Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture, from a Moral Libertarian perspective. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of a new communitarianism, where we set out to start again and rebuild the institutions that make our social fabric stronger. Subscribe if you're interested.
Today, I want to explore what Tulsi Gabbard said during her recent interview with Joe Rogan. Basically, when Rogan raised the long-standing conventional wisdom that candidates need to appeal to the base during the primaries and then go back to the center during the general election, Tulsi took the chance to highlight the fact that she won't be defined by ideological boxes and labels, and that she doesn't believe in the aforementioned so-called conventional wisdom. Instead, she would look at each issue fairly, consider the ideas on their own merits, and make what she would consider to be the best decision in each case. In other words, Tulsi is committed to making the best decision based on the available information every time, and she won't be guided or limited by ideological categories in the process.
I think this is what the silent majority actually want in our leaders. More listening with an open mind, and less ideology. More active thinking and less ideology. More practical solutions and less ideology. While the establishment media elite loves to play the ideology card, the real people out there want leaders who actually break down the ideological barriers and find solutions that actually work for all. The increasing support for Tulsi and similar candidates in the polls, despite the media blackout, shows that this is what the real people out there want.
Too much of mainstream politics nowadays is ideological, and when you're ideological, the problem is that you won't always get the best answers to the many complex problems we face nowadays. This is for several reasons: firstly, each ideology represents only one point of view, so if you're only willing to work within one ideological tradition, you're only taking one point of view into account, and your decisions won't serve many people well. Secondly, many so-called ideological groupings are actually coalitions based on mutually reinforcing special interests. Therefore, to work with one specific ideological group often means to prioritize the special interests of that group, and neglect the interests of the many other people in society. This leads to increasing divisiveness, and is clearly not compatible with good leadership. Finally, ideologies are often formed by historical circumstances. To be tied to ideology is, at least to some extent, to be tied down to historical circumstances that no longer exist, to be limited by historical horizons that we should actually transcend, and to make policy that is not the best for the needs of the current situation. All this is why we need to move away from ideological boxes, and start to consider each idea on its own merit, using our own critical thinking.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of a new communitarianism, where we set out to start again and rebuild the institutions that make our social fabric stronger. Subscribe if you're interested.
During the recent MSNBC Atlanta debates, Andrew Yang highlighted something that mainstream politicians, progressive and conservative alike, tend to avoid looking at: the fact that not every parent wants to work, that having two working parents may not be the natural wish of every family. Of course, the majority of families have two working parents nowadays, and many families are just fine with it. But still, not every family is. Some have their own special circumstances, which make having two working parents a difficult thing, or at least not the optimal choice.
The trouble is, it is very difficult for families to survive on one income these days, unless they are very wealthy. Let's ignore for a while the fact that women had unequal opportunities back in the 1950s. Back in those days, most families were single income, and they did pretty well. The fact that the average family can't choose that anymore nowadays means that the average family is worse off, more economically deprived, compared to back in the 1950s. And with all the advancement in productivity we have had since then, and all the extra hours that people tend to work nowadays, this just ain't right! It certainly isn't what classical liberal thinkers like Adam Smith or America's founding fathers intended. The fact that no other politician, left-wing or right-wing, would talk about this, shows how the whole establishment simply bends to the will of the corporate establishment, even when they clearly treat the average worker very unfairly. Andrew Yang, being a real outsider, has become the perfect candidate to expose this hypocrisy.
Looking in hindsight, Bernie Sanders probably did more than anyone else to kick start a much needed conversation about economic justice. I think we really need to thank him for doing this. But I think Andrew Yang does it even better, because he relates all of this back to the challenges faced by families, the fundamental building block of our social fabric. This is what makes Yang the most relatable candidate on the debate stage. The fact is, we all know at least subconsciously that, if families suffer, so does all of society. If families suffer, the social fabric is inevitably torn, and the resulting low social trust means that traditional liberal values won't be able to thrive. That's why even the dysfunction in things like free speech have a partially economic cause. Complaining about things like how our Enlightenment civilizational values are being eroded by postmodernism without looking at how families are suffering is ultimately useless, because you are not curing one of the most important root causes of the problem.
The fact that establishment politicians would put corporate profits before the health of families is literally equivalent to deciding to sacrifice the whole future of humanity at the alter of profits. This is why it's important that we have someone like Yang to challenge these spineless establishment people.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of a new communitarianism, where we set out to start again and rebuild the institutions that make our social fabric stronger. Subscribe if you're interested.
During the past year, the campaigns of 2020 candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have given me a lot of hope for the future of humanity, where no such hope had existed before. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating. Now, you may ask, while it may be a good idea to start having a UBI and to end all the terrible wars, there are still many other issues that deserve our attention, right? True. But it's also true that Yang and Gabbard, even with their respective signature policies, are far from single-issue candidates. Instead, both have a platform and a message that add up to much more than just a bunch of policies.
Let's start with Andrew Yang's UBI. He isn't suggesting that the government give out free money because it sounds good. Rather, his policy is based in care for the social fabric. Yang is worried that jobs are being automated away, and people are struggling economically. As a result, families are under pressure, birth rates are falling, and there's an opioid crisis. The UBI is a solution that will help fix at least the material side of this problem, which will go a long way towards fixing things. Other parts of the Yang platform, for example providing free marriage counselling, also aim to help repair the social fabric and create stronger families and communities.
Similarly, Tulsi Gabbard is clearly interested in building strong communities. She focuses on what's best for everyone, and has made a point of avoiding divisive ideological labels throughout her campaign. She talks to people on both the left and the right of the economic spectrum, and has been on good terms with people across the political spectrum. She explains her policies based on how they could benefit people and communities, rather than by any sort of divisive angle. In fact, she has repeatedly refused to answer deliberately divisive questions from the media, including on the debate stage. I really respect this refusal to give in to the media's attempt to divide people.
And last but not least, both Yang and Gabbard have a broad tent approach when it comes to building support. There should be no Hillary-style divisive declarations that some people are 'deplorables'. While this cycle no candidate has been as bad as Hillary as yet, elements of her divisive approach can be seen in several candidates, unfortunately. With the Yang and Gabbard approach, everyone is welcome, regardless of identity or political philosophy, as it should be, because community building should be an inclusive exercise.
It's been quite a while since politicians cared about families, communities and the social fabric. I'm very happy to see Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard bring that back. Perhaps in 2020, we can make a new start on that front. Like how Bernie brought issues of economic justice to the forefront in 2016, perhaps next year can be the start of a politics for strong families and communities.
NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of a new communitarianism, where we set out to start again and rebuild the institutions that make our social fabric stronger. Subscribe if you're interested.
Some people keep asking me why I have Mayor Pete Buttigieg in my top 3 2020 candidates. After all, I'm not exactly the demographic that many people think would like Mayor Pete. While I'm an urban person and I think I am highly educated by most people's standards, I'm not exactly into the cultural values of this demographic, as my regular audience would know. Moreover, earlier polls have shown that Mayor Pete's support overlaps with that of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, my two least liked candidates remaining in the race. So why would I take interest in Mayor Pete?
I guess it all boils down to one word: community. From what I see, Mayor Pete is very interested in bringing back the idea of strong communities, and re-strengthening the social fabric across society. In fact, this is something all three of my favorite 2020 candidates have in common. Yang, Gabbard and Mayor Pete all want to see a strengthening of the social fabric and the institutions that form the pillars of a healthy community, and I think it's a breath of fresh air that's desperately needed. In recent years, many politicians have been thinking of both economic and social issues as a zero-sum game, as if one side had to lose in order for the other side to win. They have far too often been thinking about society as made up of elements in conflict, rather than being made up of elements that can work together to produce a better whole. In more technical terms, they have been too close the conflict school of sociology, and too far away from the consensus school. I think it's time the pendulum swung back to consensus and community.
In fact, not too long ago, there was a whole movement dedicated to building strong communities above all. Back in the 1980 and 90s, communitarianism was a big theme, both in elite academia and across both sides of politics. While conservative communitarians stressed the cultural importance of insitutions like family, progressive communitarians stressed the importance of good social and economic policy to support such institutions. Like most things communitarian, the two sides could be brought together to make an even better whole. While the culture wars and international conflicts of the past two decades have eroded these ideals, I think 2020 would be a good time to start over.
What I like most about Mayor Pete is that he practices the way of consensus over conflict. He refuses to support pointless boycotts, and instead prefers to use reason and civility to win over people in arguments. This is a quality we desperately need in our leaders during this rough time in history.
TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the TaraElla Report. Today, I will be having a chat with my modern conservative friend Allison, who, if you remember, has been Bernie curious since earlier this year. While she's still Bernie curious, she's now a bit more into Tulsi Gabbard, because of the differences she perceives in the cultures of their respective support bases. While I also prefer Tulsi over Bernie, making that decision over their fanbases is something I personally don't agree with. However, it could be something that's affecting campaigns out there, so let's hear what she's got to say, with an open mind.
Allison: I call myself a modern conservative because, while I believe in having a strong social fabric and strong families, I don't necessarily think what is conventionally considered conservative politics is the best solution for those things. I am willing to look around for solutions from across the political spectrum. Earlier this year, I became Bernie curious after his excellent Fox News Town Hall. I found that many of Bernie's policies would do much good to strengthen families, and take the economic stress off the most important institution of society. However, I'm also a bit torn about Bernie, because I've also had some lingering discomfort about parts of Bernie's fan base, who are deeply into some ideas I disagree with. On the other hand, Tulsi has much of the same policies as Bernie, but her support base seems to share the values I cherish more often, and I'm liking it more, to be honest.
TaraElla: Normally, when I look at which candidates are worthy of my support, I don't consider who their fans are. I simply don't think it's an important thing. So why would you think this would matter at all?
Allison: I know it's a bit weird to decide who to support based on other people, but I guess being comfortable in a movement also counts for many people, and I'm more comfortable being in a movement with people who openly cherish the things I cherish. Things like a revival of a strong social fabric, caring about local communities and families, and being grounded in the issues that affect people in the here and now, rather than being absorbed in theoretical ideas.
TaraElla: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean, I also prefer Tulsi over Bernie, but for different reasons. But I certainly don't think it's useful to judge a candidate by their fan base. I think every candidate has problematic people in their fanbases anyway. Still, I think it's an interesting perspective you've given, and I certainly think that people out there should consider whether more people are thinking like that, and if this has any effect on the popularity of campaigns.
NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.
TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report. Today, I will be having a chat with my friend Ashley, who is considering which 2020 US Presidential Candidate should be her favorite.
Ashley: You know, I am a bit frustrated with the current state of political discussion in much of the West right now, and especially regarding the 2020 US Presidential race. There's a lot of talk about policy, but there's not a lot of talk about the effect of specific platforms on how people can be brought together or else divided. In my view, and I know it's going to be controversial, specific policies matter less than their effect on the shifting alliegiances of people. In my experience, first as a pro-SJW left-liberal, then as an anti-SJW right-liberal, and then as a more neutral observer of everything, the people shape a movement and its response to future developments more than any specific policy. That's why, when I look at candidates, I want to focus on what coalition of people they can bring together, and how everyone else reacts to them, rather than any of their specific policies.
TaraElla: So how are you viewing the 2020 candidates? Who, in your opinion, has the potential to bring the right coalition together, and who, in your opinion, is hopeless at that?
Ashley: I tend to look for candidates who can bring together diverse and unusual coalitions. They tend to be the winning ones, after all. The other thing is, looking at history, we only achieve progress on anything when we can bring people on all sides to work together. Knowing all this, I think a candidate is only good if they can build a diverse coalition. I know many people don't like Donald Trump, but I think his victory in 2016 was just to be expected, because he could bring a diverse coalition together with his cross-over appeal, while Hillary only brought in the usual Democratic voters, also minus some that went to Trump's coalition. Of course, Trump is also quite divisive, which I think has a bad effect culturally, and this makes him unable to generate consensus to fix things and change things. Even his fans hope that he would tone down on his rhetoric, but unfortunately he just won't, and this might be his undoing. As for the 2020 Democrats, I think Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and also Mayor Pete Buttigieg are all interesting, because they appear to have cross-over appeal to some extent. I think Tulsi and Yang are especially strong here. I guess their platforms, their personalities, and the culture of their fanbases all contribute to this ability to build a broad-tent. As for those who definitely don't have cross-over appeal and therefore are as uninteresting as Hillary, I think this category would include Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and honestly, most of the others as well. They're just hopeless.
TaraElla: I think it's interesting that you have brought up the role of various factors contributing to whether a candidate can build a broad tent with cross-over appeal or not. I guess we can see it in the case of both Gabbard and Yang. For Tulsi Gabbard, her campaign starts with the core message of ending the endless wars. This is a message with a very broad appeal, resonating with people across the political spectrum. Both 2016 Bernie Sanders supporters and 2012 Ron Paul supporters have been attracted to her campaign's message, for example, and Sanders and Paul are often thought of as poles apart on the political spectrum. Then there's the personality factor. Tulsi is a calm, rational and friendly person, and her speech has a de-polarizing effect on people, which can be seen in how self-identified left-wing and right-wing people often begin to get along better once they become Tulsi supporters. This is opposite to how groupings of Trump supporters often get very hostile to leftists, or groupings of Hillary or Warren supporters often get very hostile to conservatives. Finally, there's a broad-tent culture to the Tulsi fanbase as well, because her fans come from all across the political spectrum. A broad tent culture naturally develops in response to the need to get these diverse people working together. I would even say that, if you want to escape the echo chambers of mainstream media, if you ever needed a reminder that progressives and libertarians can still be on good terms these days, the Tulsi fanbase is a good place to go to.
The factors of platform, personality and fanbase culture also contribute to Andrew Yang's broad spectrum appeal. Yang's campaign is built around the idea of reforming capitalism to serve the needs of humanity, and the centerpiece is the signature policy of a UBI for all. This is a policy that has broad appeal to many people from diverse backgrounds, and is able to get them to rally behind it despite their previous differences. Yang himself has a friendly personality, and he sets an example for his supporters by getting along well with people across the political spectrum, people with all sorts of different views, people from all walks of life and all kinds of backgrounds. Being generally shut out from mainstream media, Yang has instead reached out via alternative media like podcasts and web-based shows, and he's been to many such outlets across the political spectrum, picking up fans and supporters as he goes along. This again creates a support base of great diversity, with a broad tent culture naturally developing over time as these people get working together to support Yang and his vision.
If you look at the factors of platform, personality and fanbase culture and apply this analysis to Pete Buttigieg's campaign, I think you'll see why he wasn't as successful as Yang or Gabbard in building a broad tent. While I would give credit to Mayor Pete for trying to build a broad tent, which is more than can be said for many of the other 2020 candidates, his attempt hasn't been successful in my opinion. Polls have shown that Mayor Pete's support remains disproportionally dominated by highly educated people with a cosmopolitan-liberal outlook, which may also explain why his support is not growing much. Now, don't get me wrong, I actually like Mayor Pete a lot as a person, because he has the kind of personality to bring people together. His calm rejection of the campaign to boycott a certain food outlet was Pete at his finest, in my opinion. But what was missing from his campaign? Firstly, he has no signature policy around which a broad spectrum of people can rally around. Much of his platform is generic Democratic stuff, which independents and conservatives reject almost out of habit. His platform gives independents and conservatives no reason to pay attention to him. Secondly, he has not made a particularly strong effort to bring in a diverse support base. He has not been on right-leaning media much, and he has spent too much time on establishment media and not enough time on web-based media. He also cares about what the irrelevant elites think too much, for example those activists who say that he's 'not gay enough' or 'not the right kind of gay', and doesn't seem to care enough about the fact that he is not registering among many independents and skeptics of the progressive establishment. This is why people like Yang and Gabbard are picking up these votes, but Buttigieg isn't, despite his goodwill towards working across the spectrum. I think there's still time for things to turn around at this point, and Mayor Pete should really reconsider his direction.
TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report. Remember, this is the comedy edition, so try not to take anything here too seriously. Today, I will be having a chat with my friend Katie, who is considering which 2020 US Presidential Candidate should be her favorite.
Katie: Several 2020 candidates interest me. I think it's time for someone bold to come up with big plans to fix things. I am particularly interested in Elizabeth Warren, and maybe to some extent Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg. I'm keeping an open mind as to who is better. But Warren's got all the plans going on. You know, she's got a plan for copying some of that Bernie platform, a plan for taking some of that Hillary spirit, and also a plan for, something I couldn't really remember. I really like people with plans. That's why I am leaning towards Warren at the moment. Yeah, I am a Warren Warrior. I'm backing the woman with all the plans.
