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.