Will Anti-Woke Go Too Far? Here's my Answer.

I think the most important thing to ensure that anti-wokeism doesn’t go ‘too far’ is to maintain a truly intellectual critique of wokeness. Both the right-wing culture warrior version of anti-wokeism, as well as the new Democratic-aligned avoidance-based anti-wokeism, are ultimately rooted in a knee jerk reaction judgement of whether things could be deemed ‘woke’, while never truly engaging with the phenomenon on an intellectual level. As I’ve said many times, the problem with wokeness is that it is ultimately rooted in postmodern critical theory ideology, and ultimately in a worldview that I would classify as ‘critical anarchism’: critical because it uses (bad faith) critique as its weapon, and anarchism because it ultimately wants to deconstruct all existing social structures, without differentiation as to whether those structures actually serve a useful function or not, because their ideological theories tell them that all such structures are oppressive. Radical identity politics, cancel culture and the rest are all strategies in service of this overarching goal.

To maintain an intellectual critique of wokeness, and importantly, to resist lumping normal liberalism into wokeness and hence becoming subconsciously opposed to liberalism itself, we must be able to differentiate between critical anarchism and liberalism. For example, supporting gay marriage and accepting LGBT people is liberalism. Attacking family values and deconstructing gender is critical anarchism. Acknowledging that racism is still a problem that needs to be dealt with, while insisting that racism is a problem that lives within individuals and that individual responsibility is key to ending racism is liberalism. Saying that racism is ‘systemic’ and the only way to fix it is to discredit entire systems of education, law enforcement and justice, as well as overturning the entire paradigm of individual merit and individual-level fairness, is critical anarchism. Critical anarchism’s agenda has been soundly rejected by the general public across the West because it is offensive to our long-standing values. On the other hand, liberalism is still broadly popular, and we should aim to revive a version of liberalism that is completely free of critical anarchist influences. Building a robust critique of critical anarchism is the first step to get there. 

Two Philosophical Arguments Against 'New Left' Politics

The Enlightenment liberal tradition provides the most apparent arguments to rebut the postmodern critical theory worldview. That free speech is conducive to understanding the objective truth, and that understanding the truth is necessary for practical progress, is itself a self-evident truth that is provable by the study of history alone. It is for this reason that we must always stand firm for free speech. Also, there are good reasons why we should require objective evidence before we can agree that claims being made are sound. Postmodern critical theory's insistence that society is made up of interlocking systems of oppression simply doesn't meet this standard, and thus should be rejected. Besides, viewing society as being made up of interlocking systems of oppression is simply counterproductive, if we want to bring people together to resolve society's most sensitive conflicts, by finding solutions that would be satisfactory for every party. 

The conservative philosophical tradition, going back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, also provide important arguments against the postmodern critical theory worldview. It speaks to how the top-down, inorganic imposition of social change, driven by abstract philosophical doctrine, can be harmful to freedom, and also make things worse in unexpected ways in reality. This is why change must be gradual, rooted in practical need rather than abstract philosophy, and implemented in a way that respects society's long-standing values as much as possible. This lesson is one that progressives would do well to learn. This, in turn, is why I have long argued that the philosophical insights of the conservative cannon should be re-integrated into progressive thinking, and this would make for a good foundation for a sustainable reformist politics. Note that the conservative philosophical tradition is very different from what is wrongly called 'conservative' politics in the contemporary West, which is clearly more authoritarian-reactionary than conservative. True conservative philosophy would lead to a moderate reformist politics. 

How the Left can Stop Alienating People

Common ground is possible, but there are clearly barriers

Katie: While you've been quite critical of how the left exists right now, you have also said that you support the general idea of progress, as in making society more inclusive and better for everyone gradually. You have also said you want to build bridges and find common ground with the left, where possible. So under what conditions do you think you will be able to find that common ground?

Tara: The most important issue, the absolute make or break thing here for me, is that the left needs to truly embrace free speech and open-mindedness. They need to be able to accept people who want progress in good faith, but might have a different view on how it's best done. More specifically, they need to be more open towards people who have a different worldview, a different model of change, or simply don't accept the core tenets of contemporary leftist theory. If there is to be common ground, it has to be on wanting progress, while still allowing differences of opinion as to what that progress looks like. To put it simply, the left needs to stop letting leftist theory get in the way of being truly open-minded.

