We need to rediscover our common ground in the classical liberal and conservative traditions
The combined effects of the postmodern left and the culture-war right means that Western society is now divided between two kinds of people: those who want to fight a tribalist culture war to 'own' the other side, and those who still believe in finding common ground and working towards practical solutions for our problems. The first group, the culture warriors on both sides, are a lost cause at this point, and I think we must separate ourselves from them going forward. We, people on both sides of the political spectrum who are still dedicated to finding common ground and finding good solutions, need to be able to have constructive dialogue with each other, rooted in a commitment to objective reality and a wish to find practical solutions. We would also need to put our ideological differences aside to achieve this. To do all this, we need a clear vision of the society we want, and how to get there.
Using the Classical Liberal Tradition to Rebuild our Shared Objective Reality
Right now, many people are concerned about the rise of fake news, and biased reporting that might not be fake but is deliberately biased so as to provoke an emotional reaction, often to support certain policies. A new, worrying trend is that there seems to be an increasing alignment between the 'postliberal' right and this kind of biased reporting, with certain media outlets (including both traditional and online outlets) reliably acting as a bloc to deliver the emotionally charged moral panics that justify highly illiberal policies and actions. The recent moral panic around certain LGBT issues, and the resulting illiberal policies in many red states across America, as well as the movements to boycott Bud Light and Target, is a good example of this. (The Target boycott is particularly notable here because it was partly fueled by fake news.) As classical liberals, we just can't let this continue unchecked, because it would represent the total destruction of important classical liberal norms, from the commitment to objective truth, to the need for the state to respect individual liberty, to the freedom of private businesses to do business as they see fit.
Many social media platforms have resorted to varying levels of censorship, which has generally been disastrous in practice. Not only does this not stamp out fake news, it is totally useless against biased reporting that does not cross into fake news, but nevertheless represents a distortion of reality. Moreover, such action has led to criticisms of disrespect of free speech rights, which inevitably lead to even more conspiracy theories. Furthermore, there are always platforms where censored ideas can still be spread. Particularly now that Twitter is owned by Elon Musk and has an anti-censorship ethos, there is certainly no way censorship can be part of the solution to combat fake news. Censorship was misguided in the first place, and now it has become worse than useless.
I think the only way to combat fake news and biased reporting is to recommit to the classical liberal tradition. Specifically, we must value free speech, the marketplace of ideas, and finding common ground in being dedicated to the objective truth. To put it bluntly, I think we are in the situation we are in now partly because of the influence of a certain strain of postmodern and critical theory thinking, that originated from far-left sections of academia. That strain of thinking values subjectivity over objectivity, and paints all social norms and objective truth as oppressive constructs in the service of privileged groups. This is the way which leads to a loss of shared reality, a society where there are competing 'truths' that are all 'relative' to one's social affiliations, and ultimately fertile ground for fake news and biased reporting to take hold. All this is not to discount the role of 20th century 'fusionist' political conservatism either. Fusionism was essentially a counterfeit version of conservatism that masked radical economic policies with reactionary culture wars. The reactionary culture wars became a norm for Republican and conservative politics, and the use of biased reporting and tribal 'truths' became normalized within such culture wars.
As I said earlier, we, people on both sides of the political spectrum who are still dedicated to finding common ground and finding good solutions, need to be able to have constructive dialogue with each other, rooted in a commitment to objective reality and a wish to find practical solutions. We would also need to put our ideological differences, and our political affiliations aside, to achieve this. If we can build a movement of rational and constructive dialogue that cuts across ideological factions, then I think we would have something that can outcompete the fake news and biased reporting model. If that happens, we wouldn't have to fear fake news anymore, because it would just die out from being unpopular.
Building a Practical Progressive Conservatism
One of the major reasons the culture wars have gotten so heated and unhealthy is because the left is no longer liberal, and the right is no longer conservative. Since the 1970s, the Western Left has been gradually transformed by abstract philosophical theories produced in academia, and the progress being advocated for is often grounded in theory but ignorant of the nuances of reality. Such change tends to hurt innocent bystanders in some way, and therefore generate backlash. The mainstreaming of postmodern critical theories in the 2010s, which also challenged traditional liberal values like free speech, made things even worse. Also, since the 1980s, the 'fusionist' right has been whipping up reactionary culture wars to hide their radical economic agenda. This is not what the Burkean conservative tradition is about, and the proper understanding of conservatism, where change that is rooted in practical need and consistent with a given nation's traditions is accepted, needs to be restored.
The combination of a return to old-school liberal values on the left, and a return to a genuine understanding of conservatism on the right, leads to the possibility of a practical progressivism that is rooted in both the classical liberal tradition and the Burkean conservative tradition. Conservatism demands that change rooted in abstract theory and alien to a nation's traditions be rejected. Liberalism, with its free speech and marketplace of ideas, allows the people to reject such change. On the other hand, conservatism would accept change that arises from practical need, and done in a way that is consistent with a nation's traditions. Again, liberalism's marketplace of ideas is the place where the solution for such change can be developed, with the rational and conscious input of stakeholders from all walks of life.
With this ideal in mind, we are on firm ground to reject the culture warrior approach from both the theoretical, cultural systemist left, as well as the reactionary, now borderline-fascistic right. We know that we can have something better, and we should work hard to make it a reality.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
Looking for the Political Philosophy to End Tribalist Culture Wars
What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement (Part 2): The Fusionism Factor
We can't make things right without dealing with the aftermath of fusionism
In recent weeks, I've talked a lot about why the anti-woke movement, or at least some parts of it, descended into an authoritarian reactionary politics. However, one important reason that is often overlooked is the background all this is happening in: the rot of conservative politics in the 20th century thanks to 'fusionism', and its possible deterioration into something even worse going forward. In hindsight, I guess I should have been more aware that an anti-woke movement that operated in this atmosphere, with strong influences from organized right-wing politics, could be easily pulled into reactionary authoritarianism. To stop this from happening, I think we need to seriously deal with the reality of 'fusionism' and its legacy of failure.
In recent years, a lot has been said about 20th century 'fusionism', how it has failed, and where we should go next. On the last point, in particular, is where classical liberals like myself and the 'postliberal' right strongly disagree. Fusionism, otherwise known as the 'three legged stool', was a combination of 'neoliberal' economics, 'cultural conservatism', and a hawkish foreign policy, and claimed to be a 'fusion' of classical liberalism and conservatism. In this article, I will demonstrate why fusionism, while arguably the dominant ideology of the 20th century, especially in the latter part of the century, was essentially a dishonest ideology, and our current problems are largely its product. I will also discuss the path we should take in moving beyond fusionism, and why the postliberal solution is misguided and dangerous.
What Was Fusionism?
Fusionism claimed to be a fusion of classical liberalism and conservatism. However, in reality, there was never any need for this 'new' fusion, because the English-speaking conservative tradition and the classical liberal tradition were already highly compatible, as long as classical liberal reforms didn't take place along theoretical, abstract lines. To understand what fusionism actually was, I think we should examine, in depth, the 'three legs' of the 'stool'.
Firstly, we had the neoliberal economics, which was a clear example of libertarian reform along abstract, philosophical lines, in clear violation of the conservative tradition. It was the very type of change that a conservative should have resisted. Secondly, we had the 'cultural conservatism', which in practice pandered strongly to reactionary elements in the post-desegregation south as well as the Roe v. Wade era religious right. This meant the 'cultural conservatism' was reactionarily opposed to basically all cultural change, which is not in line with the conservative tradition either. Finally, we had the hawkish, interventionist foreign policy, which is not going to be my focus here. The only thing I want to say is that this type of foreign policy was totally alien to the American tradition before World War II, and was by definition radical. This just shows how insincere 'fusionism' was about being truly conservative.
Therefore, fusionism was basically an intellectually inconsistent set of ideas used to gather a voting coalition for the Republican Party in America, and to some extent similar parties in other Western countries. Its function was basically to hide a very radical change in economic (and foreign) policy by promoting reactionary culture wars. The supplantation of real conservatism by fusionism led to economic policies that devastated local communities across America, Britain and other Western countries, eventually providing fuel for the rise of Trumpism, Brexit and the European 'New Right'. Meanwhile, the reactionary culture wars started by fusionist politicians took on a life of their own, and have evolved into an authoritarian movement with worrying similarities to fascism. The reactionary culture wars also provoked a strong counter-reaction among the younger generations, leading to postmodern 'woke' ideology becoming mainstream, and a vicious cycle of polarization forming between the woke left and the reactionary right. I believe all this can be blamed on fusionism, which is why it should never be revived.