TaraElla: Yeah, but there are good plans, and there are not so good plans. Warren's plans are technocratic, which I guess is like the political equivalent of techno music, both were big in the 90s but people have long since gotten sick and tired of them. Remember how the rapper Eminem even said that techno was over, way back in 2002. I really can't believe that Warren is still into political techno nowadays. On the other hand, if you go onto the Yang website, you'll see that he has lots of plans too, I think it's more than 100 from memory. And those are good, 21st century plans, not techno plans. Like who else is going to give people $1000 every month, guaranteed, no questions asked? People can go to concerts in any genre they like with that UBI, they're certainly not going to be stuck with techno, techno and more techno.
Katie: Yeah, techno is so uncool. But the thing is, I know you said you don't like Warren very much, but for some reason, she's very popular among my friends. You know, maybe it's because she's like a kind grandma. Who doesn't like a kind grandma running the show? I guess that's actually why I am leaning towards Warren at the moment. In fact, since everyone likes a kind grandma, I wonder why you don't like her.
TaraElla: Excuse me, but Warren doesn't come across like a kind grandma to many people. Really. If you have a look at the polls, independents don't like her very much. And who could blame them? She's not exactly the 'kind' kind of grandma, pun intended. Instead, I think she's more like the bridge-smashing type of grandma. Remember while we campaigned for gay marriage, we did put in a lot of effort to build a bridge with the other side. Now Warren's basically taken a sledgehammer and smashed that bridge to pieces with what she said at that recent debate, ruining all our hard work. You know what I'm thinking about? While Warren's actually a law professor, I think she's also very talented at creating conflict, so I think she should contact a sociology department and try to get a side job teaching conflict theory, if this running for president thing doesn't work out for her.
Katie: My other concern about Yang is that I've heard people call his UBI 'NeetBux', and I've heard that NEET means something like gamers. I wonder if the UBI will promote video game culture. I mean, I have nothing against gamers, but that culture revolves around video games, right? I don't know how to play video games at all. I'm just worried that, in a world where video games dominate culture, I would look like an outdated person straight from the 19th century.
TaraElla: Who told you that nonsense? I think it proves that fake news is still alive and well, unfortunately. Of course you don't need to be a NEET to qualify for the UBI. You know, the U in UBI stands for 'universal'. The other thing is, you don't need to play video games to be a NEET. That's just a stereotype. In fact, I think that being a NEET may not be so bad after all, especially if there was a UBI. You get all the time to do whatever you like. You get to write that novel you have always wanted to write, or you get to make music 24/7, or something else. Or you could get stuck making YouTube videos all day. Wait a minute, are full-time YouTubers NEETs? I think they may be. You realize something new every day.
NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.
TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report. Today, I will be having a chat with my friend Katie, who is considering which 2020 US Presidential Candidate should be her favorite.
Katie: Several 2020 candidates interest me. I think it's time for someone bold to come up with big plans to fix things. For example, I think there should be a serious attempt to reform capitalism. Therefore, I am particularly interested in candidates who promise to seriously reform capitalism, like Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, and maybe to some extent Pete Buttigieg. I'm keeping an open mind as to who is better. I know you said you don't like Warren very much, but for some reason, she appears to be very popular among my friends, so I am leaning towards Warren at the moment. I wonder why you don't like her.
TaraElla: There are three main reasons why I don't like Warren: firstly, her plans to 'fix capitalism' are not the best, especially when you compare it with someone like Yang. Her economic plans come across as very technocratic, which means they are top-down solutions invented and implemented by the elites. While I think some of those plans could make things better, everyday individuals still have less agency than they should. If anything, economic power may become even more concentrated in the administration and the elites. On the other hand, Yang's plans respect the agency of everyday individuals more. His centerpiece is the UBI, which gives everyone $1000 a month to spend however they like. It is the ultimate decentralization of economic power and agency, something which I think is much needed now. Secondly, she is pretty close to the political establishment, and doesn't appear to want to put an end to the pointless wars. I think you should listen to how Tulsi Gabbard talks about Warren. Finally, some of Warren's language is quite divisive. Frankly, I think she sounds like the mirror image of President Trump sometimes.
Katie: So you think Warren is divisive? But as I said, many people like her. She is definitely the current favorite among my friends who identify as 'progressive'. So why do you think she is divisive? And if she is so divisive, why is she still so popular?
TaraElla: I say Warren is divisive firstly because she keeps framing things in identity terms, like how she said that 'race matters'; and secondly because she often needlessly irritates those on the opposite side of politics, especially when she talks about President Trump. There's also the fact that, if you look at conservatives, Warren is one of their most disliked candidates. She is definitely not going to be a President for unity, and in my opinion that's a bad thing. However, her divisiveness may unfortunately explain her popularity with some self-identified progressives, because they are increasingly under the influence of the conflict theory worldview. I'm not saying that they are consicously embracing conflict theory; what I'm saying is that their views have been increasingly influenced by that school of thinking.
Katie: It's interesting that you brought up the conflict theory thing. I haven't read much sociology, so I'm not too familiar with the details, but what I understand is that conflict theory people are pro-conflict, right? Given that most of us would rather have peace, is there a reason why they would want conflict instead?
TaraElla: It's a long story. Basically, conflict theory believes in conflict being the engine for social change. Of course, I strongly disagree with this view, which is another reason why I think candidates like Yang and Gabbard are better than candidates like Warren. Let me provide some context here. One of the reasons why our economic and social situation in the contemporary Western world is so unsustainable is because it was heavily shaped by the long 1968 generation, who used the 'tools' of conflict theory to create their change. Ever since then, Western society lost its spirit of consensus, and political debates became polarized. When administrations on both sides implement solutions without care that people on the other side are alienated by them, the social fabric becomes torn over time. This is why I believe we must move to another method for progressing society, one where we bring people together, listen to the concerns on all sides, and come up with consensus solutions. During this primary, I can see the beginnings of a new dawn for this approach, for example in the way Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have created broad tents of support, including everyone from the left wing to the center-right. Yang in particular has been surging in the polls lately, which I think provides early evidence for the success of this approach. I think Pete Buttigieg, who you mentioned earlier, is another candidate who is attempting to go broad-tent, but for some reason he hasn't had the same level of success. But the interest is definitely there.
Katie: Could it be a generational thing? I've noticed that the people you mentioned were all born between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s, and their supporters also tend to be younger. On the other hand, Warren is of the older generation, and polls show that her support skews older.
TaraElla: I think there is definitely a generational component to this. As I said, the conflict theory worldview first went mainstream during the years of the 1960s and the 1970s, often called the long-68.
The polarization of that period had a formative effect on young adults coming of age, so many people in that generation basically internalized the conflict theory worldview. I suspect one reason why conflict theory is mainstream again is because the long-68 generation are now at the age where many of them control the levers at the top level of elite society. On the other hand, those of us born in the 1970s and 1980s developed our political consciousness in the more peaceful time of the 1990s and the early 21st century. Many of us have long had a more cooperative view of the world. This is why I think we prefer the 'big tent' approach over the 'divide and struggle' approach.
Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a program where we discuss news events that are worth looking at from the point of view of the Moral Libertarian idea, that is, every individual should have Equal and Maximum Moral Agency in their lives. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.
Today, I want to present some further thoughts on the recent ContraPoints pronoun controversy, and how that event was actually similar to the events that started the so-called anti SJW wave from a few years ago. Now, I know this sounds a bit controversial, with both sides of the ContraPoints controversy being firmly left-wing, and the anti-SJW movement being generally regarded as right-leaning. However, labels like left and right often obscure the underlying reality, so I think we should just forget them, at least for the purpose of this analysis.
At the heart of the recent ContraPoints controversy was Natalie's mixed feelings about the very new practice of the 'pronoun round'. My specific thoughts on this practice was outlined elsewhere, so I won't go into it here. Rather, I want to focus on the fact that, the pronoun round is a very new idea by any measure. A mere five years ago, most people wouldn't even have heard of this practice. I first heard of it in early 2015, and compared with most people, I am pretty up to date on new political and cultural trends. Regardless of the merit of an idea, to expect a consensus of adoption in that time frame would be impossible, if that consensus was to occur as a result of true freedom of thought. I mean, the gay marriage movement got started in 1993, and it took about 20 years for a clear majority support to emerge. And on the scale of social disruption, gay marriage would be way down the list, because nobody would be forced to attend a gay wedding in any case. On the other hand, where pronoun rounds are introduced, everyone would be expected to participate, whether they like it or not. Therefore, pronoun rounds would represent much more social disruption that gay marriage. If it took 20 years for a consensus to form around gay marriage, it would logically take even longer for any consensus to form around the idea of pronoun rounds.