Katie: Can you elaborate more about what you see as 'leftist theory getting in the way of being truly open-minded'?

Tara: Leftist theory, as developed in the past half a century, has been essentially ruled by overarching ideas like how so-called 'respectability politics' is bad, how 'tone policing' is bad, how speech and discourse is about power dynamics rather than seeking the objective truth, how almost everything in the status quo is an oppressive social construct that should be deconstructed, and so on. When you so fundamentally believe in all these things, you simply aren't open to criticism that says otherwise. The objective fact is that the aforementioned beliefs are counterproductive. To remain in denial of this fact, when the evidence is mounting so quickly, the left has resorted to tribalism. This, I think, is also basically the root cause of the left's embrace of authoritarian methods like de-platforming and cancel culture, and more recently, simply saying that they are 'exhausted' and refusing to even communicate.

Katie: I know you aren't a fan of contemporary leftist theory, but how does theory come into this? Isn't tribalism just part of the uglier side of human nature?

Tara: Yes, tribalism is part of the uglier side of human nature. But the way the left is trying to hold onto fundamentally flawed theory is exacerbating it. It's like how some religious cults develop a strong suspicion of all outsiders, to be blunt. This actually brings me to a related point: perhaps due to the echo chamber effect, the left is very maximalist in its demands at the moment. It is in no mood to compromise, and it is doing a very good job of pushing away those who disagree with not only its policy positions, but also their underlying philosophical beliefs, which are frankly irrelevant to policy outcomes. I believe this is a major factor fueling the growth of the reactionary right.

Katie: What you call 'maximalist demands', others might argue to be necessary for justice. How would you respond to this?

Tara: What we need to remember here is that justice is a practical thing, not a theoretical thing. Which means that, to assess whether a particular course of action is conducive to justice, we need to look at its practical effects. And right now, the actions of the left are objectively not conducive to justice, because they are not only not convincing society to become better, they are actually fueling a reactionary backlash that is making society worse. If only for the sake of justice, the left should really be at least open to listening to others' criticisms, rather than pushing everyone else away in a tribalist way, which is what they are currently doing. I think we should also pay particular attention to how certain aspects of leftist theory is making the left behave in this counterproductive way. 

Why the Far-Left's Model of Change is All Wrong

But that doesn't mean that all hope for progressive change is doomed

Recently, I have been talking a lot about promoting a 'progressive conservative' ideal. IF you want to know more about what 'progressive conservatism' entails, you can start by reading my 'Progressive Conservative Manifesto'. One of the biggest reasons why I'm talking about progressive conservatism now is because, in the face of the Trump-led reactionary right's assaults on long-standing civil rights, programs and conventions that are too liberal for their liking, I have come to the view that we must take a stand for what we believe, before it's too late. My other, more long-standing reason for talking about progressive conservatism is because, over the years, I've found that the left's model of change is actually a massive failure. Like I've said many times, it leads to the needless polarization of society, and the burnout of generations of young people, and also opens the door to dangerous waves of backlash. Indeed, these two things are clearly linked in the present moment: it is the backlash to the 2010s 'woke left' that has allowed the reactionary right to gain power, to be in the position they are in right now, to do the damage they are doing right now. My hope is that a program of progressive conservatism will solve both problems.

Before a progressive conservative program can actually move forward, it has to gain enough support. Some of the support is going to come from centrists, moderate libertarians, and genuine anti-woke liberals, all of whom were frustrated at the woke excesses of the 2010s, but even more worried about the reactionary right's authoritarian overreach under Trump. I count myself as firmly belonging to this category. However, we also need to pull people from the more progressive side of the political spectrum because, let's face it: right now, all the energy is with either those who identify as 'progressives', or the MAGA crowd, and any movement that can't accept MAGA-ism will have to find allies on the progressive side, if it is to grow. The reason why I am criticizing the left's model of change is because I want to convince progressives to come over to our side. I want to convince them to come over, because the far-left's model of change is flawed, and we have a better way to move forward, to achieve what they want. The rewards of having a better model of change will be, of course, in the form of actually successfully making things better, and also in the form of defeating the reactionary right.