Classical liberals and the postliberal right agree that fusionism was bad, and must end. But while classical liberals believe in restoring the true Burkean-Lockean conservative-liberal tradition that prevailed before fusionism, the postliberal right believes in getting rid of classical liberalism altogether, and fully embracing the reactionary culture wars that are themselves a product of fusionism. Hence, while classical liberals believe in reversing the mistake, the postliberal right believe in getting deeper into it, by embracing the most toxic part of the fusionist legacy, even if it means burying the whole Burkean-Lockean tradition, and supplanting it with foreign ideas borrowed mainly from Eastern Europe, in doing so. This would represent a change that is both very radical and very destructive, and should be strongly resisted by all liberals and conservatives alike.
The conservative-liberal solution to fixing the mistakes of fusionism is twofold: we need to reign in the neoliberal excesses of the past 40 years, and we also need to end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change. The problem is, the right is no longer conservative, and we should be brave enough to say so loudly.
The Relationship Between the Classical Liberal Tradition and the Conservative Tradition
I want to expand on what I mean by 'end the reactionary culture war style of politics, and replace it with a gradualist, practical reality-driven orientation to social change'. Last time, I said that the true conservative, in the context of the 21st century Western English-speaking society, is necessarily a classical liberal, because our societies have long been underpinned by a classical liberal consensus. However, some of you might ask, while it is not controversial that conservatives should defend existing freedoms, how should we approach the ongoing classical liberal demand to expand individual freedoms over time? After all, classical liberalism is ultimately an abstract, philosophical position to some extent, and the conservative tradition is skeptical of all abstract, philosophical cases for change. So how do we reconcile these two positions?
As the British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli noted, society is inevitably in an ongoing process of change, and new demands for individual liberty and equal treatment under the law will inevitably be made over time. Looking at history, it is the acceptance of such demands that has strengthened our traditions, and made our society what it is today. Even the most ardent conservative would have to agree that the abolition of slavery, the extension of the vote to all adults, and the end of legally enforced racial segregation, were all proper and necessary changes, even though they were indeed major changes to how society functioned at the time. This means that the conservative must not reject all social change by default, and must not even reject all major social change by default. If we did, we would risk making the same mistake as those who were pro-slavery and pro-segregation, for example. Furthermore, if society has up until now accepted certain demands for change, and we decide to take a reactionary, 'just say no' attitude to all social change now, this would actually represent a break with long-standing tradition, which is clearly not the conservative thing to do. Therefore, conservatives have to accept at least some social change. The question is what kind of change to accept.
One important point I made last time was that conservatism isn't opposed to all change. It is only opposed to change that is rooted in abstract ideas that are removed from practical reality, and philosophical theory that is alien to a nation's traditions. For example, when cultural systemists demand that our long-standing respect for free speech give way to a worldview where speech is seen as a tool of the privileged to maintain an oppressive status quo, rooted in postmodern critical theory, we must firmly resist. However, when change is rooted in practical need, and the solution is consistent with the spirit of long-standing traditions, then the change should be accepted.
This principle is actually very useful in informing our practice of classical liberalism. Under the classical liberal umbrella, there are libertarian immediatists who wish to immediately transform our societies into libertarian utopias, where driver's licenses are abolished, police and fire departments are privatized, and the economic safety net is entirely withdrawn, all in the name of achieving the smallest government possible, and/or getting as close to the non-aggression principle (NAP) as possible. The conservative, though a classical liberal, would necessarily have to oppose this kind of change, not only because it is radical, but also because it is rooted in abstract philosophy rather than practical need. Such proposals for change thus ignore the complexity of both individuals and society, and puts philosophy ahead of reality. On these points, the immediatist libertarian is in fact just as guilty as the cultural systemist. History has taught us that this kind of change rarely ends well, which is why we should reject it. This is why the conservative, while being a classical liberal, cannot be a libertarian immediatist.
On the other hand, during the gay marriage debate, I often argued on the side of what is now commonly known as the 'conservative case' for gay marriage, although I wasn't as aware of the conservative philosophical tradition back then. The demand by gay couples to access the institution of marriage was a new social development, which naturally arose from the freedom granted by a society steeped in classical liberal traditions. This development forced us to consider adjustments to social and legal norms, with people responding in a variety of ways. Some reactionary 'conservatives' would force these gay couples to go back into the closet, but I argued this would violate our long-standing norms of individual liberty and fairness, and hence gravely harm our traditional values. Others argued that we should tolerate gay couples, but not extend the institution of marriage to them. I argued that this would make marriage a discriminatory institution in the eyes of many people, especially among the younger generations, which would injure the commonly held value of marriage as a fundamental building block of society. The fact that marriage boycott movements were propping up in many places demonstrated this harm. Having looked at the issue from every angle, there really was not a truly 'no change' solution to the demand of gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage would in fact be the path most consistent with upholding our traditions, including individual liberty, compassion, equality under the law, respect for marriage as an important institution, and so on. In other words, accepting the demand for change would be the only way to truly uphold and strengthen our long-standing traditions, while all other paths would actually lead to the injury of such traditions.
Let's compare abolishing driver's licenses and legalizing gay marriage. The case for gay marriage was rooted in practical demands, from gay couples who realized they were missing out on important rights as couples. Nobody is demanding the abolishment of driver's licenses from a practical point of view, as far as I'm aware of. Nobody needs driver's licenses to be abolished so they could live their lives in a better way. Therefore, the demand for gay marriage was rooted in practical reality, while the case for abolishing driver's licenses is purely based on philosophy. Moreover, as I demonstrated, refusing to legalize gay marriage would actually injure some of our traditions, which made the legalization of gay marriage necessary from the point of view of the preservation of these traditions. I can't see how refusing to abolish driver's licenses would injure our traditions in any way.
In summary, I think that conservative liberals should only accept change when it is clearly rooted in practical need, and not when it is primarily rooted in abstract philosophical justifications. This means that, as conservative liberals, we shouldn't be randomly going around society looking for things we can make more 'libertarian' in theory, when there is no practical need for change in reality. On the other hand, when there is a demand for change rooted in practical need, that is when we should use our classical liberal principles to determine if the case for change is sound. As conservative liberals, we should insist that any social change needs to be in accordance with our long-standing classical liberal values. This is why we still need to be committed to classical liberal values, and we should also be used to thinking about social issues from the classical liberal perspective. (This, in turn, is what the future development of classical liberal philosophy should be aiming at.)
We Need to Talk About What Conservatism Is
And why it should be neither reactionary nor fascistic
The events of recent years have got me thinking lately. The many ways the anti-woke movement went wrong, the way the IDW imploded, the way the political right has taken an authoritarian turn, the emergence of a 'National Conservatism' that is neither nationalist nor truly conservative but highly authoritarian, and so on. Why did all this happen? And what can we do to fix things from here?
Exploring the Conservative Tradition
The common element in the aforementioned cases appears to be the rise of a harshly authoritarian strain of thinking in the political right. Therefore, I think we need to examine the conservative philosophical tradition first. After all, it is what is supposed to underpin the political right. I think we should start with the ideas of 18th century British thinker Edmund Burke, because he is often considered the father of conservatism. Burke was actually a member of the Whigs, the main liberal party in Britain at the time. He was outspoken against the British government's oppressive policies towards the American colonies, and the damage the East India Company was doing to India. He opposed slavery and supported Catholic emancipation, and took a leading role in arguing against unrestrained royal power. He even worried that democracy would lead to tyranny over unpopular minorities. All this earned him the respect of liberals both in his time and long after his death. As you can see, Burke cared about individual liberty and justice for everyone, including minorities. He was certainly no reactionary who opposed all change and wished to use government power to turn back the clock. His approach to the controversies of his day would hardly fit in with today's populist, culture war orientated part of the right. If Burke represents what real conservatism is, then Trumpism, 'National Conservatism' and the postliberal right are simply not conservative movements at all.
