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

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

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

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

Creating Space for a Liberal Conservatism | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

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

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

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

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

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

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

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

Why Anti-Woke Politics is Ultimately Harmful for Free Speech | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Previously, I argued that the postmodern critical theory approach to politics, which has been behind what some have described as extreme 'wokeness', is essentially a kind of anarchism. Elsewhere, I expanded on this argument, focusing on the fact that it is the rejection of all forms of coercion and hierarchy, and the intention to deconstruct the status quo (without a concrete goal to build something else) that makes postmodern criticalism a form of anarchism. I also said that:

"...the order upheld by liberal society must be a good order, one that is fair to all and one where individuals living under it can truly thrive. Critical anarchists in particular have used liberal society's past and present injustices to justify attempts to dismantle it. The best way to disprove the case for critical anarchism is therefore to maintain a good and just order. This is why reactionary 'anti-woke' culture war politics isn't helpful."

To summarize, the best argument against all forms of anarchism, including this new postmodern critical anarchism, is to demonstrate that order is conducive to justice in practice. We need to demonstrate that, in practice, the social contract of the classical liberal consensus can fulfill its promises of liberty, equal opportunity and the chance to pursue happiness for all.

Why Free Speech Shouldn't be an Anti-Woke Thing | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Far too often, cancel culture that comes from the supposedly 'non-woke' is not taken as seriously. It's like how when, earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis used the power of the state to 'punish' Disney for speaking up against his Don't Say Gay law, and 'anti-woke' free speech forces didn't unite to oppose the move as some might have expected. This just shows how the 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' lens is of limited utility in defending free speech, and well past its expiry date, in a time when cancel culture can almost equally come from all sides.

This is why it's time we moved away from a 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' narrative, towards a narrative that opposes cancel culture and defends free speech on the grounds of traditional classical liberal ideals. We should highlight the fact that free speech holds the promise of getting us closer to the truth, and also therefore building sound consensus and good order in society. Cancel culture destroys this promise, no matter what direction it is coming from, and no matter who is being targeted. Moreover, taking sides in culture wars would also harm this promise, because this would make it impossible to be committed to the objective truth, and building a good order for all. This is also why we need to be very wary of people who want us to join a tribe and play the culture war game.

Why Cancel Culture Isn't About Accountability | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Cancel culture isn't simply holding someone accountable. The aim of cancel culture is silencing people, rather than holding people accountable. It's an attempt by activists to silence voices and ideas they don't like, with an intention to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas. The (unspoken) logic of cancel culture is simple: if the opposition's argument isn't heard, it would be easier to win the debate. It is therefore basically a form of cheating. As I previously said, the promise of free speech is that it will get us closer to the truth, and lead to good order in society. However, this would only work if ideas are truly put on a level playing field, and the flow of information isn't hindered or distorted. This is why cancel culture is the enemy of truth and good order. It's a shame that too many 'intellectuals' in the West don't seem to understand this nowadays.

The Key to Liberalism is Diversity of Thought | Rebuilding Liberalism

The marketplace of ideas is the key to a successful reformist politics

Welcome to Rebuilding Liberalism, a series where we look at how to rebuild the classical liberal consensus, and build a rational and successful reformist politics on top of this consensus.

Recently, in an article about the 2022 US midterm election results, I've analyzed how 'woke' activists are creating a dilemma for the Democrats (as well as their counterparts in other countries). The 'woke' agenda, consisting mostly of postmodern critical theory inspired activism, is broadly unpopular, and the Republicans have successfully painted the Democrats as supportive of it. Even if they stay silent on cultural issues, they can't seem to shake off the 'woke' vibe. This is because, unlike back in the 1990s, party establishments don't control the conversation in the media anymore, and hence can't control how they are perceived. The solution I suggested was to develop an alternative platform that addresses the social justice demands out there, but rooted in the long-standing classical liberal consensus instead of postmodern critical theory, including upholding values like free speech and freedom of conscience.

However, one might still ask, how would the (classical) liberal alternative be heard over the postmodern critical theory agenda? The answer actually lies in one of liberalism's most cherished values: diversity of thought. Of all the ideologies that have existed in the history of the West, liberalism is uniquely committed to diversity of thought, as reflected in its values like free speech, freedom of conscience, encouragement of rational debate, and so on. Until recently, liberal media was well known for giving all sorts of unusual views airtime, in contrast to conservative media's habit of running the same message over and over again. This kind of coverage was well suited to liberal audiences, because of their open-minded nature. However, in recent years, this liberal diversity has greatly diminished. I believe it has a lot to do with the rise of cancel culture. Journalists and media outlets, who used to take interest in diverse viewpoints across the spectrum, have been increasingly leaning towards the argument that 'harmful' ideas shouldn't be platformed. As to what is harmful, it could range from actual racism (which I agree shouldn't be entertained), all the way down to proposals for compromise solutions on issues related to racial justice and LGBT issues (which are probably essential to building consensus for reform). Activists have also attacked liberal media outlets that feature 'harmful' voices, leading to the calculation that, for reputation's sake, it might be better not to invite certain people on. All this has meant that progressive-side media has increasingly toed the activist line. I even suspect that this is actually one of the biggest reasons for the current polarization.

Restoring the diversity of thought in liberal media would stop the conservative attempt to paint everyone to their left as 'woke' on everything. The 'everything is woke' narrative would naturally be discredited in a world where diversity of thought and sincere debates are clearly the norm among those who want to reform society. Yes, 'woke' voices would still be there, they will still be part of the conversation, but it would be clear that they are not the only perspective on offer on the progressive side. Free debate would also lead to the exchange of ideas, the refinement of proposals, and yes, the formation of compromises most people can get behind, which is what needs to happen for any progressive reform to occur, or indeed, to stop reactionary policies from winning. For example, parents are rightly concerned that sex education in schools need to be age appropriate, and they need to have a say in it. Polls have repeatedly showed that a majority of Americans agree with this position, for example. However, activists on the left have made the issue taboo to discuss in liberal media. This has created an opening for people like Ron DeSantis to come up with 'Don't Say Gay' bills. A similar dynamic also exists in relation to discussions on history and race, again allowing reactionary politicians to run a culture war in that area. Restoring liberal diversity would short circuit these dynamics, and likely stop the rising tide of reactionary culture war politics.

The other important thing is that, those in favor of social reforms should welcome a re-diversified landscape, and adapt to it accordingly. This way, they can potentially greatly expand the coalitions supporting their policy goals. To do this, they need to learn to build coalitions in favor of reforms, which can include a diverse range of views about the underlying reasons for embracing particular policies. For example, I have long argued that the pro-environment coalition needs to include people who are still skeptical of climate change, but would support climate action as an 'insurance policy'. Similarly, the pro-choice coalition needs to include people who are personally against abortion, but believe the government shouldn't be involved, or otherwise believe that banning abortions isn't the answer. The LGBT rights coalition should welcome people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman in the religious sense, or who don't believe that 'trans women are women', but are still compassionate enough to support civil rights to make life easier for LGBT people, for example. The attitude they should take is, 'you shouldn't have to agree with us on philosophy to agree with us on policy'. This is the only way to build broad coalitions to achieve needed reforms.

Finally, it is only to be expected that critical theory-aligned activists will not be kind towards any attempt to develop and articulate an alternative progressive agenda that doesn't entertain their ideological point of view. Those advancing a truly liberal agenda must be prepared for smears of not being committed to social justice, or even throwing minorities under the bus. The best way to argue against these smears would be to show a genuine commitment to equal opportunity for everyone in society, regardless of race, gender, or other immutable characteristics. It is the only way to win the argument against postmodern critical theory.

Why Liberalism is Anti Chaos | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article by TaraElla.

In the most basic terms, liberalism is a belief that society should be built on a social contract that ensures an ordered liberty, where all can equally enjoy this liberty. Different factions within liberalism differ on what the social contract should include, or what liberties should be upheld, but one common element present in all versions of liberalism is the belief that liberty's existence is dependent on the existence of order. Thomas Hobbes, who argued that an absolute sovereign was necessary to avoid the brute natural state of "the war of all against all", is often considered an important thinker in the liberal cannon. While modern liberals are certainly more democratic than Hobbes, we still agree fundamentally with his belief that an order needs to be imposed, in order to ensure a sustainable liberty.

