TaraElla's Political Theory of Everything & Moral Libertarian Talk
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
If we look at history, reactionary movements have a uniformly bad track record. They always lead to irrational policies, gross injustices, and often conflict and war. This is because they are emotionally charged and irrational, and often deliberately so.
Reactionary politics often takes advantage of widespread frustration with a certain phenomenon (wokeness being the most recent example), and turn it into fuel for a destructive politics that serves those with a questionable agenda, by using emotion to bypass rationality. In moments of reactionary emotion, the normal rational function of humans is impaired, and what would normally be rejected can often be accepted. This effect is often deliberately enhanced further by the use of peer pressure, tribalism, and exaggerated portrayals of the 'enemy' or the issue causing concern.
Moderates need to be able to neutralize the tactics used to build reactionary political movements. We also need to be able to address the frustrations being seized upon by reactionaries, in order to stop them from being able to mass recruit people to their cause. I believe moderates are much more effective at doing this than the far-left, simply because we are practical, empirical and evidence-based, and aren't blinded by ideological dogma like much of the far-left is.
Common ground is possible, but there are clearly barriers
Katie: While you've been quite critical of how the left exists right now, you have also said that you support the general idea of progress, as in making society more inclusive and better for everyone gradually. You have also said you want to build bridges and find common ground with the left, where possible. So under what conditions do you think you will be able to find that common ground?
Tara: The most important issue, the absolute make or break thing here for me, is that the left needs to truly embrace free speech and open-mindedness. They need to be able to accept people who want progress in good faith, but might have a different view on how it's best done. More specifically, they need to be more open towards people who have a different worldview, a different model of change, or simply don't accept the core tenets of contemporary leftist theory. If there is to be common ground, it has to be on wanting progress, while still allowing differences of opinion as to what that progress looks like. To put it simply, the left needs to stop letting leftist theory get in the way of being truly open-minded.
Katie: Can you elaborate more about what you see as 'leftist theory getting in the way of being truly open-minded'?
Tara: Leftist theory, as developed in the past half a century, has been essentially ruled by overarching ideas like how so-called 'respectability politics' is bad, how 'tone policing' is bad, how speech and discourse is about power dynamics rather than seeking the objective truth, how almost everything in the status quo is an oppressive social construct that should be deconstructed, and so on. When you so fundamentally believe in all these things, you simply aren't open to criticism that says otherwise. The objective fact is that the aforementioned beliefs are counterproductive. To remain in denial of this fact, when the evidence is mounting so quickly, the left has resorted to tribalism. This, I think, is also basically the root cause of the left's embrace of authoritarian methods like de-platforming and cancel culture, and more recently, simply saying that they are 'exhausted' and refusing to even communicate.
Katie: I know you aren't a fan of contemporary leftist theory, but how does theory come into this? Isn't tribalism just part of the uglier side of human nature?
Tara: Yes, tribalism is part of the uglier side of human nature. But the way the left is trying to hold onto fundamentally flawed theory is exacerbating it. It's like how some religious cults develop a strong suspicion of all outsiders, to be blunt. This actually brings me to a related point: perhaps due to the echo chamber effect, the left is very maximalist in its demands at the moment. It is in no mood to compromise, and it is doing a very good job of pushing away those who disagree with not only its policy positions, but also their underlying philosophical beliefs, which are frankly irrelevant to policy outcomes. I believe this is a major factor fueling the growth of the reactionary right.
Katie: What you call 'maximalist demands', others might argue to be necessary for justice. How would you respond to this?
Tara: What we need to remember here is that justice is a practical thing, not a theoretical thing. Which means that, to assess whether a particular course of action is conducive to justice, we need to look at its practical effects. And right now, the actions of the left are objectively not conducive to justice, because they are not only not convincing society to become better, they are actually fueling a reactionary backlash that is making society worse. If only for the sake of justice, the left should really be at least open to listening to others' criticisms, rather than pushing everyone else away in a tribalist way, which is what they are currently doing. I think we should also pay particular attention to how certain aspects of leftist theory is making the left behave in this counterproductive way.
