The Problem with... Libertarian Immediatism

It is responsible for killing all hope for freedom and peace

Today, I'm going to talk about the problem with libertarian immediatism. Firstly, what is libertarian immediatism? It is the strand of libertarianism that strives to achieve libertarian conditions immediately. For example, libertarian immediatists often strive to cut government massively right now, and insist on this as their first policy priority. Libertarian immediatism has been the loudest, and hence most well-known, version of libertarianism in the past half a century. In fact, many people probably have not heard of the other form, libertarian gradualism. This is why libertarianism strikes most people as extreme and impractical almost by definition.

So what is the problem with libertarian immediatism? Put it simply, it has gotten us nowhere near achieving more liberty, or fulfilling the non-aggression principle. Firstly, the impractical nature of libertarian immediatist demands have turned many practical minded people away from libertarianism. This has profound implications. For example, the lack of credibility of libertarianism among many moderates means that they could become less likely to listen to the case for things from enthusiastically safeguarding free speech, to market-based solutions for climate change, to a non-aggressive approach to policy both at home and abroad more generally. The weakness of libertarianism means its opposite prevails in practice, and we certainly don't want that.

Recently, I have come to appreciate that reform and change needs to be based on practical need rather than abstract philosophy. This is basically what genuine conservative philosophy (as opposed to reactionary thinking) has to teach progressives, and progressives of all persuasions would do well to learn this lesson. Given that libertarianism is by definition a progressive philosophy, I believe libertarians would do well to heed this lesson. If they did, they would at least stop squabbling over whether we should abolish driver's licenses, or whether the fire department can be privatized. The endless talk over these theoretical issues, that have nothing to do with people's everyday lives, is making many people skeptical of libertarian philosophy, and rightly so.

Moreover, libertarian immediatist policies like cutting government massively right now have many unwanted social consequences. Libertarian immediatists are generally totally non-consequentialist in their philosophy, but most people actually judge ideas in part by the consequences they bring. Most people are going to judge a set of policies that could put many people into immediate poverty, as well as raise the crime rate massively, pretty negatively. If libertarianism is to find real popular support, it must become practical. And to become practical, we must abandon libertarian immediatism. There really is no other way.

The Compassionate Case Against Postmodern Radicalism

Someone has to hold the postmodern radicals accountable for harming disadvantaged minorities

In this series, I attempt to build a philosophy of compassion, and to robustly justify and defend the concept of compassion. I believe that compassion is the driver of a reformist politics, and it is the best way to prevent a movement from turning impractical or reactionary.

In the last two episodes, I have been making the case that compassion bolsters objectivity and free speech. There's actually another essential ingredient of healthy political discourse that compassion can bolster: a willingness to compromise. Recently, I talked about the need to bring back a willingness to compromise, particularly on the progressive side of politics, and the need to argue against the postmodern critical theory worldview to successfully achieve this. It turns out that compassion can help us out here. Today, I will make the compassionate case against the postmodern-crit worldview, and the compassionate case for a more compromising approach to social justice.

Let's start with the basics first: those on the radical postmodern left often like to say that they are intolerant of social injustice, implying that we moderates don't have a backbone. However, it is the practical results that matter, and the results of radical activism inspired by postmodern theory speak for themselves. The radicals have brought massive backlash to the communities and the causes they supposedly support, and enabled the rise of a very reactionary form of culture war politics. I believe they should be held accountable for the harm this has led to. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the radicals' refusal to acknowledge this reality. If the radicals insist on refusing to change course in light of what's been happening in the past five years, I think we can fairly accuse them of having no compassion at all.

If only more progressive-minded people understood the goals of the postmodern critical theory worldview, and the implications of their approach, they would be a lot more concerned about it. The crits' approach doesn't bring any practical improvements to the lives of the people they say they want to help, because it is not supposed to do that. Instead, the crits' approach is about heightening the conflicts between supposed 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' groups in society, to demonstrate that the status quo is untenable, and also unreformable. Imagine this: if the lives of disadvantaged groups improved, wouldn't it lessen inter-group conflict in society, lessen the feeling of oppression, and demonstrate that the status quo is indeed reformable? The most committed crits certainly don't want this to happen. This is why their actions, from making unreasonable demands and refusing to compromise, to alienating large sections of society, are designed to make practical reform impossible. Only when reform is denied will there be ongoing, heightened conflict that destabilizes the existing system. To achieve this, the crits are essentially willing to throw long-suffering and vulnerable minorities under the bus. And most honest people on the far-left are clear that their plans for 'revolutionary change' won't happen for several decades at least. This effectively means that they are willing to condemn long-suffering and vulnerable minorities to heightened conflict and suffering for at least two generations. Think hard about this.

When a compassionate person, who wants to improve the lives of long-suffering people as soon as possible, begins to truly understand all this, they would naturally be overcome with a feeling of frustration, maybe even anger (as I certainly did a few years ago). However, the more useful thing to do would be to turn all this into motivation to take action, to end the crits' influence in progressive circles, by forcefully arguing against their harmful ideas and methods. The crits certainly aren't intolerant of social injustice. Instead, their actions show that they are clearly willing to see even more injustice happen, as long as it benefits their movement. On the other hand, us moderates, or practical progressives, aim to gradually improve things for long-suffering minorities, by a process of gradual reformism, with all the compromises that entails. While it might not be perfect, it would bring relief to people's lives as soon as possible, and gradually make things even better over time too. Anyone who understands that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good should understand the need to compromise in order to achieve results. This is why those who are truly compassionate, and hence truly don't want to see the prolongation of injustice and suffering, should be more than willing to make reasonable compromises to move things in a better direction.

Rebuilding the Sensible Center

 

Getting Old School Liberals On Board is the Key

In a healthy society, a practical progressivism and a moderate, thoughtful conservatism act to complement each other, so that moderate, useful reforms can be achieved, and social order and harmony can be maintained while gradually making things better for everyone. In this case, the progressive impulse seeks to improve things, particularly for previously overlooked, marginalized demographics, and the conservative input ensures that any reform would be practical rather than abstract, consistent with the spirit of long-standing traditions, and includes adequate compromise to satisfy the concerns of various stakeholders.

The problem with the Western political landscape right now is that, moderate, practical progressives are bullied into silence by hardline revolutionaries who want the total deconstruction of the status quo, and moderate, practical conservatives are bullied into silence by hardline reactionaries who want to turn back the clock, breaking long-standing rules and institutions if necessary. The extremists on both sides hold that it is weak to compromise, and want no less than total victory over the other side, and also over the moderate center. The dominance of the extremists and the silencing of the moderates makes compromise impossible to achieve, and leads to endless stalemate, frustration, and further polarization. The only way to get out of this situation is for moderates to reassert themselves, so that the healthy situation of practical progressives working together with moderate conservatives can be restored. Contrary to what the extremists say, it is actually the bravest thing to do to demand that everybody compromise. On the other hand, it would be an act of irresponsible cowardice for moderates on both sides to continue to let the extremists march forward unchecked.

To change things, we need to break the cycle of polarization, unwillingness to compromise, and hence further polarization somewhere. I believe the best place to start is with old school liberals. After all, things only started to become this way since postmodern critical theory began having mainstream influence in progressive politics. This is not to say that the reactionaries are not themselves as unwilling to compromise, and hence just as much a part of the problem. However, before the 'crits' came along, liberal progressivism was on a winning streak, and even many conservatives were softening their opposition to things like LGBT rights and a more secular politics. Some were even willing to accept some action on climate change. The reactionaries certainly didn't like any of this, but they were increasingly losing the argument to moderate conservatives. It wasn't until the crits sparked a backlash with their insistence on mainstreaming ideas from postmodern critical theory, and its attitude of refusing to compromise at all, that reactionaries began to win support and momentum. Right now, extreme reactionaries often argue within their own side of politics that, since the 'left' won't compromise, the 'right' shouldn't either, or else the 'left', in reference to the far-left postmodern-crit faction, would win everything. Like it or not, this argument has been picking up support on the right. The only way to put a stop to this is to bring back compromise on the progressive side of politics. This is the circuit breaker we need right now.

To win liberal, progressive-minded people back to the idea that compromise is good, we need to argue against the postmodern-critical worldview, which sees speech and discourse as power, and sees society as divided into 'oppressors' and 'oppressed' along multiple intersecting identity axes. This worldview inevitably leads to seeing those who disagree with you as evil, rather than just misguided. It also leads to seeing refusal to compromise as refusal to give into oppression and hence heroic, which is a wrong and dangerous idea. Instead, we need to bring back the old-school liberal view that refusing to compromise is either extreme, impractical or simply shooting yourself in the foot. To get progressive people to compromise for the sake of achieving practical reforms again, we need to comprehensively defeat the postmodern critical theory worldview in the marketplace of ideas.

If the argument for compromise is won on the 'progressive' side, it would also put pressure on the 'conservative' side of politics to start compromising again. When most progressives are clearly reasonable reformists who are willing to compromise, it would make uncompromising reactionaries look like the extremists they actually are. This would lead to the reactionaries losing ground, and moderate conservatives winning the arguments on the 'right' again, which would complete the restoration of the sensible center.