In this way, liberalism stands in stark contrast to anarchism, the other major ideology that has some notion of freedom at its center. Unlike liberalism, anarchism does not believe in an ordered liberty. Indeed, it does not accept the need for any enforced order at all, because its ultimate goal is to remove all 'coercive' and hierarchical relationships between humans. Given that any imposition of order must inevitably be 'coercive' and hierarchical to some extent, anarchists reject the liberal goal of an ordered liberty as oppressive in their worldview. As to how to avoid the natural state of "the war of all against all", anarchists have never provided a convincing answer.

What Graham Norton Getting Cancelled Over Trans Comments Teaches Us | Post Woke

Opposing cancel culture should be untied from the woke vs anti-woke lens

In a recent interview at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, Graham Norton shared his views on cancel culture. Basically, he thought that those of us who decry 'cancel culture' are using the wrong word. "I think the word should be accountability," he said, echoing what many others who are in denial of cancel culture have said. But then, this being in the UK, the topic of JK Rowling and trans issues inevitably came up. Norton responded by saying that he is only a 'bloke on the telly', and those who want to explore those issues should talk to trans people, doctors, and psychiatrists, people who can 'illuminate this in some way'. Which is totally sensible and fair. However, because of some kind of association of his words with the Rowling controversy (which had something to do with musician Billy Bragg apparently), Norton ended up receiving a barrage of abuse on Twitter, forcing him to shut down his account. I think this kind of shows how the Western cultural landscape is extremely dysfunctional right now. Anyway, Graham Norton, who did not believe cancel culture existed, has now been ironically cancelled himself.

Some commentators have said that Norton should have learned a lesson about cancel culture now, and I agree with them. Cancel culture isn't simply holding someone accountable. The aim of cancel culture is silencing people, rather than holding people accountable. It's an attempt by activists to silence voices and ideas they don't like, with an intention to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas. The (unspoken) logic of cancel culture is simple: if the opposition's argument isn't heard, it would be easier to win the debate. It is therefore basically a form of cheating. As I previously said, the promise of free speech is that it will get us closer to the truth, and lead to good order in society. However, this would only work if ideas are truly put on a level playing field, and the flow of information isn't hindered or distorted. This is why cancel culture is the enemy of truth and good order. It's a shame that too many 'intellectuals' in the West don't seem to understand this nowadays.

However, there is another lesson about cancel culture here that everyone, especially the 'anti-woke' people, should learn: cancel culture can come from all sides, including from people who are not usually considered 'woke'. In this incident, Norton was basically cancelled for being perceived to be supportive of trans people and trans rights. The people doing the cancelling could be broadly described as 'gender critical', and these people are not generally considered 'woke' for some arbitrary reason. (Gender critical feminism is considered part of the 'non-woke' Left, even though it is a form of identity politics, for reasons I don't fully understand.) I guess this is why this incident has received lower than expected levels of attention, compared to say, last year's controversy over Dave Chappelle. Many 'free speech activists' who fought for Chappelle's free speech back then simply failed to come out and support Norton this time. Far too often, cancel culture that comes from the supposedly 'non-woke' is not taken as seriously. It's like how when, earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis used the power of the state to 'punish' Disney for speaking up against his Don't Say Gay law, and 'anti-woke' free speech forces didn't unite to oppose the move as some might have expected. This just shows how the 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' lens is of limited utility in defending free speech, and well past its expiry date, in a time when cancel culture can almost equally come from all sides.

This is why it's time we moved away from a 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' narrative, towards a narrative that opposes cancel culture and defends free speech on the grounds of traditional classical liberal ideals. We should highlight the fact that free speech holds the promise of getting us closer to the truth, and also therefore building sound consensus and good order in society. Cancel culture destroys this promise, no matter what direction it is coming from, and no matter who is being targeted. Moreover, taking sides in culture wars would also harm this promise, because this would make it impossible to be committed to the objective truth, and building a good order for all. This is also why we need to be very wary of people who want us to join a tribe and play the culture war game. 

Why Western Politics has Gotten So Abnormal | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article We Need a Normie Trans Rights Discourse by TaraElla.

Like deBoer, and also many other people out there, I have been frustrated at how a particularly loud faction in the left is consistently pushing anti-normie politics into the mainstream. It is making many people confused and scared, and culture war reactionaries have been increasingly able to make inroads with these people. The reactionaries argue that liberalism, in its pursuit of individual autonomy, inevitably leads to extreme 'wokeness'. However, not only is this reasoning absurd (given how 'wokeism' isn't pro-free speech, for example), it is also easily debunked by an analysis of the ideologies involved. So-called 'wokeism' is rooted in postmodernism and critical theory, philosophies steeped in a worldview where power and oppression is everywhere, and liberation from oppressive social constructs is the highest goal. I think this hostility towards social institutions and paranoia about power means that what we are dealing with is a form of anarchism, not a form of liberalism. However, unlike old school anarchism, this new, postmodern neo-anarchism locates power not only in government and organized religion, but also in culture, which they believe is full of social constructs that enable privileged groups to oppressed marginalized groups. This line of thought is clearest in the call by Foucault to 'cut off the King's head' in political theory, but it is also present in the works of other thinkers like Althusser and Marcuse. This worldview explains the 'movement' to deconstruct most of what we consider common sense. This, in turn, is why postmodern critical theory politics is inherently anti-normie (and hence anti-liberal).

We Need to Call Out the Biased Coverage of Trans Issues | Post Woke

The credibility of free speech liberalism depends on it

Welcome to TaraElla's Post Woke series, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

In the previous article in this series, I focused on the LGBT community, and argued that it is strategically wrong for the LGBT community to embrace critical anarchism and abandon the classical liberal consensus. If you look at the history of the West, you would see that it was the rise of classical liberalism that gradually put an end to arbitrary exercises of power based on superstition. The core of my argument was that the destruction of classical liberal norms would allow the return of religious authoritarianism, which would be disastrous for LGBT people.

However, elsewhere, I have also said that I fully understand why critical anarchism is appealing to many LGBT people, especially trans people, at the moment:

"Many trans people feel like the current social order does not treat them fairly, and as a trans woman myself, I think it is fair they feel this way, unfortunately. As a result, a substantial number of trans people have rejected society as it currently exists, and embraced postmodern anarchist ideas."

So how can we change this, and encourage the LGBT community to embrace the classical liberal consensus again?

***

In the previous article, I argued that the postmodern critical theory approach to politics, which has been behind what some have described as extreme 'wokeness', is essentially a kind of anarchism. Elsewhere, I expanded on this argument, focusing on the fact that it is the rejection of all forms of coercion and hierarchy, and the intention to deconstruct the status quo (without a concrete goal to build something else) that makes postmodern criticalism a form of anarchism. I also said that:

"...the order upheld by liberal society must be a good order, one that is fair to all and one where individuals living under it can truly thrive. Critical anarchists in particular have used liberal society's past and present injustices to justify attempts to dismantle it. The best way to disprove the case for critical anarchism is therefore to maintain a good and just order. This is why reactionary 'anti-woke' culture war politics isn't helpful."

To summarize, the best argument against all forms of anarchism, including this new postmodern critical anarchism, is to demonstrate that order is conducive to justice in practice. We need to demonstrate that, in practice, the social contract of the classical liberal consensus can fulfill its promises of liberty, equal opportunity and the chance to pursue happiness for all. Including for LGBT people.

***

This leads into the most important part of what I want to say today: the so-called 'anti-woke' cultural forces are not being helpful here. Previously, I have said that I am becoming increasingly concerned about 'the uncritical treatment of gender critical views, and the effective silencing of moderate pro-trans views, in the genre of new media that prides itself on free speech, skepticism and giving a fair hearing to de-platformed or censored people'. As I explained then, gender critical views might be excluded from the liberal wing of mainstream media, but they are prominently featured in basically every conservative media outlet, plus all the aforementioned 'free speech' orientated media outlets. However, reasonable trans people are almost never featured on the kind of media that eagerly promotes gender critical perspectives, and this imbalance, for some reason, hasn't bothered free speech activists too much.

