Building the Future Liberal Coalition | TaraElla Report Lab

Why Dave Rubin is Wrong, and Liberals Don't Need to Move Right

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about where I want to see liberalism go in its future development, and how those of us who believe in free speech, free debate and a healthy marketplace of ideas can advance these values in our current context. As I said before, there is still a lot of work to do if we want to make our Western democracies truly liberal, and the new media age that is just beginning provides both opportunities and challenges. Therefore, having the correct strategy to navigate this landscape is important.

In recent years, there has been a lot of debate about whether 'the Left' or 'the Right' is a more suitable ally for liberals. Traditionally, liberalism has been seen as a force of the Left, broadly speaking. In the past century, liberals have acted to improve the social safety net, bring about civil rights reforms, and protest the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, as part of the 'Left' political coalition, and these achievements are very cherished by many of us. However, in the past decade, some factions of the Left have turned against core pillars of liberalism like free speech, anti-identitarian universalism and scientific objectivity, which has caused many liberals to repeatedly doubt our place and our future in the 'Left' coalition.

In light of our increasing tension with some parts of the Left, some people on the Right have repeatedly tried to woo us to move into the Right, with some success. Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report, who famously made the 'Why I Left the Left' video, has in recent years become much more comfortable identifying himself as part of the Right, and he apparently thinks we should all do the same. Commenting on Bill Maher's increasing frustration with the Left, Rubin recently said that old school JFK-style liberals should now consider themselves the moderate part of the conservative movement, and they need to be willing to stop voting for Democrats and start voting for conservative Republicans like Ted Cruz and Glenn Youngkin.

From what I see, Rubin appears to be advocating that we take a side, the 'Right' side of politics, and stick to it consistently, including at the ballot box. Rubin certainly looks like he has found a comfortable home on the Right. The problem is that, people like Rubin don't seem to be critical enough of the illiberal elements within the Right, even as they are clearly gaining ground. Seeing this development, I certainly don't share Rubin's optimism about the Right as a good home for liberals going into the future. Besides, politics is not just about free speech and taking a stand against critical theory. It is also about the climate, health care, economic policy, and many other things. And I doubt many liberals (including myself) can ever be comfortable with the conservative stance on these matters. While we can find common ground with conservatives and work together on free speech and taking a stand against critical theory, there's no reason why we should have to give up our values and beliefs in other areas of policy that are just as important.

I agree that liberals should probably stop thinking of ourselves as being on 'the Left' on every issue automatically. But that doesn't mean we should all move to the Right. Instead, what I advocate for is a holistic liberal movement that transcends party lines and ideological factions. A holistic liberalism needs to be broad enough to respond to, and potentially be changed in the process, by critics on both sides, so sticking to one side or another isn't the correct choice. Instead, the future coalition of liberalism should be broad enough to allow both left-leaning and right-leaning people to thrive within it, bringing their diverse perspectives to the table, challenging us to think harder about how to expand the scope of freedom and how to make the marketplace of ideas better all the time. This necessarily means there won't be unity at the ballot box. A free-thinking community of liberals shouldn't expect or demand this kind of conformity anyway. A genuinely liberal movement can't be committed to serving a political faction or party, or it will cease to be genuinely liberal.

Therefore, I think the future coalition of liberalism should not be concerned about agreement on matters of electoral politics at all. Individual liberals should be encouraged to make their own decisions at the ballot box, we should respect each other's free conscience, and that should be it. Instead, there are many other matters that require urgent attention, where we will be able to advance the core values of liberalism far better than by engaging in electoral politics. Examples include developing solutions to cure the ills of social media, demanding changes to how mainstream media operates, fixing the imbalance of perspectives in certain parts of academia, and so on. Engaging with these issues is difficult but necessary. A new liberal coalition that focuses on these issues will need to be comfortable about the fact that we might have different views when it comes to various social and economic matters, and we might support different political parties or vote differently from each other as a result. But it will be built on the common ground of being committed to free speech, free debate, and wanting to make the marketplace of ideas freer and fairer. And that's already plenty of common ground to work on.