The reason Burke is revered by conservertaives is because he staunchly opposed the French Revolution, correctly predicting the chaos and authoritarianism that would follow. Burke's opposition to the French revolution actually took his fellow liberals by surprise, again proving that he was not a reactionary who predictably opposed all change. The reason he opposed the French Revolution was because he saw that the radical upheaval, the total destruction of tradition, the focus on abstract ideas rather than practical reality, and the denial of the complexity of people and society, would eventually lead to tyranny. I think there are very real parallels between Burke's story, and today's classical liberals who are anti-woke. Like Burke, we started out being passionate about liberty, concerned about the overreach of government power (particularly during the 'War On Terror'), and advocated for the inclusion and equality of minorities against the conservative establishment. We did all this because we believed in individual liberty. However, in the 2010s, 'wokeism', more accurately known as cultural systemism, began to demand changes to society that were harmful to free speech and individual liberty, and we felt we had no choice but to take a stand against this development. Like Burke more than 200 years ago, we saw a revolution that was rooted in academic philosophy, ignored the complexities of reality, and was hellbent on deconstructing and banishing all traditional values, including even free speech itself. Like Burke, we predicted that it would not end well for liberty. If Burke's opposition to the French Revolution represents the core spirit of conservatism, then we anti-woke liberals are the very best expression of the conservative tradition in this day and age.
Of course, the conservative tradition is not limited to Burke. Let's look at another very well respected figure in that tradition, 19th century British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. He is famous for saying that 'the great question is, not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines'. In other words, it is not change in general that is to be opposed, but that only change rooted in abstract philosophy and doctrines, removed from reality and alien to the traditions of the nation, that should be opposed. This is entirely consistent with the way Burke approached politics, even though Disraeli was speaking almost a century later. Clearly, Burke and Disraeli belonged to the same tradition.
In fact, this tradition of conservatism, as it should be properly understood, has never entirely died out. More recently, 11 years ago to be exact, then-British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron famously stated that 'Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.' Cameron supported gay marriage because it was an exercise in extending traditional values, and specifically traditional British values too. Being committed in a life-long relationship is a traditional value, and the role of legal marriage in securing that commitment has a long tradition in British law. The reform of gay marriage, while being a social change, is a change that is entirely consistent with British traditions, and not an alien imposition rooted in abstract philosophy. The logic of what change to accept here is again similar to what Burke and Disraeli represented. Again, today's anti-woke liberals are in strong agreement with this philosophy. It is why we are open to new ideas and supportive of reforms to make life better for everyone in general, but opposed to the kind of radical and theory-driven change that cultural systemism represents. This is why a strong case can be made that today's anti-woke liberals are the real heirs of the conservative tradition, properly understood.
The Origins of the Authoritarian Right
If today's anti-woke liberals are the real heirs of the conservative tradition, then today's authoritarian right necessarily represents a distortion or corruption of the conservative tradition. I believe an analysis of the history of Western politics, particularly American politics, of the past several decades actually supports this view. In the mid-late 20th century, the US Republican Party gradually adopted a culture-war based politics, where reactionary sentiments to any and all change are encouraged and magnified, for the sake of electoral gains. A series of strategic moves laid the foundation for this transformation, including the 'southern strategy' that took advantage of post-desegregation reactionary sentiment, the making of abortion into a central culture war issue after Roe v. Wade was decided, the 'war on terror', and the aughts scare campaign around gay marriage. This meant that, by the aughts, Republican politics no longer represented conservatism as properly understood, but a populist reactionism that fundamentally opposes all social change, something very different to the Burke-Disraeli approach to politics. This reactionary version of conservatism also had some, but not total, influence in other Western countries.
In the aughts, reactionary conservatism was focused on preventing change that was yet to happen. Gay marriage was its first and foremost target. Yet, as history teaches us, change is inevitable, sound ideas will win out in the end, and reactionaries never successfully stop all change. So gay marriage became legal in almost all of the West, despite aggressive resistance by the reactionary right. The reaction of the true conservative might have ranged from actually welcoming the change (like Cameron did), to reluctantly making peace with it, seeing that it is now what the people support, and predictions of negative effects on family values haven't come true either. But the reactionary cannot accept any change, and views it as a defeat. This is why the culture warriors on the right are now saying that gay marriage won because the right was not aggressive enough, and that they now need to wage the culture wars, especially on LGBT issues ever more aggressively.
The wish to use state power to wage the culture war aggressively has, by definition, turned reactionary conservatism into something that is completely alien to the conservative tradition, by turning its back on everything from the principle of limited government to the classical liberal values that Anglosphere conservatives going back to Burke held as a central pillar of their politics. The movement looks up not to English-speaking conservatives like Burke, Disraeli, Reagan and Cameron, but to right-wing figures in Eastern Europe like Viktor Orban. This politics hence represents an unwelcome import of authoritarian foreign norms into the Anglosphere to supplant our own liberal values and traditions, something real conservatives should resist unconditionally.
Most concerningly, the tactics that the movement has adopted, including stoking populist negativity towards certain minority groups, obstructing the freedom of private businesses to do business as they see fit (including Disney, Bud Light and Target alike), not taking a stand against the fake news and biased reporting that is creating a post-truth political discourse and encouraging hateful sentiment, and continuing to stoke passions even as violent individuals and groups have threatened businesses and organizations in the name of fighting this culture war, have alarming parallels to the fascism of 1930s Europe. Given that conservatives should, by principle, oppose all fascistic behavior (as Winston Churchill famously demonstrated), the true conservative needs to stand against what the culture war right has become today. While I think that today's culture war right can't be called 'fascist' (they don't support a fascist economic system, nor do they appear to be antisemitic, for example), it is certainly not to be considered a form of conservatism, because true conservatives do not condone fascistic behavior.
What Needs to Happen
The first thing that needs to happen is the revival of the conservative tradition, as properly understood. As I have demonstrated, today's anti-woke liberals are the natural heirs of the conservative tradition, and we should unapologetically take it up. If we do not, we would be allowing the culture war right to pretend that they are conservative, which would serve to hide their radicalism from the general public. Taking up the conservative mantle would not harm our ability to identify as classical liberals, or argue for classical liberal positions. There is no conflict between conservatism and classical liberalism, in the context of the 21st century English-speaking West. Even going back to Burke's time, English-speaking conservatism clearly had a liberal character. After several more centuries of the classical liberal consensus, a conservative in our society would definitely have to be a classical liberal, trying hard to conserve this important part of our political tradition for future generations, against assaults from both the left and the right.
The lack of a healthy conservative tradition has also led to today's polarization, where many people feel like they have to choose from either wokeism or the increasingly authoritarian right, or else shut up about their views. The revival of the conservative tradition would go a long way to fix this problem. Bringing back a conservatism that allows the possibility of gradualist progress would also provide an alternative to the kind of progressivism that is rooted in abstract, and hence unsound, cultural systemist theories.
We also need to call out, and ultimately aim to defeat, the authoritarian culture war right, for two reasons. Firstly, they are the reason why so many young people immediately react negatively when they hear 'conservative'. They are the reason why we classical liberals still fear embracing the c-word, even though it fits us very well. The image of conservatism has been tarred by several decades of reactionism, as well as the recent authoritarianism, and we need to work hard to rehabilitate its image. We can't do that without calling out the authoritarian culture war right. Secondly, some in the authoritarian culture war right are now resorting to fascistic behavior out of a desire to forcibly turn back the clock of society. Even though they are not actually fascists, embracing fascistic behavior should be unacceptable to conservatives, and we should make it clear. As Winston Churchill demonstrated, conservatism can only be credible if it takes the strongest stance against fascism. We too can take a credible stand for conservatism in today's world by firmly opposing the fascistic behavior that we are seeing from the authoritarian culture warriors right now.
The Fundamental Difference Between Classical Liberals and the Authoritarian Right
The challenge of wokeism highlights a 300 year old fault line
Welcome back to the series where we look at what went wrong with the so-called anti-woke movement. In the previous articles, we established that while classical liberals and the authoritarian right both oppose wokeism, we do so on different grounds, and have different and incompatible answers to wokeism too. Today, I want to focus on what the classical liberal answer to wokeism should look like, and how it stands fundamentally in opposition to the authoritarian right's answer.