Why Freedom Needs Practical Progressives and Moderate Conservatives

This combination allows practical reform without ideological obsession

Recently, I've been talking about the conditions that promote, or hinder, freedom. Focusing on abstract ideas is bad for freedom. Aiming for practical solutions for real world problems is good for freedom. Tribalism is bad for freedom. Commitment to objectivity and rationality is good for freedom, as is commitment to building and maintaining a good order in society. Finally, compassion is also good for freedom, because it helps maintain other pro-freedom conditions, like objectivity, and prevent anti-freedom conditions, like tribalism. The goal, of course, is to move society towards the things that are conducive to freedom, and away from the things that are harmful for freedom.

I think we can tie the aforementioned observations into an overall outlook. I would call this the practical progressive outlook. It is practical because it is centered on practical problem solving. That is, we would focus on practical solutions to resolve problems and improve things in the real world, and avoid being tied down by abstract philosophy and theory. Looking at the bigger picture, we would aim to ensure that the social order actually serves the needs of all, and aim to gradually improve everyone's ability to pursue a good life over time. Overall, I think it is actually very similar to the original aspirations of the classical liberals from the past.

----

Firstly, practical means not being tied down by ideology. Classical liberals like John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill had a belief in freedom, and guiding values and principles stemming from this belief. But beyond this, they were not overly ideological, because that would hinder freedom itself. Classical liberals also understood that life is not perfect, and they would never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The institutions built by followers of classical liberal thinking were designed to promote freedom in a practical way, rather than to bring about an imagined utopia. Such institutions were also practically built with the need for people to compromise in mind. In contrast, some parts of the contemporary Western left, under the influence of postmodern critical theory, believe that seeing everything in oppressor vs. oppressed terms, trying to deconstruct every aspect of language and culture, mindlessly challenging traditional norms beyond actually demonstrable need, and refusing to compromise, would magically lead to some kind of utopia on Earth. This is clearly ideological and not practical. The results also speak for themselves: confusion over what social justice is, backlash to the concept of social justice itself, and a general rise in reactionary sentiment is what this ideology has brought. A practical progressivism will be able to stop and reverse all this, just by being, well, practical. It's time to throw away all the postmodern theory, and look at what could be done to resolve problems and improve things in the real world.

We would also need to get over, or at least tame, the tribalist and adversarial nature of Western politics. As I recently demonstrated, 'left' and 'right' are arbitrary linguistic constructs, and treating them as real categories would just lead to more tribalism and irrationality, as well as a focus on the abstract rather than the practical. While 'progressive' and 'conservative' are often thought of as opposed to each other, this is actually an illusion caused by tribalism. Conservatism, as properly understood in the Burkean, philosophical sense, is not opposed to all change, but only radical change that is rooted in abstract ideas, that are alien to a given society's traditions. There is a good reason for this: change that is rooted in abstract philosophy rather than practical needs, especially if it is alien to the traditions of a given society, is likely to generate chaos, followed by a reactionary response. Hence, Burkean conservatism is basically about saving the progressive impulse from its dark and destructive side. We need to reintegrate the Burkean conservative critique into progressive philosophy itself. This will ensure that any change will be born out of actual need, not philosophical theory. It will also ensure that any change will aim to build on our long-standing traditions, rather than be part of a misguided attempt to deconstruct everything and rebuild everything from scratch. Indeed, a combination of Burkean conservatism and the compassion driven desire to improve conditions for everyone, would make a very good foundation for a reformist politics.

On a related note, I really need to emphasize that to be practical inherently means being constructively reformist, and opposing attempts to burn eveything to the ground and start over again, in the misguided hopes of reaching some magical utopia. The realistic among us would understand that the world is not perfect, and can never be. Creating utopia on Earth is not possible, and attempting to do so will only lead to unnecessary misery and suffering. If you think about things practically, it is easy to understand that the odds of getting something good out of burning everything to the ground and starting from scratch is pretty low. This alone is more than enough reason to oppose such schemes of revolutionary change. Also, if you don't build on the traditions of a given society, all you are left with is trying to build a society upon abstract ideas, philosophy and theory, which we know is inevitably going to be inhumane and bad for freedom.

Why Compassion is Important in the Defense of Free Speech

Some often overlooked but important arguments

In this series, I attempt to build a philosophy of compassion, and to robustly justify and defend the concept of compassion. I believe that compassion is the driver of a reformist politics, and it is the best way to prevent a movement from turning impractical or reactionary.

Today, I am going to argue that compassion plays a key role in the maintenance of freedom, and the values that support freedom, like free speech. After all, one of the major arguments against morally coercive authoritarians is that they don't always get their morality right, despite their hubris, and their attempts to impose their moral positions on others is therefore harmful and oppressive. Moral libertarianism, then, is justified on the ethical principle of 'do no harm'. This argument is under appreciated in the contemporary West, and I think we should use it more.

As I said last time, the sentiment of pitting compassion against rationality, as seen in the rise of slogans like 'facts don't care about your feelings', have contributed to the erosion of freedom over the past decade. While I've long argued that values like free speech are made meaningful by our commitment to objectivity and rationality, the values of freedom can actually be derived from compassion too. For example, free speech itself can be justified by compassion. If you truly care about other people, you would want to at least listen to what they have to say in full. If you have at least a bit of empathy for other people, you would also not support a public campaign to vilify, punish and cancel them just because of something they have said. Therefore, compassion bolsters the case for free speech, and also strengthens the case against cancel culture.

At this point, you might counter-argue that so-called safe speech practices are argued on the basis of compassion too. The fact is, the argument for 'safe speech' on the grounds of compassion is both ultimately faulty, and not entirely honest. It is faulty because it is ultimately not compassionate to tell minorities they have to seek refuge in safe spaces, while refusing to have the difficult debates that will ultimately bring respect, acceptance and equality to such minorities. The avoidance of debate also makes reform more difficult to achieve, which ultimately hurts minorities too. Finally, the kind of morally coercive authoritarianism inherent in rejecting free speech is simply incompatible with being truly compassionate, if you look at the whole picture. Furthermore, we should recognize that 'safe speech' is actually a product of postmodern critical theory influence, and hence not rooted in pure compassion.

Part of the promise of classical liberalism is the ability for individuals to pursue happiness. This is reflected in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', and also in John Stuart Mill's utilitarian argument for liberalism. Given the importance of happiness and utility in the classical liberal cannon, it is a fundamentally important point that a truly liberal society must not arbitrarily deny any individual's opportunity to pursue happiness. Cultural warriors whose aim is to 'own' the opposite tribe and make them suffer, or alternatively to turn the tables of oppression, are therefore by definition anti-liberal. Maintaining compassion helps us with the objective of respecting other people's rights to pursue happiness on their own terms, even when we don't necessarily agree with their views.

Finally, compassion also helps with preventing the conditions where authoritarianism is likely to be enabled, or where freedom is likely to be compromised. For example, tribalism can be prevented to a great extent by compassion and empathy. Also, when you are compassionate, you would not treat people as less important than the fulfillment of abstract ideas, which as I have previously discussed, is almost always bad for freedom.

Why Tribalism is Freedom's Worst Enemy

It leads to an endless spiral towards irrational authoritarianism

The political landscape of the 21st century West is increasingly a battle between moral libertarians and morally coercive authoritarians, and the authoritarians often attempt to take over previously libertarian movements by infiltration and bad arguments. By understanding what conditions are good or bad for freedom, we can avoid the influence of authoritarianism.

Today, I'm going to talk about tribalism, and why it is bad for freedom.

On a common sense level, there are already many reasons why tribalism is bad for freedom. Tribalism inhibits independent thinking, and allows bad ideas to be accepted without critical thinking and vigorous debate. This allows moral authoritarians to push through their policies without the usual level of scrutiny. If tribal echo chambers produce a moral panic, things are even worse, because the overwhelming emotionally-driven demand for immediate action leaves even less time and space for proper scrutiny and debate. This is why, historically, moral panics have always served morally coercive authoritarians well, and as a result caused a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. Tribalism also puts pressure on people to stay in line with the group's consensus, thus having a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of conscience.

On a deeper level, tribalism is incompatible with freedom, because it is incompatible with rationality. Rationality is the best defense against authoritarianism, because it can be used to show why the wannabe authoritarians are objectively less moral. Furthermore, free speech, freedom of conscience and intellectual freedom are conducive to rationality, objectivity and good order, and are logically upheld and cherished when people are committed to these goals. Tribalism makes all this impossible, because when people want their team to win, to 'own' the other side at all costs, they can't be truly committed to rationality and objectivity anymore. Free speech and intellectual freedom aren't always good for 'owning' the other side, and they will naturally be swept aside when they become inconvenient for the culture warriors. This is how tribalism, often in the context of a culture war, allows rationality to be defeated, and morally unsound authoritarianism to win.

All this is actually playing out in real life, in the contemporary Western political landscape. In the 2010s, a form of left-wing moral coercion rooted in postmodern critical theory went mainstream, and the early anti-woke movement was essentially an attempt by moral libertarians to push back. However, later on, organized conservative politics, with a strong morally coercive bent itself, came to hijack at least part of the anti-woke movement. The so-called anti-woke cultural narrative right now consists of both important insights and truths, as well as distortions, conspiracy theories and outright lies. This combination of truths and untruths leads to two things: firstly, it weakens the argument against postmodern critical theory, and hinders the defense of values like free speech as a result. Secondly, some people could come to anti-wokeism because of the truths, and then be hooked by the untruths as well. This is not happening accidentally, it is happening because of tribalism, and the attempts by authoritarian politicians and political parties to take advantage of the tribalism for political gain. The resulting contamination of genuinely rational arguments against postmodernism with culture war garbage leads to an inability to have a proper, intellectually sound debate about postmodernism, which ultimately reinforces the tribalism on all sides. Over time, this will send us all down an endless spiral further and further away from freedom and rationality, and ultimately allow the immoral authoritarians on both sides to win, if we allow things to go on like this.