In fact, vigorous debate and the required patience has always been part of the Western liberal way, with a cannon going back to the words of classical thinkers like Voltaire and John Stuart Mill. However, in the past few years, some parts of the left seem to believe that, not only can they short-circuit this process, social justice requires them to do so, because prolonged debate would represent oppression and harm to minorities. As I have said elsewhere, a lot of this comes from various academic theories rooted in the critical theory tradition, which often over-magnifies the negative effects of liberal processes, without a fair consideration of the bigger picture pros and cons of having these processes. Free speech and free debate are often the first victims of such biased analyses. In place of free debate, some activists have resorted to essentially using peer pressure, and the creation of unnecessary conflict, to advance their causes. I know it's unpopular to say this, but in the past few years some parts of the New Left have essentially been opposing fundamental liberal values in the name of 'social justice'.
Now, let's take a look at the Anti-SJW movement from a few years ago. While this topic can provoke quite a bit of negative emotion in some people, I hope that you can have a look at it with an open mind. I'm not saying that anti-SJWs were always justified or something like that, but I think there's a lesson in there to be learned. Anyway, if we look back to around 2014 or 15, a lot of the so-called anti-SJW movement also started out as resistance to this development on the Left. The characterization of that entire movement as conservative or reactionary is blatant historical revisionism. Back then, many anti-SJWs self-identified as liberals or even progressives, but were unhappy that the New Left was essentially using peer pressure to coerce people into adopting new ideas or refrain from criticizing them, using 'social justice' as their defense. These people weren't reactionaries in any sense of the word, they often supported liberal politicians like Obama and liberal policies like gay marriage and renewable energy. They were also not of a conservative worldview, many if not most of them were even atheists. But they did have a major problem with the New Left of recent years, in that they cherished free speech and free thought, and didn't believe in a version of justice without these essential freedoms.
Note that I'm not saying that the anti-SJWs provided a good 'response' to the problem. Some anti-SJWs did become a bit reactionary later on, but I guess that's probably out of frustration with the refusal of the Left to take their concerns seriously, and it just shows why only the way of liberty will bring positive change. Some anti-SJWs were also divisive and negative in their approach, and a lack of clear purpose also meant that their movement didn't survive the election of Trump, which fundamentally divided left-leaning and right-leaning anti-SJWs. What I'm saying is that, the anti-SJW movement was caused by a real and problematic change among some progressives, and the recent pronoun round controversy shows that the fundamental problem that sparked anti-SJWism is still present.
For many of us, the value of individual freedom, in particular freedom of conscience, is essentially sacred and baked into our moral foundations, for example as formulated in the Moral Libertarian idea of Equal and Maxiumum Moral Agency for all. In our view, there can be neither morality nor justice where this principle is violated. Of course, this means that we have to accept that the resolution of social debates are going to be messy and prolonged. As Moral Libertarians, we not only fully accept this trade-off, we will actively prevent any short-circuiting of the necessary process, as part of our defense of individual liberty. And no, that certainly doesn't make us reactionaries.
Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a program where we discuss news events that are worth looking at from the point of view of the Moral Libertarian idea, that is, every individual should have Equal and Maximum Moral Agency in their lives. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.
Today, I want to talk about the recent drama surrounding Joe Rogan and Andrew Yang, and realizations I've had through this episode. Basically, it all started when Joe Rogan mischaracterized something that Andrew Yang said. In a previous interview, when asked about the fact that cattle is responsible for a substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions, Yang floated the possibility of putting a tax on cattle, which he then went on to predict that it would reduce beef consumption. It's not something I personally agree with, but I can see that it's a logical extension of his carbon tax stance, which is to put the economic costs of pollution back into market calculations. The part where he said it would reduce beef consumption was just basic market economics logic, where something that is more expensive becomes less in demand. There's no conspiracy to social engineer anything here.
However, Joe Rogan appeared to mischaracterize Yang's position as wanting to stop people from eating beef, or perhaps, even turning everyone vegetarian. Which is nonsense, because Yang isn't even a vegetarian himself! Anyway, Rogan went on and on about what would happen if people were not allowed to eat meat anymore, like how there would be nutrition deficiencies, and how cattle ranches everywhere are going to go out of business. I mean, relax Joe! Yang isn't going to lead society down that path, nor is any reasonable politician! Even if the carbon tax is extended to cattle, and that's surely a long long way away, the effect would be that beef would be slightly more expensive, and some families may decide to swap it for chicken or pork once a week. No cattle ranches are going to go out of business!
Many people in the Yang Gang have accused Rogan of smearing Yang here. I actually don't agree with this. Rogan was nothing but nice to Yang when he went on the podcast earlier this year. I think Rogan genuinely misunderstood Yang's position, and was genuinely worried. I think it's great that the Yang Gang mobilized to correct this misunderstanding before it could spread too far. But the fact that Rogan was so worried that a politician may stop people from eating beef deserves a moment of reflection.
Ten years ago, anyone making such a suggestion would just be laughed out of town. The idea that politicians would stop people from eating meat in a country like America used to be the stuff of stand up comedians. But it seems that some people aren't so sure anymore. Many people seem to have a very genuine fear of top-down social engineering from the elites. And I can't blame them either. The past decade has seen the introduction of many new social rules about what you can or can't say, what you can or can't do, what you can or can't buy ethically, and all of them in the name of some form of common good. The effect is that individual liberty has been limited for the sake of collective ends, and many people are genuinely worried where this might lead us. As a Moral Libertarian, I would say that people are rightly fearful that they are losing their fair share of Moral Agency as indepdently thinking individuals. Of course, I believe that Yang isn't the type who would support this social engineering, but then, many people out there have become so skeptical that they can't differentiate anymore. This has essentially created a climate where anyone raising any new idea could potentially be the enemy, which also explains why some right-leaning people have come to fear anything that is not standard conservatism. They've essentially become reactionary, in the face of those forcing change by peer pressure.
My point is, I don't think the road we're heading down here is good for either individual liberty or the social fabric. People rightly value their individual liberty, and using peer pressure to force social change is never a good idea. Moreover, it ends up scaring a lot of people towards the reactionary end of things, and through reducing mutual trust, fractures the social fabric in the process. While Rogan did misrepresent Yang, which I'm not very happy about, the fact that a credible public personality could raise the fear that a politician may stop people from eating meat tells us there's something really wrong with the way Western society is heading. We really need more unity in liberty, and less division and fear. The only way to do that is by repsecting that every individual should have Equal and Maxiumum Moral Agency in their lives.
Today, I want to talk about the recent drama surrounding Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and several blackface and brownface photos of him from many years ago that have recently emerged. I think there are several dimensions to this drama.
Firstly, like all instances of Cancel Culture, I think what we should do is to encourage forgiveness. Like I said regarding Andrew Yang's recent decision to publicly forgive a comedian who made a racial slur towards him, only to receive backlash himself, we may not be able to change culture all that much each time, but with each decision to forgive, we move the culture bit by bit towards a Forgiveness Culture and away from a Cancel Culture. The effects may not be apparent this month or this year, but if we make a concerted effort to bring back forgiveness, there will certainly be a noticeable effect several years down the track.
Secondly, I think the response from certain political observers is disappointing. I understand that a Canadian election is coming up, and supporters of each political party would naturally welcome news that puts their own party in some advantage. Therefore, it is unsurprising that conservative and hard-left people have been enjoying this drama quite a bit. However, if we are to move Western society away from Cancel Culture, which I think we definitely have to do, then we need to do it consistently. Otherwise, Cancel Culture will become normalized as a political tool against those on the opposite, and it will become a permanently entrenched part of the political culture. Therefore, people from across the political spectrum should refrain from using Cancel Culture to score political points. I know that the temptation is big, especially during election time, but please refrain for the sake of the future of Western civilization.
Finally, I believe the only way we can have a fighting chance to end Cancel Culture in the next few years would be to unite to push for forgiveness every time. Which is why I want to look at Dave Rubin's response to this latest drama. Rubin correctly stated that what Trudeau did wasn't that much of a big deal, because it was at a themed party, and there was clearly no racist intention. However, rather than to focus on calling for forgiveness, Rubin went on to discuss the issue of a double standard in Cancel Culture, where conservatives and Republicans have, in his view, been targeted more severely than Democrats. This is a view I don't share: from my objective observations, people across the political spectrum are targeted just as harshly in Cancel Culture, and those on the left are particularly vulnerable because their own fanbase are more likely to participate in it, as seen in the recent drama surrounding LeftTuber ContraPoints. In this incident, the left-leaning media around the English speaking world have also been quite harsh on Trudeau in general. There may be some partisan left-wing individuals who apply Cancel Culture only to the right because they want to score political points, but by and large, Cancel Culture is generally applied indiscriminately to everyone. Furthermore, it is unhelpful to bring up partisan divides when talking about Cancel Culture, especially when we are in the middle of Cancel Culture drama, when the constructive response should be to unite to call for forgiveness.
