How Critical Theory is Challenging Liberty from Both Sides | Lib Lib Report

On the Common Roots of the Illiberal Right and the Illiberal Left

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 looking for more libertarian solutions moving towards the future.

Recently, I have been talking quite a lot about the similarities between the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right. Today, I want to go deeper into exploring this similarity. We might even find out that they are basically the same thing, to a great extent.

Let's start with this quote: "Conservatives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Progressives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral."

Sounds like something written by a critical theory inspired illiberal Left activist, right? In fact, it's a quote taken from Sohrab Ahmari's famous 2019 article 'Against David French-ism', with 'conservatives' and 'progressives' switched around. The rest of that article also contains themes often found in critical theory-sympathetic texts, like how liberal neutrality is ultimately impossible and will eventually lead to your enemies taking away your freedom. In other words, Ahmari and his fellow travelers actually think like the critical theory Left, but in reverse. Call it the critical turn in conservatism, if you like.

And this resemblance is no accident either. At least some of the people in the illiberal Right have a history of being on the Left, where they are likely to have encountered the critical theory worldview. Ahmari himself admitted to having studied and 'adored' critical theories in college, in his recent article 'The problem with anti-woke liberals' (Unheard, 2022). In that article, he also called the 'marketplace of ideas' a liberal idol. Again, this sounds exactly like something that an ardent supporter of critical theory might have written. What I think is, Ahmari and people like him never really left the critical theory worldview behind when they left the Left, they simply turned it around to serve the Right's political goals now that they have become disillusioned with the Left. Therefore, much of the illiberal Right could be basically an inverted version of the illiberal Left.

The worrying thing about the illiberal Right is that, like the illiberal Left, they are beginning the influence real world events. And the kind of influence is similar too: curtailing free speech, and using raw power to override the market. The recent plight of Disney in Florida illustrates this point. In the beginning, they were just going about their business, when the state passed the 'Parental Rights in Education' legislation, also commonly referred to as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. Some on the Left were unhappy that Disney didn't speak up against it at first, despite opposing the legislation. This eventually led to the Florida Democratic Party canceling plans to hold their fundraiser at Disney World, after some people threatened to boycott the event.

Afterwards, Disney publicly took a position against the legislation, which angered the Right and led to calls to boycott them from the Right. Going even further, the Republican administration and congress eventually decided to take action to punish Disney, by revoking arrangements granted to them many decades ago, the House passing the legislation in less than five minutes with no debate, despite potential for massive job losses and as well as greatly increased and inefficient government. All this for a company having a stance on a piece of legislation! This was clearly a case of using unchecked state power to punish legal, private speech, with likely adverse consequences on the people too.

If all this is a glimpse into what an illiberal society will look like in the future, I am truly afraid. Everything is politicized, not taking a position is subject to punishment, and taking a position, any position, is also subject to punishment. The illiberal dystopia is basically a place where everyone has to walk on eggshells all the time, or else they might become collateral damage of the culture wars. If the illiberals on both or either side win, free speech and freedom of conscience will basically become history. It's why we must work hard to uphold liberalism, and push back against both the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right. Knowing that they are both products of the power-obsessed critical theory worldview allows us to effectively argue against both at the same time, using basically the same arguments, and standing on the same principles.

On Tribalism: Conservative Homophobia and Progressive Avoidance of CRT | Lib Lib Report

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 looking for more libertarian solutions moving towards the future.

In this episode, I want to talk about political tribalism making people unable to face the problems on their own side of politics. I believe that the ideal of a free society should include people being able to think independently and look at things objectively at all times, and not feel pressured to stay silent when things go wrong. Sadly, we are clearly not there yet. I will use the example of homophobia in conservative circles and the avoidance of the critical race theory debate in progressive circles to illustrate the problem.