As I said before, the best way to persuade the LGBT community to stop embracing critical anarchism is to demonstrate that the classical liberal approach works as promised in practice. In particular, the promise of free speech is that it will help everyone come to a fair and objective view of things. With truly free speech, the best ideas will prevail, and we can build a better consensus moving forward. However, for this to work effectively, ideas and perspectives must be placed on a level playing field in the first place. This is why de-platforming certain ideas and perspectives is bad. Whilst not as directly authoritarian, biased coverage can have a similar effect. This is especially true when it comes from media outlets backed by lots of money, that can easily drown out independent voices when they 'move in the same direction'. In recent years, the coverage of trans issues in many 'anti-woke' leaning media outlets has not been a level playing field, to put it mildly. There has been a strong emphasis on covering the most extreme parts of trans activism, while everyday, reasonable trans people who just want to get on with their lives are rendered non-existent. Consumers of this media often end up with very skewed perceptions of trans people. The skewed media coverage has essentially made us into 'the enemy', and a tool for negative partisanship, and dehumanized us in the process. This is very different from simply disagreeing with postmodern queer theory, or the tactics of certain trans activists. Moreover, the selected examples of trans activism often fit right into the most extreme gender critical stereotypes of trans people, and help to bolster the most hardline gender critical arguments, while examples that would support the case against gender criticalism are left out. This means that gender critical ideology is being placed in a much more favorable position in the trans discourse, and the playing field is clearly not equal.

To effectively make the case for the classical liberal social contract, we must make it work properly in practice. This includes making an effort to correct things that are not working well. At the very least, we need to call out the aforementioned unfair coverage of trans people and trans issues. If nothing else, free speech liberals taking a firm stance on this issue would at least stop the critical anarchists from painting all of us as hypocrites driven by a 'right-wing' agenda. This will save the reputation of classical liberalism in the long run, long after the current culture wars end up discrediting the ideologues on both sides. Moreover, by trying our best to call out bad practices, we might even end up changing them, at least to some extent. If we can use classical liberal means to fight the 'anti-woke' culture war reactionaries, and limit the damage that they can do, we will gain credibility among the LGBT community and its allies, and young people more generally. This will be a win-win situation, for both the LGBT community and classical liberal values like free speech.

We Need to Understand the Postmodern Left | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article Dismantling Liberal Norms Endangers the LGBT Community by TaraElla.

To consciously return to being committed to the classical liberal consensus, we also need to understand why that consensus was being eroded in the first place, so as to stop it from happening any more from now on. Much has been said about the illiberal ideology of the 2010s identitarian far-left, including where those ideas came from, and even what the ideology itself should be called. Much of the discourse has focused on the roots of this ideology in various philosophical traditions. However, what is most important is the core essence of this ideology, as reflected in its substantive goals. The fact is that this ideology essentially aims to 'deconstruct' all existing social norms, justified on grounds of liberation from power and oppression, and the various postmodern critical theories basically serve this purpose. I've argued that this focus on power, coercion and hierarchy, and the denial of the possibility of a liberal social contract to make society just, means that what we are dealing with is a form of anarchism. Anarchism has always been opposed to the liberal project on ideological grounds, and anarchists have long attempted to overturn liberal norms.

Dismantling Liberal Norms Endangers the LGBT Community | Post Woke

The only way to stop us going over a cliff is to rebuild the liberal consensus. ASAP.

Welcome to TaraElla's Post Woke series, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

It is something I have been warning of for many years now: the dismantling of liberal norms puts LGBT people in danger. The fact is, liberal norms like upholding free speech, respecting everyone's freedom of conscience, and respecting individuals' right to privacy, are essential to preventing minorities from being crushed by the tyranny of a misguided majority. Most importantly, the liberal consensus protects everyone from being subject to arbitrary authority, something minorities are most vulnerable to. Despite my warnings, supposedly progressive activists went ahead and trampled on the long standing liberal consensus of Western society during the 2010s, often in the name of 'social justice'. Perhaps it felt good and righteous for some, to help 'de-platform' voices they deem hurtful to minorities. However, what these people didn't (and still don't) understand is that this erosion of liberal norms is bound to have future implications. Implications that are much uglier than having to put up with the occasional homophobic or transphobic speaker.

Indeed, today, the tables have turned, at least to some degree. The reactionary culture warriors are on the march, and the weakening of liberal values and norms has given them much more room to trample on minorities, including LGBT people. In Florida, Ron DeSantis has repeatedly used the power of the state to enforce his beliefs on everyone else, often to the detriment of the LGBT community. He has punished Disney, simply for speaking up against his controversial 'Don't Say Gay' law. His administration has also ended Medicaid coverage of trans related health care. Most concerningly, he has even indicated that he might send Child Protective Services after parents who take their kids to drag shows. Now, I personally don't think it's a good idea to take kids to drag shows, but to use government power to meddle with families for this is scarily authoritarian indeed. Even some conservatives and Republicans have voiced their concerns over this. In the current climate, many LGBT people and families living in states like Florida and Texas are seriously considering whether they might have to leave.

As you can see, the weakening of the liberal consensus has begun to really hurt LGBT people. I believe the only way to turn it around is to re-embrace and re-strengthen the liberal norms and values that were eroded during the last decade. We need to take a firm, fair and consistent stance for free speech, against cancel culture, and especially for freedom of conscience and the right to privacy. This must be applied to individuals, ideas and actions on the Left and the Right alike, in exactly the same manner, because liberal norms are only credible when they are truly unbiased, when they truly provide a 'level playing field' for all. Right now, on the Left, this would mean opposing cancel culture in all forms, and encouraging the return of respectful and rational debate as the norm. I've heard several people on the Left say that to be in the Left nowadays, you just have to accept its limitations on free speech. This kind of nonsense should be challenged every time we see it. On the Right, we need to be especially wary of those who justify an increasingly authoritarian program on anti-woke grounds. We need to firmly insist that woke excesses are to be dealt with using liberal means, rather than illiberal means. Our resistance against cancel culture on the Left would give us the credibility needed to argue against 'anti-woke' authoritarianism from the Right.

To consciously return to being committed to the classical liberal consensus, we also need to understand why that consensus was being eroded in the first place, so as to stop it from happening any more from now on. Much has been said about the illiberal ideology of the 2010s identitarian far-left, including where those ideas came from, and even what the ideology itself should be called. Much of the discourse has focused on the roots of this ideology in various philosophical traditions. However, what is most important is the core essence of this ideology, as reflected in its substantive goals. The fact is that this ideology essentially aims to 'deconstruct' all existing social norms, justified on grounds of liberation from power and oppression, and the various postmodern critical theories basically serve this purpose. I've argued that this focus on power, coercion and hierarchy, and the denial of the possibility of a liberal social contract to make society just, means that what we are dealing with is a form of anarchism. Anarchism has always been opposed to the liberal project on ideological grounds, and anarchists have long attempted to overturn liberal norms.

What we need to remember is that liberalism has been responsible for basically all the social progress of the West since the Enlightenment. The liberal dedication to individual liberty, equality and the objective truth has been essential in the fight against arbitrary power based on superstition, which is what is at the root of the religious right's opposition to LGBT equality. The anarchist wish to overturn liberal norms would lead to the return of the pre-Enlightenment dark ages, and empower the religious right's authoritarian tendencies. It must therefore be resisted tooth and nail by those who support LGBT rights.

 

A Conservative Liberal Approach to Social Progress? | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article Standing Your Ground and Being Fair in an Age of Polarization by TaraElla.

My views on most issues haven't changed much since 2003, the year I started college. It was at that time, with things like the Iraq War in the background, that I began to understand the importance of liberal values like free speech and freedom of conscience, and started being seriously committed to them. Since then, the political landscape of the Western world has shifted multiple times, but my core values have remained the same, and my views on most issues have remained largely the same. I guess, over the years, I also gained an appreciation of a certain strain of conservative philosophy. I became aware of the fact that people are naturally attached to what is familiar, and continuity is an important thing in life. This conservatism also informed the way my more progressive, reformist impulses pointed: back in 2012, then British Prime Minister David Cameron famously stated that 'I support gay marriage because I'm a conservative'. I think that quote sums up what the best kind of progress looks like: an emphasis on the continuation and refinement of tradition and commonly held values, while making society truly inclusive of everyone. I also came to see that approaching issues of social justice this way helps us to avoid going down paths where we could inadvertently make things worse.

