The Moderate Argument Against Leftist Politics

As I've pointed out many times before, the whole politics of the 21st century Western far-left is rooted in two branches of philosophy: postmodernism and critical theory. Therefore, the key to winning the argument against the far-left is to intellectually win the argument against these two worldviews. The way we can approach this is two-fold: firstly, by demonstrating the intellectual unsoundness of these worldviews, and secondly, by demonstrating the real world harms of activism and political action rooted in these worldviews. 

Postmodernism rejects the pursuit of objective truth, and sees speech and discourse primarily as exercises of power. Identity-based critical theories, often drawing on postmodernism, imagine society as being made up of interlocking 'systems of oppression', where people are defined as oppressors or the oppressed based on their immutable characteristics. Together, these two overarching philosophical views lead to seeing culture as constructed to oppress the marginalized rather than organically evolved to serve the needs of the people, seeing society as a sphere of powerplay rather than a marketplace of ideas where the objective truth can be pursued, and seeing people as inherently divided into oppressor vs. oppressed groups rather than individuals with their own needs, desires and agency. 

Unsurprisingly, a politics rooted in this outlook is often hostile to free speech, and is generally counterproductive in terms of resolving society's most sensitive conflicts. One needs to look no further than 2010s wokeness, its harmful impacts on free speech, and the backlash it ultimately brought, to prove this point. Other previous instances of the far-left causing similarly deleterious effects include the 1960s-70s New Left (which led to the backlash of the 1980s), the 1930s left in Europe (which led to the rise of fascism and World War II), and the actions of the Jacobins during the French Revolution (which led to Napoleon and the restoration of the monarchy). The far-left's formula has produced the same result again and again, and I think it would be irresponsible to allow them to experiment with society one more time. 

Building Bridges is the Key to Stop the Reactionary Tide

Dear Left, We Need to Build Bridges, Not Burn Them!

Katie: You often say you are very concerned with the rise of the reactionary populist right and its culture warrior politics. You know, the left is actively fighting this. Do you see them as fellow travelers, then?

Tara: Yes and no. Yes to the extent that we should all speak up on the threat of rising authoritarianism, in whatever way we can. But also no, because firstly, I think what the left is doing could be counterproductive, and secondly, the left's failure to keep its own authoritarians in check discredits their whole effort.

Katie: Where do you think the left is being counterproductive?

Tara: The first thing is building bridges. I believe the best way to resolve our political polarization, which would be the key to stop the rise of all kinds of extremism, is to build bridges. This is why I actually want to build bridges with people who have different views. However, with the way the left is right now, it isn't easy at all. It's like how some people already have a pre-conceived notion of what I believe in, based on their impression of some of the things that I've said, even though they don't actually understand my position. It happens on both the left and the right, but to be honest, I've encountered a lot more of it on the left, especially in the past decade.

Katie: Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?

Tara: It's like how some people who identify as 'leftists' would automatically assume that I'm the 'enemy', just because I've described my politics using words like 'centrist', 'moderate', 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian'. I think that's very tribalist. I use these labels because I think they help me describe for others where I'm coming from, and the philosophical traditions that have influenced me. But I think using labels to automatically exclude people is very unhealthily tribalistic. It also makes building bridges basically impossible.

Katie: Could it be because they have had bad experiences with people who identify with those labels, especially those who do so in bad faith?

Tara: I think that could be part of the reason. Like every true libertarian I know is very frustrated with the populist right's attempt to hijack that label these days. Some populist right influencers have also self-identified as centrist, moderate, or even classical liberal, during various phases of their evolution. However, just because questionable people self-identify with these ideologies, it doesn't make these ideologies bad. We have no choice as to who chooses to identify with what label, and short of just ceding the whole ideology to these bad actors, which I believe would be a big mistake, there is no way we can fix this situation. On the other hand, I think it is still incumbent upon everyone who wants to participate in the political discourse, to learn the truth for themselves, rather than just rely on mistaken stereotypes as an excuse to refuse to build bridges. Which means my criticism of the left still stands.