Recently, when conservative commentator Dave Rubin announced that he was starting a family with his husband, it was quite controversially received in conservative circles. Some people even said some horribly homophobic things (that I won't repeat here). Others were surprised at the intensity of the reaction within the Right. After all, almost every Western country has gay marriage nowadays, and a recent poll showed that a large majority of Americans, including a slim majority of Republicans, now supported marriage equality. But then, it is clear that society does not move in the direction of freedom at the same pace, and some people remain quite behind the times on this issue. It is also not the only time conservatives had a negative reaction to LGBT people on their own side: last year, when Caitlyn Jenner ran for governor in California, some conservatives reacted quite badly too.

The mixed reaction to Rubin's announcement led to a discussion, on both the Left and the Right, as to whether there remains a serious problem of homophobia on the Right. As expected, the Left basically unanimously nailed the Right as homophobic, which also linked into their view that Rubin made the wrong choice in moving to the Right. Meanwhile, many on the Right, who are clearly not anti-gay themselves, nevertheless seemed to feel the need to downplay the problem on their side, putting the reaction down to a niche faction within the Right that didn't represent mainstream conservatism. I guess the truth is somewhere in between. But the point is, people are clearly more interested in attacking the opposite side or defending their own side, rather than seeking the truth of the matter, and thinking about what we might be able to do to make things better.

Now, let's talk about how progressive liberals have basically avoided talking about critical race theory (CRT). While CRT has been a hot topic of conversation in America and several other Western countries, mainstream progressives seem to have avoided dealing with the substance of the topic. For example, while conservatives argue against CRT and the Theory Left argue for CRT, based on what CRT actually is, many progressives would choose to instead talk about how conservative attempts to 'ban CRT' from schools are having adverse impacts on free speech and the teaching of accurate history to students. Don't get me wrong, I agree with quite a lot of these criticisms too, to the point where I believe that government action to 'ban CRT' is basically illiberal and counterproductive. However, none of this takes away from the fact that CRT, and other associated critical theories, are increasingly influencing the mainstream culture of the West, and this has serious implications for our future, because certain commitments of CRT are clearly incompatible with liberal democracy.

I guess the reluctance of progressive liberals to seriously deal with CRT is because they feel conflicted. I'm sure that many of them have serious concerns about CRT and its associated ideas too. However, they don't want to cede any ground to conservatives by speaking up about it. It's like how many pro-LGBT conservatives privately concede that their side still has a homophobia problem. However, they downplay it to avoid giving any ground to progressives. In both cases, it is tribalism that is preventing people from following their own conscience, and speaking up on what they see is wrong. This is why it's important to prevent tribalism in our thinking, and support the culture of free speech that encourages free thought.

The Liberal Libertarian Alternative: An Introduction | Lib Lib Report

Welcome to the new Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report. In this first episode, I want to explain what liberal libertarianism is, and what this show is going to be about. Let's start here. Liberalism, in a broad pro-liberty sense, is losing ground to illiberal critical theory-based movements on the Left, as well as illiberal populist forms of conservatism on the Right. Given that classical liberal values are fundamental to the social contract of the post-Enlightenment West, I believe that if we let liberalism fall, the consensus behind Western society as we know it will basically collapse, and much that we hold dear will disappear forever. Therefore, it is certainly an urgent priority that we act to save liberalism. But what should we do?

Right Now, Liberalism Lacks a Grand Vision

I think the biggest reason why liberalism has suffered is because it is seen to lack a longer term vision. Much of contemporary liberal discourse is very pragmatic, i.e. it seeks to resolve issues in the here and now, using solutions that are aimed at respecting individual liberty and equality as much as possible. However, there is almost no vision of arriving at a better destination eventually. Contrast this to both the critical theory Left and the populist Right, which promise their supporters the possibility of a different world. While a true liberalism can never, and should never be utopian, I think we should still offer a vision, where we can reach a different, better world in the longer term. This longer term vision would, in turn, provide stronger justification for choosing the liberal path in the here and now.

So what long term vision, what kind of long term destination, should a robust 21st century liberal politics offer? This is what I want to explore next. But let's detour a bit and take a look at my early political development, and how I chose between liberalism and libertarianism.