We Need To Talk About The Illiberal Right | TaraElla Report Lab

How the rise of the illiberal right reflects the failures of liberalism

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about an increasingly important issue: the rise of the illiberal right. In the past few years, I have been talking a lot about threats to liberalism coming from the Left. However, there has also been a growing movement of illiberalism within the Right, that has become, in my opinion, big enough to warrant serious attention from those of us who worry about the erosion of liberalism. I think that, going forward, we should be giving equal attention to the illiberal right and the illiberal left alike. After all, the last thing we want is for illiberalism to take over both sides of mainstream politics.

Let's talk about the appeal of the illiberal right. Why are people attracted to the illiberal right? To be honest, I think their message actually resonates with a lot of people. The illiberal right likes to talk about how liberalism has failed because it has led to a landscape of broken families, social problems, and collapse of tradition, and many people are finding that talk attractive. I think that the rise of the illiberal right reflects some fundamental failures of liberalism, failures that I believe we must seriously address if we are to stop the growth of the illiberal right. These failures can be divided between the failures of libertarians, and the failures of progressive liberals, because they belong to completely different categories, but when added together they represent one big frustration towards liberalism for many people. It is this frustration that the illiberal right is capitalizing on.

Let's start with the libertarians, one of the two main branches that descended from 19th century liberalism. Conventional libertarianism has been generally very good with free speech and civil rights issues. Libertarians have never had a problem with people expressing their sincerely held opinions, whatever they might be. However, the core criticism of the illiberal right towards libertarians is that their excessive commitment to capitalist economics has contributed to a landscape of broken families and social problems, and I think this is, unfortunately, true. Liberalism is about freedom, including the freedom to choose to live the life you believe in. However, if the economic circumstances make it not quite possible to build a healthy family life, can we still say that there is this freedom of choice? The problem with conventional libertarianism is that, in many cases, it leads to a situation where there is freedom of choice when you have the money. Otherwise, you might find it difficult to even fulfill your basic needs, which for many people would include providing a healthy life for their families. This would indeed discredit the idea of liberalism for many, if not most, people.

Now, let's look at progressive liberals, the other main branch descended from 19th century liberalism. Progressive liberals have always advocated for a strong social safety net, which would greatly ease the economic pressure of living in a capitalist society for working families. This could be attractive to some of the people who would otherwise be inclined towards the illiberal right. Indeed, during the 2019 US Presidential primaries, many conservative-leaning people expressed interest in ideas like a UBI, Medicare For All, and a higher minimum wage. However, progressive liberals don't exactly have a good record on free speech, and this is a real barrier for many people. Liberalism is only credible when it truly commits to fair and neutral process, and to a level playing field between ideas and opinions. You do not need to agree with the opinion expressed, but you have to allow people to truly express what their conscience says, and you have to allow the debate to play out fairly. Under the influence of various postmodern critical theories, the Left has increasingly moved away from this commitment, and I think it's a mistake. The illiberal left is also directly fueling the rise of the illiberal right, because, when there's not much room for rational and fair debate in good faith, everything quickly descends into a game of grabbing power and wielding it against your enemies. Notice how the illiberal right likes to essentially use the rise of the illiberal left to justify its own illiberalism. It really is a vicious circle.

My conclusion from this analysis is that, to stem the rising tide of the illiberal right, I think there needs to be a serious discussion about what liberalism stands for, and how we can make liberalism credible again, in the context of the 21st century. I think we need to return to the roots of liberalism, i.e. freedom. We need a liberalism that is committed to providing practical freedom for people, in the real world they live in. Economically, this is likely to require moving away from the neoliberal model. Socially, there is going to be a need to re-emphasize fundamental values like free speech, freedom of conscience, and the value of open and rational debate, so traditional and new ideas alike can be on a level playing field. On both ends, there will be a need to move away from long-standing de-facto alliances that are strangling us, and this will take courage. But I believe it's the only way to save liberalism.