What Free Speech and Classical Liberalism is About | TaraElla Clips

As I have previously said multiple times, the anti-woke movement has evolved to become a mirror image of the 'woke' movement, and thus inherited most of its problems. Two of the biggest problems with the woke movement are its inability to be committed to objective reality, and its deliberate use of exaggerated language to rile up people's emotions. These features stem from the postmodern view that language and discourse are about power. It is a rejection of the classical liberal premise that discourse should be about getting us closer to the objective truth. In recent years, some anti-woke activists have, by mirroring the most extreme forms of woke culture, effectively adopted the postmodernist view that discourse is about power, and the NatCon style of politics is the ultimate culmination of this view. Hence, from the (classical) liberal viewpoint, woke and anti-woke, cancel culture and NatCon politics, might be different, even opposite, in content, but they are very similar in essense.

The problem with this false 'choice' between woke vs anti-woke, criticalism vs NatCon-ism, is that they ultimately represent only one choice on the most important issue: whether you believe that discourse is about getting to the objective truth, or about power struggle. Whether you believe that the outcome of the competition of ideas should be determined by merit, or by might means right. The false 'choice' between woke and anti-woke leads to the obscuring of this question, and the default acceptance of the power struggle, might means right worldview. Therefore, those of us who are still dedicated to the view that discourse should be about the objective truth need to clearly take a stand on this most fundamental of issues, and call out those who essentially want to put an end to the Western Enlightenment.

Taking a Stance Against Woke vs Anti-Woke Accelerationism | Post Woke

The fundamentals of the Western Enlightenment is at stake here.

Welcome to TaraElla's Post Woke series, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about what I think is the biggest threat to Western society right now: woke vs anti-woke accelerationism. Let's start by talking about the third National Conservatism Conference ("NatCon III"), which has been in the news recently. The NatCon conference is home to a particular strand of conservatism, that is most known for embracing the power of governments to fight the culture wars. This strand of conservatism is clearly different from the old-school conservatism of people like Reagan and Thatcher, and is probably better thought of as the radical wing of the anti-woke movement.

Let's look at what the NatCon people believe. "The institutional left does not intend to leave anything of the old republic behind for us to salvage. Constitutionalism, scientific inquiry, individual liberty, civil society, voluntarism, patriotism, parental authority, free expression, free enterprise, religious pluralism, cultural diversity - they are coming for everything. So national conservatism must come for them," declared Rachel Bovard, who was speaking at the conference. This quote is notable because it demonstrates what NatCon-style thinking is justified upon: a vague picture that 'the enemy' is out to destroy everything, and hence we are in a state of emergency, which would require extraordinary, illiberal measures to combat.

I actually agree that there are strands of left-wing thinking that is exactly like Bovard described. I have previously said that the logical conclusion of postmodern critical theory is that everything we know and cherish is a social construct that serves the interests of the oppressors by holding the oppressed down, and hence it all needs to be deconstructed. I also agree with the more general concern that the postmodern critical theory wing of the Left seems to have the misguided belief that an unlimited 'liberation' from the constrains of reality as we know it is possible or desirable. I believe this is partially rooted in the pseudo-Freudian philosophy of Herbert Marcuse, which has no basis in objective reality. As I often say, what we have now is the result of centuries or trial and error, and we will certainly not be able to get anything as good by knocking it all down and rebuilding everything from scratch.

However, the problem with the NatCon-style approach is that they conflate everything on 'the left', used in a broad sense, with the aforementioned extreme radical views. Hence, in their view, mainstream center-left politicians, political parties, media and organizations are all out to achieve that radical vision, and are hence all dangerous. This view flies in the face of objective reality, and also leaves no room for rational and respectful debate.  After all, if you see those who you disagree with as not merely sincerely misguided, but actively being a threat to civilization, there is much less reason to treat them with fairness and respect, and more reason to defeat them at all costs. Similar has been said about so-called 'woke' activists in the past, who saw their opponents as evil oppressors working to uphold an oppressive system. In both cases, their worldviews leave them with no reason to allow free speech and due process for their opponents.

Hence, the most extreme 'woke' activists often resort to using cultural and institutional power to suppress their opponents, and now NatCons want to use government power to suppress them. If the NatCons win power and start putting their ideas into practice, it will end up making the postmodern critical theory approach to politics look much more justified and necessary to progressives. This will mean that even the most moderate progressives will start embracing the most extreme forms of wokeism. This, in turn, will certainly cause the NatCons to double-down on their authoritarianism in response. The extremism on both sides will get worse and worse, and respect for things like free speech will certainly cease to exist. This vicious cycle will lead to the complete annihilation of the Western Enlightenment project, if it is not stopped.

As I have previously said multiple times, the anti-woke movement has evolved to become a mirror image of the 'woke' movement, and thus inherited most of its problems. Two of the biggest problems with the woke movement are its inability to be committed to objective reality, and its deliberate use of exaggerated language to rile up people's emotions. These features stem from the postmodern view that language and discourse are about power. It is a rejection of the classical liberal premise that discourse should be about getting us closer to the objective truth. In recent years, some anti-woke activists have, by mirroring the most extreme forms of woke culture, effectively adopted the postmodernist view that discourse is about power, and the NatCon style of politics is the ultimate culmination of this view. Hence, from the (classical) liberal viewpoint, woke and anti-woke, cancel culture and NatCon politics, might be different, even opposite, in content, but they are very similar in essence.

The problem with this false 'choice' between woke vs anti-woke, criticalism vs NatCon-ism, is that they ultimately represent only one choice on the most important issue: whether you believe that discourse is about getting to the objective truth, or about power struggle. Whether you believe that the outcome of the competition of ideas should be determined by merit, or by might means right. The false 'choice' between woke and anti-woke leads to the obscuring of this question, and the default acceptance of the power struggle, might means right worldview. Therefore, those of us who are still dedicated to the view that discourse should be about the objective truth need to clearly take a stand on this most fundamental of issues, and call out those who essentially want to put an end to the Western Enlightenment.

Culture War Right Betrays 2010s Free Speech Movement | TER Post Woke

We Really Need to Talk About the Culture War Right

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about the rise of the new 'culture war Right', and why a post-woke politics must confront and reject it. Let's start here: ever since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, arguments over the legality of abortion have been especially heated across America, with opinions varying greatly by state. It is in this context that Republican senator Lindsey Graham has unveiled a bill that would enforce a ban on abortions past 15 weeks, that would apply to every state. This, of course, means that the people of the blue states will have a law most of them don't agree with imposed on them, without giving them a democratic say. The controversial move has made many moderate Republicans uncomfortable, but it also has plenty of supporters. Justifying his actions, Graham said that "there is a consensus view by the most prominent pro-life groups in America that this is where America should be at the federal level."

I don't actually want to go into the abortion debate. You see, the biggest problem with this isn't even about abortion. What is important here is that this is essentially a culture war move. As many have pointed out, the Graham bill is not likely to have the 60 votes it needs to pass anytime soon, so it's more about making a statement. With this statement, Graham has made it clear that he cares only about what activist groups on his side of the culture wars want, and he will use government authority to impose it on the rest of society, even on a controversial issue without a clear consensus. My problem with this authoritarian culture war approach to politics is, it's almost like saying, who needs to have a rational and respectful debate, when you can simply use the force of authority to impose your will on everyone else?

Looking back, most of the Right were keen participants in the mid-2010s free speech movement, but along the way some of them came to recognize that authoritarianism is actually more efficient, for the purposes of remaking society the way they want it to be. Hence, they have essentially embraced what we once opposed together. This change is also not limited to the issue of abortion, or to America. Culture war issues were a big part of the recent British Conservative Party leadership election, even though abortion itself was not discussed. The new Prime Minister Liz Truss is well known for her culture war politics, as were several of the other leadership candidates. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time in my lifetime that the British Conservatives have had a culture war focused leadership contest.