Another thing is, if some on the left are unfair in their application of Cancel Culture, some on the right are also unfair in their response to it. For example, some conservative commentators would be the first to defend someone like President Trump or Judge Kavanaugh against the Cancel Culture mob, but they would remain silent if someone like Joe Biden were to receive the same treatment for a similar thing, as if Biden deserved it because he's a Democrat. In this context, I worry that Rubin's divisive comments would be used as a justification for this kind of differential treatment, almost as if in the name of a perverse form of affirmative action. As I said, if Cancel Culture becomes normalized as a political tool against those on the opposite, it will become a permanently entrenched part of the political culture, and the future of political discourse in the Western world will suffer for it. As such, I vow to equally call for forgiveness when Cancel Culture is being applied, regardless of the political affiliations of the people involved.
Today, I want to talk about Cancel Culture, and how we can 'cancel' it, using the recent drama surrounding comedian Shane Gillis, and 2020 candidate Andrew Yang as an example. Cancel culture is getting so big these days that it is engulfing commentators left and right, and even a socially progressive Canadian Prime Minister! Comedian Shane Gillis was fired just a few days after the announcement of him joining SNL, because people discovered some of his old material in which he used racist slurs. Some of the stuff he said was indeed very distasteful. One of these slurs was directed at Andrew Yang. In response, Yang said that he thought Gillis deserved another chance to keep his job. Yang said that society has become too punitive towards people who made distateful statements, and he thought that, by setting an example of advocating for forgiveness, it would be something positive.
As you may expect, I totally agree with Yang here. Of course, the decision by one person to forgive won't change much overnight, but if more prominent people decided to do the same, it would have the effect of gradually changing our culture, moving away from a Cancel Culture to a Forgiving Culture. The fact that Yang himself received backlash for his forgiving stance was particularly frustrating. Modern cancel culture is not just some people attempting to cancel individuals they find problematic; it is also a group mentality thing, where everyone is expected to agree to act together to achieve the cancellation. As Yang's example showed, there is plenty of peer pressure to participate in cancel culture or at least not oppose it. It is group-think power in action. This is why cancel culture is inherently anti-individual.
The other thing we should know about cancel culture, is that it is one tactic among many that are used to deliberately create polarization in society. I have already said plenty about why some people are deliberately polarizing society and how they are doing it, so I'm not going to go into the details here. What's important is that, those who believe in bringing people together, and ending the divisive culture wars, have plenty of reason to oppose cancel culture, and to bring about its opposite, which is of course a forgiving culture. Therefore, I think it is actually very fitting that Andrew Yang, a candidate who is all about building the big tent across political divides, is doing his part to bring about a forgiving culture. After all, there can be no bridging divides without forgiveness. I think we can all learn from Yang here. Next time a public figure says something controversial or distateful, try to see if you can advocate forgiveness instead of cancellation. Also, on a more personal level, next time someone in your life says something offensive, try and see if you can use a bit of forgiveness. It could go a long way.
You know, I have long considered myself a moderate who shares plenty of concerns from both the left and the right. However, after listening to 'The Leftist Checklist' by conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey, I have learned that I apparently don't share anything with anyone left of center nowadays. I never knew that my political beliefs were that much in clear opposition to everyone on the left. I never knew I was so staunchly right wing, even though I am a fan of Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. I don't know how that could be possible, but thanks Allie, for teaching me something new.
Sarcasm aside, I think this latest so-called checklist from Stuckey is symptomatic of something I have come to be concerned about: that some conservative commentators are more interested in associating the most extreme and problematic ideas from the left with their political rivals, than actually creating a meaningful conversation to restore classical liberal values. According to the checklist, which Stuckey says is now taking over anyone left of center, everyone on the left these days believe in the following: 1) the oppression olympics based on some vaguely defined intersectional theory; 2) oppressed minorities should be entited to special treatment; 3) gender is a social construct; 4) we should decry toxic masculinity all the time; 5) a biological male can be a biological female; 6) legally forcing others to celebrate LGBT; 7) perpetuating white guilt; 8) America is inherently racist; 9) the wealthy should be hated because they stepped on others to get their money; 10) open borders; and finally, America should become communist. Needless to say, I scored 0/11, so according to Stuckey, I have nothing whatsoever in common with anyone left of center. But then, I guess people like Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Biden, and even Bernie Sanders would be right-wing too under Stuckey's rules, because they certainly wouldn't score full marks for that list! I mean, remember how much Bernie hates open borders, for example? In fact, college campuses are probably the only place where you'd find anyone who scored full marks for that list.
While Stuckey's list contained quite a few important problems, along with a few strawmen of course, I got the feeling that she was more interested in painting an unflattering picture of her political opponents, rather than examining why we have these problems in the first place. I mean, the oppression olympics, unfair treatment based on identity, social constructionism, conflict theory inspired feminism, an negatively biased view of American and Western history, and so on are all incompatible with the classical liberal values the modern West was founded upon. I believe we need to be able to use our rational reasoning, and our understanding of the various critical theories, conflict theories and postmodern theories that have led to those problematic views, to bring the cultural consensus away from those ideas and back to the classical liberal values of individual liberty, colorblindness, equality before the law and so on. But I didn't see any of that happening in Stuckey's video. Instead, from what I can see, she is essentially enjoying the problem, because it gives her ammunition to paint Democrats as crazy, which would serve both to unite her right-leaning audience and to attack their common enemies. And this certainly isn't the first time I have been concerned about this behavior from some commentators on the right. Instead of drawing attention to these problems and inviting a broad-based response, these commentators seem to want to turn these problems into a meme that they can unite their own tribe behind, or else a stick they can beat the other tribe with.
The erosion of certain classical liberal values in the West is a real problem, and one that can only be resolved with broad-based discussion and understanding. Turning it into yet another tribal game is not only wrong, it serves to delay important and long overdue cross-party discussions that are required to solve the problem at hand. The classical liberal heritage of the West is way too important to be used as a political football.
Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and also LeftTube in general. I am indeed expanding the scope of BreadBusting to include all of LeftTube, because I am seeing more problematic ideas come out of news-orientated LeftTube channels in recent months. Subscribe if you're interested.
Apparently, an increasing number of people in the LeftTube world actually think that Joe Biden is racist. You know, the Joe Biden that President Obama hand picked as VP, and was able to work with for eight years. The Joe Biden who remains very popular with black Americans. I mean, Biden is certainly not my favorite 2020 candidate, but I feel like I can't just let the definition of 'racist' expand yet again, because we are at the point where further expanding the term will drastically water down its seriousness. What I mean is, if everything can be described as racist, then racism wouldn't be a serious thing anymore.
So why do people think Joe Biden is racist, all of a sudden? There are many reasons, and I suspect rivalry in the context of the primary could play a role too. But let's take the recent uproar over his comments during the recent debate, on disadvantaged black families, as an example. Biden listed a whole list of things he would do to address this disadvantage, including tackling the problem of red-lining, improving education, providing more school psychologists and social workers to help families, and he also gave the interesting advice of telling parents to make sure their young kids hear more words. Now, you may or may not agree that these measures are actually useful to help disadvantaged families, but they were at least sincerely presented. A real racist wouldn't care to even think about that, right? I thought it represented goodwill, if nothing else.
But no, what he said actually upset a lot of people on the left. Apparently, what some people heard was that Biden was blaming black families for not raising their kids right. Apparently, that's implied in the fact that they would need more school psychologists and social workers. Therefore, Biden was essentially repeating a racist trope straight out of the 1960s. But then, where's the logic in that? What Biden actually raised were solutions to address educational disadvantage. He merely saw some problems and suggested ways to fix them. He never applied blame on any party. The real problem is, people are in fact reading racist intention where none exists. I have even heard of people say that this represents 'paternalistic racism'. So people who want to help are now to be labelled 'paternalistic racists'. This is just ridiculous! It sounds exactly like how some people ask how they can be an ally of minorities, only to be told that they shouldn't expect free labor from the activists, and should therefore go educate themselves using Google. What a great way to turn potential allies away! Furthermore, it would be in effect to say that someone like Biden can't help in any way whatsoever, because he's white. You know, this discussion is moving us further and further away from Martin Luther King's dream that people won't be judged by their skin color anymore. This is actually very regressive stuff!