The Possible Liberalism vs The Impossible Libertarianism

When I was in college, I had the idea that, if I were to start a political party, I would call it the 'Liberal Libertarian Party'. I liked parts of libertarianism and liberalism, because, after all, both were dedicated to increasing individual liberty. At first, I thought that libertarianism was grander in its vision, which was why I was more attracted to it. But about a year later, especially in the context of an election, I came to realize that libertarianism wasn't practically going to win any time soon, and we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Back then, my top two priorities were ending the 'War on Terror' and legalizing the freedom to marry for gay couples. And I saw clearly that liberalism, rather than libertarianism, was the only hope for delivering these things in the foreseeable future. And so, I became mostly a pragmatic liberal from that point onwards.

Libertarian politics, in the conventional sense, has always been a hard sell. Even 20 years ago, when people most commonly identified as 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative', libertarianism still had few supporters. And it's not for no good reason either. Conventional libertarians are almost always 'immediatists', i.e. if they had a chance to govern they would cut the size of the government to the absolute minimum at the first opportunity. This could have a lot of undesirable, perhaps even dangerous, effects on society, some of them even likely to be unforeseeable or unpredictable. Conventional libertarians often don't care too much about this, because libertarianism cares more about first principles than practical consequences. However, the average voter out there, whose priority is usually a stable and secure life, often first see an unfamiliar set of policies as a potential wrecking ball if allowed into government. And immediatist libertarianism, let's be honest, does sound like a wrecking ball to most voters. Hence, they are never going to vote libertarian, no matter how libertarians frame their message.

Besides the practical pitfalls of an 'immediatist' libertarian politics, there is also the pragmatic consideration of electoral competitiveness. Right now, the West has a major problem of worsening economic inequality, and both the critical theory Left and the populist Right are calling for a more robust economic safety net. The challenges of the last two years has further increased the common desire for a stronger safety net. If libertarians continue to call for cutting government programs across the board, because of ideological reasons, it is certainly going to sound tone deaf. The trouble with this kind of ideological stubborness is that, it has practical consequences in the real world. It means illiberal forces that promise to deliver what the people want will gain ground instead, leading us to a more illiberal future. I believe the most important thing about participating in politics is a sense of responsibility for the consequences one's decisions might have on people's lives in the future. Ideological purity that might lead to future disaster certainly sounds irresponsible to me.

Pragmatic Liberalism Plus Long Term Libertarianism?

The impracticality of libertarian immediatism means that we are left with the choice of practicing a pragmatic liberalism for now. This would include defending free speech vigorously, encouraging free and independent thinking, promoting and protecting civil liberties, and safeguarding the freedom of individuals from being trampled on by the tyranny of the majority. By extension, I also believe in advocating for objective science-based policies, and a peace-orientated approach to international relations. I have said a lot about the aforementioned goals over the years. However, a liberalism that is only ever concerned about pragmatic problems in the here and now lacks the grand long term vision, which means it has a deficit in passion, and in particular makes it much less attractive to more idealistic people.

This is where a kind of long term libertarian goal comes in. Liberal libertarianism aims to combine the practice of pragmatic liberalism, perhaps with some libertarian influences, in the here and now, with having a longer term goal of moving towards a much more libertarian society. What liberal libertarianism recognizes is that, right now, the immediate application of a typical libertarian platform could actually harm individual liberty in many cases, given the long-standing social and economic structure of society. A pragmatic liberalism therefore best serves individual liberty in the here and now. However, liberal libertarianism also recognizes that, given the rapid development of technology, automation, and new social practices enabled by technology like crowdsourcing, mutual aid and the new sharing economy, there is indeed scope to move in a much more libertarian direction in the longer run, especially when the aforementioned developments become much more mature. Therefore, while liberal libertarians are basically pragmatic liberals in the here and now, they have also not given up on the libertarian dream in the longer term.