Culture war authoritarianism has actually been on the rise in the Right for a while now. Back in 2019, there was the famous Ahmari vs. French debate, where Sohrab Ahmari argued against old-school conservative David French, that the Right should fight the culture wars with the aim of defeating the enemy and re-ordering the public square to reflect their own values. He also argued that the culture war Right should not shy away from using government authority to impose their will. More recently, the culture war activist Christopher Rufo, famous for supposedly getting President Trump to take action against critical race theory (CRT), said that the culture war Right should ignore, marginalize, and repel people like David French. I mean, I never thought I would hear someone say that conservatives should repel David French! I am also particularly angry with Rufo, because his politicization of CRT, and his attempts to link opposing CRT to an authoritarian politics that threatens free speech, has made it difficult for people like me to convince our fellow liberals that CRT is indeed misguided and potentially dangerous. Every time I get called 'right-wing' for opposing CRT, I think of how Rufo and people like him have made our work so much harder. Rufo has made no secret of his intention to attack ideas he disagrees with on 'financial, legal, and bureaucratic grounds, in addition to the more straightforward style of intellectual debate' (quoting Rufo himself). His worldview stands against everything the mid-2010s free speech movement represented, and is just as bad as, if not worse than, the most extreme 'woke Left' activists in this regard.

My point is, if you don't like the culture wars, and want us to move towards a truly post-woke, post culture war politics, then you need to recognize that the new culture war politics on the Right is one of our biggest obstacles today. The culture wars poison every issue and every debate, by polarization, tribalism, groupthought, and riling up people's emotions. It makes cultivating the post-woke values of decency, fairness and genuineness impossible. It is impossible to be fair or genuine when one takes a side in a tribalist culture war, and it also makes it difficult to treat those who you disagree with decently. Moreover, the culture wars are a useful tool for those with authoritarian agendas. Most importantly, it makes independent thinking and being committed to the objective truth impossible. The culture wars are literally turning society into a postmodern nightmare.

We need to put an end to the culture wars, as soon as possible. To do this, we need to confront the people who want to use the culture wars for political gain, whether they are on the Left or the Right. We need to call out their destructive behavior whenever we see it. As Rufo himself said, their plan is to 'set the preconditions' by driving public opinion and priming the politicians. We need to be there to thwart their attempts every step of the way. Such a campaign would surely be a worthy successor to the 2010s free speech movement.

The Post-Woke Case for Bringing Science and Philosophy Back Together | TER Post Woke

The Divorce Between Science and Philosophy is Causing the West to Lose Its Mind

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about an overlooked reason for the woke vs anti-woke mess we are in: the historical divorce between science and philosophy. Historically, philosophy preceded science, but included it. That is, before science existed as an independent area of study, it was included under philosophy, in the Western tradition. Much of what we now think of as the scientific method originated within philosophy. However, science, mathematics, and several other disciplines eventually separated out from philosophy, so that by the 20th century, philosophy basically no longer included many areas of study that have a strong empirical basis, or have a strong emphasis on objectivity or logic. This is what I would call 'post-science philosophy'.

Post-science philosophy's exclusion of science naturally meant that it developed further and further away from empiricism, objectivity, and logic. Throughout the 20th century, some parts of philosophy also came under the influence of politically motivated thinking, like critical theory, postmodernism, and Marcuse's pseudo-Freudian view of psychology. Eventually, those parts of philosophy became irreconcilable with objective reality, and incompatible with what the science actually says. Yet, the fact that philosophy preceded science seems to have given supporters of these philosophies justification to dismiss scientific facts that disagree with their worldview. This is why, when you try to get them to acknowledge certain scientific facts, they might tell you to read some Foucault! As many of you would know by now, the point of bringing up Foucault in this context is that knowledge is constructed by power, and is in the service of the oppressors against the oppressed. Hence those raising objective fact not only need to be dismissed, they need to be resisted as agents of the oppressive system. This is the point of view much of the philosophy underpinning so-called woke thinking is coming from, and this explains why it has such a resistance to open debate and acknowledging objective facts.

As I have said before, the anti-woke movement has evolved to become just the opposite of woke, and that is a very bad thing. Like some people might say, the whole point of that movement seems to be just to 'trigger the woke'. Logically, this would mean that the anti-woke is merely a mirror image of the woke, and therefore inherits many of its faults. Hence, it is unsurprising that the anti-woke is similarly anti-science. Especially in the past year, it has become more and more common for the anti-woke to be dismissive towards, or even assign ulterior motives to, those who hold scientific educational credentials. This is basically the same 'power bad, so experts bad' attitude that is found on the postmodern Left, even if it targets different kinds of experts. It is just as anti-objective and anti-intellectual. [ For an example of how unscientific the anti-woke Right has become, just look at Matt Walsh's recent documentary 'What Is A Woman'. There is no sincere, in-depth exploration of genetics, biology, neuroscience or evolutionary psychology. It is all about reinforcing a certain black-and-white view of gender that is not well justified objectively. ] Therefore, in a way, it has the same 'philosophy overrides science' attitude that is at the root of the postmodern Left's thinking. If we let this trend continue, the West will eventually become a place where science is shunned, and subjective, tribalist philosophy that provides different 'truths' to different people will become the new normal. The post-woke aim should be to stop us from going down that road.

To fix this mess, I think we need to actively work to heal the divorce between philosophy and science. As I have suggested before, the solution of encouraging multi-disciplinary intellectuals, who are trained in three or more very different disciplines at the postgraduate level, can be a first step. Such intellectuals will help bridge the gaps between the very specialized disciplines, and reduce the echo chamber effect that ultra-specialization has caused. In the longer term, I also think that a more empirical and quantitative perspective needs to be re-introduced into philosophy. The supporters of this perspective need to be unafraid to challenge the currently established views, and be committed to providing a truly objective alternative.

A Negative Conservatism Can't Conserve Anything | TE Cons Report

Why the Right have become the New Radicals

Welcome to the TaraElla Cons Report, where we talk about things from an intellectual conservative point of view, and how we can apply this philosophy in the 21st century West. I come from a moderate, centrist viewpoint, which means I appreciate conservative philosophy and try to balance it with the need for progress.

In recent years, something weird has been happening among those people who politically identify as conservatives. Traditionally, conservatives have been the optimistic ones. President Reagan was famous for his sunny optimism, while the far-left of that era hated his attitude as much as his policies. The book 'The Power of Positive Thinking' and the ideas it promoted have been popular with conservatives for three generations, while Herbert Marcuse called for the appreciation of 'negative thinking'. Even just a few years ago, some people noted that postmodern critical theory activists were deeply negative, and conservatives seemed to be more positive in comparison at least. However, for some reason, the tables have suddenly turned, with political conservatives being some of the angriest and most negative people right now.

Relentless negativity and conservative philosophy don't go together well at all. Having an appreciation of what we've got naturally goes hand in hand with a desire to preserve it. On the other hand, being negative is the natural precursor to being destructive. This is the reason why radicals like Marcuse rejected positive thinking: after all, if everything is so great, there really isn't a case for radical change. Hence, conservatives being negative are actually making the radicals' case for them!

The increasing negativity among conservative circles has led some on the Right to believe that some kind of reset, or 'counter-revolution', is needed, because the West is in such a bad state right now. Even those who might not go this far might nonetheless be on board with suspending some norms of civility, respect and free speech because we're supposedly in some kind of 'state of emergency'. However, the use of the perception of emergency to justify radical measures that destroy long-standing norms has long been a favorite tactic of radicals, and it generally leads to the destruction of important values and institutions that is not going to be reversible. Radicals, of course, don't have a problem with this, but if you're coming from a conservative philosophical point of view, I really can't see how this kind of outcome can be justified. Moreover, a so-called reset or 'counter-revolution' is no different from wiping the slate clean and starting all over again, another favorite fantasy of radicals. The traditional conservative opposition to this is justified on the grounds that, even if what we currently have is not perfect, it is still the product of many generations of evolution and lessons learnt. If we were to re-build everything from scratch, there is practically no chance that we will end up with something better than what we have now. I can't see why this important insight should not apply to where we are currently at.

The other question we need to ask right now is, are things that dire right now? As I previously mentioned, those who want radical change have a habit of creating the perception of emergency to justify their actions. While the social fabric of the West is not in good shape, and the health of families and communities certainly need to be improved, it is still clear that all is not lost. To give it all up would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater indeed!

The Case Against Cafeteria Libertarianism | Lib Lib Report

Reactionary populism is not compatible with a sincere commitment to classical liberal values.

Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while aiming to make the social contract of Western society more libertarian moving towards the future.

