The Fundamental Difference Between Classical Liberals and the Authoritarian Right

The challenge of wokeism highlights a 300 year old fault line

Welcome back to the series where we look at what went wrong with the so-called anti-woke movement. In the previous articles, we established that while classical liberals and the authoritarian right both oppose wokeism, we do so on different grounds, and have different and incompatible answers to wokeism too. Today, I want to focus on what the classical liberal answer to wokeism should look like, and how it stands fundamentally in opposition to the authoritarian right's answer.

I think we should start by going back to the fundamentals of the liberal model of society. Liberalism arose in Europe in the context of long-standing and bloody religious conflicts, and the desire by some to put such conflicts to an end. Hence, the primary challenge of the original liberals was to find a way to govern society that would not provoke religious conflicts. Before liberalism, state and church were tightly integrated in Europe, which meant that whoever controlled the state would also control the church in that country, and vice versa. This meant that religious conflicts would necessary be political conflicts too, and vice versa. The liberal solution, separation of church and state, would put an end to this. In practice, the liberal solution was to have a government that treated every individual equally, and remained neutral in religious conflicts. To do so, the government needed to maintain distance from not only religion, but also everyday life, culture and philosophical debates, because these things were also heavily tied to religion back then.

Hence, for practical purposes, a liberal society is one where the government maintains some distance from everyday society, culture and philosophy, and generally remains neutral towards cultural and philosophical conflicts. This model of society arose out of a specific need in Western history, and later came to foster the pluralism that became a hallmark of Western society. The history of the development of liberal governance is hence also the history of how the West became pluralistic and intellectually free.

Wokeism, more accurately called cultural systemism, threatens the consensus that liberalism built in fundamental ways. Cultural systemists believe that society's culture and institutions are all parts of overarching and interlocking systems of oppression, designed to oppress women and minorities for the benefit of the privileged groups. The first problem with this is that it denies that neutrality in culture and philosophy is fair or even possible. The second, less easily seen, but even more important problem is that it denies any difference between state power and other sources of 'power' (as justified in postmodern critical theory), because it is all seen as a part of an overarching 'system of oppression'. This would lead to the misguided view that a culturally neutral state is actually part of the system of oppression, which would then imply that state cultural neutrality should be 'dismantled' like everything else that makes up the system of oppression. As liberals, we oppose cultural systemism because it would effectively end the liberal model of Western society, by attacking both the position of neutrality in culture and philosophy, and also the separation of governance from culture and philosophy.

Given that as liberals, we oppose cultural systemism as part of our work of upholding the liberal society, our opposition to cultural systemism must also be done in a way that is consistent with upholding the liberal model of society. This means we need to separate the political sphere from the cultural and philosophical sphere, at the very minimum. In the political sphere, our only commitment should be individual liberty, with philosophical debates beyond that (what ancient philosophers characterized as 'what the good life should be') firmly out of scope. Therefore, in terms of politics, our opposition to woke activism should be restricted to the grounds of individual liberty, and equal treatment regardless of immutable characteristics. For example, we should oppose acts of de-platforming and cancellation, and 'progressive stack' style speaking systems. If such phenomenon were to be imported into areas relevant to the activities of government, for example an election debate or an official policy forum, we would need to resist it, including by legislation if necessary. However, the wider philosophical views of cultural systemism, including everything from 'gender is a social construct' to 'marriage is patriarchal and repressive', are not part of the proper scope of politics, from a liberal point of view. This doesn't mean we can't speak out in opposition to these ideas. However, all this belongs in the realm of philosophical debate, which the liberal model of society says should be seen as separate, and kept at a distance from, the politics of government. If we still believe that government should be culturally neutral, then we shouldn't be waging cultural and philosophical battles in the arena of politics, and muddying the waters between the cultural and the political.

The liberal method described above stands in stark contrast to the authoritarian right's model of 'anti-wokeism', which actually represents a return to a pre-liberal form of society and governance. The authoritarian right's model is essentially using state power to stamp out 'wokeism' in its entirety, without discriminating between the spheres of government-politics and culture-philosophy. To do so, it would necessarily have to extend state interference into culture and philosophy, right down to the level of everyday life. The authoritarian right's anti-woke war extends state power into local libraries, schools, main streets, and even families. There is no limit to state intrusion into everyday life, and no right to privacy, as long as action is taken in the name of defeating wokeism. This is reminiscent of the pre-liberal religious conflicts in Europe, where states often attempted to mercilessly wipe out rival religions within their boarders, using every ounce of state power at their disposal. In using state power to stamp out wokeism, the authoritarian right is also effectively forcing their culture and philosophy down the throats of the whole population, because many otherwise non-woke people also oppose actions like banning books or banning drag shows. You could even argue that the authoritarian right is forcing their religion down other people's throats, given that the bans on LGBT books and drag shows are clearly religiously motivated at least to a substantial extent.