I hope I have demonstrated why tribalism is the number one enemy of freedom, and needs to be resisted and opposed at all costs. It's like how runaway inflation is not compatible with a good economy. If you tolerate even a bit too much tribalism, we will soon find ourselves in a major recession of freedom, and it will be very difficult to recover from that.

Why Compassion is Important in the Defense of Objectivity

Those who trample on others' feelings risk falling into a subjective rabbit hole

Welcome to a new series, where I attempt to build a philosophy of compassion, and to robustly justify and defend the concept of compassion. I believe that compassion is the driver of a reformist politics, and it is the best way to prevent a movement from turning impractical or reactionary. Today, I'm going to talk about why compassion is fully compatible with rationality and objectivity.

In recent years, there has been a trend towards pitting compassion and rationality against each other. This trend was set into motion by two developments in the previous decade: firstly, there was the hijacking of social justice by the postmodern critical theory movement, which led to the false association of anti-objective philosophical theories with justice for oppressed minorities. This led to the misguided view among some people that compassion and social justice requires less commitment to free speech and objectivity. Secondly, there was the so-called anti-SJW movement, which popularized slogans like 'facts don't care about your feelings'. This led to another misguided view: the more callous one is about feelings, the more factual and objective one gets.

However, both the aforementioned views have no basis in reality at all. There is no incompatibility between being compassionate on one hand, and being committed to objectivity and rationality on the other hand. One can remain committed to the objective truth, and to the values that support this commitment, like free speech and intellectual freedom, without giving up on compassion and empathy. Indeed, I would argue that being compassionate enables one to become even more objective, or at least less prone to culture war-style biases and distortions. This is because, if you are truly compassionate, you would care about people's lives, and you would therefore truly listen to what they have to say. This way, you wouldn't be missing out on important facts, or important sides to a story, as culture warriors living in an echo chamber would, for example. Compassion, empathy and the willingness to listen allows bridges to be built, which allows the whole picture to be seen, and true objectivity and rationality to be achieved. It is the best antidote to the echo chambers that tribalism and the culture wars have created.

On the other hand, it is often the willingness to be callous, the willingness to disregard others' feelings, that enables the loss of objectivity and rationality. I have seen this happen with culture warriors on both sides. On the left, I've seen people get brainwashed by their philosophy, to believe that some people are 'oppressors' because of their immutable characteristics and/or opinions (often taken out of context). On the right, I've seen culture war and moral panic narratives used to demonize certain groups of people, painting them as bad or crazy with a broad brush. Either way, the effect is the dehumanizing of the other, the willingness to automatically dismiss what they have to say, and the willingness to ignore their plight. All this, by definition, leads to loss of objectivity and rationality, because you are no longer seeing the whole picture, and taking everything into account on balance. This, of course, also means that any order arising from this kind of attitude would not be a good order. Indeed, it is likely to be a bad, oppressive order. Someone who refuses to be callous, who is committed to being compassionate towards every fellow human being at all times, would never fall into this trap.

In conclusion, compassion is not only compatible with objectivity and rationality, compassion actually helps ensure we stay objective by making us truly listen to all sides of an argument. On the other hand, it is the decision to forego compassion that allows people to fall down the rabbit hole of subjectivity, via a willingness to trample on others' lives and voices.

Left and Right are Arbitrary Terms that Mean Nothing

Seeing that the tribes are meaningless is one step closer to ending the culture wars

Welcome back to my series of Ideas to End the Culture Wars. Last time, I talked about how the factions involved in the culture war are like the various churches and denominations vying for political power in Europe several hundred years ago, and we could only resolve this conflict by extending the classical liberal separation of philosophical worldview and politics to non-religious cultural issues. This time, I will talk about one way in which the culture war tribes are not exactly like the churches and denominations: they don't even have a coherent, internally consistent worldview.

What do the words 'left' and 'right' actually mean, in the context of our time and place, the early 21st century West? By the standards of objective reality, they actually mean nothing at all. The 'left' tribe has very contradictory elements, like class-first old school socialists who base their whole politics on the working class, as well as elite academia-based postmodernists, whose worldview and beliefs are totally alien to the working class, and they don't even care. Hence the 'left' is pro-working class and anti-working class at the same time. The 'right' tribe is arguably even more contradictory. I once had a friend who told me that the 'right' was for freedom. The further 'right', the more freedom, she argued. How then would you explain 'postliberal' thinkers like Patrick Deneen, Ron DeSantis's War on Disney, the book bans and the drag bans? I don't think you can seriously argue they are not part of the 'right'. Hence the 'right' is both pro-freedom and anti-freedom.

Indeed, if a political concept can mean both one thing and its opposite, this would inevitably invite double standards, hypocrisy, sophistry, and the worst kind of charlatanism. And this is exactly what is happening in both the 'left' and 'right' tribes. After all, what is 'left' or 'right' is always up for redefinition, as long as you have the influence, money and power to do so. 'Left' and 'right' are ultimately social constructs with no meaning, and no purpose except for making people believe and support things they wouldn't otherwise have, and ultimately help certain dishonest actors gain political power. This is why neither the 'left' nor the 'right' is honest or intellectually consistent these days.

The best way to overcome this is to resist the temptation to join the 'left' tribe or the 'right' tribe, or indeed any other tribe. Instead, we should determine what is most valuable to us, and assess each idea and policy with our own conscience. For example, what I'm most concerned about, in the context of the 21st century West, is the erosion of freedom and independent thinking by culture warriors from both sides. Therefore, whenever a new idea or policy comes up, my first instinct is to ask, is this good or bad for freedom? Sometimes 'left' ideas are good for freedom, but unfortunately these days more often than not they are likely to be bad for freedom. Sometimes 'right' ideas are good for freedom, but again, unfortunately these days more often than not they are likely to be bad for freedom too. This means that, effectively, most of the time I'm either opposing the left or the right. I guess this is the inevitable stance of the classical liberal, in an era where freedoms are being eroded from every direction. By refusing to join either tribe, and relying on my own independent thinking instead, I can take an honest stand for freedom each and every time.

Only the Truth can Deradicalize the Culture Warriors

Therefore, the question should be, what will bring people back to the truth

Welcome back to my series of Ideas to End the Culture Wars. Last time, I discussed how the two main tribes in the culture wars, the 'left' and the 'right', are ultimately meaningless and incoherent social constructs, and when we see through them, we are a step closer to ending the culture wars. Today, I want to turn to why so many people can't see this at the moment. I believe it's because they have lost sight of the objective truth. As it's commonly described, people on both sides of the culture wars have lost all common ground because they have lost a shared understanding of the reality that is rooted in the objective facts. Therefore, the only way to deradicalize them would be by bringing them back to objectivity. To do this, we have to identify things which are the enemy of objectivity, and oppose these things consistently.

The first enemy of objectivity is emotion. During the 2010s, a new style of left-wing activists, often associated with identity politics, tried to teach us that it is wrong to 'tone police'. I respectfully but strongly disagreed then, and I stand by my words to this day. The reason why we need a calm and rational discourse is because an emotionally charged discourse can't get us to the objective truth. We can't really discuss things rationally and get closer to the truth if one or both sides are emotionally worked up, because it would just descend into an emotional shouting match, with both sides reflexively rejecting all that the other side has to say. While the identity left has openly encouraged a politics of grievance in the past decade, the right are no better when it comes to being rational and avoiding getting emotional. The organized political right has been promoting moral panic after moral panic in recent years, and right-aligned culture warriors have become just as angry and irrational as their counterparts on the left.

The other important enemy of objectivity is tribalism. People are social animals, and we love to make friends. More importantly, we are evolutionary adapted to trust those we are familiar with more. However, when it comes to ideas and facts in the modern world, this kind of bias is actually counterproductive to getting us to the truth. Therefore, we have to actively work to overcome it, by trying to listen to all sides of a story, and think for ourselves independently. In particular, we should be very wary of talking heads on TV and influencers in the new media trying to sell us a particular worldview. They often have a particular political agenda, and it is usually not a very nice agenda.

Finally, if we are to embrace objectivity, we need to be brave enough to demand evidence for the things people claim, especially if those claims could have a significant effect on politics. Postmodernism has normalized the subjective, philosophy over fact method of argumentation, but the right isn't immune from this either, with fact-free conspiracy theories increasingly being entertained. To counter both the postmodern left and the conspiracy theory right, we need to consistently demand solid evidence from people making unusual claims, especially if the claim is likely to have an impact on our politics. This is the only way we can push back on the trend away from arguments being rooted in the objective truth.

Beware of the Abstract Philosophy Trap

Freedom must be built on practical reality

Welcome to a new series, where we analyze the conditions that are required to sustain freedom. The political landscape of the 21st century West is increasingly a battle between moral libertarians and moral authoritarians, and the authoritarians often attempt to take over previously libertarian movements by infiltration and bad arguments. By understanding what conditions are good or bad for freedom, we can build a non-woke progressive movement, and avoid the influence of authoritarian reactionism. Today, I'm going to talk about the focus on abstract ideas, and why it is bad for freedom.