Today, I want to talk about a disturbing trend: what I think could be called 'cafeteria libertarianism'. This term obviously borrows from the common saying of 'cafeteria Christianity', and just like cafeteria Christians, cafeteria libertarians pick and choose what issues they want to be libertarian on, while ignoring other issues, or even having sympathies to outrightly authoritarian stances on other issues. The ultimate effect of this is that anyone could claim to be 'libertarian' because every kind of politics has its libertarian areas, and thus people who actually have highly authoritarian agendas can falsely claim to be friends of liberty.

My regular audience would know that I am a 'libertarian gradualist', as opposed to the immediatists that make up the bulk of the mainstream libertarian movement. Libertarian gradualists, while not supporting immediate libertarianism in every policy area, are not 'cafeteria libertarians', because we are sincere about advancing liberty overall. What makes a 'cafeteria libertarian' is their lack of a wish or vision to progress things overall to the side of liberty. Instead, they identify as 'libertarian' as a reaction to something they don't like, for example wokeness, cancel culture, or some kind of government regulation. In other areas, however, they are totally OK with authoritarian policies, to the extent of heaping praise on people who are taking action to move the Overton Window towards authoritarianism. You know, like cheering on Ron DeSantis using his state power to punish Disney for disagreeing with him. Or nodding in agreement to online influencers who promote a populist 'post-liberal conservatism'.

I guess the reason why we have 'cafeteria libertarianism' is because of the mistaken belief that the status quo, minus the woke, is already libertarian, or even worse, that Western society used to be truly free in some past golden age. This attitude is basically reactionary conservatism. The fact is that Western society, up until now, has always been somewhat authoritarian, especially towards those who don't agree with the majority. Anyone who has read any history, political science or law would recognize this. A sincere commitment to classical liberal values simply isn't compatible with a reactionary populism that defends traditionally popular freedoms but denies or even opposes less traditionally popular freedoms. There was a reason why John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill were all progressives in their time, who argued for things that weren't necessarily popular. This was because their vision was one that hadn't been realized yet. Even today, we still aren't there yet. I believe that recognizing we aren't there yet is the key to building a sincere progressive libertarianism, and rejecting reactionary 'cafeteria libertarianism'.

Recognizing that the classical liberal project is one that still has a long way to go would also allow us to keep being committed to our long term goals of more freedom, and remember to play the long game in response to current events. For example, free trade and globalization as it existed in the past four decades has had unfairly negative effects on many working people. Global corporates benefitted at the expense of working families, and this has created massive backlash. Refusing to deal with these problems would be irresponsible, and politically suicidal for any movement. However, that doesn't mean that we should suddenly be allies with people denouncing free trade as inherently evil, promoting conspiracy theories about globalization, and advocating for a return to the regressive 'clash of civilizations' attitude towards the world. Instead, we should continue to maintain that free trade and globalization are good because they make the world freer, but also acknowledge that how it is executed matters. Ultimately, it needs to be made to benefit working people rather than global corporates, which I believe is very doable. Similarly, while we can acknowledge that liberals need to do more to acknowledge the importance of families and the social fabric, we still need to firmly argue against the absurd claim that liberal thinking, going all the way back to Locke, is to be blamed for current social problems like low birth rates and high divorce rates. Anti-liberal forces both Left and Right want the liberal project to fail, and they are going to blame everything on there being too much freedom, as if there was such a thing. To fight back, we need to have a clear vision of what we actually believe in, and why it will lead to good outcomes.

Why Conservatism and Liberalism are Actually Cousins | TE Cons Report

The polarization is artificial, and we just have to see through it.

Welcome to the TaraElla Cons Report, where we talk about things from an intellectual conservative point of view, and how we can apply this philosophy in the 21st century West. I come from a moderate, centrist viewpoint, which means I appreciate conservative philosophy and try to balance it with the need for progress.

In our mainstream politics, the concepts of 'liberal' and 'conservative' are often pitted against each other. However, anyone familiar with political philosophy would know that this binary opposition is not necessarily true. Moreover, just a few years ago, some moderate conservatives tried getting under the 'classical liberal' umbrella, while some liberals campaigning for gay marriage emphasized the conservative case for their reform. This kind of crossover messaging seems to have disappeared in recent times, but there is an important truth in there: there is plenty of room for liberalism in conservatism, and vice versa.

Conservatism is concerned with preserving traditional values, institutions and elements of the social fabric. However, we live in a world where circumstances inevitably change, and adaptive reforms are required to keep these things alive. Moreover, conservatives generally want society to function according to good order, and free speech and rational debate are conducive to building and maintaining good order. A framework that emphasizes free speech and freedom of conscience would allow adaptive changes to be made, in a safe and balanced way. Meanwhile, such a framework would also be very effective in resisting grand utopian schemes to remake society, because it would be impossible to get a majority of people to agree to such schemes under conditions of freedom. I believe upholding the liberal framework is a much more effective way to preserve the good things we have for future generations, compared to a reactionary culture war style approach. Furthermore, classical liberal values have been part of the mainstream political consensus of the West for more than a century, and it has served us well. Therefore, a conservatism dedicated to conserving the fundamentals of our social contract would also conserve these values. The so-called 'post-liberal conservatives' are actually radicals!

The case for liberalism having a conservative side is perhaps less often heard of, but in our current context, it is perhaps no less important. Firstly, core liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience, equality regardless of immutable characteristics and so on require a conscious attempt to conserve, or else they get eroded quickly. Right now, forces on both the Left and the Right want to compromise these values when it suits them, and we need to actively defend these values. Secondly, I recently came to the realization that liberal values only make sense if we assume there is at least something worth preserving in the status quo. The freedom afforded by liberalism enables debates and experiments about what to preserve, and what to change. Postmodern critical theory activism has shown us that, if every existing structure is oppressive and needs to be dismantled, liberal values would actually be a hindrance. This actually makes sense, because the liberal framework resists radical change. Logically then, to be liberal would imply believing that at least some things are worth conserving.

The reason why I want to emphasize the philosophical common ground between liberals and conservatives is because the current polarization is making people lose perspective of the bigger picture. The polarization is created by both traditional and social media, and actively encouraged by those with various agendas, as well as those who stand to gain in one way or another. But if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, it suddenly looks more artificial, and even sort of ridiculous. I think this realization can be useful for disrupting the echo chambers on both sides.

Two Perspectives: Moral Panics and Hysteria | TER Post Woke

It's a universal problem we need to talk about more

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Perspective 1: As a progressive, I am dismayed at the way our culture is evolving. Twenty years ago, progressives used to be the cool ones. Conservatives used to get upset about everything from hip-hop music to gay marriage, from video games to Harry Potter, and we used to laugh at that. In recent years, many people say that we have become like how the conservatives used to be like, and I honestly can't disagree with that. As an old-school progressive, I think that overreacting to everything and having a problem with people having fun is stupid, because it makes us unpopular and discredits us. I wonder how we became this way.

Perspective 2: As a conservative, my biggest problem with mainstream conservative politics is its tendency to embrace collective moral panics and hysteria over artificially amplified non-issues. This also seems to happen in cycles. For example, the 90s and 2000s conservatives were really bad in this regard, but things got more rational in the 2010s. I fear that we are seeing things turn bad again now. I wonder if there is a way to break free from this toxic tendency.

I guess the tendency towards collective panic and hysteria is present among both progressives and conservatives. While there have been better and worse times in the past for both sides, it seems that, right now, both sides are getting worse. Therefore, it really is a problem that we need to actively address. The fact that it is on both sides makes it somewhat easier, because this means we won't be targeting only some people in our criticisms.

The first thing we need to do is to acknowledge that the problem exists in the first place. We need to talk about it enough, so that it is firmly in the consciousness of most people. This way, when certain people want to encourage more hysteria for whatever reason, enough people can consciously say no to it, and put up a resistance that hopefully gets stronger over time. We also need to remember that, history has taught us that it takes bravery and courage to take a stand against moral panics.

The other thing we need to do is, of course, to address the problem of echo chambers. In the past, I've said quite a lot about the need to break the echo chambers and how we might do that, in the context of addressing political polarization. Breaking the echo chambers is also important for addressing collective hysteria, because it is easiest to build hysteria in an environment where everyone is under pressure to agree with certain viewpoints. I guess this is why the problem is getting worse on both sides, with the echo chamber effect being made worse by social media. This is why the hysteria problem is ultimately linked to the many other problems affecting the social and political landscape of the Western world right now.