I think we should start by going back to the fundamentals of the liberal model of society. Liberalism arose in Europe in the context of long-standing and bloody religious conflicts, and the desire by some to put such conflicts to an end. Hence, the primary challenge of the original liberals was to find a way to govern society that would not provoke religious conflicts. Before liberalism, state and church were tightly integrated in Europe, which meant that whoever controlled the state would also control the church in that country, and vice versa. This meant that religious conflicts would necessary be political conflicts too, and vice versa. The liberal solution, separation of church and state, would put an end to this. In practice, the liberal solution was to have a government that treated every individual equally, and remained neutral in religious conflicts. To do so, the government needed to maintain distance from not only religion, but also everyday life, culture and philosophical debates, because these things were also heavily tied to religion back then.
Hence, for practical purposes, a liberal society is one where the government maintains some distance from everyday society, culture and philosophy, and generally remains neutral towards cultural and philosophical conflicts. This model of society arose out of a specific need in Western history, and later came to foster the pluralism that became a hallmark of Western society. The history of the development of liberal governance is hence also the history of how the West became pluralistic and intellectually free.
Wokeism, more accurately called cultural systemism, threatens the consensus that liberalism built in fundamental ways. Cultural systemists believe that society's culture and institutions are all parts of overarching and interlocking systems of oppression, designed to oppress women and minorities for the benefit of the privileged groups. The first problem with this is that it denies that neutrality in culture and philosophy is fair or even possible. The second, less easily seen, but even more important problem is that it denies any difference between state power and other sources of 'power' (as justified in postmodern critical theory), because it is all seen as a part of an overarching 'system of oppression'. This would lead to the misguided view that a culturally neutral state is actually part of the system of oppression, which would then imply that state cultural neutrality should be 'dismantled' like everything else that makes up the system of oppression. As liberals, we oppose cultural systemism because it would effectively end the liberal model of Western society, by attacking both the position of neutrality in culture and philosophy, and also the separation of governance from culture and philosophy.
Given that as liberals, we oppose cultural systemism as part of our work of upholding the liberal society, our opposition to cultural systemism must also be done in a way that is consistent with upholding the liberal model of society. This means we need to separate the political sphere from the cultural and philosophical sphere, at the very minimum. In the political sphere, our only commitment should be individual liberty, with philosophical debates beyond that (what ancient philosophers characterized as 'what the good life should be') firmly out of scope. Therefore, in terms of politics, our opposition to woke activism should be restricted to the grounds of individual liberty, and equal treatment regardless of immutable characteristics. For example, we should oppose acts of de-platforming and cancellation, and 'progressive stack' style speaking systems. If such phenomenon were to be imported into areas relevant to the activities of government, for example an election debate or an official policy forum, we would need to resist it, including by legislation if necessary. However, the wider philosophical views of cultural systemism, including everything from 'gender is a social construct' to 'marriage is patriarchal and repressive', are not part of the proper scope of politics, from a liberal point of view. This doesn't mean we can't speak out in opposition to these ideas. However, all this belongs in the realm of philosophical debate, which the liberal model of society says should be seen as separate, and kept at a distance from, the politics of government. If we still believe that government should be culturally neutral, then we shouldn't be waging cultural and philosophical battles in the arena of politics, and muddying the waters between the cultural and the political.
The liberal method described above stands in stark contrast to the authoritarian right's model of 'anti-wokeism', which actually represents a return to a pre-liberal form of society and governance. The authoritarian right's model is essentially using state power to stamp out 'wokeism' in its entirety, without discriminating between the spheres of government-politics and culture-philosophy. To do so, it would necessarily have to extend state interference into culture and philosophy, right down to the level of everyday life. The authoritarian right's anti-woke war extends state power into local libraries, schools, main streets, and even families. There is no limit to state intrusion into everyday life, and no right to privacy, as long as action is taken in the name of defeating wokeism. This is reminiscent of the pre-liberal religious conflicts in Europe, where states often attempted to mercilessly wipe out rival religions within their boarders, using every ounce of state power at their disposal. In using state power to stamp out wokeism, the authoritarian right is also effectively forcing their culture and philosophy down the throats of the whole population, because many otherwise non-woke people also oppose actions like banning books or banning drag shows. You could even argue that the authoritarian right is forcing their religion down other people's throats, given that the bans on LGBT books and drag shows are clearly religiously motivated at least to a substantial extent.
In the face of the rise of wokeism we have two different responses. The liberal method is to defend liberty in a neutral way in the political arena, and to combat cultural systemism in the philosophical arena. The authoritarian right method is to fight a culture war against wokeism using state power, extending state power to every area of life in the process. The two methods represent two very different visions of what society should look like: the liberal model that ended Europe's religious conflicts, vs the pre-liberal model that led to those conflicts. The liberal model that made the West pluralistic and free, vs the pre-liberal model where everyone obeyed Kings and Lords and the state Church on everything. The thinkers of the 'postliberal' right are openly disdainful of the liberal model of society and wish to put an end to it. They are already envisioning how an illiberal future for the West could look like. Those of us who support the liberal model should see this attempt to take us back to the middle ages for what it is, and stand firmly against it. Even as we continue to combat cultural systemism too.
How Classical Liberals Can Overcome the Anti-Woke Establishment
There needs to be a path out of the shadow of the authoritarians
Welcome back to the series where we look at what went wrong with the so-called anti-woke movement. Last time, we established that the anti-woke movement is a coalition of people with different worldviews, and that authoritarian conservatives (as opposed to classical liberals and libertarian conservatives) have gained the upper hand in the anti-woke discourse, because of their dominance in anti-woke media. This, in turn, has left classical liberals very concerned. After all, we oppose 'wokeism', which I believe could be more accurately called 'cultural systemism', for the sake of individual liberty and a healthy marketplace of ideas, but ironically parts of the anti-woke movement are now attacking individual liberty and free speech. So where do we go from here, and what do we do to address this situation?
Let's start with the imbalance of voices heard in the anti-woke media, because that's where the problem begins. As I said, much of the well funded anti-woke media have been providing a disproportionately large platform for the auth-right point of view. They have been featuring an increasing number of 'postliberal' right thinkers who are openly critical of classical liberal philosophy and even Buckley-Reagan style fusionism. They are mainstreaming ever more extreme pundits who call for aggressively waging the culture wars, who advocate once unacceptable ideas like 'eradicating' transgenderism from public life, moving the Overton Window towards extreme authoritarianism with every such move. And then there is the clearly biased and moral panic-inducing reporting on all the common culture war issues, which serves to justify increasingly authoritarian policies like banning books from libraries and banning drag shows in public. Another feature of anti-woke media today is that there is very little heated debate and disagreement featured. There is effectively a culture of agreement and conformity, which effectively leads to a 'consensus' that strongly leans authoritarian in light of the aforementioned developments.
Classical liberals, many who started following anti-woke media since around the mid-late 2010s, have found the overall balance and (manufactured) 'consensus' of such media outlets an increasingly uncomfortable fit with our own values and commitments. Many of us have criticized individual anti-woke public figures, whose recent changes have disappointed us. Some of us have gone further, pointing out the hypocrisy of opposing 'woke' cancel culture but having no problem with right-wing governments banning books with racial or LGBT themes. However, we haven't been able to break through and get heard beyond certain corners of the internet. Our individual voices are simply no match against the well-funded anti-woke media establishment. (I think you can justifiably call them an establishment by now, because they dominate the anti-woke discourse, and feature the same people and the same arguments over and over again.)
The harsh reality is, when most people think of anti-wokeism, they still think of certain big name media outlets and personalities, and their perception of the movement is still overwhelmingly colored by these entities, even as these entities have taken an authoritarian turn. I've had the experience of people telling me they assumed I was right-wing or opposed to LGBT rights because I said I was anti-woke. This just shows that we are effectively living in the shadows of anti-woke inc., that not only are we not making a dent in their 'consensus', we are even having trouble defending our own reputations from that which we don't even agree with in the first place. If things don't change, it could mean that we could be ostracized by progressive-leaning parts of society for the sins of anti-woke inc. with little chance to protest. It would also mean that not many people would be willing to join our side, even if they see the merit in our arguments. Being tied to anti-woke inc. and their authoritarian policies would be a social price many would not be willing to pay. We shouldn't be afraid of being ostracized for beliefs we genuinely hold. But being ostracized for things we don't actually believe in is unfair, and we need to do all we can to fight against this happening.