In the previous decade, we saw the rise of a morally authoritarian brand of activism rooted in postmodern critical theories. This brand of activism attempted to push the largely popular and successful tradition of reformist liberalism aside, justified not by objective reality, but by their philosophical commitments only. This was a disaster both from the perspective of freedom itself, seen in the rise of cancel culture and its chilling effects on free speech and rational discussion of issues, as well as from the perspective of social justice, because it allowed the rise of a reactionary, and equally moral authoritarian, 'postliberal' right. Left-wing moral authoritarianism has led to right-wing moral authoritarianism, and the result is a double dose of unfreedom, as well as a lot of culture war tribalism.

Perhaps surprisingly, conservative philosophy actually provides some ammunition for moral libertarians to fight back. As I've recently said, I have grown to appreciate conservative philosophy more as I have grown older. (I still don't support organized conservative politics, however, because I consider it to be reactionary and deeply moral authoritarian.) What I have come to appreciate is the insight that the forced application of abstract ideas and philosophy to real life situations is more often harmful than not, especially in terms of freedom. This is because abstract ideas are often a poor fit for practical reality, with all its nuances and complexities, and the force-fitting of ideal onto reality would require a lot of moral authoritarianism. This, I believe, forms the core point of the conservative philosophical cannon, going all the way back to Edmund Burke. Contrary to popular belief, this insight could actually be useful for a reformist liberal politics too. Postmodernism's misguided attempts at 'liberation' from 'oppressive social constructs', and the harms it has clearly caused to minority communities, is proof that progressive politics would benefit from a bit of conservative philosophical influence at this point. On the other hand, the reactionary right's increasing unwillingness to heed this insight is what is making them increasingly authoritarian. How ironic would it be, if reformists of the center-left began quoting Burke to the 'postliberal' right?

The problem of trusting abstract ideas and philosophy to solve society's problems might be most clearly seen in the case of the forced application of postmodern critical theories, but this is actually a long-standing problem, particularly in so-called progressive circles. The endless arguments about whether particular ideas are 'progressive', 'feminist', and so on are a reflection of the obsession with the abstract, and such arguments at least imply that some ideas should be taboo in progressive circles, which is a highly morally authoritarian position to take. It was against this situation that I began writing about moral libertarianism. Remember, this was the case even before postmodernism became mainstream. As I often say in reply to these debates, how about we just have more compassion for everyone? Of course, the problem is not limited to the left either. 20th-century 'fusionism' basically promoted a radical, abstract theory-over-reality economic policy, while tying it in a package with reactionary cultural politics, to make it sound 'conservative' when it was actually anything but conservative (going by the Burkean view).

Another important point to note is that the abstract opposition to abstract ideas can be just as bad for freedom too. In force-fitting all kinds of observed phenomenon into the abstract idea to be opposed, the nuances and complexities of reality are ignored, and the need for careful consideration of all sides of an issue is reflexively rejected. A good example is how the anti-woke movement went from being very morally libertarian, to being gradually hijacked by moral authoritarians. The trap here is seeing everything through a woke vs anti-woke lens, even when it is not objectively justified. For example, corporations that take particular stances on social issues are painted as 'woke corporations' that are complicit in the postmodern deconstructionist agenda. This, in turn, is used to justify the government trampling on the freedom of private businesses to do business as they see fit. Another example is how parts of our cultural discourse previously considered normal, especially on matters related to race and sexuality, are now painted as part of a 'critical race theory' or 'queer theory' agenda by these reactionaries, with no solid evidence needed. This, again, is used to justify an authoritarian agenda including book bans, drag bans, unjustifiably broad laws that limit free speech in schools, and even the takeover of a college by the government in at least one case. All this results from a refusal to deal with reality as it really is, caused by the obsession with opposing an abstract idea in an abstract way.

Moral Libertarianism is the Solution to End the Culture Wars

We need an extension of classical liberal principles to stop the new religious wars

Having talked about why the culture wars are evil, I think it's time we start coming up with solutions to end the culture wars. Given that this won't be an easy task, we have to come up with lots and lots of ideas, and put them into practice concurrently. This is why I'm going to dedicate quite a bit of time talking about ideas to help us end the culture wars going forward.

Today, I will expand on an idea I've long talked about: why re-strengthening the classical liberal consensus in general, and specifically arguing for the model of Moral Libertarianism, is the most effective way we can put an end to the culture wars. Classical liberalism was invented in Western Europe as a response to the religious conflicts that had plagued the continent since the late middle ages. The basic rationale was that, if government and politics basically stayed neutral on religious issues, then the conflict could come to an end. This is the reason why America was founded without a state church, for example. Over time, liberalism was able to slowly bring the religious wars to an end. Besides that, liberalism also ushered in a new era of respect for free speech, freedom of conscience, pluralism in ideas and worldviews, and scientific discovery. It is arguably one of the most effective philosophies the West has ever come up with.

While the religious wars are long gone, old habits die hard in every culture. What the religious wars showed us was that in Western culture, issues of right and wrong are often settled by conflict rather than consensus. Compared with most other cultures on Earth, the West is much more prone to society-wide philosophical conflicts. Let's face it: this history, plus the individualistic nature of the West, means that we aren't going to become a consensus society anytime soon. If the arguments and conflicts aren't fought over religion, then they are likely to be fought over other grounds. This is why, in an era where people are less religious than before, the culture wars have replaced the religious wars. And just like the religious wars, the culture wars are also inherently tied to political factions, with powerful players picking sides and rallying their supporters with highly moralistic rhetoric.

While the religious wars were cured by liberalism and its separation of church and state, this model of neutrality has not yet been fully extended to other, non-theological conflicts. This has effectively allowed the politicized religious wars of the past to be reborn as politicized culture wars. The 'woke' postmodern left, the reactionary 'postliberals', and every faction in between are effectively like the churches of the past, with both a worldview and doctrine that its followers have to adhere to, and a goal to capture and control the politics of the country and dictate its policies. Just like the religious wars, in the culture wars the stakes are basically the triumph or defeat of one worldview or another, seen as a struggle between good and evil, where one's own side is good and the other side inevitably evil. This means that, just like several hundred years ago, the West is now on the brink of permanently heightened conflict and repeated tragedies, unless something is done to stop the culture wars in its tracks.

The answer, I believe, is to extend the classical liberal model of religious neutrality to other areas of life and culture generally. Rather than just being neutral about religion in a narrow sense, the state should be neutral about competing moral claims as much as possible. It should allow individuals, families and communities to preach and practice their sincerely held moral values, as long as it doesn't take away from the freedom of other individuals, families and communities to do the same. Competing moral worldviews can then truly compete in the marketplace of ideas, with their success or failure ultimately judged by the objective reality of the long-term outcomes of their adherents. This is what Moral Libertarianism is, in a nutshell. When everyone can do their own thing, and they can be confident that in the future, should their views be correct, they will be rewarded by objective reality, there will be no need for the culture wars at all.

The actual reason why I have been so opposed to postmodern critical theory is that it is ultimately incompatible with the Moral Libertarian vision. The Moral Libertarian vision demands that every individual be given equal and maximum moral agency over their own actions, which postmodern activists are simply opposed to. Justified by a worldview of intersecting identity-based oppressor vs oppressed dynamics, and believing that our culture is a social construct to serve the oppressors, postmodernists won't even respect the most basic of moral freedoms, namely free speech and freedom of conscience. This is why Moral Libertarianism and postmodern critical theory can't just co-exist in a compatible way: the triumph of one would necessary have to mean the defeat of the other, logically.

On the other hand, postmodern critical theory activists are not the only ones who are fueling the current culture wars, nor are they the only force out there making the Moral Libertarian vision difficult to achieve. Right-wing 'postliberal' culture warriors, often strongly influenced by old and new media in the service of organized right-wing politics, are no more respectful of other people's moral agency. Look no further than the War on Disney, the book bans and the drag bans. The fact is, over the past few years, a new, more authoritarian strain of the right has arisen, complete with its own thinkers, influencers and political leaders, and it is clearly intent on using state power to limit the freedoms of ordinary citizens. This is arguably even further away from equal moral agency than what the postmodern left is doing. Their political methods actually move things in the most dangerous direction, i.e. back to the total conflation of culture, philosophy and tribal politics that caused the religious wars to erupt in Europe several hundred years ago.

As you can see, not only does Moral Libertarianism provide the way out of the culture wars, the political factions most engaged in the culture wars are also the ones least compatible with the Moral Libertarian ideal. Therefore, to uphold the Moral Libertarian ideal is both to point to the exit of the culture wars, as well as to take a stand against the worst of the culture warriors, at the same time. I believe this is the way the West must go, if only to preserve a peaceful society for the foreseeable future.

Culture War Kills Independent Thinking

And without independent thinking, we will never get to the truth

In recent months, I have been talking a lot about how much I oppose the culture wars, and the fact that I hold both sides responsible for it. Today, I want to talk about why I'm so opposed to the culture wars. The most fundamental reason why I'm vehemently opposed to the culture wars is that it kills independent thinking. People on both sides of the culture wars are often brainwashed to follow the standard narrative of their side on every hot button issue, without truly thinking for themselves where the truth is in each case. There are several ways the culture war dynamic makes independent thinking impossible. I will outline each of them.