So what should Biden have said instead? Some people suggested that he could start by saying something like we as a society are responsible for this disadvantage. So, an admission of guilt. Sometimes, I feel as if the New Left would rather focus on historical wrongs and who's responsible, rather than to fix problems in the here and now. You know, let's focus on the historical conflict, rather than how we can move forward. It looks like the conflict theory of sociology has really gotten a grip on the leftist imagination. Most of you probably know by now I am not a fan of conflict theory, to put it mildly. The reason is, if we focus on the conflict, if we keep focusing on who has oppressed whom, if we keep relitigating history, we often lose opportunities to work pragmatically in the here and now, to resolve the problems in front of us. The wrongs and debts of history are endless, which is why applying a conflict theory view of history to social problems always leads to nowhere. Instead, we should look at the here and now, and see what we can do to make things better. The conflict theory of sociology belongs in the dustbin of history, because it certainly doesn't belong in a future where people are free to associate as equals regardless of race or gender.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
NOTE: I no longer support using the term 'neo-Marxism' to describe this ideology. For my latest
thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.
Jordan Peterson and Natalie Wynn are two of the most influential figures today in the online political discourse, as I discussed a while back in my episode about Cults Of Personality. Furthermore, Natalie's video on Jordan Peterson had a lot of views, and was often used to so-called 'debunk' Peterson by the left. It would be interesting to hear what Peterson may have to say on the things Natalie said in that video.
Natalie stated in the video that this cannot represent a coherent concept, because postmodernism is skeptical of grand narratives of history, and Marxism has a grand narrative of history. Jordan Peterson has not satisfactorily responded to this point so far, in my opinion. However, I think that Natalie's simple view of the matter is also missing something. I have actually been thinking about this quite a lot in the past year. At first, I sort of defended Peterson, because many people seem to know quite well what he means by the term, even if it may be technically incorrect. I also remember seeing a left-wing professor say they sort of agree that what Peterson describes is a thing, even if the terminology may not be correct. But of course, this wouldn't be a good enough way to settle it. So I kept thinking.
In April this year, the concept was again revisited during the Peterson vs Zizek debate, where Peterson mentioned something about Foucault but Zizek simply stated the fact that Foucault was not a Marxist, thus apparently winning the argument. But this really didn't resolve anything. At that time, I made another video, explaining that while Foucault was definitely post-Marxist, there are plenty of contemporary self-identified Marxists who nonetheless use Foucauldian ideas in their activism, and even attempt to reconcile Foucault and Marx. I wondered if Peterson meant to describe these particular people with the term 'postmodern neo-Marxist', which would sort of make sense. I don't think Natalie has ever addressed the existence of this faction of the New Left, and how Peterson's term might apply to them. Still, this doesn't resolve whether the term itself could be correct or not.
Even more recently, I came to have an alternative hypothesis: that perhaps neo-Marxism was supposed to mean critical theory. The use of this terminology has precedent even among academics; I mean, I have seen sociology textbooks describe critical theory as 'neo-Marxism'. Or perhaps Peterson was referring to the conflict theory of sociology as a whole, which overlaps quite a lot with critical theory. It would be reasonable to describe conflict theory as neo-Marxism, because it was basically rooted in Marxism, even though it is applied to many cultural matters. Either way, because neither critical theory nor conflict theory are necessarily tied to the Marxist grand narrative of history, the incompatibility with postmodernism raised by Natalie is gone. Thus, 'postmodern critical theory' is indeed a thing. There is no inherent compatibility between the ideas of people like Foucault and Derrida on one hand, and critical theory or conflict theory on the other hand. If Peterson agrees that this is how he uses the term 'postmodern neo-Marxist', it would be sound.
In her video, Natalie raised the possibility that Peterson could be confused about the wide variation of views in left-wing politics, and hence lumped conflicting ideologies together. This suspicion isn't entirely without ground, seeing how right-leaning people often misunderstand the left, and vice versa. However, if 'postmodern neo-Marxism' is indeed defined the way I suggested, that is, it means either postmodern critical theory or postmodernism-inspired conflict theory, then so-called 'postmodern neo-Marxists' would represent only a faction of the wider left, and certainly wouldn't include most Democrats, old-school leftists, and the like. With this precise definition, it also becomes practical to mount a sound critique of so-called 'postmodern neo-Marxists', based on a critique around things like social construction theory, structure vs agency, moral relativism, the biological determinants of human nature, the potential paranoia around cultural hegemony, the wisdom of tradition, and the like. This critique wouldn't apply to, and would indeed be entirely separate from, the beliefs of people like Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders, Bret Weinstein and Sam Harris, even if they are generally considered quite left-wing. On the other hand, it would apply very well to some of the politics we see on college campuses today. This would make 'postmodern neo-Marxism' a valid and useful concept indeed.
NOTE: Marxian doesn't mean Marxist. It is an academic term, and here it means something like pseudo-Marxist or Marxist-like.
The recent poor treatment of Tulsi Gabbard by prominent members of the left, in the aftermath of her appearance on The Rubin Report, raises that question once more: is the left mean? Does the left like to eat its own? Tulsi certainly isn't alone in getting a taste of left-wing friendly fire. Another 2020 candidate, Marianne Williamson, whose Rubin interview was well received on the left and often used by leftists as an example of what they would have wanted Tulsi to say, has herself made comments about some people on the left being mean to her, which have been widely circulated in conservative circles. Furthermore, the recent drama surrounding left-wing YouTube icon ContraPoints shows that, you can be very left-wing and also a minority, and they can still turn on you like you're the enemy.
So why does the left like to turn on its own members so much? Some leftists think it's a natural result of always striving for more justice, while some conservatives think it's because the left is inherently disordered and chaotic. As a neutral observer, I disagree with both these stances. Instead, I propose that the answer can be found in the 'conflict theory of sociology', which has increasingly influenced leftist culture since the radical 1960s. Basically, this branch of sociology is heavily influenced by Marxian ideas, and sees the world in terms of group-based dominance, power and oppression, with conflict the inevitable result. Consensus is often seen as subjugation under the dominant class. On the other hand, conflict is welcome, because it is thought of as the driver of change. In this worldview, to create consensus is to continue oppressive dynamics, and to create opportunities for conflict is to create change and overturn oppression.
This worldview logically leads to a distain for anything that sounds vaguely bipartisan. I think this is why Tulsi Gabbard's friendly attitude towards people who are skeptical of the left, including Dave Rubin, Tucker Carlson and some others, has led to the conflict theory faction of the left not liking her so much. For these people, politics is an all-out battle between the oppressors and the oppressed, and negotiating with the oppressors is a bad look. They simply can't appreciate the constructive bridge-building Tulsi is doing. Furthermore, conflict theory people have a habit of over-focusing on history, which perhaps explains why they are still discussing Tulsi's past anti-gay comments, even though they were from 15 years ago. Similarly, even though Marianne Williamson is perhaps more consistently left-wing than Tulsi, her leftism is based in love and spirituality, and she refuses to think of the right as enemies or oppressors. This attitude also frustrates a lot of conflict theory leftists.
Rather than to say that the left loves to eat its own, I think it's more accurate to say that conflict theory is eating the left, one personality at a time. At this rate, conflict theory may as well end up eating all of the left one day in the not too distant future, like a maladaptive virus that kills its host. The only chance to avert this is perhaps for the left's immune system to kick in, and clear this virus from its system.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. Subscribe if you're interested.
Today, I want to respond to a recent video by Faraday Speaks, where he elaborates on his idea that there is a far-right pipeline that stretches from centrist channels like the Rubin Report all the way to the far-right, where audiences of centrist and IDW channels can supposedly be converted to the far-right over time.
So, how on Earth can someone who watches Dave Rubin end up in the far-right? My rational mind tells me that a classical liberal, the kind of people who watch Rubin, is the furthest thing from the authoritarian far-right. But then, Caleb reminds us that Rubin once interviewed Stefan Molyneux, who also interviewed far-right figures like Jared Taylor on other occasions. However, we should also remember that Rubin interviewed Marianne Williamson just a few weeks ago. Are Rubin fans now major supporters of the Williamson 2020 campaign? I don't think so. The point is, people have independent thinking, and mature adults are generally skeptical towards unfamiliar ideas anyway. Moreover, most people, at least most mature adults, are pretty committed to their existing worldview, and those who watch Rubin and agree with his classical liberal worldview generally won't go far-right, even if they happen to come across such ideas. I guess then, the problem with some young people being easily influenced by what they see is that, many of them aren't firm enough in their worldview yet, which is why they could be easily swayed by anything they might be exposed to, and I think it's something many people probably aren't even very aware of. Many young people simply don't have the required life experiences to be firm about their worldview. But if that's the problem, then it's not a problem specific to Rubin having interviewed Molyneux or something like that. It's a much bigger problem.
