Why We Rejected Both the Left and the Right

Let's rewind to 2016. Oberlin Banh-mi-gate was perhaps one of the most memorable episodes of 2010s cultural nonsense. It was memorable not only because of its ridiculousness, but also because of its demonstration of what the 21st century Western left actually looks like in practice, when you take its theories to their logical conclusions. By the time it happened, I (along with many other people) was already vehemently opposed to the anti-cultural appropriation critics and the anti-freedom implications of their movement. But Oberlin Banh-mi-gate vividly demonstrated what application of the cultural appropriation doctrine to even minor matters of everyday life would look like, and gave many people a decisive moment where they realized that it was not the kind of society they wanted to live in. These people were definitely on board with social justice as traditionally understood, i.e. changes that actually made people’s lives better. However, this new version of ‘critical’ social justice was basically built on adherence to a rigid ideological anti-freedom doctrine, and many people rightly decided to say no, thanks. Far from being a minor episode, Oberlin Banh-mi-gate was definitely one of the many turning points in the 2010s that would decisively turn a critical mass of liberals away from the ‘woke left’.

The fact is, the excesses of the woke left turned many off the Democratic Party, and allowed Trump to win, twice. I actually think the Democratic Party wouldn’t have suffered this fate if they remained broadly ‘anti-right’ (without actively supporting the woke left, for example) like they were during the Bush era. But too many elected Democrats appeared to actively embrace wokeness, if only for a while. This would turn out to be a major mistake, as Kamala Harris learned the hard way in 2024.

During the peak of the woke-left, when even mainstream Democrats appeared to be ready to embrace wokeness (most of the candidates in the 2019-20 Dem primary did embrace wokeness to some extent, I’ll be forever grateful that Biden didn’t), some of us did wish the right could be an acceptable alternative for us. However, if you really understood the right, you would have understood that it just ain’t going to happen. They weren’t going to nominate someone like Carly Fiorina, any more than they were going to let the IDW have a seat at the CPAC table, or let Trump actually be an anti-war President. The right is fundamentally authoritarian, reactionary, and pro-war, and I’m now more convinced than ever before that nothing and nobody will ever be able to change them. If the rise of Millennial voters couldn’t make them drop their racism, if Trump couldn’t make them drop their commitment to the forever wars, and if the 2010s libertarians couldn’t make them drop their anti-LGBT attitudes for good, then the right is not going to change. (Indeed, the Iran War is making them openly pro-war again, and they’ve even gone backwards on everything from contraception to gay marriage acceptance.) I’ve come to accept that changing the right is fundamentally a lost cause, at least during my lifetime. Because of the vested interests and huge amount of money involved, the right is forever going to stay the way it is, and the only way we can respond is by taking it or leaving it. And given the whole package, especially the forever wars, I believe we’re morally obliged to firmly say no to this package.

The fact is that there are many naturally non-left AND non-right people, so-called politically homeless people, out there. I still think a liberaltarian alliance is the best kind of politics for us. By the way, liberaltarianism appears to be a live option once again. 2026 really is the new 2006! Have hope again, fellow classical liberals!