Organized conservatism is simply not how conservatism is supposed to be, according to the actual philosophical cannon of conservatism that runs all the way back to thinkers like Edmund Burke. Burke himself was actually quite an open-minded thinker for his time, and he was clearly not reactionary at all. Contrast this to the typical 'conservative' politician or influencer today, whose mode of operation is often simply to take the most reactionary stance possible towards any proposal for reform, in order to sink any prospect of reform, while also scoring a win over the opposite party. As I've said many times, it is actually the centrists and the classical liberals who most resemble the approach of Burke in today's political landscape, while those who self-identify as conservatives are often reactionaries.
In other words, organized conservatism, as it exists, has actually become a vehicle for radical reactionism rather than conservatism. This is a natural and inevitable consequence of its self-identification against all progressive politics. This means that, if we want to revive true conservatism, and reject radical reactionism, we cannot do so within an organized movement that functionally identifies as anti-progressive. True conservatism simply cannot be completely anti-progressive. Rather than opposing all forms of progress and change, conservatism directs the impulse for progress towards reform over deconstruction, and further guides reform towards pathways that are consistent with the long-standing values and traditions of a given society. Given that conservatism needs to be able to choose between good and bad progressive ideas, it simply cannot reject all progressive ideas by default.
I maintain the need to continue to uphold a healthy and intellectually robust form of conservatism in society. However, to turn the conservative impulse into a political movement, especially one that stands against organized progressivism in a two-party system, inevitably sends us down a pipeline to radical reactionism, thus turning conservatism into its opposite. This is why I believe the best way to practice conservatism is to integrate its insights into the way we think about reform and progress. We need to start thinking of conservatism not as an enemy of the progressive impulse, but rather a force to guide this impulse into practical and fruitful avenues.
There's no denying it: the left is in an absolutely doomer phase. Gone is the optimism for 'revolutionary change' that pervaded leftists spaces in the late 2010s. The 'resistance' to the second Trump era has been a lot quieter, not because people are not as opposed to his actions, but because the loudest voices of the first 'resistance', the leftist protestors, are now sitting at home in despair.
So how did the left get here? Objectively speaking, we are in a similar place right now compared to the late 2010s. If leftists are doomers today, then they should have been equally doomer back in the late 2010s. I think the only way to explain the discrepancy here is that the left was under the illusion that a magical breakthrough, a shortcut to utopia, was soon to come back in the late 2010s, because they were convinced so by their flawed theories. That the promised change hadn't come all these years later has finally killed all hope of it actually happening at all.
It isn't even like this is the first time the left's empty promises of an instant magical shortcut to utopia 'inspired' a generation to misguided forms of activism, and eventually left them all burned out, after the promises of utopia didn't come true. A similar thing happened back in the 1960s to 70s, an era of radical cultural change, protests about almost everything, and general societal upheaval, with all that eventually resulting in the conservative backlash of the 1980s.
What the left doesn't understand is that there is simply no shortcut to utopia. Sound and sustainable improvement, especially in terms of cultural issues, can only come about as a result of gradual, step-by-step changes, taken in a cautious way, with every detail carefully considered before the change is implemented. Consensus needs to be built by changing hearts and minds one by one. It is long-term hard work, because it has to be.
This is a discussion I had with my friend June about what we are currently seeing. June is a fan of conservative philosophy and conservative and libertarian-ish ideals, but she is skeptical of what she is currently seeing in the political 'right'.
Tara: You say you generally agree with 'conservative philosophy' and hold 'conservative and libertarian-ish ideals', but you don't really like what you see of the political 'right' at the moment. What do you not like about the 'right'?
June: I think they are not really practising conservative values. They are divisive, irrational, and sometimes even hateful. They also often don't respect the rule of law or the importance of consensus, if they don't get their way. This is not conservative. It is radical and destructive. It is certainly not the conservative values I grew up with. And I know that many people who believe in true conservative values really don't like what the right stands for right now.
Tara: Tell me more about the conservative values you grew up with, and how they differ from today's 'right'.