Don't get me wrong. Liberal libertarianism is certainly not just liberals who daydream about a libertarian utopia in the distant future. The existence of the long term 'libertarian destination' in our roadmap actually influences policy orientations in the here and now. For example, the underlying long term goal of moving towards a decentralized society would justify the choice of more decentralized and market-based mechanisms when deciding how we might strengthen our social safety net. A universal basic income (UBI) scheme could be one way of doing that, and a liberal libertarian would therefore prefer a UBI over welfare schemes that are means tested or tied to work requirements. A liberal libertarian would also be particularly interested in encouraging the development of decentralized, market-based or market-like systems where individuals could engage in mutually beneficial exchanges, because that could eventually lead to ways to cut the size of the government, without turning power and resources over to big business like conventional privatization schemes do.

What This Show Will Be About

This show will be part of an attempt to build a liberal libertarian worldview and politics. It will be for liberal libertarians and people of other ideologies alike. I hope my ideas can inspire fellow liberal libertarians to think about what could be pragmatically done to address problems in the here and now, how we can have a much more decentralized and free society in the ideal future, and how the two can be linked. Meanwhile, people of other ideologies can hopefully come to appreciate how a liberal libertarian would see the issues, and where there might be opportunities for cooperation, even if we have differences in other areas. The show will discuss news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian perspective on some days, and talk about liberal libertarian philosophy on other days. The show will have episodes that focus on imagining the libertarian future, and how our current choices might help or hinder us in getting there. I'm also going to explore how Moral Libertarianism, i.e. the principle of ensuring equal and maximum moral agency for every individual, can serve as a philosophical bridge between the pragmatic liberalism of the present and the idealistic libertarianism of the future.

How the Illiberal Right and Illiberal Left are Ultimately Similar | TaraElla Report Lab

Or why there are no simple or magical solutions to society's problems

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about how the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right are ultimately similar in an important way: their preference for simple solutions to complex problems. Given the increasing prominence of both in Western politics in the past decade, I think it is an important thing to address.

As liberals, we believe in the importance of having a functioning and healthy marketplace of ideas. Our commitment to free speech, free debate, and freedom of action as long as it does not harm other people, are all basically rooted in our commitment to the marketplace of ideas. The reason we believe in the marketplace of ideas is because we don't believe any one individual or group of people can have all the best solutions for the problems we face. In fact, this is almost impossible, because of the complexity of the problems themselves. No individual or group can have all the information they need to solve everything effectively. Besides, even if they have all the information, there is no guarantee that they would come up with the best solutions. Life is a process of trial and error, and allowing competing views and solutions to play out is the only way we can know which ones are more sound.

Another important function of the marketplace of ideas is the negotiation, remixing and sometimes even fusion of ideas and solutions. The best ideas and the most effective solutions are often the result of compromise or fusion. Free debate in the marketplace of ideas allows this process to happen, as long as there is plenty of room for rational and respectful debate. This is why the polarization, division and echo chambers that have characterized the past decade should be a major concern for any true liberal.

In contrast to liberals, neither the illiberal Left nor the illiberal Right have any time for the marketplace of ideas. It is from this that they reject things like free speech. What the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right have in common is that they don't see, or rather refuse to see, the complexity of our problems, the vast amount of factors that interplay in various issues, and the fact that life is often a trial and error process. This is why they believe their simple solutions will magically work to resolve everything. For the illiberal Left, the magic solution is blindly opposing and deconstructing all aspects of the status quo, and remaking society using their theories. For the illiberal Right, the magic solution is to force society to return to a previous state, even if at the cost of trampling on freedom, democracy, and long standing standards of decency and compassion. There is no reason to expect these all-encompassing solutions to work well at all, but the fact that they haven't been tried yet seem to be enough justification for keeping the faith in both cases.

The problem with the attitude of both the illiberal Left and the illiberal Right is that they don't seem to have any use for historical lessons, rationality or logic. While rational thinking would demonstrate the errors in their way of thinking, and history also provides plenty of evidence against their views, for the illiberal faithful, all this don't seem to be able to penetrate their worldview. Therefore, what they have is actually blind faith. It is blind faith, rooted in a kind of reality-defying romanticism, that is sustaining the current surge of illiberalism in the West. I believe that, the more we point this out, the sooner people can wake up from this.