Rather than there being a specific pipeline to the far-right, I think the problem is that, too many people are now becoming committed to extreme political ideologies at a very young age, well before they can judge the validity of ideas based on their life experiences. I won't name names here, but I do know of a online commentator who is only 26 years old, who has already been a liberal centrist, a conservative, a far-right adjacent, an anarchist, and finally now a communist. Imagine having had all these identities, many outside the political mainstream, at just 26! When I was 26, I didn't know many of the things I know now. Let's face it: most people in their early 20s are, generally speaking, not very experienced and knowledgeable. Yet many people in their early-20s or younger are already being committed to very radical politics of one brand or another. It seems to me that they want to join a club, any club, before they even learn enough to decide which club they really want to join. I think this is the real worry, rather than any single so-called pipeline going in any single direction. Perhaps we should be teaching our young people to learn more before they pick a side.
As for Rubin and other IDW-type classical liberals, they're certainly not part of any attempt to promote the far-right. This is a conspiracy theory that rational people simply shouldn't entertain. Rather, I think their major concern is a loss of freedom, and this is a very valid worry at the moment. What they fear is that the freedom to act and speak will be severely curtailed in the name of social justice, which, as I often say, is not real social justice but rather something called critical theory. There is indeed a movement out there, which broadly attempts to use some form of critical theory to justify restrictive cultural changes, in the name of so-called social justice. The recent viral video of a DSA conference, which included clips where participants used so-called points of personal privilege to demand things like people not use gendered language, where people were peer-pressured into using jazz hands rather than clapping, made this point very well. While the various behavioral alterations were enforced in the name of making things more comfortable for certain groups, this also represented peer-pressure to act a certain way, to restrict personal freedom to speak and act, with the implication that if you don't comply, you're anti-justice. Stuff like this makes me actually fearful for our future. I mean, what if this kind of critical theory inspired social engineering, enforced via peer pressure, becomes the norm of everyday society one day? This really reminds me of the phrase, freedom is only ever two generations away from extinction.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
NOTE: Marxian doesn't mean Marxist. It is an academic term, and here
it means something like pseudo-Marxist or Marxist-like. For my latest
thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.
Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally.
Today, I want to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Men, where Natalie talked about topics like masculinity and the men's rights movement. While I think she did much better than your typical left-leaning feminist, I also believe she ultimately missed the mark. I think it's great that Natalie could at least see that life is pretty bleak for many men out there, particularly young men, and the left in particular has often been too dismissive of this. I also think it's great that Natalie is aware that, if there is to be new models of masculinity for the 21st century, it would need to be developed by and for men. I certainly agree that most men wouldn't accept a model of masculinity that was designed by women!
Where Natalie missed the point, however, was that she couldn't see how contemporary feminism is making things difficult for many men. While I'm not saying that contemporary feminism is all bad, it certainly has some problematic features, and they have created genuine disadvantage and resentment in men. Of course, the other important factor in the crisis of masculinity is the economic side of things, that is, the poor economic prospects for many young people in today's world, which I will address in part 2 of my response. Today, though, I will be focusing on where feminism has gone wrong. What I'm going to say may be unpopular, but I think it's an unpopular truth we all have to face.
Part 1: How Feminism Mutated and Failed Men
Let's start with this controversial proposition. The fact that there even needs to be a men's rights movement today is a sign of feminism's failure, at least according to the goals of earlier feminism. The reason why there needs to be a men's rights movement is because there are a number of ways men are disadvantaged because of their gender, for example in custody, in sentencing, in suicide rates, and so on. Even early in life, girls are told to be proud of their gender, but boys are not. The problem is, no other mainstream political movement would care about these issues. The fact that this is the case represents the failure of feminism as it was originally understood, the version of feminism that I personally idenfity with. You see, feminism was originally about equal treatment of all people regardless of gender. It sought to end all such unequal treatment, as part of classical liberalism's wider goal of individual liberty and equal opportunity. This is why many classical liberals like John Stuart Mill were sympathetic to the feminism of their day. This form of feminism was ultimately quite successful, bringing women the right to vote, equal access to education, and much better access to employment opportunities, even though I think there's still improvement to be made there in terms of the glass ceiling.
The problem is that, around the 1960s and 70s, something happened across the Western intellectual landscape that ultimately also changed feminism for the worse. Classical liberal values like individual-level equality and dignity went out of fashion, and Marxian ideas introduced via critical theory became fashionable, and eventually became dominant in so-called progressive circles. When I say Marxian, I don't mean Marxist or Communist, but rather models of understanding society that was inspired by Marxism. For example, during second wave feminism, gender relations became more commonly thought of as a class-like system, with men being the oppressors and women being the oppressed, analogous to Marx's idea of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Unlike earlier models of feminism, which sought gender equality by reform, this new model of feminism saw men as an oppressive class, and effectively pit women against men.
Part 2: Toxic Gender Relations Under Marxianized Feminism
Anyway, the Marxian influence essentially turned feminism from a project of reform for equality to a dialectic struggle between women and men. Regular audience of this channel would know that I have never been a fan of Marxian influence in culture, but its impact on gender relations have been particularly toxic for society. Feminists began blaming men and masculinity for every difficulty faced by women. After all, every man was now a member of the oppressor class, with all its privileges. Every man thus had an undeniable role in the perpetuation of the system, mirroring how in Marxist theory every member of the bougeoisie had a similar role, whether they embraced it or not. Just like it is difficult for the Marxist to feel sorry for the bougeoisie, it became difficult for the radical feminist to have any genuine concern for the welfare of men. Thus, where classical liberal feminism would sought to iron out all gender inequalities, Marxian-inspired radical feminism would only care about women. This gave rise to attitudes like 'it's not feminism's responsibility to care about men', which I am disappointed to see. I also think this attitude is ultimately self-defeating for feminism too, because gender inequality somewhere in society is a threat to gender equality everywhere in society. I firmly believe that, we can't fix the glass ceiling in the corporate world, unless we also fix the bias against fathers' custody in the courts.
Part 3: The Attack on Traditional Masculinity
The Marxian and critical theory turn in social studies also led to the view of cultural hegemony becoming dominant. In this worldview, all existing cultural arrangements are seen as potentially in service of systems of domination, and should be deconstructed and dismantled for the sake of liberation. In this view, traditional masculinity began to be seen as a social construct that supported the system of patriarchy, and its dismantling was therefore seen as essential for women's liberation. Ideas like 'toxic masculinity' was thus born. This led to the denounciation of much of the traditional gender role for men, with harmful consequences. While it is true that not all men want traditional masculinity, the fact that it was popular for so long should logically point to this model being satisfying for many, if not most, men. Like it or not, traditional masculinity gives many men the purpose they need in life, and I believe this is somewhat biologically hardwired too. Therefore, I think that it is impossible for men to develop models of healthy masculinity if feminists keep attacking multiple elements of traditional masculinity all the time. While we certainly can do without the sexist attitudes of the past, there are plenty of other elements of traditional masculinity that deserve to be celebrated, and we shouldn't let critical theory ideology get in the way of that. I believe that, ultimately, we can have traditional masculinity and we can have gender equality, that the two aren't incompatible if you take a classical liberal view.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to deliver the second part of my response to Men by ContraPoints, focusing on the economic side of things this time. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. We'll be doing this on most days of the week, subscribe if you're interested.
Today, I want to respond to something Bernie Sanders said in his recent interview with Joe Rogan. Basically, Bernie said that the candidate debates didn't allow enough time for the candidates to adequately present their views and policies. He said it instead resembled reality TV. He went on to expand this analysis to the current state of political discourse in America more generally, where it is common to reduce things to soundbites, and where long discussions are rare. He made it clear that he believes the media has responsibility for this regrettable situation, and also compared it to some other countries where leaders of major parties are given hours of free air time to explain their platform on TV.