June: It's things like caring for families, caring for each other. It's things like maintaining healthy communities, so people can thrive. It's about keeping with the spirit of traditions, which includes having love for each other. This certainly isn't what the right-wing culture warriors are doing. And it certainly doesn't include mindless destruction of long-standing institutions and safeguards, the denigration of experts and what they have to offer, and the refusal to listen to and consider different points of view, and bring about social consensus. 'My way or the highway' is the least conservative way to approach controversial issues.
Tara: Interesting point about the culture warriors. I agree that they self-identify as conservative but they're not really conservative by historical or serious philosophical standards. Indeed, I think this is creating a major problem for 'conservative' parties around the world. Many moderate old-school conservatives have said time and time again that they want to steer clear of the culture wars, even as the New Right is pretty much leaning in, following the lead of Trump.
June: I think Trump is a bad influence on the right. They were by no means perfect, but they certainly weren't like this back in 2015. Under Trump, the right has no use for conservative values or philosophy. They just want to 'own the libs'. Which, again, is not what conservatism is. I'm worried that new generations are growing up, thinking that Trumpian culture wars is what conservatism is. It's poisoning their minds.
Tara: I think it's worth talking a little bit about 'what conservatism is', or in a broader sense, 'what the right is'. Conservatism, rightly understood, is the cannon of philosophical thinking that goes back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, who have basically nothing in common with the reactionary culture warriors we have today. On the other hand, I have long held that the 'right', as we know it, is an artificial social construct that lumps in genuine conservatives, libertarians, and seriously reactionary people like the Trumpian New Right, people who have very little in common with each other otherwise, except that they are not the left. It is this artificial construct that we need to challenge. From what I've seen, the space to challenge this construct only seems to open up when the 'right' is decisively defeated, like in the recent Australian election. As you can see in that example, people actually come out and try to define and defend what they see as true conservative values, or true classical liberal values, saying that their party needs to return to those values, and stay away from the culture wars.
June: On the other hand, after last November's Trump win, in America the Republicans have leaned all in behind Trump, without much room for such critical thinking. This is why I'm thinking that, perhaps, a decisive defeat of the right as it currently exists is the only way we will have the room for such important discussions. And these conversations are really worth having, because the replacement of the meaningful tradition of conservatism with mindless reactionary culture war 'own the libs' politics would be a real tragedy of historical proportions.
I think Millennial nostalgia, or 1990s nostalgia in general, is actually a good thing, because it reminds us that society can be better, and that it doesn't have to be the way it is now. Our task, I believe, is to move beyond simply wallowing in nostalgia, and actually doing something useful about our current situation. What conditions made the 90s great, that we don't have anymore now? Or conversely, what conditions are making our society horrible right now, that we didn't have back in the 90s? These questions often inform my own politics, and my views on various social issues.
I think it's worth talking a little bit about 'what conservatism is', or in a broader sense, 'what the right is'. Conservatism, rightly understood, is the cannon of philosophical thinking that goes back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, who have basically nothing in common with the reactionary culture warriors we have today. On the other hand, I have long held that the 'right', as we know it, is an artificial social construct that lumps in genuine conservatives, libertarians, and seriously reactionary people like the Trumpian New Right, people who have very little in common with each other otherwise, except that they are not the left. It is this artificial construct that we need to challenge. From what I've seen, the space to challenge this construct only seems to open up when the 'right' is decisively defeated, like in the recent Australian election. As you can see in that example, people actually come out and try to define and defend what they see as true conservative values, or true classical liberal values, saying that their party needs to return to those values, and stay away from the culture wars.
Saying 'the right is worse' isn't a valid excuse to shut down legitimate criticism
In recent years, I have written quite a few articles outlining my disagreements with the activist left, as it current exists in the Western political landscape. As a result, some people have accused me of having an anti-left, pro-status quo attitude. This could not be more wrong. For the record, I began to support gay marriage back in 2003, I have long been opposed to the endless wars, I'm highly frustrated by the anti-science views that are prevalent across the political spectrum, and I also want to see an end to the polarizing culture wars. I'm certainly not a fan of the current status quo. The way I see it is that the activist left, with its roots in the 'theory left', is part of this toxic status quo, and it too should be challenged.