In the face of the rise of wokeism we have two different responses. The liberal method is to defend liberty in a neutral way in the political arena, and to combat cultural systemism in the philosophical arena. The authoritarian right method is to fight a culture war against wokeism using state power, extending state power to every area of life in the process. The two methods represent two very different visions of what society should look like: the liberal model that ended Europe's religious conflicts, vs the pre-liberal model that led to those conflicts. The liberal model that made the West pluralistic and free, vs the pre-liberal model where everyone obeyed Kings and Lords and the state Church on everything. The thinkers of the 'postliberal' right are openly disdainful of the liberal model of society and wish to put an end to it. They are already envisioning how an illiberal future for the West could look like. Those of us who support the liberal model should see this attempt to take us back to the middle ages for what it is, and stand firmly against it. Even as we continue to combat cultural systemism too.

How Classical Liberals Can Overcome the Anti-Woke Establishment

There needs to be a path out of the shadow of the authoritarians

Welcome back to the series where we look at what went wrong with the so-called anti-woke movement. Last time, we established that the anti-woke movement is a coalition of people with different worldviews, and that authoritarian conservatives (as opposed to classical liberals and libertarian conservatives) have gained the upper hand in the anti-woke discourse, because of their dominance in anti-woke media. This, in turn, has left classical liberals very concerned. After all, we oppose 'wokeism', which I believe could be more accurately called 'cultural systemism', for the sake of individual liberty and a healthy marketplace of ideas, but ironically parts of the anti-woke movement are now attacking individual liberty and free speech. So where do we go from here, and what do we do to address this situation?

Let's start with the imbalance of voices heard in the anti-woke media, because that's where the problem begins. As I said, much of the well funded anti-woke media have been providing a disproportionately large platform for the auth-right point of view. They have been featuring an increasing number of 'postliberal' right thinkers who are openly critical of classical liberal philosophy and even Buckley-Reagan style fusionism. They are mainstreaming ever more extreme pundits who call for aggressively waging the culture wars, who advocate once unacceptable ideas like 'eradicating' transgenderism from public life, moving the Overton Window towards extreme authoritarianism with every such move. And then there is the clearly biased and moral panic-inducing reporting on all the common culture war issues, which serves to justify increasingly authoritarian policies like banning books from libraries and banning drag shows in public. Another feature of anti-woke media today is that there is very little heated debate and disagreement featured. There is effectively a culture of agreement and conformity, which effectively leads to a 'consensus' that strongly leans authoritarian in light of the aforementioned developments.

Classical liberals, many who started following anti-woke media since around the mid-late 2010s, have found the overall balance and (manufactured) 'consensus' of such media outlets an increasingly uncomfortable fit with our own values and commitments. Many of us have criticized individual anti-woke public figures, whose recent changes have disappointed us. Some of us have gone further, pointing out the hypocrisy of opposing 'woke' cancel culture but having no problem with right-wing governments banning books with racial or LGBT themes. However, we haven't been able to break through and get heard beyond certain corners of the internet. Our individual voices are simply no match against the well-funded anti-woke media establishment. (I think you can justifiably call them an establishment by now, because they dominate the anti-woke discourse, and feature the same people and the same arguments over and over again.)

The harsh reality is, when most people think of anti-wokeism, they still think of certain big name media outlets and personalities, and their perception of the movement is still overwhelmingly colored by these entities, even as these entities have taken an authoritarian turn. I've had the experience of people telling me they assumed I was right-wing or opposed to LGBT rights because I said I was anti-woke. This just shows that we are effectively living in the shadows of anti-woke inc., that not only are we not making a dent in their 'consensus', we are even having trouble defending our own reputations from that which we don't even agree with in the first place. If things don't change, it could mean that we could be ostracized by progressive-leaning parts of society for the sins of anti-woke inc. with little chance to protest. It would also mean that not many people would be willing to join our side, even if they see the merit in our arguments. Being tied to anti-woke inc. and their authoritarian policies would be a social price many would not be willing to pay. We shouldn't be afraid of being ostracized for beliefs we genuinely hold. But being ostracized for things we don't actually believe in is unfair, and we need to do all we can to fight against this happening.