Firstly, the us-vs-them tribalist dynamic hampers independent thinking. The mindset of wanting to 'own' your opponents all the time is simply incompatible with a commitment to finding out the truth. Those with this mindset simply can't accept that the other side can be partly right too, which is actually the case more often than not. Secondly, because of the need to defeat your opponents at all costs, everything becomes justifiable. In the quest to defeat the other side, unsound ideas become accepted. Biased reporting, half-truths and semi-lies become accepted and normalized, as long as they are deemed 'useful', even if they actually have a harmful effect on real lives and/or broader society. Individuals are dehumanized, decency and compassion are dispensed with, as long as your side 'wins'. I am worried that in real life, we have already gotten to this phase. In extremely-online circles, things are much more advanced, as I will discuss later on.

Once a mindset where winning is more important than the truth is established, we enter the next phase. Bad faith actors, often with hidden (or not so hidden) extremist agendas come in to take advantage of the dynamic, to push their agendas. Unsound and dangerous ideas, from critical anarchism to religious authoritarianism and outright racism, ideas that would be swiftly rejected under normal circumstances, often find receptive audiences among dedicated culture warriors looking for the next tool to attack their opponents with. The process of rational debate and assessment (as to whether the idea conforms with the truth) is effectively bypassed. This is how extreme ideas get to enter the mainstream.

Finally, the aforementioned dynamics eventually lead to the loss of a shared understanding of reality rooted in the objective truth. Once we reach this point, it becomes almost impossible for those on opposite sides to have a productive conversation. An endless stalemate ensures, further encouraging all the aforementioned dynamics. The truth is compromised further and further, and biased reporting and half-truths eventually evolve into basically outright lies. This is how we get to the crisis of people becoming unable to discern the truth at all. I believe the extremely-online segment of the Western world is already at this phase, which is why online discourse is so toxic.

To halt and reverse this progression, and to return to a healthy society where there is a rational discourse rooted in the objective truth, we must put an end to the culture wars. The culture wars must be ended at all costs as a matter of emergency, because there is no other way out. We need to act before dehumanizing other individuals and disregarding the truth becomes normalized forever.

Why the Right Wing Culture Warriors are Not Conservative

Culture wars are for conformist zombies, not thinking people.

Recently, I have sought to emphasize that both sides are responsible for the culture wars, and they both need to be called out and challenged. In my previous article, I talked about the role of postmodern critical theory in poisoning the left. Today, I want to focus on what is poisoning the right: top-down orchestrated, conformist, tribalist culture war movements.

Just like last time, I'm going to start by saying that I don't disagree with conservative philosophy itself, as long as we are actually talking about the Burkean variety, not the 20th century counterfeit conservatism called 'fusionism', nor its apparent successor, 'postliberalism'. Over the years, I've indeed become more appreciative of Burkean conservative philosophy, especially its acknowledgement of the complexities of society, its rejection of 'progress' based on abstract philosophy alone, and its realistic assessment of what radical social upheaval would lead to. I've even come to believe that Burkean conservatism should be one of the major philosophies underpinning a truly centrist politics. Even the center-left could use some Burkean conservatism in its arguments against the postmodern far-left. The problem is, what we find on the organized political right these days, is largely not Burkean conservatism. It is instead a transnational tribalist culture war movement, ultimately designed to serve the interests of the Republican Party in America and its counterparts in other Western countries.

My biggest problem with right-wing culture warriorism isn't even with its content, although there is indeed a lot to disagree with there. My biggest problem is that it is an exercise in shutting down independent thinking, just like postmodern critical theory activism on the left. Right-wing culture war talking points are developed by right-wing activists and think tanks, disseminated through right-wing media both traditional (like Fox News) and new (like the countless right-wing influencers on YouTube), and imprinted as truth in the minds of the culture warriors on the ground through repeated indoctrination, supported by deliberately biased, one-sided reporting. There is no room for independent thinking there. Indeed, what I worry is that those involved in right-wing culture warriorism are likely under a lot of peer pressure to toe the party line even if they privately have doubts. The media talking heads and influencers' lock-step agreement on every talking point makes it even more difficult to dissent from the manufactured consensus. I believe it is this phenomenon, in turn, that is turning former moderates into hardliners. Witnessing the evolution of people like Jordan Peterson and Nikki Haley in this direction is truly painful.

The right-wing culture warriors' treatment of LGBT issues in particular demonstrates their hypocritical double-standards. They say they believe in free speech, but it is clear that they only believe in free speech when it suits them. They have no problem with Ron DeSantis's war on Disney, using the tyranny of the mob to punish Bud Light and Target, the banning of controversial books and drag performances, and so on. They decry authoritarian activists who force them to agree with 'trans women are women' or use a trans person's preferred pronouns, but they also openly mock and attack those who believe 'trans women are women' from their own good conscience, and put enormous peer pressure on their fellow conservatives not to use a trans person's preferred pronouns, effectively making them a mirror image of the authoritarian left activists. Their stinking hypocrisy has become a stain on the reputation of the free speech movement, and I truly regret the movement not kicking them out back in the 2010s. This is why I believe that any classical liberal movement going forward should reject all alliances with the reactionary right, even if it is only on an issue-by-issue basis.

The existence of right-wing culture warriorism also complicates things in other ways. For example, my regular readers would know that I am strongly opposed to postmodern critical theory, on both classical liberal and Burkean conservative grounds. I have been attempting to lay out the philosophical case against postmodern critical theory in the past five to seven years. However, recently, the weaponization of this issue by right-wing culture warriors has made the conversation increasingly difficult. Ever since President Trump and Christopher Rufo tried to turn critical race theory into a political football, it has become harder and harder for me to get my message across, especially to those on the left side of the political spectrum. This is not surprising, given how 'anti-woke' has become coded as Republican in the eyes of many people nowadays. More recently, Ron DeSantis has sought to make being anti-woke a signature of his campaign. The association of 'anti-woke' with DeSantis has become so strong that even some Trump supporters are beginning to somewhat turn against the focus on 'woke'. Nowadays, whenever I talk about postmodern critical theory, I feel like I have to take care to make people understand that I don't support DeSantis and his authoritarian policies, in case there are any misunderstandings.

Taken together, these points demonstrate that right-wing culture warriorism is no less harmful to free speech and the marketplace of ideas than left-wing postmodern critical theory. I therefore believe that it at least deserves our equal concern and criticism. We need to push back hard on illiberalism from both the left and the right alike, and in doing so, take an honest stance for freedom. 

Rebuilding a Reformist Liberal Agenda

Finding common ground in passion for justice, while rejecting critical anarchism

The past decade has been a truly insane time in Western politics. The culture wars have heated up like never before, and divisive and toxic ideas have been introduced into the mainstream from both sides. Those of us who continue to believe in classical liberal values like free speech and individual freedom have had to defend these values in an extraordinarily bold way, given that they were (and still are) under extraordinary threat. However, what I don't want to be lost in all this are other priorities in the big picture, such as the need to make society better and more just for disadvantaged minorities.

Let me say this first of all: I actually appreciate the passion those on the left have for improving society, and especially for making it more just for disadvantaged and historically oppressed minorities. Like many of you, I'm strongly passionate about what's right and wrong, and what's fair and just. For the record, I was an ardent opponent of the Iraq War and supporter of gay marriage since 2003, well before either stance was popular to take. I have long had concerns about the racism I see in some parts of society, as well as its denial by some people. I want to see society do better, and the people living in it happier.

The main issue I have with 'the left' these days, broadly speaking, is the pervasive influence of postmodern critical theory. While there are indeed some on the left who continue to resist this ideology, including most prominently those old school class-first leftists, it remains the case that this ideology is almost everywhere on the activist left (as opposed to e.g. the establishment Democratic Party, which is still quite traditional overall). And it's not just my view: over the past few years, I have seen at least a handful of articles admitting that free speech is not a very popular position to take in the activist left nowadays, all written by committed leftists. Perhaps it's due to the fact that those who disagree haven't pushed back enough. If this is the case, then I think they should bravely speak up.

If reasonable progressives who still believe in old-school reformism want to put forward proposals for reforms, in the liberal tradition that gave us things like universal suffrage and marriage equality, then I really want to hear about it. I am still eagerly interested in society making progress for justice and inclusion, in the old-school liberal way. I just don't believe in a language-obsessed and deconstructionist culture war politics rooted in the ideas of thinkers like Foucault and Marcuse, or an anarchist-adjacent politics supporting things like defund the police.

As I have often said, postmodern critical theory is not the key to social justice. Indeed, I believe that it is the enemy of true justice (and freedom). It is rooted not in the desire for justice, or the desire to make things better for oppressed minorities, but the desire for a social revolution (with or without political revolution) that would fundamentally dismantle the values of the Enlightenment. Taken to its logical conclusion, I would call it 'critical anarchism', because it is effectively a process of challenging and replacing liberal values with ultra-anarchist values. Therefore, I believe that postmodern activists are effectively using embattled minorities as a battering ram to bring down society as we know it, in an attempt to usher in their ultra-anarchist utopia. Not only do most minorities don't want anarchism at all, history tells us such an unnecessary revolution would not bring good results. The upheaval and backlash alone would be very harmful to already embattled minorities. I think every would-be postmodern revolutionary needs to consider the harm they are potentially (directly or indirectly) inflicting on such minorities, and if a would-be revolutionary actually did so, they might just pull back from their revolutionary position. History has also taught us that life for minorities can be improved through a process of gradual reformism instead, and there is no reason to believe that this tradition can't continue going forward.