In this conversation I recently had with my friend Katie, who strongly identifies with progressive politics, I describe clearly the actual concerns I have about the activist left. I hope it illustrates clearly where my concerns about the left are coming from.
Tara: Some people think that I have something against progressive activism in general. But I think it's really unfair. I was a supporter of gay marriage long before it was popular, for example. It's just that I don't agree with the current form of such activism, specifically in the past decade or so in the West.
Katie: Perhaps it's because of your anti-woke posture in recent years. Many people associate anti-woke with the right, and with Trump supporters.
Tara: I took a stand against what is commonly known as wokeness, primarily because of its illiberal aspects like de-platforming and cancel culture, and the oppressor vs. oppressed worldview. So-called progressive politics has gotten illiberal, and this was something I was unwilling to see, so I had to take a strong stance against it.
Katie: The problem is that, many right-wing influencers have said something like what you just said, and then gone on to become full-blown Trump supporters and right-wing culture warriors who fight against everything progressive from LGBTQ rights to pro-climate policies. What I'm saying is, the angle you are taking on 'wokeness' is basically identical to the one taken by right-wing influencers to send people down a right-wing rabbit hole.
Tara: Firstly, all this doesn't make what I said untrue. The truth can be used by bad actors to manipulate people towards bad choices, but that doesn't make it not the truth. Secondly, I have made it clear that I find the reactionary right culture warrior brand of politics very distasteful. Many other anti-woke writers and personalities have avoided criticizing them, because they don't want to lose audience. I have always disagreed with this approach. I believe one must always say what they believe, especially when the stakes are this high. Being complicit in the rise of an anti-science, anti-democracy and anti-free speech movement is something that my own conscience simply cannot accept.
Katie: That's exactly the problem right there. Because of how the right has effectively used the anti-woke moral panic to gain power and enact reactionary policies, many progressives inherently associate the two. And I honestly think it's difficult for them not to think this way, when the association is so strong out there.
Tara: Firstly, I think we all need to be more intellectual, which means resisting the urge to think in terms of stereotypes, or guilt by association. Secondly, I can't help the fact that the 'right-wing' media ecosystem is funded by people much richer than I will ever be, which effectively means it has a megaphone to drown out our voices. Finally, let me make this clear: what I am skeptical of is specifically left activism in its current form, because it is ineffective, polarizing, ideological and sometimes anti-freedom. These are major flaws with real world consequences, including the rise of the reactionary right. And I think we can all agree that the rise of the reactionary right is not good. The fact, let's face it, is that the activist left has been fundamentally rejected, and this rejection has even led some people to embrace reactionary culture war politics. It's not something that the activist left would acknowledge, because for them, it's always everyone else's fault. But it's the reality. What I want to do is to provide a critique of the left, because this critique is sorely needed.
Katie: How about the argument that people like you helping to advance the anti-woke moral panic is helping the right?
Tara: Again, I don't accept that an intellectual critique of wokeness is inevitably associated with the moral panic being whipped up and weaponized by the 'right'. You can have legitimate concerns that build up into an intellectual critique, without the kind of moral panic the 'right' is promoting. As to whether my critique is contributing to reactionary culture war posturing, to be honest, I have been sometimes worried about being taken out of context that way. This is why I have made sure to state clearly my position on the reactionary right. I think I've been fair, in regards to equally criticizing what I see as wrong and dangerous on both the left and the 'right'.
Katie: On this point, there's now a strong feeling among many progressives that equally criticizing the left and the right is simply refusing to acknowledge that the right is the bigger threat to freedom and democracy at the moment. How would you respond to that?
Tara: I think that's effectively a sophisticated way of saying the right is worse, so we shouldn't criticize the left. But that logic would lead to putting off criticism of the left indefinitely, because you could almost always argue that the 'right' is worse. The right was 'worse' in the aughts during the War on Terror and the Iraq War too, remember. If someone actually took the trouble to criticize some of the bad ideas coming out of the academic humanities back then, progressive politics might not have taken the misguided path it took in the past decade. I actually think that those who use this argument just don't want there to be legitimate, liberal or progressive criticism of the left at all, so their misguided project can continue unimpeded. But the thing is, if the activist left as it currently exists were able to shut down every other alternative, so that only the activist left and the reactionaries remained, I think it's clear that most people out there would rather choose the reactionaries, and they will therefore win, simply because the activist left is so unpalatable. Therefore, by offering an alternative, we are actually providing effective resistance to the reactionaries in the most effective way.