We're all Conservatives, to Some Extent. And that's a Good Thing. | TE Cons Report

Why the c-word is unfairly maligned, and why this must change.

Welcome to the new TaraElla Cons Report, the counterpart to my Lib Lib Report. In the Lib Lib Report, I talk about liberal and libertarian ideas and visions, and how we can apply them in the 21st century West. In this new series, I will focus on conservative philosophy, in a similar way.

I think one of the things the early 21st century West is lacking is a robust and healthy intellectual discussion on conservative philosophy. Now, some of you might be surprised that I am saying this. After all, I have identified as a liberal, a Moral Libertarian, a moderate, a centrist, a practical progressive, but I have never identified as a conservative. Moreover, I have many disagreements with what is considered conservative politics in the contemporary West. So why would I have any use for conservative philosophy?

Let's be honest. If you are a moderate or a centrist of any kind, you are at least partially conservative, because you essentially believe in balancing conservatism with progressivism. If you are a liberal, then you are committed to be open-minded to conservative points of view, and if they are indeed the most sound views, you would allow them to win in the marketplace of ideas via the natural process of competition. If you consider yourself an evidence-based person, then you have to at least acknowledge that institutions and values based on many centuries of evidence at least count for something. Finally, if you are a practical progressive, you would base your progressive ideas at least partially on what has worked well in the past. Therefore, one can certainly be liberal or moderate and still be conservative to a significant extent. Indeed, without acknowledging the conservative parts of our philosophy, we would be left with a very weak defense against those who want to radically remake society using untested and unsound theories.

I guess the reason so many of us are reluctant to acknowledge the conservative parts of our philosophy is because conservatism doesn't exactly have a good reputation in intellectual circles right now. Indeed, I have the feeling that, if I told some of my acquaintances that there is a conservative part to my philosophy, they might react all weird, like 'so you're a conservative'? In the minds of many people out there, the word 'conservative' is associated with racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry. However, this does not have to be true. It is only this way because reactionary politicians have had a near monopoly on the term 'conservative' for too long. And this monopoly is undeserved too, because in recent years, reactionary politics have often been anything but conservative, in the original sense of the word.

Another reason why we shouldn't shy away from acknowledging our own conservatism, is that the ongoing lack of a healthy appreciation for conservative philosophy has led to the rise of a deeply reactionary style of 'conservative' politics. This is actually the biggest reason why I am speaking out on this topic now. Conservatism is part of the natural temperament of many people, and if it isn't allowed to be acknowledged and respected in a healthy way, it is going to be expressed in a deeply reactionary way, one that reflexively blocks all proposals for progress, and even yearns to turn the clock back by decades. The lack of a healthy conservatism, one that can reassure people that the fundamental things about their society are safe, will leave many people with no option but to embrace a reactionary attitude.

I think the lack of a healthy intellectual conservatism is not just a coincidence, nor is it just an accident of history. Rather, back in the 1960s and 70s, a generation of students became so disillusioned with society, they thought that everything radical was great, and everything conservative was evil. Some of them eventually became very influential among intellectual circles, and their efforts shifted the Overton Window there so far to the radical side that any kind of conservatism essentially became marginalized. I believe it's time we addressed this error, and actively seek to welcome a healthy dose of conservative philosophy back into mainstream intellectualism.

Our Culture is Meaningless. Let's change this. | TaraElla Culture

Why challenging popular culture should be part of the post-woke mission

Welcome to TaraElla Report Culture, where I take a step back from the more political talk, and look at things from the wider cultural perspective.

To explain the purpose behind this new series, we need to start by acknowledging the fact that political, philosophical, and sociological debates do not occur in a vacuum, but are immersed in, and strongly affected by, the mood of the wider culture. Of course, the process goes both ways, for example the toxic culture wars that originated in politics have also had a negative effect on the wider culture. The important thing is, the wider culture, including the popular culture, is an overlooked potential site of action, if we want to end the toxic culture wars.

When I first started blogging nearly 20 years ago, I actually focused on popular culture. As a singer songwriter, I was very plugged into the news of the music world. From there, it was natural to also be plugged into the world of movies, television, celebrities and so on. When I was a teenager, I actually thought these things were having a positive impact on people, simply because it made them happy, and made life easier for people in difficult times. I thought that, by somewhat 'participating' in that world and making it even better, I would be contributing to making people's lives better. Back then, I thought that the adults were underestimating the value of popular culture.

As I grew older, I became more passionate about important social issues. The 2003 Iraq War, which I strongly opposed, was the first time I passionately got involved in politics. Soon after, I also got passionate about several other things. The politics around the Iraq War got me interested in the impact of religion on politics, which was part of what led me to become passionate about gay marriage. There was also this big evolution vs intelligent design debate back then, which made me realize the importance of respecting scientific facts. I also realized that I really liked being immersed in these debates, which were debates about fundamental worldviews, morals, and truth. For me, these meaningful debates contrasted sharply with the lack of such meaning in the popular cultural world, and as the years went by, I gradually drifted away from popular culture.

During the late 2000s to the mid 2010s, I actually drifted in and out of popular culture for a while. While in earlier times, popular culture would generally avoid the big controversial questions of our time, things appeared to be changing by 2008 or so. More and more, movies and TV shows started dealing with these questions, and some celebrities started to take strong stances. At that time, I honestly thought it was an improvement. But later on, I would be disappointed again, because a lot of this would be superficial and therefore even counter-productive sometimes. In the case of celebrities taking stances, it honestly felt like virtue signalling a lot of the time, whether this was their actual intention or not. I realized that the superficialness of our popular culture meant that we couldn't actually be having truly meaningful debates within it. This was when I finally 'gave up' on popular culture.

Since then, popular culture has only gotten more superficial, with the rise of viral videos, meaningless trends, and influencers who don't stand for anything. In this world, popularity is about how you look, and not what you stand for, and taking a stance on anything would only alienate your fans. Some people have said that this is an inevitable consequence of the internet. However, is this superficial culture really inevitable? Or could we try to turn it around? I believe it's worth at least trying, because I think the toxic woke vs anti-woke politics ultimately stems from our culture being very superficial. I once thought that I could escape the superficialness by leaving popular culture behind, but now I realize that the superficialness is everywhere, because culture, politics and intellectualism are not separate things. This is why I believe the antidote to the current polarization is to bring back in-depth thinking and discussion. We need to do it across all of our culture, especially popular culture, which remains a strong influence in many people's lives. I still believe we shouldn't underestimate the value of popular culture, in terms of healing the social fabric, after all.

How to Build the Post Woke Movement | TER Post Woke

It won't be easy, and we need a plan.

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics. Previously, I have outlined what a post-woke alternative would look like. Today, I want to talk about how we can advance the post-woke alternative in the cultural discourse.

As I said before, the current cultural and political discourse of the West is dominated by two echo chambers, the so-called woke and anti-woke. The existence of these echo chambers essentially keep other ways of thinking at the margins, severely limiting the influence of any post-woke ideas. Moreover, the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money. Therefore, the key to building a successful post-woke alternative is to pierce and disrupt the echo chambers on both sides. If we can do this, then we can truly end the woke vs anti-woke wars. If not, then post-wokeism will remain no more than a nice theoretical idea, with very little practical influence in the real world.

I guess the first thing to do is to accept that we are not operating on a level playing field, compared to the media personalities and influencers on both sides, who use their big platforms to reinforce the dominant ideas of the echo chambers. This means that we have to start small, be patient, and wait for it to snowball into something bigger over time. We need to insist on talking about the post-woke alternative, and providing the post-woke voice when it comes to various social and cultural debates. Some days we might get very frustrated, feeling like we are essentially shouting into the void. Other days it might all feel futile, as our well-reasoned positions get drowned out by the loud culture warriors on both sides. But we need to keep going, if we are to have any chance of changing things at all.

Next, we need to recognize that many people who are trapped in the echo chambers actually feel uncomfortable with the status quo too. This even includes people whose work are essential to holding up the dominant narratives of the echo chambers, like journalists, media personalities, intellectuals, influencers and more. They might be quietly questioning the dominant narrative in their echo chambers, the echo chambers they are otherwise helping to maintain. We need to help that questioning process along. For example, whenever a culture war flare up occurs between the two sides, it actually provides a good opportunity to intervene, to help people question the soundness of the whole thing.