In other words, our problem is one of getting heard in the first place. We, classical liberals who are opposed to wokeism on classical liberal grounds, need to be heard loud and clear. This is our most important objective going forward. And to get heard, we need to say something unique and different. This is how we can get our fair share of attention, and how we stop getting drowned out by anti-woke inc. Over the past 5-7 years I have talked a lot about cancel culture, postmodern critical theory identity politics, and other aspects of wokeism, and how they are incompatible with liberal values. I think this has now been heard loud and clear. However, if we just talk about this, we don't sound different enough from anti-woke inc. Only by actively differentiating ourselves from anti-woke inc., by taking positions in clear opposition to the 'consensus' in anti-woke inc., will we be able to move outside its shadow. In other words, there must be a particularly strong emphasis on where we disagree with anti-woke inc. going forward.

One easy way to do this would be to simply stand our classical liberal ground and oppose their increasingly authoritarian policy stances. We should be taking a strong stance against any attempt to whip up moral panics and usher in authoritarian policies. Between the draconian abortion bans, the drag show bans, and book bans, and the mountains of anti-LGBT bills that have recently been introduced, there is a lot we can work with, to differentiate ourselves from anti-woke inc.

There are also other ways to stand apart from, and against, anti-woke inc. For example, we could insist on making our anti-wokeism philosophy centered, while contrasting this with the culture war centered version of anti-wokeism from anti-woke inc. The philosophical debates we can have against cultural systemism are actually highly intellectual and interesting, a refreshing counterpoint against the culture warriors' ridiculous war on Disney and Bud Light. We can also put more effort into arguing why any 'fusionism' between classical liberals and the auth-right on particular issues where we have superficial agreement on (e.g. opposition to critical race theory) are still fundamentally impossible. If the auth-right hates 20th century fusionism so much, then we need to show them that we are just as uncomfortable with fusionism as they are. If they want to tear the band-aid off, then so be it, because we have wanted to scratch that itch for a long time too. Let's bury that fusionism for good, and not just the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan kind too. Let fusionism be dead and buried for good, so that classical liberals and the auth-right can finally face off like the philosophical rivals we actually are. If anything, it's going to be more philosophically honest than what we have now, which will make the classical liberal case against wokeism much stronger too.

Finally, I want to address the use of the word 'woke'. More and more people are advocating a move away from using that word, especially since right-wing culture warriors are using it to mean everything they don't like. I have thought about this for a long time actually. I have even advocated using 'cultural systemism' to describe general wokeism, and 'critical anarchism' to describe the more extreme manifestations, and I will continue to advocate using these terms. However, I don't think we can entirely move away from 'woke' until people can agree on a new term, because we need to use terms that are most widely understood for the sake of effective communication. If we unilaterally give up on talking about 'woke', the culture warriors will have a monopoly on 'anti-woke' discourse, with likely disastrous results.

What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement

Let's go back to the basics and look at the philosophical roots again

Let's face it: The anti-woke movement has become a trainwreck. People are now confused about what 'woke' really means. Many are just sick and tired of any talk about 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' at this point. Meanwhile, right-wing culture warriors, many with religious-authoritarian motivations, have hijacked the anti-woke movement to target people and things that are not actually woke, such as Disney, Bud Light, and even the entire LGBT community. The biggest problem is that there is now almost no serious intellectual discussion on why wokeism is misguided, why we oppose it, or even what should be done about it. This is the beginning of a series where I will attempt to retrace the history of anti-wokeism, look at what has gone wrong, and what we need to do to fix things from here.

Let's start at the beginning. The reason why I started speaking up against wokeism is basically philosophical. In the past year, I have described wokeism, in its most pure and extreme form, as 'critical anarchism', in that it seeks to deconstruct and dismantle basically the entire cultural status quo, which wokeists believe is made up of interlocking systems of oppression. Some have disputed my characterization, saying that not all woke activists go to that extreme level, and I have to agree. However, generally speaking, I think wokeism, broadly speaking (that is when including the 'moderately woke' too), could be characterized as cultural systemism, i.e. an orientation towards seeing culture as primary defined by interlocking systems of dominance and oppression, rather than for example a battle between ideas, or a process of gradual moral refinement over time.

I think the conflict between woke and anti-woke is essentially a conflict between cultural systemism and those opposed to this worldview. On the systemist side are the woke, who believe that our culture primarily consists of interlocking and mutually reinforcing systems of oppression, and that to liberate women and oppressed minorities all these systems need to be deconstructed and dismantled. On the non-systemist side are liberals, conservatives (both libertarian and authoritarian), and even the progressive 'SJWs' of the 2010s. People on the non-systemist side have different and conflicting views of what culture is and what it should look like, but broadly speaking they believe that it is ideas, rather than systems of oppression, that create and influence our culture. Note that non-systemists don't always deny the systematic nature of some of the discrimination present in society, we just don't believe this is a good primary lens with which to analyze and change society. For example, for wokeists, 'white supremacy' is a system of oppression to be dismantled, while I see it as a bad idea that needs to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas. In the case of draconian abortion bans, wokeists see them as a product of the system of 'patriarchy', while I see them as the product of religious authoritarianism, an ideology rooted in unsound ideas and assumptions.