I have made it clear that I find the reactionary right culture warrior brand of politics very distasteful. Many other anti-woke writers and personalities have avoided criticizing them, because they don't want to lose audience. I have always disagreed with this approach. I believe one must always say what they believe, especially when the stakes are this high. Being complicit in the rise of an anti-science, anti-democracy and anti-free speech movement is something that my own conscience simply cannot accept.
I don't accept that an intellectual critique of wokeness is inevitably associated with the moral panic being whipped up and weaponized by the 'right'. You can have legitimate concerns that build up into an intellectual critique, without the kind of moral panic the 'right' is promoting. As to whether my critique is contributing to reactionary culture war posturing, to be honest, I have been sometimes worried about being taken out of context that way. This is why I have made sure to state clearly my position on the reactionary right. I think I've been fair, in regards to equally criticizing what I see as wrong and dangerous on both the left and the 'right'.
Aggression is basically bullying, and is simply incompatible with good order
One of the things that concern me most about our political landscape nowadays is that both the left and the right are increasingly embracing aggression as a political strategy. From what I have observed, right-wing influencers have more often openly celebrated, or called for, an 'aggressive' approach to shutting down and punishing their enemies. The New Right has clearly shown a willingness to embrace the arbitrary and unfair use of government power to hurt their perceived enemies. This represents a worrying new level of aggression not seen in the pre-2010s Right. On the other hand, the left's frequent denounciation of what they call 'tone policing' and 'respectability politics' is effectively a form of encouraging aggression, and the left's embrace of cancel culture and de-platforming is indeed a kind of aggression in and of itself. In the past decade or so, both sides have clearly gotten very aggressive.
Aggression is inherently incompatible with fairness, objectivity, rationality and good order. This is all because aggression is simply incompatible with having rational debates on a fair playing field. When people are allowed to be aggressive, there is no longer a fair playing field at all. Imagine a game of football or basketball, or any other sport, where there are no rules against violence towards other players. The game wouldn't be fair anymore. It would just be won by the team with the more violent players on it, regardless of actual merit in the sport itself. Similarly, when people are allowed to aggressively threaten others via political, economic, reputational or other means over differences of opinion, there is no longer a fair playing field in society's marketplace of ideas. When people can be intimidated into silence or insincere agreement, there is no longer any meaningful debate to be had. Might simply becomes right. As I've illustrated in previous episodes of this series, when there is no fairness in the marketplace of ideas, there is no ability to pursue the objective truth, there is no ability to act truly rationally or morally, and there will certainly not be good order in society.
Aggression is also incompatible with compassion, especially when it is associated with tribalism. By definition, if you are compassionate towards somebody, you don't act aggressive towards them. Moreover, when aggression is deployed in a tribalistic way, it essentially becomes bullying. This is why a society that allows aggression is essentially one that condones bullying. With the rise of aggression in the politics of both the left and the right, we've indeed seen much more political bullying across the Western political landscape in the past decade. This normalization of bullying, starting in politics, inevitably spreads to all areas of society, if left unchecked. A society that allows widespread bullying is, by definition, a society without any compassion whatsoever.
In conclusion, aggression is inherently incompatible with having rational debates on a fair playing field, and this means that aggression is inherently incompatible with good order. Moreover, aggression, especially when deployed in a tribalistic way, is inherently incompatible with any notion of compassion. Therefore, there are very good reasons why polite society used to shun aggression and aggressive people much more, and I think we should bring that back.
And why we need to bring back fairness, humility and compromise as core political values
Let's continue talking about laying the foundations for a culture and politics rooted in shared values. So far, we have covered compassion and respect for the objective truth. I think we need to talk about commitment to fairness and willingness to compromise next, because these are strongly related to both compassion and respect for the objective truth.