For example, the gay marriage equality movement was able to achieve a lot in a relatively short amount of time, and continues to be a good template for other rights movements going forward. The appeal to liberty, equality before the law and family values has led to not only the legalization of gay marriage in almost every Western country within less than two decades, it also led to greatly increased acceptance of same-sex relationships. This should be a textbook example of how good activism is done. The fact that some LGBT activists have abandoned this model in favor of queer theory-inspired madness still baffles me. The only explanation I can find is intoxication by philosophical theories posing as reality. Therefore, I believe that what we need to do is to put an end to this kind of brainwashing, by fundamentally challenging these unsound theories at their very root.

It is for this reason that I have strongly opposed critical race theory (CRT) in the past few years. The fact that some right-wing culture warriors have also made it a political football is not something I can control, and I never had any intention of echoing what they say. I have also spoken multiple times about their dishonest and authoritarian intentions in playing this political football. The way I see it is that many on the right, from Donald Trump to Ron DeSantis to Christopher Rufo, simply have a muddied understanding of what CRT is, but they don't even care. All they want to do is to use it as a political football. It's similar to how DeSantis likes to use the word 'woke' in a deliberately vague way all the time. As someone who wants to have a philosophical discussion, I am actually very angry about this development. However, I can't just not speak up about CRT and let people in the center and the left think that it is a good thing. It's not. It's not a good thing just because the bad guys hate it. This is a logical fallacy we must not fall for. CRT is a bad thing because it is ultimately a form of postmodern critical theory, and it is being used to advance critical anarchism into the mainstream. It needs to be resisted for this reason. I am not aiding the right-wing culture warriors just for saying this truth, and I really don't appreciate some on the left who accuse me of doing this. Especially when I have been taking a strong stance against right-wing culture warriorism all the time too. 

To be honest, I am indeed very sick and tired of some on the left who keep accusing me of being on the same team as right-wing culture warriors like Trump, DeSantis and Rufo just because I oppose postmodern critical theory, including critical race theory and queer theory. I am fundamentally opposed to culture warriorism no matter if it is from the left or the right. I see right-wing culture warriors attempting to recruit those in my position to their team all the time, and I have resisted joining them for many years now. But I would indeed advise well-meaning progressives to drop the postmodernism, because it is how the reactionary right is picking up support at the moment.

If we could get behind a liberal reformist agenda again, I think we could make social justice not divisive again. This means we could achieve a better, broader consensus for much needed reforms. I truly hope we can embark on the long road of reformism again, and just forget that the past ten years of madness even happened at all.

We Need Free Speech, but we Also Need Good Speech

Filling in the Void of the Free Speech Movement

In the second half of the 2010s, as incidents of cancel culture ramped up rapidly across the West, and anti-free speech philosophical theories appeared to get some mainstream traction, a new free speech movement arose in response. While there was only mixed results when it came to defending free speech itself, there was at least a revival in interest in classical liberal values, which I thought would be sustained for at least a generation. Sadly, it appears that the 2010s free speech movement has fizzled out rapidly. You don't hear much about the importance of free speech these days, except from a handful of dedicated activists like myself.

Surprisingly and sadly, some who supported the free speech movement in the 2010s have turned to an authoritarian-right politics that includes bans on everything from controversial books to drag queens. Elon Musk's supposedly pro-free speech takeover of Twitter has also been disappointing, with the platform now so full of open racists, conspiracy theories and culture war stuff that it is arguably worse for rational discourse than before (which I didn't imagine was even possible a year ago). Musk himself also turned out to be no better than the previous people in charge of Twitter: in June, he declared that the word 'cisgender' would be treated as a slur on Twitter. While I don't use that word personally because of its controversial connotations, this still represents censorship on behalf of one side of the culture wars. It just shows that Musk is not above meddling in the marketplace of ideas either. Meanwhile, some people (who I will not name), who used to defend free speech all the time, have now become very friendly with the 'postliberal' authoritarians, and accordingly, they never seem to discuss free speech anymore. Instead of defending classical liberal values, they now blame these values for giving rise to 'wokeism', against all reasonable logic. Sometimes, it seems that very few people are truly dedicated to free speech these days.

Having thought about all this for a while, I now think that the 2010s free speech movement stalled because something was missing: we were good at defending free speech and opposing cancel culture. But we weren't putting enough effort into arguing why free speech is necessary. The necessity of free speech is inherently linked to the marketplace of ideas. The reason we need to support free speech and oppose cancel culture is because we want all ideas to get a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas, so the most sound ideas can win out. If this is the vision we are committed to, then we would also recognize that we need to have good speech too. What I mean by good speech is speech that is delivered in a good faith attempt to get to the truth, rather than to score culture war points, promote the interests of political parties or particular politicians, or simply to 'troll' your enemies. I think we can all agree that blatant racism, 'triggering' your opponents, and deliberately selecting stories to create a biased perception about particular issues aren't examples of good speech, at the very minimum. Sadly, I'm seeing way too much of this kind of speech in so-called anti-woke circles lately. If we truly believe in a healthy and functional marketplace of ideas, I think we need to call out such bad faith speech when we see it, to halt and prevent its proliferation. If we allow this bad faith speech to grow unchecked, it will poison the marketplace of ideas, no less than cancel culture and censorship.

I now want to focus on bad speech in the service of culture war purposes in particular. I think an important thing we need to stress is that free speech must be above the culture wars. The example from Twitter cited above is a good example of the ridiculous things that can happen when free speech is not placed above the culture wars. In the 2010s some on the political right attempted to place free speech within the culture wars, and in hindsight we should have much more strongly resisted this move. Seeing free speech not as a universal value but as a culture war weapon is what has led to the kind of hypocrisy we now see among right-wing culture warriors, where it is not OK to de-platform their favorite speakers, but it is good to de-platform books they don't like, drag queens, Bud Light ads, and the Pride section in Target. People with this kind of attitude are no better than the cancel culture activists on the left, and they should never have been welcomed into the free speech movement in the first place. I apologize on behalf of the whole movement for having been too lenient on them back in the 2010s. Going forward, the free speech movement must be impartial and dedicated to a fair marketplace of ideas, and it can only be that way if it remains above all culture war politics, and left vs right politics more generally.

Right now, free speech continues to be under threat, which means the free speech movement really needs to be revived. Besides the continued threat from postmodern critical theory-inspired activism on the left, the rise of the authoritarian postliberal right has made the future of free speech even more fragile than before. Meanwhile, the culture wars and the associated polarization and tribalism also pose great threats to both free speech itself and the health of the marketplace of ideas. All this means that it is more important than ever to take a stand in support of free speech.

Who is Responsible for the Culture Wars?

Both sides are guilty, and we need to push back equally

Like many people, I'm sick and tired of the culture wars. As a classical liberal who believes in free speech and a healthy marketplace of ideas, I'm especially frustrated that culture warriors on both sides are hampering free speech, and poisoning the marketplace of ideas. Finding a way to end the culture wars has become my number one political priority in recent months. To borrow a popular saying, I'm now thoroughly not left, not right, but anti-culture war.

The first obstacle to ending the culture war is that neither side would admit to being responsible for it. The left likes to say that they are only trying to make society better and more just, and the problem lies solely with the reactionary right. The right likes to say that they would be minding their own business if not for the left's attempts at changing everything in a radical way. However, based on my recent analyses, it is clear that both sides are very much responsible. We can't end the culture wars without properly acknowledging this.

Let's talk about the left first. While the (cultural, rather than economic) left might truly think that they are only working for social justice, what they are effectively doing is imposing a radical new culture on society without most people consenting to it. This would, by definition, amount to waging a culture war. The problem here is not their commitment to social justice, but the influence of postmodernism and critical theory in their worldview. That ideology calls for the most radical deconstruction and dismantling of all existing cultural institutions, social structures and linguistic norms. According to postmodern critical theory, social justice cannot be achieved without this radical change. However, this does not align with observed reality. Universal suffrage, women's rights, the civil rights movement, gay marriage and so on were all successfully achieved without the massive destruction of the social fabric advocated by postmodern critical theory. Instead, these reforms were all won via the power of persuation, along the lines of normally accepted logic, in the marketplace of ideas. There is no objectively valid reason to abandon the successful track record of liberal reformism at all, except in the twisted philosophy of postmodern critical theory.

In fact, the mainstreaming of postmodern critical theory has made it very difficult to advance social justice causes. Take trans acceptance, for example. The existence of postmodern philosophical theory has complicated the whole thing, and let the reactionary right win arguments that they shouldn't have won. For example, my own honest view on the 'what is a woman' question is simply what appears to be similar to the women I've known before. As I've previously argued, this is actually the common sense answer, and also aligns with how the term has been used since time immemorial, at least until the postmodern and right-wing culture warriors sought to impose their own definitions respectively. My definition, the common sense definition, would actually have included the majority of trans women, at least in the social context (even if not where biological sex matters), and it would have been great for promoting trans acceptance.

But no, it isn't good enough for the postmodernists, because of their obsession with anti-essentialism. They want to deconstruct everything, which is to say make everything mean nothing at all, because of their philosophical (i.e. ideological) needs. So now both 'women' and 'trans women' have to mean nothing, at least among the trans activist establishment. This has created a vacuum for the right-wing culture warriors to come in and impose a strict biological sex definition, which is actually rooted in neither common sense nor tradition, but culture war-style animosity towards trans people. Yet, when compared to the postmodern activists' offering of essentially 'nothing' for their answer, the Matt Walsh definition at least looks more sound on paper, which is why it has become so popular lately. In other words, I hold postmodernism entirely responsible for the success of Matt Walsh et al's otherwise flimsy arguments. This is a good example of why we need to challenge postmodern critical theory, all the way up to its origins in elite academia. We can't rest until it is all soundly debunked, and firmly placed in the dustbin of history. (This, in turn, is why I offered some support to Jordan Peterson when he first raised the issue a few years ago, despite disagreeing with him on quite a few things. We desperately need people to seriously challenge postmodernism, especially on the academic front.)

