for women and minorities. This would include radically changing the language we use, the social norms we have, the way we see historical events, and so on. Given that their demands are put in terms of justice and ending oppression, there can be no compromise with those that don't want it to happen, even if they are the vast majority of the population. Therefore, such a program must be enforceable via undemocratic and illiberal means, including by limiting free speech if necessary. On the other extreme, reactionism fundamentally sees our present society as fallen, which leads to the view that 'rescuing' society back to a previous glorious state should take precedence over respecting the preferences of those currently living in, and shaped by, the 'fallen' society. Therefore, reactionism does not have any respect for freedom, democracy, or indeed anything else that stands in the way of their glorious restoration. There have been no successful 'glorious restorations' yet in the West, but I guess Iran's 20th century Islamic Revolution, or alternatively the fictional utopia of Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale, could give us insights as to what it would look like. It is clear that both constructionism and reactionism are enemies of freedom.

Luckily, the other two ideologies are much more compatible with freedom. Although utilitarianism and liberalism are fundamentally different as one emphasizes maximizing happiness and the other emphasizes maximizing freedom, there has been a strand of liberalism justified on utilitarianism going all the way back to John Stuart Mill, which just shows how liberalism and utilitarianism, and their core ideals of freedom and happiness, usually go hand in hand. After all, you can't really make people happy without respecting their freedom. When one says that gay marriage should be legal because gay couples deserve to be happy too, one is making both a utilitarian and a libertarian argument, for example. On the other hand, organicism strives to protect the long-standing values and institutions we have, because they represent many generations of lived experience and wisdom. At least in the English-speaking West, this would have to include a long tradition of guarantees of basic freedoms, going all the way back to the Magna Carta. Putting it simply, utilitarianism seeks to advance happiness, and in the process often advances freedom, and organicism seeks to protect the freedoms we already have from attacks by authoritarian forces. Therefore, in many ways, utilitarianism and organicism largely overlap with the concepts of 'positive libertarianism' and 'critical libertarianism' that I talked about last time as constituting a 'dialectic of freedom'. This is to say, in our current society and political landscape, 'positive libertarianism' is mostly represented by utilitarians, and 'critical libertarianism' is mostly represented by organicists. This means if we can get utilitarians and organicists to work together in a productive dialogue, we would have the best hope of maintaining and advancing freedom.

In conclusion, the hope for freedom in the West right now, and for the foreseeable future, lies in promoting both utilitarianism and organicism, and especially a productive dialogue between the two, and also in successfully arguing against both constructionism and reactionism, the ideologies promoted by the illiberal-left and the illiberal-right respectively. Going forward, I will be looking at how we can achieve this in further detail, from multiple angles. In particular, I will be looking at the intra-left argument for utilitarianism over constructionism, the intra-right argument for organicism over reactionism, as well as the very important but often overlooked arguments of organicism vs constructionism, and utilitarianism vs reactionism. I think getting to the bottom of all this is essential for building a 21st-century framework to defend and advance freedom.

The Key to Deradicalizing People is to Give Them Hope

The proliferation of extreme political ideologies on both the left and the right is a serious problem. One thing many people don't seem to realize is that the lack of hope is perhaps the most important reason behind this. Many people lack hope in their lives, and the extreme political ideologies give them hope. Of course, it is false hope, but it gives them what they crave in life right now. Therefore, the key to preventing more people from being radicalized is to give people hope in their lives. We really need to think about how to do that. Firstly, we need to get rid of all the fear, and the negativity, from our discourse. Then we need to start thinking about how to inject hope into people's lives. We need to think about what they want from life, and how we can help them achieve it. I think that if people had more hope of achieving meaningful goals in their own lives, political extermism would be much less popular.
 

On the Dialectic of Freedom: Positive Libertarianism and Critical Libertarianism | Moral Libertarian Talk

This is how to bridge the divide between left-libertarians and right-libertarians

Last time, I talked about the need to build a cross-spectrum alliance of various types of libertarianism, to save the libertarian brand from being devoured by the reactionary right. Traditionally, the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism was seen as rooted mainly in economic issues, and finding common ground and building bridges on economic matters is surely going to be an important part of our work going forward. However, looking at things from a higher, more philosophical level, I think the main difference between left-leaning libertarians and right-leaning libertarians is the difference between emphasizing what I call 'positive libertarianism' vs what I call 'critical libertarianism'. Let me explain.

What I mean by 'positive libertarianism' is the idea that freedom can and should be positively advanced, and that more freedom also allows society to be improved, because rationality will prevail. This is the core foundational idea of classical liberalism, and it has been behind many major improvements in Western society in the past several centuries. The abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement, the expansion of free speech norms, the anti-war movement, and the legalization of interracial marriage and gay marriage were all inspired by the positive libertarian spirit.

On the other hand, we do have to acknowledge that not all social change, including changes that have been sold to us as 'progressive', actually lead to more freedom. In the past decade, wokeness was promoted as an idea that would advance social justice, but it clearly leads to a loss of freedom, including most importantly, free speech and freedom of conscience. This is where what I call 'critical libertarianism' comes into play. Critical libertarianism is all about protecting existing, hard won freedoms from being eroded by misguided attempts at change. It seeks to critique all proposals for change, looking at ways they might intentionally or unintentionally undermine freedom. Indeed, I think a lot of classical conservative philosophy could fall under the critical libertarianism umbrella. Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, came up with his most famous ideas in the face of the authoritarian excesses of the French Revolution. More recently, I think liberal skepticism towards wokeness was another moment where a critical libertarian movement emerged.

While positive libertarianism and critical libertarianism seem like opposing forces, and they are indeed sometimes seen as in alignment with opposing sides of the political spectrum (positive libertarianism being aligned with forces seeking 'progress' and hence left-leaning, critical libertarianism being aligned with 'conservative' forces and hence right-leaning), they actually compliment each other. Both are needed to promote and safeguard freedom. If we only had positive libertarianism, the quest for freedom could be turned into its opposite by misguided steps forward. If we only had critical libertarianism, we could end up becoming so paranoid as to turn reactionary and hence authoritarian. Only an optimal balance of the two will lead to the maintenance and promotion of freedom. It's just like how the balance between a practical progressive impulse and a moderate, rational conservative impulse lead to a healthy and productive reformism.

Once we recognize that positive libertarianism and critical libertarianism are actually both needed for freedom, and can complement each other, we should be able to recognize the same about left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Rather than seeing them as separate, unrelated things, or worse, opposing parties, we should see them as two complementary halves that make up a whole. This should be the basis on which we try to find common ground between left-libertarians and right-libertarians.