Today, both the left and the right clearly believe that politics is only about winning and 'owning' the other side. This has led to no respect for the notion of fairness across the board, both in terms of cultural and political debates, and in terms of how groups of people seen as associated with the 'opposite' tribe are treated in the real world. The problem with this is that, a society with no commitment to fairness can't have a marketplace of ideas with a fair playing field, by definition. This leads to an inability for the most sound ideas to prevail, and in turn, for a just order to arise as a result. Therefore, any order that results from an unfair playing field is necessarily going to be bad and oppressive in some way. Commitment to fairness is therefore necessary to produce good and just outcomes, and a sound order for society. This is how fairness is linked to respect for the objective truth, and ultimately to justice as well as the common good.
I would even go as far as to say that upholding fairness in the marketplace of ideas is a matter of morality. Morality thrives when people are able to pursue the truth, and to understand the truth, because we only know how to apply our conscience and our values to a situation when we know the complete and unbiased truth of a situation. When people don't fully understand the truth of a situation, they can easily come to the wrong conclusions, and support a wrong or even immoral answer to the problem. This is why, when people are pressured to bow to ideological untruths one way or another, to obey falsehoods imposed by political and/or economic threats, immorality and injustice will result one way or another. Sadly, this happens far to often in contemporary politics. Both the illiberal left's de-platforming and cancel culture, and the reactionary right's zealous use of state power to fight the culture wars, and to impose their agenda on the whole of society, are examples of using power to silence dissent or otherwise distort the marketplace of ideas, and hence suppress aspects of the objective truth that are inconvenient to their ideology or their agenda. This is the core reason why, as a Moral Libertarian, I have long held that I find both the illiberal left and the reactionary right to be morally repugnant.
Which brings me to my next point: people who are essentially for free speech for me (or my team) but not for thee (or the other team). Despite the theoretical increase in scrutiny and transparency in the online age, where everybody's record is open for all to examine, the number of 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrites are sadly at an all time high right now. Just look at what is happening out there: many of the self-identified 'free speech activists' who vigorously opposed left-wing cancel culture in the past decade are now silent about the Trump's administrations attacks on free speech, or worse, coming up with excuses to justify Trump's blatant authoritarianism. I'm frankly very angry at these people, some of whom I actually wrongly believed to be free speech allies at one point. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that some of the people who are rallying in support of the victims of Trump's crackdowns didn't have much to say about left-wing cancel culture, or worse, actively supported it. I'm saying this not to excuse the right's free speech hypocrisy, but to point out that the hypocrisy exists on both sides. Both of the aforementioned types of people clearly don't support free speech as a principle, they only support free speech for their own team. This kind of hypocrisy has sadly been made more acceptable by political polarization and tribalism, and even actively encouraged by online influencer culture.
I also want to talk about a closely related phenomenon: the increasing unwillingness to compromise across the political landscape. I believe the two phenomenon are ultimately linked by the common root cause of a lack of humility, encouraged by tribalism and the toxic online political culture. Unwillingness to compromise effectively leads to a 'winner takes all' mentality. Given that nobody alive in this world is perfect, or has perfect knowledge of everything, this logically has to lead to social outcomes that are oppressive in some situations and to some people. This, of course, is incompatible with a true commitment to compassion or justice. The reactionary populist right and its recklessly harmful policies are a good example of this. The Trump administration, feeling justified by the 'mandate' it won in last year's election, has set out to fulfill all of the wildest wishes of the toxic online right, not caring about how many people it is harming in the real world out there. This immoral course of action is, in turn, cheered on by that same toxic online right that demanded it in the first place, creating a dangerous feedback loop. Of course, this problem is not limited to the right either. The illiberal left's cancel culture activism is also actively encouraged by the online left, and it similarly cares only about 'winning' and 'owning', and not about actual people and their welfare. The common theme between the right and left versions of this phenomenon is the 'winner takes all' mentality, where people feel justified to openly oppress and harm those that they perceive to be on the other team, simply because they can. This is basically aggressive animal instinct that belongs in the jungle, not in any civilized society. If we let this continue, I fear civilization as we know it will come to an end sooner rather than later.