I think the biggest problem with the far-left's model of change is that it wants to tear down the status quo entirely. This is counterproductive, because it is much harder to build something good from scratch. It also leads to massive backlash, because people don't like to see what they have always known get destroyed in the service of some arbitrary philosophical theory. What we should remember is that the backlash always falls most heavily on the disadvantaged minorities of society. This is why I actually believe that the continued pursuit of radical change using the far-left's model is actually immoral. Indeed, history doesn't contain a single example where this far-left model of change has successfully brought good outcomes, while it contains many cautionary tales as to the harms this flawed model could bring. That many progressives became sympathetic to this failed model in the past decade, despite its historical track record, was almost entirely because of the influence of postmodern critical theory, which itself is an objectively unsound worldview.

Rather than tearing everything down, I would argue that a better approach would be to make what we have better, by drawing on our long-standing values. Values like freedom, compassion, caring for each other, commitment to improving our understanding of the truth, meritocracy on a fair playing field, and so on, are all embedded within our collective conscience, but their application to the real world remains incomplete. The progressive conservative project seeks to more fully implement these values in all areas of our life. It therefore seeks to strengthen, rather than deconstruct, our traditional inheritance. Through this process, we can certainly advance civil rights, make society more inclusive of minorities and fairer for everyone, and so on. This is especially true, if we can argue against the politics of the reactionary right, on the grounds of these traditional values. This should be easy to do, given that the reactionary right clearly does not care about harming real life people, and does not care about science or truth either.

I believe the flagrant violation of our long-standing values by the reactionary right under Trump gives us a good opportunity to argue for a better world based on upholding these values. But we can only successfully do that if we truly leave the nihilistic ideologies of deconstructionist postmodernism and oppressor vs. oppressed identitarian critical theory behind. I think the choice is clear, as to which path we should take going forward.

Divisive Identity Politics Can Never Lead to Progress | The Fault in the Left

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2024 US Presidential Election, and winning the majority of young men according to multiple exit polls, there has been a lot of soul searching as to whether the Democrats have a problem with male voters right now. A major point of discussion is whether the divisive us-vs-them identity politics that much of the left has embraced in the past decade is to blame. Frankly, I think it is to blame.

The truth is, you can either have a win-win politics for all, or you can have an identity politics that divides society into oppressor vs oppressed groups, but you can't have both. Postmodern critical theory and the identity politics inspired by such theory is always going to lead the left down the route of divisive identity politics, which is going to alienate many potential supporters. When you swap out old-school inclusive liberalism for the kind of philosophy that labels people as privileged oppressors based on their immutable characteristics, you are bound to lose a lot of support over time. I hope they can really learn this lesson, and get rid of this faulty and harmful philosophy once and for all.
 

A Simple Message to Authoritarians of All Stripes

The West has an authoritarian problem right now. Religious right, cancel culture activists and the rest, this is for you

This is a message for all of the authoritarians on both the left and the right, who dream of remaking society by forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. It's not going to happen, and you've lost the plot. Normal people just want to live and let live, to be left alone to live our own lives, and we also want everyone to get along as much as possible. We don't welcome people who seek to shut down people who disagree with them, or shove their beliefs down other people's throats. We won't give an inch to this kind of divisive authoritarianism, whether it is rooted in religion or other utopian beliefs. Normal people are not going to accept authoritarians who've lost the plot, no matter their political affiliations, or what kind of 'ideals' they supposedly hold. We just say no to all of it. That's it.

Why Allowing More Freedom is Generally the Morally Better Choice

Individual liberty is justified because morality can be improved

Over the years, I have illustrated why values like free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience are important in multiple ways. However, what I call the 'competitive morality' case for freedom might yet be the most important reason why freedom is important to maintain. Given both the left and the right have become increasingly disrespectful towards long-standing norms that safeguard freedom in recent years, I think this is a message people across the Western world really need to hear right now.

Basically, history has shown us that things can be done better. The way we do things today is much improved compared with back in the middle ages, or even during the industrial revolution, for example. While improvements in material conditions, methods of production and technology are most often celebrated, morality has also been improving over the generations. While things are still far from perfect, morality has overall been objectively improving over the centuries. We don't allow slavery, the torture of prisoners, and duels to the death anymore, for example. Given this history, there is every reason to believe that morality can continue to improve into the future.