Finally, we need to be able to regularly come up with unique and innovative solutions to the problems and controversies that make up the fault lines of our cultural landscape. This is the best way to demonstrate the advantages of the post-woke approach compared to both the woke and anti-woke orthodoxies. People generally pay attention to something new, and prefer fresh ideas to talking points that have been repeated over and over again. Moreover, many people out there are actually looking for ways to build bridges across factions, perhaps because they want society to function again, or perhaps just because they don't want their family and friends to keep fighting the same old fights all the time. Anyway, the post-woke movement should provide these answers, when the woke and anti-woke factions can't and won't. Many people will appreciate it, and it will make our movement bigger and stronger over time.

Summing up, this is my three step plan for building the post-woke alternative: firstly, we need a lot of patience and perseverence, and recognition that this isn't going to be easy. Secondly, we need to seek opportunities to help more people question the status quo. Finally, we need to provide solutions to build bridges and resolve conflicts where the woke and anti-woke won't.

Two Perspectives: The Need for a Post Woke Alternative | TER Post Woke

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Perspective 1: I have long been passionate about equality for minorities, addressing climate change, and being open-minded about different ways to solve our social problems. That is why I've always identified as a progressive. However, in recent years, I feel like progressives have been shooting ourselves in the foot. For some reason, the most divisive, counter-productive and literally stupid so-called 'solutions' are given the most attention, and the most controversial voices are often given the biggest platforms, as if the more controversial the better. This has generated nothing but backlash, which has prevented the necessary consensus building to make reforms possible. What I want is for there to be a way to move beyond this tragic situation.

Perspective 2: I believe in the value of traditions and traditional institutions. This is why I'm a conservative. However, I also believe that traditions must remain adaptive to remain relevant and maintain widespread support. The way to achieve this is to have good faith and respectful discussions about how we should move into the future, and to resolve our differences. The problem is that, modern conservatism is more like a culture war tribe that reinforces each others' existing views, and is not that interested in having productive discussions. The result is that they often hold onto maladaptive solutions and policies, which can ultimately lead to the discrediting of traditional values and institutions.

I think the problem with the current social and political discourse is that people are divided into two main tribes, each tribe exists in its own echo chamber, and the worst ideas in each echo chamber are allowed to become dominant, because of the lack of real challenge from other perspectives. Call it progressive vs conservative, woke vs anti-woke, or whatever, this is actually very unhealthy, and will certainly not lead our society towards good outcomes. This is why we need a post-woke alternative, where we acknowledge all that has gone wrong since the rise of the current round of the culture wars about a decade ago, and come together for a sincere discussion on how we can do better going forward.

The key to this is to puncture and disrupt the echo chambers that are the root cause of the current dynamic. The trouble is, this won't be an easy task, because the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money. This means we need to consciously aim to disrupt the echo chambers, especially the dominant narratives in each echo chamber that are repeatedly reinforced. This disruption will be key to building the post-woke alternative. This is why, going forward, I will be talking a lot more about the strategies we can use to disrupt the echo chambers.

On Wokeness, Anti-Woke and Intellectualism | TER Post Woke

Why we need to bring back sincere intellectuals

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics. Today, I want to talk about why both the woke and anti-woke positions are insufficiently intellectual, and why a truly intellectual atmosphere is essential for a post-woke movement.

Let's start with the woke position first. As we have previously established, wokeness is actually rooted in philosophy and theory that came out of academia. This is why, to some people, it has the veneer of being intellectual. However, since the woke theories are not products of unbiased discussion and debate, truly open-minded truth seeking, and a commitment to objectivity, I would have to say that they are not truly 'intellectual' in the traditional sense. Rather, I think they are more like activists' wishes phrased in intellectual language. Indeed, one could argue that a worldview that fundamentally sees language, knowledge and discourse as products of power, and objectivity as nothing more than pretense, would actually be incompatible with being 'intellectual' in the traditional sense.

Given the intellectual deficiencies of wokeness, the anti-woke position could naturally have been built on a foundation of restoring the meaning of being an 'intellectual' in the traditional sense. And to some extent, the early anti-woke movement did go a bit in that direction. There was plenty of discussion about the values of the Enlightenment, why free speech is essential, and so on. But ultimately, the anti-woke movement came to be dominated by culture warriors, who had no patience for proper intellectual exploration and argumentation either. I believe this is why anti-woke intellectual projects like the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) ultimately ended up quite hollow and unattractive after a while. The same talking points are repeated again and again, and the discourse seems to not be very open to unexplored possibilities. To be honest, I think many IDW figures sound more like culture warriors than sincere intellectuals nowadays.

I believe an important part of moving beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars is to actually bring back sincere intellectualism. We need people who are dedicated to exploring the objective truth of the world, rather than just seeing the world as they wish, or worse, selectively picking and choosing facts to build a biased narrative to suit their political agenda. We need people who actually want to have open-minded discussions about the important issues, rather than just wanting their side to 'win' and their 'enemies' to lose. A sincere intellectual today should be able to easily tell that both the woke and anti-woke positions are unsound. Sadly, too many people can't even see that right now.

The Problem with Anti-Woke and Anti-Anti-Woke | TER Post Woke

Why reaction is maladaptive, and will just perpetuate the problem

Welcome to TaraElla Report Post Woke, where we consciously aim to move beyond the woke vs anti-woke culture wars, and towards a post-woke model of culture and politics.

Today, I want to talk about two movements or perspectives that have arisen as a consequence of the rise of woke culture: anti-woke, and anti-anti-woke. I believe the 'reactive' nature of these movements have ultimately meant that they have just perpetuated the problems that were started by woke culture. I will illustrate how this happens, and what we should do instead to break the vicious cycle.

From what I see, the default stance of the anti-woke is to basically do the opposite of what woke culture demands every time, believing that this is an effective way to resist woke culture. Instead of critizing wokeness where it goes wrong, anti-woke culture prefers to 'trigger' the woke, by doing the opposite of what they want. For example, whatever woke culture wants to ban people from saying, the anti-woke will deliberately say it. Whatever groups woke culture upholds as 'oppressed' and hence worthy of special consideration above others, the anti-woke will deliberately dismiss their issues. The problem with this is, woke culture's enabling of the mistreatment of people based on immutable characteristics and group membership also transfers to anti-woke culture, because of its 'equal but opposite' response to everything woke. This inevitably leads to withholding decency, compassion and fairness from people by immutable characteristics and group membership sometimes. Furthermore, over time, because of its lazy reactionary posture, anti-woke has also developed into an increasingly conformist and predictable movement, and it has become effectively as unwelcoming of independent thinking as woke culture itself. Hence, anti-woke culture has replicated the two biggest errors of woke culture, i.e. the lack of independent thinking, and the normalization of dehumanizing people based on group membership.

The problems of anti-woke culture, and its ongoing association with elements of the authoritarian right, have led some people to adopt an anti-anti-woke stance in reaction. Anti-anti-woke starts with the position that the anti-woke movement is inherently bad, and whatever points they raise are inherently invalid or even dangerous. The problem with this, however, is that it leads to deliberately ignoring the problems brought by woke culture, and hence the normalization of these problems. This means that anti-anti-woke is basically complicit in the normalization of dehumanizing people based on group membership, and the erosion of the Enlightenment values of freedom of conscience, independent thinking and objectivity. Even if there are problems with the anti-woke movement, the answer is clearly not to ignore or suppress whatever they say.

The examples of anti-woke and anti-anti-woke demonstrate how taking a reactionary or oppositional stance is ultimately counter-productive. This is why it is better to go back to the roots of where woke culture went wrong, and address those problems directly. This way, we can be constructive rather than reactive. As I previously said, woke culture basically turned the desire for social justice into its opposite, through the application of theories rooted in postmodernism and critical theory. The way to stop this happening is to prevent those passionate about social justice from embracing these theories, and we can do that by upholding what I call the core post-woke values: decency, fairness and genuineness. By emphasizing these values, we can shine a light on how postmodernism and critical theory are flawed worldviews at their core, and hence begin to undo the problems that woke culture brought.