All this is to say that postmodern critical theory has brainwashed many people on the left to support what is effectively a wholesale culture war on the status quo that is not necessary, and even counterproductive, for achieving social justice causes. When you don't respect the objective truth anymore, but instead insist that there can be a difference between 'your truth' and 'my truth', you are inviting people to abandon the common ground of objective truth, and make truth claims subject to culture war tribalism. When you refuse to debate things using the commonly accepted logic, but insist on endlessly questioning the common sense, you make rational discourse impossible. When you force society to change its language and culture without most people really agreeing with the changes in their hearts, you are in effect waging culture war on society, and all you are going to get is backlash. (The backlash is often suffered by disadvantaged minorities, with the privileged activists just walking away, looking for the next fight elsewhere.) Hence, getting rid of the influence of postmodern critical theory would go a long way in ending the culture wars, which would also be very good for social justice in the real world. We need to make those on the left aware of this. We need to unplug them from the postmodern programming.

Now, let's talk about the right. The right isn't innocent either. As I've discussed on multiple occasions, the US Republican Party has particularly leaned hard into culture war issues to build their voting coalition ever since the 1960s, often with the side effect of introducing authoritarian policies too. There was the distasteful alliance with segregationists during the period of the 'Southern strategy', the deprivation of civil liberties during the 'war on terror', and the empty moral panic over gay marriage, just to name a few shameful chapters of this history. The counterfeit conservatism called 'fusionism' was essentially an attempt to hide a very radical economic and foreign policy with reactionary culture wars, and selling the package as 'conservative' to voters distracted by cultural issues. It is this long-term encouragement of culture warriorism that has led to Trumpism, the popularization of various conspiracy theories, and the rise of reactionary populist movements that are borderline fascistic in character. Even if those on the left suddenly became reasonable again, it is unlikely that this populist, culture war right would be able to engage with more reasonable reformist proposals at all. This is why ending the culture war needs to be a both sides thing.

In particular, the establishment Republican Party might not like to admit it, but they are responsible for creating these monsters. The GOP, their counterparts in other Western countries, as well as their media allies are all very much responsible, and the least they could do is to change course and help end the culture wars. Sadly, with even anti-Trump Republicans backing candidates like Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence, it seems that they haven't even learned their lesson yet.

Hence, the other half of the answer to the question of how to end the culture wars, is to help the right rediscover the real conservative tradition, the tradition of thinkers like Edmund Burke. To this day, Burke is revered as the father of conservatism. But imagine if Burke was more like Trump and DeSantis. Imagine if he was instead the kind of person who encouraged populist reactionary sentiments, and built a political career around those sentiments, while attacking the civil rights of minorities along the way. Would he still be the respected figure he is today? Would he even be remembered? I'm sure there were other politicians who were more like Trump and DeSantis in Burke's day. It's just that we don't even remember the names of those people anymore, because they are not worthy of our memory at all. Burke is remembered and revered because he was a person with a good conscience, a man who actually cared about the people. His conservatism is respectable because it came from a place of caring about society, not a place of reactionary anger and hatred. Those on the right must be reminded of this truth, especially in times like these.

To end the culture wars would require those of us who are still awake to its harms to speak the truth. We need to bravely speak the truth, in the face of the increasingly unreasonable stance of the culture warriors on both sides, and bring everyone back down to the common ground of reality. Given the culture wars are being encouraged on both sides by people with power, money and influence, the act of speaking against culture warriorism would indeed be a good example of speaking truth to power. We need to do it more before it's too late.

Looking for the Political Philosophy to End Tribalist Culture Wars

We need to rediscover our common ground in the classical liberal and conservative traditions

The combined effects of the postmodern left and the culture-war right means that Western society is now divided between two kinds of people: those who want to fight a tribalist culture war to 'own' the other side, and those who still believe in finding common ground and working towards practical solutions for our problems. The first group, the culture warriors on both sides, are a lost cause at this point, and I think we must separate ourselves from them going forward. We, people on both sides of the political spectrum who are still dedicated to finding common ground and finding good solutions, need to be able to have constructive dialogue with each other, rooted in a commitment to objective reality and a wish to find practical solutions. We would also need to put our ideological differences aside to achieve this. To do all this, we need a clear vision of the society we want, and how to get there.

Using the Classical Liberal Tradition to Rebuild our Shared Objective Reality

Right now, many people are concerned about the rise of fake news, and biased reporting that might not be fake but is deliberately biased so as to provoke an emotional reaction, often to support certain policies. A new, worrying trend is that there seems to be an increasing alignment between the 'postliberal' right and this kind of biased reporting, with certain media outlets (including both traditional and online outlets) reliably acting as a bloc to deliver the emotionally charged moral panics that justify highly illiberal policies and actions. The recent moral panic around certain LGBT issues, and the resulting illiberal policies in many red states across America, as well as the movements to boycott Bud Light and Target, is a good example of this. (The Target boycott is particularly notable here because it was partly fueled by fake news.) As classical liberals, we just can't let this continue unchecked, because it would represent the total destruction of important classical liberal norms, from the commitment to objective truth, to the need for the state to respect individual liberty, to the freedom of private businesses to do business as they see fit.

Many social media platforms have resorted to varying levels of censorship, which has generally been disastrous in practice. Not only does this not stamp out fake news, it is totally useless against biased reporting that does not cross into fake news, but nevertheless represents a distortion of reality. Moreover, such action has led to criticisms of disrespect of free speech rights, which inevitably lead to even more conspiracy theories. Furthermore, there are always platforms where censored ideas can still be spread. Particularly now that Twitter is owned by Elon Musk and has an anti-censorship ethos, there is certainly no way censorship can be part of the solution to combat fake news. Censorship was misguided in the first place, and now it has become worse than useless.

I think the only way to combat fake news and biased reporting is to recommit to the classical liberal tradition. Specifically, we must value free speech, the marketplace of ideas, and finding common ground in being dedicated to the objective truth. To put it bluntly, I think we are in the situation we are in now partly because of the influence of a certain strain of postmodern and critical theory thinking, that originated from far-left sections of academia. That strain of thinking values subjectivity over objectivity, and paints all social norms and objective truth as oppressive constructs in the service of privileged groups. This is the way which leads to a loss of shared reality, a society where there are competing 'truths' that are all 'relative' to one's social affiliations, and ultimately fertile ground for fake news and biased reporting to take hold. All this is not to discount the role of 20th century 'fusionist' political conservatism either. Fusionism was essentially a counterfeit version of conservatism that masked radical economic policies with reactionary culture wars. The reactionary culture wars became a norm for Republican and conservative politics, and the use of biased reporting and tribal 'truths' became normalized within such culture wars.

As I said earlier, we, people on both sides of the political spectrum who are still dedicated to finding common ground and finding good solutions, need to be able to have constructive dialogue with each other, rooted in a commitment to objective reality and a wish to find practical solutions. We would also need to put our ideological differences, and our political affiliations aside, to achieve this. If we can build a movement of rational and constructive dialogue that cuts across ideological factions, then I think we would have something that can outcompete the fake news and biased reporting model. If that happens, we wouldn't have to fear fake news anymore, because it would just die out from being unpopular.

Building a Practical Progressive Conservatism

One of the major reasons the culture wars have gotten so heated and unhealthy is because the left is no longer liberal, and the right is no longer conservative. Since the 1970s, the Western Left has been gradually transformed by abstract philosophical theories produced in academia, and the progress being advocated for is often grounded in theory but ignorant of the nuances of reality. Such change tends to hurt innocent bystanders in some way, and therefore generate backlash. The mainstreaming of postmodern critical theories in the 2010s, which also challenged traditional liberal values like free speech, made things even worse. Also, since the 1980s, the 'fusionist' right has been whipping up reactionary culture wars to hide their radical economic agenda. This is not what the Burkean conservative tradition is about, and the proper understanding of conservatism, where change that is rooted in practical need and consistent with a given nation's traditions is accepted, needs to be restored.

The combination of a return to old-school liberal values on the left, and a return to a genuine understanding of conservatism on the right, leads to the possibility of a practical progressivism that is rooted in both the classical liberal tradition and the Burkean conservative tradition. Conservatism demands that change rooted in abstract theory and alien to a nation's traditions be rejected. Liberalism, with its free speech and marketplace of ideas, allows the people to reject such change. On the other hand, conservatism would accept change that arises from practical need, and done in a way that is consistent with a nation's traditions. Again, liberalism's marketplace of ideas is the place where the solution for such change can be developed, with the rational and conscious input of stakeholders from all walks of life.

With this ideal in mind, we are on firm ground to reject the culture warrior approach from both the theoretical, cultural systemist left, as well as the reactionary, now borderline-fascistic right. We know that we can have something better, and we should work hard to make it a reality.