The main drivers of improvement are innovation and competition. This is clear to see when we are talking about technology. However, it also applies to matters of morality. If everyone just accepted slavery as part of life, it would never have been abolished. This demonstrates the importance of allowing enough freedom for innovation. On the other hand, if the anti-slavery message wasn't able to compete with those arguing for the then-status quo on an equal footing, it might not have won out, despite being objectively more sound. This demonstrates the importance of maintaining a fair playing field in the marketplace of ideas. Both of the aforementioned objectives would require free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience. It is freedom that both allows innovation, and allows fair competition in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, ultimately it is freedom that allows morality to improve over time.

Looking at history would confirm this theory. Societies that were more free and open generated more improvements in morality. Even though the freedom to experiment might sometimes lead to errors too, overall speaking, allowing this freedom is worthwhile in the end, especially in light of the resulting improvements being able to benefit many generations to come. This is why, looking at it from a broad picture scale, allowing more freedom is objectively more moral. It is proven by both history and logic. I think we should take this into account when assessing political options, for example when voting. I believe that, generally speaking, supporting choices that are overall orientated towards more freedom, as well as punishing politicians that actively advocate for less freedom, is generally correct as a principle.

The Classical Liberal Case for a Normie Politics

Why I won't 'take the red pill', nor go 'woke'.

Today, I'm going to try to reclaim the word 'normie', and make the case for embracing a 'normie politics'. Firstly, what does 'normie' mean? It is a term frequently used in online discourse, it is usually used pejoratively, and its origin is disputed. But basically, it means somebody that has not been exposed to the ideas of a certain sub-culture. In political circles, it generally means so-called 'normal' people who know nothing much about the politics of either the far-left or the far-right, and would be expected to outrightly reject those unusual ideas. For the normie, the flavors of politics range from the regular liberal to the regular conservative, and anything else would just be seen as whacky or even dangerous.

Therefore, to embrace a 'normie' orientation would just mean bringing the common sense of common people to the table, to help us make a judgement on what is real, what is sound, and what is a good solution. While this common sense is not always perfect, it is at least better than being enmeshed within a certain political subculture and its echo chambers, and getting a distorted picture of the reality as a result. In a society where the extremes are increasingly getting their way, normie-ism is perhaps the best tool to stop them in their tracks.

Contrary to popular opinion within elite progressive circles, normie politics doesn't mean we have to just assume that people are prejudiced, and pander to their biases. It also doesn't mean being close-minded and refusing to listen to new facts about life. Indeed, being sincere, truthful and reasonably open-minded are common sense values held by most people. Most people don't like people who second guess what others think and make a calculated move in taking a stance. This is why most people distrust politicians in general. A truly normie stance would be to not act like a politician. Instead, you should just speak your mind, while being open-minded about what others have to say too. But you should speak your mind without taking in prior distortions of reality, especially those that come from propaganda spreading within political echo chambers. Think of it this way: a normie is somebody who is not susceptible to political tribalism. The normie decides what is right or wrong based on their own values and instincts, rather than take tribalist political stances.

I'll give you a good example of a truly normie take on politics. In 2003, when I was 16 and in my first year of college, there were two hot button issues out there: the Iraq War and gay marriage. I decided to oppose the Iraq War and support gay marriage, just because I felt like it was the right thing to do. To put it simply, war is bad, and making people happy is good. I was new to politics back then, and didn't have any distorted preconceptions. I wasn't brainwashed to believe that perpetual war in the Middle East was somehow required to keep the West safe, or that gay marriage would threaten family values, simply because I had not been watching much news media before that point. Now, people who were brainwashed by certain echo chambers genuinely believed in those things back then. It wasn't their fault either: they had been deliberately guided into those views by propaganda, designed by those with an agenda, and lots of power, money, or both. The real normie, without prior exposure to this propaganda and forming certain preconceptions because of it, would not have seen things the same way.

Fast forward 21 years, and ideological propagada campaigns, fake news, and deliberately distorted narratives are literally everywhere. We're on a totally new level of un-reality, and frankly I'm worried for our future. A real normie would see through the problems with wokeness, but many on the left keep insisting that wokeness equals social justice. A real normie would also see through the scary authoritarianism of the populist right, but some people still insist that it is 'justified' as a push-back against the woke. The un-reality of each side is being weaponized to make the other side more extreme all the time, and too many people still can't see through all the madness. I'm particularly worried about those who push an oppressor vs oppressed narrative, those who pit free speech against social justice, those who ideologically deny scientifically valid views, and those who deliberately whip up fear and animosity towards certain minority groups.