It is time to bring back the values of fairness, humility and compromise. As a society, we need to relearn to be fair towards those who disagree with us, to have humility in the face of disagreement, and to be willing to agree to disagree and to compromise. Important long-standing values like compassion, objectivity and justice can't survive without these values. More fundamentally, I fear that our civilization won't survive very long without these values.
But that doesn't mean that all hope for progressive change is doomed
Recently, I have been talking a lot about promoting a 'progressive conservative' ideal. IF you want to know more about what 'progressive conservatism' entails, you can start by reading my 'Progressive Conservative Manifesto'. One of the biggest reasons why I'm talking about progressive conservatism now is because, in the face of the Trump-led reactionary right's assaults on long-standing civil rights, programs and conventions that are too liberal for their liking, I have come to the view that we must take a stand for what we believe, before it's too late. My other, more long-standing reason for talking about progressive conservatism is because, over the years, I've found that the left's model of change is actually a massive failure. Like I've said many times, it leads to the needless polarization of society, and the burnout of generations of young people, and also opens the door to dangerous waves of backlash. Indeed, these two things are clearly linked in the present moment: it is the backlash to the 2010s 'woke left' that has allowed the reactionary right to gain power, to be in the position they are in right now, to do the damage they are doing right now. My hope is that a program of progressive conservatism will solve both problems.
Before a progressive conservative program can actually move forward, it has to gain enough support. Some of the support is going to come from centrists, moderate libertarians, and genuine anti-woke liberals, all of whom were frustrated at the woke excesses of the 2010s, but even more worried about the reactionary right's authoritarian overreach under Trump. I count myself as firmly belonging to this category. However, we also need to pull people from the more progressive side of the political spectrum because, let's face it: right now, all the energy is with either those who identify as 'progressives', or the MAGA crowd, and any movement that can't accept MAGA-ism will have to find allies on the progressive side, if it is to grow. The reason why I am criticizing the left's model of change is because I want to convince progressives to come over to our side. I want to convince them to come over, because the far-left's model of change is flawed, and we have a better way to move forward, to achieve what they want. The rewards of having a better model of change will be, of course, in the form of actually successfully making things better, and also in the form of defeating the reactionary right.
I think the biggest problem with the far-left's model of change is that it wants to tear down the status quo entirely. This is counterproductive, because it is much harder to build something good from scratch. It also leads to massive backlash, because people don't like to see what they have always known get destroyed in the service of some arbitrary philosophical theory. What we should remember is that the backlash always falls most heavily on the disadvantaged minorities of society. This is why I actually believe that the continued pursuit of radical change using the far-left's model is actually immoral. Indeed, history doesn't contain a single example where this far-left model of change has successfully brought good outcomes, while it contains many cautionary tales as to the harms this flawed model could bring. That many progressives became sympathetic to this failed model in the past decade, despite its historical track record, was almost entirely because of the influence of postmodern critical theory, which itself is an objectively unsound worldview.
Rather than tearing everything down, I would argue that a better approach would be to make what we have better, by drawing on our long-standing values. Values like freedom, compassion, caring for each other, commitment to improving our understanding of the truth, meritocracy on a fair playing field, and so on, are all embedded within our collective conscience, but their application to the real world remains incomplete. The progressive conservative project seeks to more fully implement these values in all areas of our life. It therefore seeks to strengthen, rather than deconstruct, our traditional inheritance. Through this process, we can certainly advance civil rights, make society more inclusive of minorities and fairer for everyone, and so on. This is especially true, if we can argue against the politics of the reactionary right, on the grounds of these traditional values. This should be easy to do, given that the reactionary right clearly does not care about harming real life people, and does not care about science or truth either.
I believe the flagrant violation of our long-standing values by the reactionary right under Trump gives us a good opportunity to argue for a better world based on upholding these values. But we can only successfully do that if we truly leave the nihilistic ideologies of deconstructionist postmodernism and oppressor vs. oppressed identitarian critical theory behind. I think the choice is clear, as to which path we should take going forward.