In other words, our problem is one of getting heard in the first place. We, classical liberals who are opposed to wokeism on classical liberal grounds, need to be heard loud and clear. This is our most important objective going forward. And to get heard, we need to say something unique and different. This is how we can get our fair share of attention, and how we stop getting drowned out by anti-woke inc. Over the past 5-7 years I have talked a lot about cancel culture, postmodern critical theory identity politics, and other aspects of wokeism, and how they are incompatible with liberal values. I think this has now been heard loud and clear. However, if we just talk about this, we don't sound different enough from anti-woke inc. Only by actively differentiating ourselves from anti-woke inc., by taking positions in clear opposition to the 'consensus' in anti-woke inc., will we be able to move outside its shadow. In other words, there must be a particularly strong emphasis on where we disagree with anti-woke inc. going forward.
One easy way to do this would be to simply stand our classical liberal ground and oppose their increasingly authoritarian policy stances. We should be taking a strong stance against any attempt to whip up moral panics and usher in authoritarian policies. Between the draconian abortion bans, the drag show bans, and book bans, and the mountains of anti-LGBT bills that have recently been introduced, there is a lot we can work with, to differentiate ourselves from anti-woke inc.
There are also other ways to stand apart from, and against, anti-woke inc. For example, we could insist on making our anti-wokeism philosophy centered, while contrasting this with the culture war centered version of anti-wokeism from anti-woke inc. The philosophical debates we can have against cultural systemism are actually highly intellectual and interesting, a refreshing counterpoint against the culture warriors' ridiculous war on Disney and Bud Light. We can also put more effort into arguing why any 'fusionism' between classical liberals and the auth-right on particular issues where we have superficial agreement on (e.g. opposition to critical race theory) are still fundamentally impossible. If the auth-right hates 20th century fusionism so much, then we need to show them that we are just as uncomfortable with fusionism as they are. If they want to tear the band-aid off, then so be it, because we have wanted to scratch that itch for a long time too. Let's bury that fusionism for good, and not just the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan kind too. Let fusionism be dead and buried for good, so that classical liberals and the auth-right can finally face off like the philosophical rivals we actually are. If anything, it's going to be more philosophically honest than what we have now, which will make the classical liberal case against wokeism much stronger too.
Finally, I want to address the use of the word 'woke'. More and more people are advocating a move away from using that word, especially since right-wing culture warriors are using it to mean everything they don't like. I have thought about this for a long time actually. I have even advocated using 'cultural systemism' to describe general wokeism, and 'critical anarchism' to describe the more extreme manifestations, and I will continue to advocate using these terms. However, I don't think we can entirely move away from 'woke' until people can agree on a new term, because we need to use terms that are most widely understood for the sake of effective communication. If we unilaterally give up on talking about 'woke', the culture warriors will have a monopoly on 'anti-woke' discourse, with likely disastrous results.
What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement
Let's go back to the basics and look at the philosophical roots again
Let's face it: The anti-woke movement has become a trainwreck. People are now confused about what 'woke' really means. Many are just sick and tired of any talk about 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' at this point. Meanwhile, right-wing culture warriors, many with religious-authoritarian motivations, have hijacked the anti-woke movement to target people and things that are not actually woke, such as Disney, Bud Light, and even the entire LGBT community. The biggest problem is that there is now almost no serious intellectual discussion on why wokeism is misguided, why we oppose it, or even what should be done about it. This is the beginning of a series where I will attempt to retrace the history of anti-wokeism, look at what has gone wrong, and what we need to do to fix things from here.
Let's start at the beginning. The reason why I started speaking up against wokeism is basically philosophical. In the past year, I have described wokeism, in its most pure and extreme form, as 'critical anarchism', in that it seeks to deconstruct and dismantle basically the entire cultural status quo, which wokeists believe is made up of interlocking systems of oppression. Some have disputed my characterization, saying that not all woke activists go to that extreme level, and I have to agree. However, generally speaking, I think wokeism, broadly speaking (that is when including the 'moderately woke' too), could be characterized as cultural systemism, i.e. an orientation towards seeing culture as primary defined by interlocking systems of dominance and oppression, rather than for example a battle between ideas, or a process of gradual moral refinement over time.
I think the conflict between woke and anti-woke is essentially a conflict between cultural systemism and those opposed to this worldview. On the systemist side are the woke, who believe that our culture primarily consists of interlocking and mutually reinforcing systems of oppression, and that to liberate women and oppressed minorities all these systems need to be deconstructed and dismantled. On the non-systemist side are liberals, conservatives (both libertarian and authoritarian), and even the progressive 'SJWs' of the 2010s. People on the non-systemist side have different and conflicting views of what culture is and what it should look like, but broadly speaking they believe that it is ideas, rather than systems of oppression, that create and influence our culture. Note that non-systemists don't always deny the systematic nature of some of the discrimination present in society, we just don't believe this is a good primary lens with which to analyze and change society. For example, for wokeists, 'white supremacy' is a system of oppression to be dismantled, while I see it as a bad idea that needs to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas. In the case of draconian abortion bans, wokeists see them as a product of the system of 'patriarchy', while I see them as the product of religious authoritarianism, an ideology rooted in unsound ideas and assumptions.
Non-systemists also have different reasons to oppose systemism. I believe that cultural systemism is bad because it inherently denies the power of ideas, the importance of free will, truth and morality, and ultimately our personal agency to make society better. My opposition to aspects of 'woke activism' like de-platforming and cancel culture also stem from my philosophical commitments. Since I believe that a free flow of ideas ultimately leads to more sound ideas winning out, I logically favor free speech. On the other hand, systemists might oppose free speech because they believe it favors speech and ideas that reinforce the systems of oppression. Of course, we who support free speech have objective evidence on our side, as seen in how we won gay marriage throughout the West in less than a generation using the power of persuasion. However, it would be difficult to convince cultural systemists using objective evidence, because many of them are highly influenced by postmodernism, and are skeptical of objectivity.
The problem with the anti-woke movement is that it is, and has always been, a coalition of people with different, and at times incompatible, ideals. Just because we all believe in the primacy of ideas and not systems in defining a society's culture, doesn't mean we can agree on what ideas we should uphold. There was a failure to acknowledge this right from the start, as seen in for example the IDW's early tip-toeing around their differences, which ended up tearing them apart just a few years later. I personally wouldn't have a problem with the anti-woke movement being a broad umbrella for anti-systemists, where different voices and perspectives are equally and fairly represented, and we agree to respectfully disagree outside of our common opposition to cultural systemism. I don't pretend that all anti-systemists are liberals or moral libertarians like myself, and I have never believed that we should seek dominance over other anti-systemists, because that would dilute and confuse the argument against cultural systemism.
The problem is, authoritarian conservatives, who are part of the anti-woke movement, obviously had different priorities. Unlike classical liberals, their agenda is not pluralistic and tolerant of diversity of thought at all. In fact, prominent 'postliberal' intellectuals have come out and openly criticized classical liberal thinkers, particularly John Stuart Mill, for defending the right of individuals to transgress against traditional social norms. While the classical liberal model supports free thought and free speech for all, and believe that the best ideas will win out in the marketplace of ideas, authoritarian conservatives have the same fear and distrust towards the marketplace of ideas as the woke. While we are anti-woke because we believe in defending the marketplace of ideas and the individual liberty required for it to work, they just oppose wokeism because they want a different, more traditional kind of authoritarianism. We have no trouble being in an alliance with libertarian conservatives, because of our shared commitment to classical liberal values. But authoritarian conservatives, who want governments to ban transgression against traditional-religious norms, are actually our biggest ideological enemy historically, and being in any alliance with them is selling out the core values and heritage of classical liberalism.