As is often the case, I think Bernie has accurately diagnosed a major problem with the quality of political discussion in America and many other Western countries. While I don't always agree with Bernie, he is always great at making this kind of analysis. In fact, I strongly believe that the proliferation of fake news has a lot to do with reducing everything to soundbites. As to how this situation can be resolved, Bernie told Joe Rogan that he thinks it can only change with legislation. Regrettably, I think in the immediate present, he is essentially correct. On the other hand, if we take a longer-term view, it is the culture that needs to change.
I mean, what Bernie essentially said was that network TV wouldn't change unless they were forced to. But why would this be the case? Because they are after ratings, they are after what's popular. Which must, in turn mean that, reducing everything to soundbites, even at the risk of promoting fake news, is the popular thing to do. But then, what's popular in terms of the media landscape changes regularly, and it all depends on what the public values. Right now, the public doesn't value long-form discourse, and prefers to get their information as simple statements. But if the public can wake up to the fact that this preference is poisoning our political discourse and preventing common ground from being found, and hence preventing us from finding the necessary answers, their preference may gradually change over time. And it could already be happening right now. For example, while long-form discussions are still rare on network TV, they are becoming increasingly common on YouTube, and we all know YouTube and social media in general are essentially lead indicators in terms of political trends. That is, what we see on YouTube now, we are quite likely to see in the mainstream in several years' time. Therefore, if we independent political commentators keep up our work, we may just be able to change political discourse for the better.
The popularity of long-winded and serious political discussions on YouTube and elsewhere shows that a media landscape of soundbites and fake news doesn't have to be the case. All it takes is a widespread awareness that there is a better way to do things. And right now, by creating alternative political content, by creating meaningful content as opposed to the soundbites on mainstream media, we are spreading this awareness.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. TaraElla News is released on most days of the week, and each episode is distributed to either the TaraElla Politics channel or the TaraElla Culture channel, subscribe if you're interested.
Today, I want to respond to a recent PragerU video titled Hate Speech Doesn't Exist. Firstly, I have very mixed feelings about Dennis Prager and PragerU, but they are staunchly pro-free speech, and I will give them that. However, I believe we win arguments by being honest and rational. I think it's an objective truth that hate speech is a thing. What we should argue is that there shouldn't be laws against free speech, and that would have to mean no laws against any speech.
The video itself basically tells us what we already know. You know, trigger warnings, microaggressions, disinviting speakers, college students who prefer freedom from speech over freedom of speech, all things we have been familiar with since at least 2015. In other words, the video doesn't cover any new ground. Therefore, you would have to ask, why would someone be making this video in 2019? It's because free speech still isn't winning. Unfortunately, outlets like PragerU generally love to preach to the converted, and tend to simplify and dichotomize everything. Another example is their recent video on the death penalty, where the subject was treated with absolutely no nuance.
But let's return to free speech. Many of us continue to support free speech as a key pillar of classical liberalism, believing that the free market of ideas will bring truth and rationality. We've also been making the argument that suppressing speech doesn't improve things for anyone. We've been going public with our objections to so-called safe speech, microaggression theory, and the de-platforming of speakers for several years now, and let's face it, we haven't been making any progress at all. The reason is because we haven't made a dent in the underlying theory justifying these phenomenon. Free speech activists generally haven't been big on theory. The PragerU video only mentioned academic theory once, in connection with microaggressions. But the fact is, critical theory, and in particular postmodern critical theory, is the backbone of the anti-free speech movement. In other words, we can save free speech, if we smash the critical theory worldview with classical liberal arguments.
Basically, all anti-free speech arguments are ultimately rooted in the idea that discourse itself is power. This draws heavily on postmodern critical theory thinkers like Foucault, but also has deeper roots in the critical theory tradition, where it is assumed that there are culturally-based systems of oppression everywhere. The assumption of culturally-based systems of oppression is baked right into the method. It's not hard to see how this would lead to discourse being power, and from there to speech itself being tools of oppression, and even speech itself being violent. Of course, the best antidote to this bleak worldview of humanity is to embrace classical liberal values like the free market of ideas, and its potential to better humanity both morally and pragmatically. Where critical theory is negative about humanity, classical liberalism is very positive. Where postmodern critical theorists see individuals as being defined by external forces, classical liberals see individuals as having lots of agency.
NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.
Welcome to TaraElla News, the news report where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of the classical liberal spirit.
Today, we will begin a multi-part examination of the things Andrew Yang said in the recent CNN debate. Yang was again given the least amount of time to speak, but even with this disadvantage, he managed to make a few very important points, and was widely seen as one of the winners of the night. Today, I will focus on his argument on Medicare For All.
Once a fringe position, Medicare For All has grown to become very mainstream in the Democratic Party, in just a few years. While many 2020 candidates are climbing aboard the Medicare For All bandwagon, their arguments often sounds similar to each other. There's the humanitarian argument, the economic effciency argument, and the argument that big pharma and the healthcare industry shouldn't be able to profit off sick people while putting their health at risk. While all these arguments are valid and important, there's something missing. I think Andrew Yang may have provided the final missing piece of the Medicare For All puzzle.
Basically, Yang argued for Medicare For All from the perspective of the business environment. From the perspective of business owners, Medicare For All makes it easier to hire people, especially full-time employees, because there wouldn't be a need to include health insurance for them anymore. From the perspective of individuals, Medicare For All makes it easier to switch jobs, and to start a business, because they wouldn't lose their current health care arrangements by leaving their current job. All this means a more efficient labor market, more flexibility and mobility, which is good for both employers and workers.
I think the point about Medicare For All removing a big barrier for those wanting to start a business was an especially important one. Something many people have forgotten is that, a big part of the classical liberal vision was that the market would have low barriers to entry, so that it would be feasible for most individuals to save enough to start a business before they were too old. The original American dream wasn't about working like a slave for someone else just to be able to pay the bills; it was about being able to take one's ideas and run with it in the free market. Therefore, our current situation is not the classical liberal vision of a free market; it is nothing less than a betrayal of this vision. In this day and age, when the barriers for entry into business are so high, the class-based conditions of feudal society have been effectively re-created. I believe that a real classical liberal should be much more concerned with this, than with the size of the federal government.
Which brings me back to why Yang's argument is so important. A lot of the remaining resistance to Medicare For All is surrounding the idea that such a program would grow the size of the federal government, and hence move away from classical liberalism and towards statism. But this would be to see classical liberalism as having a narrow focus on cutting federal government, without regard for human outcomes in the bigger picture, which would not be in line with what the great 19th century classical liberals actually wanted. I believe that, by situating Medicare For All in the larger picture of how we can achieve classical liberal objectives, we can bring many more M4A skeptics on board.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. We'll be doing this on most days of the week, subscribe if you're interested.
In yesterday evening's debate, a main theme was Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren defending their Medicare For All policy against the objections of the more traditional candidates. I actually think Bernie put it excellently when he said that, a few minutes from Detroit there is a country called Canada where everyone has health care coverage, and people walk out of hospitals without a bill. I agree it's time that America provided health care coverage to all its citizens, especially since this has long been in place in Canada, Britain, Europe and Australia. There really isn't any reason why America shouldn't aspire to this goal.
But one thing that is disappointing about the Medicare For All debate is that it sometimes sounds too much like an ideological fight on both sides. During last night's debate Marianne Williamson voiced what many people are probably thinking. That it is, on one hand, very admirable of Bernie and Warren to fight for universal health care coverage in America, but that others also raised some concerns she agreed with. At the end of the day, what will work is a policy that can attract broad support, and such a policy will need to deal with concerns from all kinds of people. Going forward, the productive thing to do would be to work out a policy by seriously taking in all kinds of input.
Medicare For All is an attractive name, but it doesn't speak too much about the details of the actual policy. I mean, Bernie to his credit has a bill that lays out the details of his version, but of course, like any other proposal, it should be open to comments and potential amendments. On the other hand, many other candidates that say they are either for or against Medicare For All don't even have a detailed proposal available, so they are essentially saying nothing but platitudes. I mean, if you look at what Medicare For All looks like in the countries that actually have it, they do differ by quite a bit. Firstly, neither Canada nor Australia has abolished private health insurance. As I understand it, in Australia, high income earners are in fact required to buy private health insurace if they don't want to pay extra tax. Furthermore, what private insurance covers in each country also differs, with the private sector being much more extensive in Australia than in Canada. Finally, the Australian system is administered wholly by the federal government, while the Canadian system is administered mostly by the provinces. Hence, even among the two existing Medicare For All systems, there are plenty of differences. If America is to move to a Medicare For All system, there needs to be extensive work on the details. Platitutes and ideogical grandstanding won't help this work at all.
That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on the internet. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.