Classical liberalism, and indeed the Western Enlightenment as a whole, is in danger of being drowned out by aggressive actors from both political extremes, and I believe embracing a normie politics helps us fight back. A normie is pro-fact, pro-science, and skeptical of narratives that don't line up with what they see in real life. A normie also has no time for elaborate theories designed to disarm our common decency and goad us into accepting inhumane extremism, and this is exactly what we need right now. Moreover, the desire for freedom itself, and a healthy skepticism towards moves to reduce individual freedom, are pretty normie too. What we need to remember is that, embracing normie politics doesn't mean you can't be guided by certain values. For example, I have strong libertarian sympathies. There is nothing un-normie about loving freedom, as long as you don't begin to think that driver's licenses are against freedom, or something totally against common sense like that.

Embracing a normie politics would also help us stay grounded in a practical, reformist path forward. Both the classical liberal belief in the power of rationality, and the Burkean conservative belief that change should be practical, gradual, and not rooted in abstract ideas alone, are totally consistent with normie values. Other essential ingredients of reformism, like compassion, willingness to compromise, and aversion to cruelty, are also part of normie values. This is why a reformist politics is basically a normie politics, and vice versa. This is why, while reformism functions on the philosophical level, and normie politics functions on a gut-instinct level, the two often arrive at very similar answers.

What is Conservatism?

Now, we need to answer the question, 'what is conservatism'. Again, contrary to popular belief, conservatism isn't everything that is considered politically right-wing. It isn't everything supported by so-called 'conservative' political parties like the Republicans in America or the British Conservative Party. It is actually a political philosophy, a way to approach social and political issues.

British philosopher Edmund Burke is often considered the father of conservatism. His most famous thoughts pertained to the French Revolution, which he lived through. He was very skeptical of the radical, 'tear everything down' approach of the French revolutionaries, as well as their over-commitment to abstract ideas as the way to progress society. What we need to remember is that, Burke was not against all change and progress, he actually supported relatively progressive positions during his lifetime. He was just against radical change that was rooted in abstract ideas rather than practical reality, and a total rejection of a given nation's traditions.

Hence, conservatism, as properly understood, is a philosophy that opposes radical change that is rooted in abstract ideas, and alien to a given nation's traditions. Change that is rooted in practical needs, and especially change that is rooted in a society's long-standing values, is not inherently opposed by conservative philosophy. Conservatism is therefore not reactionary! Instead, it is a philosophy that seeks to ground progress in practical reality, and in the long-standing traditions of society.

At least in the English-speaking West, liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience and 'live and let live' are indeed a long-standing part of our society. Therefore, conservatism, as properly understood, would aim to conserve these values too. Change and reform that arise out of liberal processes should also be favored over those that oppose liberal values and processes. Therefore, reactionary culture warriors, who oppose any and all change, and even resort to illiberal means to stop that change, are not really conservatives, properly understood.

What is Liberalism?

Firstly, we need to ask the question 'what is liberalism'. Contrary to popular belief, not everything that sounds 'progressive' or left-leaning is liberal. While liberalism has had a generally progressive effect on society over time, this is a result of following liberal values and processes.

To put it simply, liberalism is the political philosophy that focuses on individual freedom. However, that would indeed be too simple, because equality is also an important part of liberalism. After all, in feudal times, kings and nobility had far more freedom than anyone has now, in that they could own slaves and dictate others to act according to their will. In feudalism, some people have lots of freedom but others have none. Liberalism is different in that everyone gets their fair share of freedom. Hence, liberalism is actually about distributing freedom equally between individuals.

Liberal values like freedom of conscience, free speech and 'live and let live' allow the marketplace of ideas to flourish. Ideas get debated, and the sound ones are eventually accepted and adopted by society. Traditions can be examined for potential for improvement through this process, and a sustainable, gradualist reformism is the result, which makes people's lives better over time. This is more rational than both a reactionary rejection of all change, and a revolutionary tearing down of everything that exists. This is why liberalism has been behind many of the most celebrated social reforms of the past three centuries in the West.

In short, liberalism is distinguished by its commitment to allow everyone their fair share of freedom. Its commitment to freedom in turn encourages the discovery of truth, and allows ideas to be debated fairly, and sound reforms to be enacted over time. Its track record in aiding the discovery of the objective truth, and improving people's lives over time through social and political reform, is clearly evident in Western history since the Enlightenment.

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.

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.

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.

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.