The trouble right now is that, it appears that authoritarian conservatives are more powerful than classical liberals, in terms of things like money and connections. Many well-funded and well-connected anti-woke media outlets have taken a more authoritarian conservative stance on various issues, or at least given authoritarian conservative voices a bigger platform than classical liberal or libertarian conservative voices. I think this also reflects the recent shift towards authoritarianism seen in the Republican Party and right-wing American politics in general. The increasingly authoritarian tone found in anti-woke media has served to support increasingly authoritarian policies and legislation from the Republican Party, and we classical liberals simply can't in our good conscience stay silent any longer.
Moreover, since the authoritarian right hijacked the anti-woke movement, there has been less and less space to discuss the shortcomings of cultural systemism. Instead, they have muddied the waters of what 'woke' means, making anything they don't like 'woke' (as in 'Disney is a woke corporation'). This has done great disservice to those of us who want a real intellectual debate on cultural systemism. My hope was that the anti-woke movement could build and promote the case against cultural systemism, by pushing back on the cultural systemist claims and associated behaviors of woke activists. But it seems that the authoritarian conservative voices that now dominate anti-woke media prefer to make anti-wokeness all about picking fights with Disney, banning drag performances, and banning books from libraries, all of which are things classical liberals, and even most libertarian conservatives, would instinctively oppose. The kind of anti-woke movement seen in the 'mainstream' anti-woke media is an authoritarian one, with very little space for more libertarian voices these days.
Which is why it's time to split up, and build an alternative. An alternative that is committed to individual liberty and the marketplace of ideas, and opposes wokeism on these grounds, rather than pseudo-populist reactionary sentiment. An alternative that wants to have serious debates about cultural systemism, rather than starting culture wars about Disney and drag queens.
How Wokeism Allowed the Religious Right to Return
And how to build the coalition to defeat them once again
This is the bad news: the religious authoritarians have returned in full force, and they are smarter and more cunning than ever. The evidence of their influence is all over the news: draconian abortion bans, anti-LGBT bills, and more. Looking back, religious authoritarianism last peaked around the mid-aughts (around 2004-06), and that time we successfully pushed back on their attempt to teach unscientific intelligent design theory in schools, and defeated their moral panic campaign around gay marriage, which provided a strong foundation for winning the reform later on. Looking back, the aughts were definitely an underrated example of resistance to authoritarianism, that ultimately also led to some social progress backed by widespread support. Now that the religious authoritarians are back, I think we need to revive the coalition that defeated them last time.
Of course, we also need to be aware of the different tactics that they are using this time around. One thing that is different about the religious right this time is that they are, at least when facing mainstream audiences, less open about their religious motivations. They often resort to arguments for the 'common good', or capitalize on the widespread frustration with wokeism, as their starting point. However, the religious motivations are still clearly being articulated, if you pay attention. For example, all the prominent postliberal intellectuals are deeply religious, and many have essentially argued for religious values to have a bigger influence on law and policy. On the more technical side, 'common good constitutionalism', and other similar legal philosophies based on 'natural law', are ultimately religious political ideologies too. What is happening is clear: religious authoritarians are out to make the West less liberal, and make it OK for the government to shove their religion down your throat. And they are doing it by attempting to gain power while not being fully upfront about their religious motivations.
The rise of woke thinking is actually helping the religious right hide their religiously driven motivations. This is because postmodern critical theory has no respect for the power of ideas and free will. Instead, they believe that everything is part of interconnecting systems of oppression, and that analyzing and deconstructing those systems are the only important thing to do. The woke won't seriously engage in a debate of ideas that is not connected to their theories of systemic oppression. This means that they won't take on the ideas of religious-driven authoritarianism seriously. Instead, abortion bans are to be explained by 'patriarchy', anti-LGBT bills are to be explained by 'heteronormativity', and the solution is to 'fight these systems' by deconstructing and dismantling everything. This ultimately results in distraction from the problem at hand: that reactionary religious zealots are attempting to shove their religion down our throats, and that only a serious attempt at defeating their bad ideas by rational debate will save our freedoms.
There are also other ways wokeism has allowed the religious right to return. Firstly, it was the force that was responsible for breaking up the aughts coalition against religious authoritarianism. The divisiveness of postmodern critical theory was what caused the split, with the controversy around 'atheism plus' a good example of this. (I am not an atheist so I am not familiar with the specifics of this, but the controversy was famous enough for me to know about it.) Secondly, its weakening of the classical liberal consensus has allowed the religious right to make the case for authoritarianism much more easily. Thirdly, its attempt to impose an agenda based on religion-like philosophical commitments on the rest of society has normalized the once outrageous idea of shoving religion down other people's throats. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, frustration towards wokeism is being used by the religious right to attract support, with quite a bit of success.
All this is why the new coalition against religious authoritarianism just cannot include the woke. Instead, we need to attempt to rebuild the coalition among those who will fight the religious right like it's 2004 again. I think we should try to deradicalize as many of the woke as possible, so that they come back down to reality, and become able to join our fight against the religious right. However, we also need to be realistic that this work can only be done to a certain extent, especially if we are talking about the short to medium term. Therefore, the more important work will be in making the non-woke see that the religious right is rapidly becoming a big problem, because they want to make the West less liberal and more theocratic, by participating in the culture wars while not being upfront about their motivations. Once more people realize this, we will be able to build a strong coalition to push back, just like we did two decades ago.
Woke vs Anti-Woke: The Liberal Way by TaraElla
How classical liberalism can provide a new way forward
I've often been asked how a truly classical liberal movement could be built in the current climate. Specifically, with the conversation being defined as between woke vs anti-woke, where should classical liberals stand?
One version of the story goes like this: classical liberals started opposing 'wokeism' because it offends classical liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience, and identity neutrality. Due to reasons to do with the American political landscape, the right also opposes wokeism, while the center-left often pretends that the issue doesn't exist, because they fear it might divide the base of the Democratic Party and lose them votes. Over time, the right pours a lot of money into setting up 'anti-woke' media outlets, which also attract many classical liberal followers. Such media outlets often actively call for classical liberals and the right to unite in an anti-woke movement. Their claim is that, in this climate, all anti-woke people (which would have to include classical liberals) should align with the right, because otherwise we would have to inevitably align with the 'woke' in some way. It is a claim that I have long considered dubious, but it serves their right-wing backers well. Meanwhile, center-left media outlets continue to ignore classical liberal concerns about wokeness, due to fear of giving the Republicans an advantage. Some individuals in those outlets even give occasional lip service to woke ideas (although this has apparently become less common since Trump left office, so it's likely to be just an inappropriate reaction to Trumpism). This has made the idea of a liberal-right alliance attractive to some classical liberals.
However, the problem with this is that the right is becoming, well, less and less in line with classical liberal values. A faction of the right is now openly 'postliberal', and as I have analyzed on many occasions, their method of doing politics is also essentially postmodern, in that they see speech as a means to power rather than to seek the objective truth. If classical liberals started out opposing wokeism in order to defend liberal values, only to end up siding with an increasingly illiberal right with many of the same characteristics as wokeism, that wouldn't make sense at all, right? (And if this was the only choice an anti-woke liberal could make, as some on the right claim, then liberalism would already be doomed anyway, making the whole exercise pointless, right?)
Classical liberals must not fall for the postliberal right's blatantly postmodern approach to anti-wokeism, which begins with stealthily redefining the word 'woke', and ends with the supplantation of traditional conservatism with a highly authoritarian and reactionary politics. What we must be able to see here is that the postmodern-postliberal right has tried to expand the definition of 'woke' to potentially encompass every socially progressive reform or idea they don't like, in order to paint all social progressivism as an extraordinary threat requiring an extraordinary (i.e. authoritarian) response. For example, if gay marriage were still an active issue today, they would certainly paint it as 'woke'. They have been able to do that by engaging in deliberately biased reporting, being uncommitted to objectivity, and using speech as a means to power rather than as a means to seek the objective truth. The fact that there is not much other well-funded anti-woke media, due to the twisted incentives in the American political landscape, certainly helps them. (I actually believe that the Democrats have overestimated the danger of dividing their base by allowing some prominent anti-wokeists among their public representatives, and that doing so could help them a lot electorally. But that is another issue for another article.)