What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement (Part 2): The Fusionism Factor

We can't make things right without dealing with the aftermath of fusionism

In recent weeks, I've talked a lot about why the anti-woke movement, or at least some parts of it, descended into an authoritarian reactionary politics. However, one important reason that is often overlooked is the background all this is happening in: the rot of conservative politics in the 20th century thanks to 'fusionism', and its possible deterioration into something even worse going forward. In hindsight, I guess I should have been more aware that an anti-woke movement that operated in this atmosphere, with strong influences from organized right-wing politics, could be easily pulled into reactionary authoritarianism. To stop this from happening, I think we need to seriously deal with the reality of 'fusionism' and its legacy of failure.

In recent years, a lot has been said about 20th century 'fusionism', how it has failed, and where we should go next. On the last point, in particular, is where classical liberals like myself and the 'postliberal' right strongly disagree. Fusionism, otherwise known as the 'three legged stool', was a combination of 'neoliberal' economics, 'cultural conservatism', and a hawkish foreign policy, and claimed to be a 'fusion' of classical liberalism and conservatism. In this article, I will demonstrate why fusionism, while arguably the dominant ideology of the 20th century, especially in the latter part of the century, was essentially a dishonest ideology, and our current problems are largely its product. I will also discuss the path we should take in moving beyond fusionism, and why the postliberal solution is misguided and dangerous.

What Was Fusionism?

Fusionism claimed to be a fusion of classical liberalism and conservatism. However, in reality, there was never any need for this 'new' fusion, because the English-speaking conservative tradition and the classical liberal tradition were already highly compatible, as long as classical liberal reforms didn't take place along theoretical, abstract lines. To understand what fusionism actually was, I think we should examine, in depth, the 'three legs' of the 'stool'.

Firstly, we had the neoliberal economics, which was a clear example of libertarian reform along abstract, philosophical lines, in clear violation of the conservative tradition. It was the very type of change that a conservative should have resisted. Secondly, we had the 'cultural conservatism', which in practice pandered strongly to reactionary elements in the post-desegregation south as well as the Roe v. Wade era religious right. This meant the 'cultural conservatism' was reactionarily opposed to basically all cultural change, which is not in line with the conservative tradition either. Finally, we had the hawkish, interventionist foreign policy, which is not going to be my focus here. The only thing I want to say is that this type of foreign policy was totally alien to the American tradition before World War II, and was by definition radical. This just shows how insincere 'fusionism' was about being truly conservative.

Therefore, fusionism was basically an intellectually inconsistent set of ideas used to gather a voting coalition for the Republican Party in America, and to some extent similar parties in other Western countries. Its function was basically to hide a very radical change in economic (and foreign) policy by promoting reactionary culture wars. The supplantation of real conservatism by fusionism led to economic policies that devastated local communities across America, Britain and other Western countries, eventually providing fuel for the rise of Trumpism, Brexit and the European 'New Right'. Meanwhile, the reactionary culture wars started by fusionist politicians took on a life of their own, and have evolved into an authoritarian movement with worrying similarities to fascism. The reactionary culture wars also provoked a strong counter-reaction among the younger generations, leading to postmodern 'woke' ideology becoming mainstream, and a vicious cycle of polarization forming between the woke left and the reactionary right. I believe all this can be blamed on fusionism, which is why it should never be revived.

Classical liberals and the postliberal right agree that fusionism was bad, and must end. But while classical liberals believe in restoring the true Burkean-Lockean conservative-liberal tradition that prevailed before fusionism, the postliberal right believes in getting rid of classical liberalism altogether, and fully embracing the reactionary culture wars that are themselves a product of fusionism. Hence, while classical liberals believe in reversing the mistake, the postliberal right believe in getting deeper into it, by embracing the most toxic part of the fusionist legacy, even if it means burying the whole Burkean-Lockean tradition, and supplanting it with foreign ideas borrowed mainly from Eastern Europe, in doing so. This would represent a change that is both very radical and very destructive, and should be strongly resisted by all liberals and conservatives alike.

The conservative-liberal solution to fixing the mistakes of fusionism is twofold: we need to reign in the neoliberal excesses of the past 40 years, and we also need to end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change. The problem is, the right is no longer conservative, and we should be brave enough to say so loudly.

The Relationship Between the Classical Liberal Tradition and the Conservative Tradition

I want to expand on what I mean by 'end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change'. Last time, I said that the true conservative, in the context of the 21st century Western English-speaking society, is necessarily a classical liberal, because our societies have long been underpinned by a classical liberal consensus. However, some of you might ask, while it is not controversial that conservatives should defend existing freedoms, how should we approach the ongoing classical liberal demand to expand individual freedoms over time? After all, classical liberalism is ultimately an abstract, philosophical position to some extent, and the conservative tradition is skeptical of all abstract, philosophical cases for change. So how do we reconcile these two positions?

As the British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli noted, society is inevitably in an ongoing process of change, and new demands for individual liberty and equal treatment under the law will inevitably be made over time. Looking at history, it is the acceptance of such demands that has strengthened our traditions, and made our society what it is today. Even the most ardent conservative would have to agree that the abolition of slavery, the extension of the vote to all adults, and the end of legally enforced racial segregation, were all proper and necessary changes, even though they were indeed major changes to how society functioned at the time. This means that the conservative must not reject all social change by default, and must not even reject all major social change by default. If we did, we would risk making the same mistake as those who were pro-slavery and pro-segregation, for example. Furthermore, if society has up until now accepted certain demands for change, and we decide to take a reactionary, 'just say no' attitude to all social change now, this would actually represent a break with long-standing tradition, which is clearly not the conservative thing to do. Therefore, conservatives have to accept at least some social change. The question is what kind of change to accept.

One important point I made last time was that conservatism isn't opposed to all change. It is only opposed to change that is rooted in abstract ideas that are removed from practical reality, and philosophical theory that is alien to a nation's traditions. For example, when cultural systemists demand that our long-standing respect for free speech give way to a worldview where speech is seen as a tool of the privileged to maintain an oppressive status quo, rooted in postmodern critical theory, we must firmly resist. However, when change is rooted in practical need, and the solution is consistent with the spirit of long-standing traditions, then the change should be accepted.

This principle is actually very useful in informing our practice of classical liberalism. Under the classical liberal umbrella, there are libertarian immediatists who wish to immediately transform our societies into libertarian utopias, where driver's licenses are abolished, police and fire departments are privatized, and the economic safety net is entirely withdrawn, all in the name of achieving the smallest government possible, and/or getting as close to the non-aggression principle (NAP) as possible. The conservative, though a classical liberal, would necessarily have to oppose this kind of change, not only because it is radical, but also because it is rooted in abstract philosophy rather than practical need. Such proposals for change thus ignore the complexity of both individuals and society, and puts philosophy ahead of reality. On these points, the immediatist libertarian is in fact just as guilty as the cultural systemist. History has taught us that this kind of change rarely ends well, which is why we should reject it. This is why the conservative, while being a classical liberal, cannot be a libertarian immediatist.

On the other hand, during the gay marriage debate, I often argued on the side of what is now commonly known as the 'conservative case' for gay marriage, although I wasn't as aware of the conservative philosophical tradition back then. The demand by gay couples to access the institution of marriage was a new social development, which naturally arose from the freedom granted by a society steeped in classical liberal traditions. This development forced us to consider adjustments to social and legal norms, with people responding in a variety of ways. Some reactionary 'conservatives' would force these gay couples to go back into the closet, but I argued this would violate our long-standing norms of individual liberty and fairness, and hence gravely harm our traditional values. Others argued that we should tolerate gay couples, but not extend the institution of marriage to them. I argued that this would make marriage a discriminatory institution in the eyes of many people, especially among the younger generations, which would injure the commonly held value of marriage as a fundamental building block of society. The fact that marriage boycott movements were propping up in many places demonstrated this harm. Having looked at the issue from every angle, there really was not a truly 'no change' solution to the demand of gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would in fact be the path most consistent with upholding our traditions, including individual liberty, compassion, equality under the law, respect for marriage as an important institution, and so on. In other words, accepting the demand for change would be the only way to truly uphold and strengthen our long-standing traditions, while all other paths would actually lead to the injury of such traditions.

Let's compare abolishing driver's licenses and legalizing gay marriage. The case for gay marriage was rooted in practical demands, from gay couples who realized they were missing out on important rights as couples. Nobody is demanding the abolishment of driver's licenses from a practical point of view, as far as I'm aware of. Nobody needs driver's licenses to be abolished so they could live their lives in a better way. Therefore, the demand for gay marriage was rooted in practical reality, while the case for abolishing driver's licenses is purely based on philosophy. Moreover, as I demonstrated, refusing to legalize gay marriage would actually injure some of our traditions, which made the legalization of gay marriage necessary from the point of view of the preservation of these traditions. I can't see how refusing to abolish driver's licenses would injure our traditions in any way.

In summary, I think that conservative liberals should only accept change when it is clearly rooted in practical need, and not when it is primarily rooted in abstract philosophical justifications. This means that, as conservative liberals, we shouldn't be randomly going around society looking for things we can make more 'libertarian' in theory, when there is no practical need for change in reality. On the other hand, when there is a demand for change rooted in practical need, that is when we should use our classical liberal principles to determine if the case for change is sound. As conservative liberals, we should insist that any social change needs to be in accordance with our long-standing classical liberal values. This is why we still need to be committed to classical liberal values, and we should also be used to thinking about social issues from the classical liberal perspective. (This, in turn, is what the future development of classical liberal philosophy should be aiming at.)