Non-systemists also have different reasons to oppose systemism. I believe that cultural systemism is bad because it inherently denies the power of ideas, the importance of free will, truth and morality, and ultimately our personal agency to make society better. My opposition to aspects of 'woke activism' like de-platforming and cancel culture also stem from my philosophical commitments. Since I believe that a free flow of ideas ultimately leads to more sound ideas winning out, I logically favor free speech. On the other hand, systemists might oppose free speech because they believe it favors speech and ideas that reinforce the systems of oppression. Of course, we who support free speech have objective evidence on our side, as seen in how we won gay marriage throughout the West in less than a generation using the power of persuasion. However, it would be difficult to convince cultural systemists using objective evidence, because many of them are highly influenced by postmodernism, and are skeptical of objectivity.

The problem with the anti-woke movement is that it is, and has always been, a coalition of people with different, and at times incompatible, ideals. Just because we all believe in the primacy of ideas and not systems in defining a society's culture, doesn't mean we can agree on what ideas we should uphold. There was a failure to acknowledge this right from the start, as seen in for example the IDW's early tip-toeing around their differences, which ended up tearing them apart just a few years later. I personally wouldn't have a problem with the anti-woke movement being a broad umbrella for anti-systemists, where different voices and perspectives are equally and fairly represented, and we agree to respectfully disagree outside of our common opposition to cultural systemism. I don't pretend that all anti-systemists are liberals or moral libertarians like myself, and I have never believed that we should seek dominance over other anti-systemists, because that would dilute and confuse the argument against cultural systemism.

The problem is, authoritarian conservatives, who are part of the anti-woke movement, obviously had different priorities. Unlike classical liberals, their agenda is not pluralistic and tolerant of diversity of thought at all. In fact, prominent 'postliberal' intellectuals have come out and openly criticized classical liberal thinkers, particularly John Stuart Mill, for defending the right of individuals to transgress against traditional social norms. While the classical liberal model supports free thought and free speech for all, and believe that the best ideas will win out in the marketplace of ideas, authoritarian conservatives have the same fear and distrust towards the marketplace of ideas as the woke. While we are anti-woke because we believe in defending the marketplace of ideas and the individual liberty required for it to work, they just oppose wokeism because they want a different, more traditional kind of authoritarianism. We have no trouble being in an alliance with libertarian conservatives, because of our shared commitment to classical liberal values. But authoritarian conservatives, who want governments to ban transgression against traditional-religious norms, are actually our biggest ideological enemy historically, and being in any alliance with them is selling out the core values and heritage of classical liberalism.

The trouble right now is that, it appears that authoritarian conservatives are more powerful than classical liberals, in terms of things like money and connections. Many well-funded and well-connected anti-woke media outlets have taken a more authoritarian conservative stance on various issues, or at least given authoritarian conservative voices a bigger platform than classical liberal or libertarian conservative voices. I think this also reflects the recent shift towards authoritarianism seen in the Republican Party and right-wing American politics in general. The increasingly authoritarian tone found in anti-woke media has served to support increasingly authoritarian policies and legislation from the Republican Party, and we classical liberals simply can't in our good conscience stay silent any longer.

Moreover, since the authoritarian right hijacked the anti-woke movement, there has been less and less space to discuss the shortcomings of cultural systemism. Instead, they have muddied the waters of what 'woke' means, making anything they don't like 'woke' (as in 'Disney is a woke corporation'). This has done great disservice to those of us who want a real intellectual debate on cultural systemism. My hope was that the anti-woke movement could build and promote the case against cultural systemism, by pushing back on the cultural systemist claims and associated behaviors of woke activists. But it seems that the authoritarian conservative voices that now dominate anti-woke media prefer to make anti-wokeness all about picking fights with Disney, banning drag performances, and banning books from libraries, all of which are things classical liberals, and even most libertarian conservatives, would instinctively oppose. The kind of anti-woke movement seen in the 'mainstream' anti-woke media is an authoritarian one, with very little space for more libertarian voices these days.

Which is why it's time to split up, and build an alternative. An alternative that is committed to individual liberty and the marketplace of ideas, and opposes wokeism on these grounds, rather than pseudo-populist reactionary sentiment. An alternative that wants to have serious debates about cultural systemism, rather than starting culture wars about Disney and drag queens.