The need to differentiate 'wokeism' from non-woke social progressivism is especially important, in the face of dishonest actors from the postmodern-postliberal right trying to capitalize on the current frustration with wokeism. Contrary to some opinions, there is indeed a way to define wokeness clearly and succinctly. Wokeness is a program of cultural change that is rooted in philosophical theory, rather than objectively evident need. The 'rooted in philosophical theory, rather than objectively evident need' part is what differentiates wokeness from normal progressivism. This part actually prevents dishonest actors from painting all socially progressive reform as 'woke'. The 'cultural' part is needed because almost all economic politics is based in some kind of theory. This definition would capture everything that most people mean by 'woke'. For example, the term 'Latinx' is woke, because its 'necessity' is driven by theories around identity and language rather than objective evidence, consistent with the fact that most Latino people don't like it. Gay marriage was a progressive reform, but it was not woke, because it was primarily driven by the objective fact that gay couples were missing out on important rights, rather than any theoretical concern.
So, in practice, how do we differentiate between wokeism and regular social progressivism? This is where the case for liberal values can be made. Liberalism, in its dedication to maintaining a free and fair marketplace of ideas, allows all proposals for social change to be given a fair hearing. It also requires that proponents for social change make a sound case for their change, a case that can convince their fellow citizens from diverse backgrounds, most of them who are not going to share their philosophical commitments. Marriage equality for gay couples was successful because it was able to do this. Many other proposals for change have justifiably failed, because they haven't been able to do this. Generally speaking, only proposals for change that are backed by an objectively evident need, like gay marriage, will be able to gain widespread support. Proposals for change that are rooted in philosophical theory not shared by most people will always fail to do so. Hence, liberalism, in practice, allows objectively necessary and sound reforms through, while making sure that 'woke' changes, which are inherently ideological and objectively unnecessary, will be rejected.
The reason why the woke movement rejects free speech and the marketplace of ideas is because it knows it will be defeated there. Instead, it attempts to redefine speech as power, and opposition to their unreasonable demands as oppression. This is what is at the root of cancel culture and de-platforming. These things, in turn, have led to widespread frustration. The postliberal right has capitalized on this frustration to recruit support for their agenda. However, their strategy actually requires them to go postmodern themselves, to shut down the objective truth, i.e. that not all progressivism is woke, and that a liberal, reasonable reformist alternative is still possible. Like the postmodern left, they aim to do this by damaging the fair marketplace of ideas.
While the postmodern left employs cancel culture to shut down certain opinions in the marketplace of ideas, the postmodern right's favored tactic appears to be to use a (metaphorical) megaphone to blast their biased reporting all over the place, and drown out those voices who might be telling the other side of the story, but are not as well-funded. In practice, both methods lead to a dysfunction in the marketplace of ideas, because all voices are not able to be equally heard and considered. In both cases, the dysfunction is deliberately caused, so that otherwise unsound and unpopular ideas can win. In both cases, it is basically a form of cheating. Therefore, while claiming to oppose wokeism, in practice, the postliberal right is basically doing the same thing as the woke, just in the service of another kind of politics. By insisting on defending a free and fair marketplace of ideas, liberals can expose both of them, and build a truly liberal movement from there.
Non-Aggression and Good Order: The Liberal Way
Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.
In recent years, much has been said about the incompatibility between liberal values, and activism that is rooted in postmodern critical theory, that is sometimes called 'woke' (although I'm concerned that the w-word is now over broadly applied). As I have illustrated multiple times, for liberals, knowing the objective truth is fundamental and prior to building a good order. To know the objective truth, people must be allowed to freely explore ideas and discover things. This is why a truly free and fair marketplace of ideas is important. The postmodern critical theory worldview, where ideas are primarily seen as the product of oppressive power relations, and the activism it leads to, are fundamentally incompatible with what liberals believe in. After all, if certain ideas are seen as the product of oppressive power relations, they would need to be shut down rather than given a fair go in the marketplace of ideas. This is actually the logic behind Herbert Marcuse's famous essay Repressive Tolerance. The fact that this essay was published back in the 1960s shows that this worldview has actually been around for a while.
During this time, the influence of this worldview has led to an uneven playing field for certain ideas, which might not even be harmful. For example, there has been a particular aversion to traditional ideas as 'oppressive', which has led some to react negatively to any talk of 'family values', even when it is not used as a dog whistle against gay marriage and adoption. True liberals oppose this uneven playing field, because we believe in a healthy marketplace of ideas. Historically, we argued against the irrational negativity towards marriage that was behind the initial reluctance by some gay activists to embrace marriage equality, for example. However, in recent years, postmodern critical theory has gone mainstream, potentially leading to blatantly uneven playing fields as the new norm. This means it is now even more important to argue against this worldview as a whole.
However, there is also another reason liberals oppose postmodern critical theory, that is at least just as important. And that is non-aggression. The 'Non Aggression Principle' (NAP) at the root of classical libertarianism is actually a very specific and simplistic application of the value of non-aggression, and while classical libertarianism is under the broad liberal umbrella, most liberals probably don't believe in the NAP the way classical libertarians do. However, broadly speaking, non-aggression is actually the spirit of all kinds of liberalism. We liberals have long believed that non-aggression is essential to achieving a good order. Historically, liberalism arose as an extension of religious tolerance, that itself arose as a solution to put an end to centuries of toxic religious conflicts in Europe. As it is sometimes described, liberalism lowers the expectations of politics, and takes it away from debates about how the good life should be like, towards focusing on how we can live together peacefully despite our differences.
It turns out that this actually leads to the best life for all, comparatively speaking. Life in the West since the classical liberal consensus has undeniably been better than during the middle ages and the religious conflicts, even if it is still no utopia. The key reason why life has been better is because there is much less aggression. Life today is certainly much less violent than back in the middle ages. It is the liberal aversion towards aggression, and preference for non-aggressive means to resolve differences, that has made this possible. Besides making life less violent, non-aggression also contributes to building good order, because people can rationally work out their differences in dialogue. The stakes of speaking up and exploring new ideas are also much lower, when everyone knows that it would not lead to violent consequences, or innocent people being harmed. This, in turn, encourages the exchange of ideas, and the development of innovative solutions.
Postmodern critical theory activism is not compatible with non-aggression. De-platforming and cancel culture is aggression, by definition. Indeed, much of the theory is basically used to justify aggressive means for dealing with opponents. If words and language can be violent, then an aggressive response like de-platforming is justifiable. If ideas are actually oppressive applications of power, then aggressively shutting them down is justifiable. Taken as a whole, postmodern critical theory rejects the liberal preference for non-aggressive means to resolve our differences. This is why I believe it is essential to prevent liberalism from being contaminated with ideas from postmodern critical theory, if we want liberalism to remain committed to non-aggression.
Right now, many people are justifiably frustrated about cancel culture, and the uneven playing field for certain ideas and voices. Liberals share their frustration here. However, this does not mean that everyone agrees with us about what should be done, and hence can be seen as an ally. Given that liberals firmly believe in non-aggression, true liberals should be concerned about those who advocate using aggression to solve the current problem, or worse, use the current problem as justification for an aggressive culture war program to remake society the way they want to. Put it simply, using state power to shut down your opponents in the culture wars is aggression, and no better than cancel culture in the eyes of true liberals. Politicizing certain issues that actually affect real lives, and using state power to score points in the culture wars at the expense of those lives, is an act of extreme aggression, which true liberals need to resist with all our might. People who do these things might label themselves 'anti-woke', but their brand of anti-wokeness is certainly very different from what liberals want, and it needs to be made clear that we don't share any common ground at all. It is just as important to prevent liberalism from being contaminated by the culture war Right.
In the face of aggressive culture warriors coming from both the Left and the Right, we need to stand our ground, by arguing the case for non-aggression. Non-aggression leads to good order, because it is only when the threat of aggression is removed that people are free to explore and debate ideas, and it is only in this process that we can get closer to the objective truth, or find good solutions to problems. Non-aggression makes life much less violent, meaning that bloody tragedies are less likely to happen, and innocent people are much less likely to be harmed. Finally, non-aggression is an ongoing project, and is by definition progressive rather than reactive. When I was younger, I said I hoped to see all wars end in my lifetime, and I still truly believe in that dream. There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of moving society in the direction of non-aggression, and we must not give up hope.
The Trans Discourse and Gender Differences: The Liberal Way
Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.
In this episode, I want to examine society's current inability to have a rational and objective discussion about gender differences, the flow-on effects on the discourse around trans issues, and how we can fix all this. In the previous episode, I stated that liberals believe in seeking out the objective truth first, and then seeking to build a good order based on what we know about the objective truth. The order here is important, because we need to know the objective facts before we make any value judgements, and this requires us to be open-minded in our quest to know the world as it is. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for wider society, when it comes to sex and gender issues.
Men and women, on average, differ on not just physical properties, but also in psychology and behavior, and at least some of these differences are by nature, rather than environmental conditioning. If by sex we mean biological sex, and by gender we mean the social and behavioral aspects, then the two are certainly highly correlated, even if there is also a large range of overlap. This is true even if we take LGBT people into account, because they account for only a small fraction of the population. Indeed, the exception (LGBT people) proves the rule (non-LGBT people) here. All this should not be controversial at all.
In fact, accepting these objective facts would go a long way towards understanding trans people. It is in refusing to accept at least some of these facts (that there could be differences between men and women outside of the physically observable) that anti-trans gender critical feminism becomes possible. It is in refusing to accept even more of these facts that a postmodern approach to trans issues, that ignores the centrality of gender dysphoria in trans lives, becomes able to speak over objective evidence from clinical medicine. In turn, this has led to trans identity being seen as akin to a lifestyle choice, leading to right-wing culture warriors calling for restricting trans rights and taking away funding for transition related medical treatment. All this means the critical theory worldview, in its rejection of the objective truth on sex and gender, is at the root of the current sorry state of the trans discourse. Which is why it must be challenged as a matter of priority.
To start fixing things, we must demand that we be able to talk about the objective truth when it comes to sex and gender. For too long, the critical theory worldview has made such discussion taboo, by assuming that any talk of differences would be a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women. However, this assumption is not objectively sound at all. The view that objective facts can be a tool of the patriarchy is ultimately rooted in the worldview that ideas are primarily defined by power relations, and objective truth is less important than power relations. While this worldview had existed before postmodernism, it was arguably the work of Michel Foucault that took it to its logical conclusion: that knowledge itself is always a product of power relations. Once you embrace this worldview, there is no going back to looking at the objective facts neutrally. Hence, this worldview is completely incompatible with being committed to what the scientific facts actually say.
In accepting the basic objective facts about sex and gender, one can clearly see trans people's plight in simple terms, as long as one is not already biased by religious dogma (like many right-wing culture warriors clearly are, even if they do not say it aloud these days). To put it simply, there is a mind-body mismatch happening. Of course, this is an oversimplification. However, this at least gets the basic point across. Given the current dire situation facing trans people and trans rights, I think there is a good case for going back to the basics here. And we can only do that by putting decades of academic philosophy aside, and returning to the objective facts.
Free Speech: The Liberal Way by TaraElla
From abortion to CRT, state power is making discourse toxic. We need to stop politicizing everything.
Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.
In this episode, I want to examine the issue of free speech from a liberal perspective. At first glance, there appears to be nothing much to say: liberals support free speech, case closed. However, to defend free speech effectively, we must understand why it is an important priority in the liberal worldview. We also need to understand what conditions are necessary to maintain the promise of free speech, and a healthy marketplace of ideas.
Free speech is important because it is the only way we can get closer to the objective truth, no matter what topic we are talking about. Individual liberal thinkers often have different emphases and different priorities. For example, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe it is most important that we get to the objective truth on matters of morality. Other liberals might prioritize getting towards the objective truth on other matters. But the common ground for all liberals is the need to get towards the objective truth. Above all, liberals believe that getting to the objective truth is the fundamentally necessary condition that must be achieved before we can build a good order. An order that is not based on the objective truth would inevitably be unjust, inefficient, and potentially harmful.
The promise of free speech can only be maintained if speech will not lead to illiberal consequences. People should be allowed to freely explore ideas and viewpoints, knowing that it will not lead to actually oppressive consequences enforced by state power. If debate on abortion is used as a launching pad for punitive abortion bans, if valid criticism of drag queen story hour leads to legislation that bans drag queens from performing in public entirely, if opposition to critical race theory is used to justify limiting free speech itself, it raises the stakes of allowing free speech, and gives credence to the postmodern 'speech is power' worldview. After all, if free speech can indeed lead to illiberal consequences enforced by state power, then it becomes difficult to argue against its limitation on the grounds of maintaining social tolerance. This is why liberals must firmly oppose using state power to wage the culture wars, which inevitably includes coercing acceptance and obedience towards a particular viewpoint in contentious moral debates. There can be no compromise at all on this principle, because if we allow even the slightest bit of illiberalism, we would have set a precedent that destroys the promise of free speech, and fundamentally compromises our argument against the postmodernist 'speech is power' worldview.
On the other hand, liberals should insist on separating speech and political action. Postmodernism has over-emphasized the 'power' in speech and discourse, which has been detrimental to free speech. I think we can turn this around by telling people to focus on where the 'power' actually lies, i.e. the politicians who make the laws. For example, if you oppose abortion bans, your problem is not with those who argue against abortion on moral grounds. Your problem is with the legislators who introduce and pass bills to ban abortion, who often do so out of political, rather than moral grounds. Rather than de-platforming or otherwise disrespecting the free speech of private citizens with pro-life views, you should protest those politicians instead. However, you should still respect the free speech of pro-life individuals, because they are speaking from their conscience in good faith. If you disallow speech that is rooted in genuine belief on contentious moral matters, there is no longer free speech, practically speaking. While people might legitimately and strongly disagree on policy, free speech on matters of personal morality should be sacred, and treated as so. To achieve this goal, there must be a level of separation between politics and regular speech. This is another reason why liberals need to oppose the political culture warriors on both the Left and the Right, who seek to politicize everything. Their methods are a threat to free speech.
This brings us onto my final point: the right to privacy, and the necessity of separating the public from the private. Culture warriors on both the Left and the Right often seek to enlarge the public sphere, and diminish the private, by claiming almost everything as part of either a 'system of oppression' or 'the common good'. This would lead to forced conformity, which liberal thinkers going back to John Stuart Mill have long warned about. This is why we should, in principle, defend individual freedom against overly broad claims of the 'common good', especially where this so-called 'common good' isn't agreed to universally.
Critical Race Theory: The Liberal Way by TaraElla
Welcome to The Liberal Way, a series where we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is.
In this episode, I want to examine the controversy around critical race theory (CRT), and the various responses to it. Specifically, I want to talk about two groups of people: those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive', and those who oppose CRT and support politicians who would use state power to shut it down. Both are clearly not the liberal way, and in examining them, I hope we can clarify what a truly liberal attitude towards CRT should look like.
First, let's examine the case of those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive'. What we need to remember is that what 'sounds progressive' is arbitrary, and what sounded progressive in one era could be seen as regressive and misguided in the next. Therefore, going by what 'sounds progressive' is no different from following the fashion of the day, and forgoing independent thinking. Moreover, ideas that are the fashion of the day may also be illiberal. If so, embracing them would lead to a more illiberal future, and this is something that might not be easily correctable down the road.
The liberal case against CRT is clear. At the most fundamental level, CRT is incompatible with basic liberal values because it doesn't treat everyone the same regardless of immutable characteristics like race. Philosophically, CRT's prioritization of theories of power relations above commitment to objective truth is also at odds with liberalism's historical commitment to empiricism and objectivity, and inevitably puts long-standing principles like free speech and the scientific method at risk. Looking at it from a big picture perspective, CRT could be seen as a wedge to introduce a fundamentally anti-Enlightenment worldview into mainstream Western politics, with the aim of eventually supplanting liberalism and its associated values. This means that, if we don't want liberal values to be supplanted by postmodern values, we need to oppose CRT, period.
Next, let's consider the case of those who oppose CRT, and support using state power to shut it down. This is important to look at, because an increasing number of conservative politicians are now building an 'anti-woke' brand, based on policies like banning (vaguely defined) divisive discussions on race in schools, and banning textbooks that contain divisive content on race (again without clear and objective criteria). Previously, I've said that I'm particularly concerned about those who started opposing postmodern critical theory on liberal grounds, but have clearly lost sight of those liberal grounds they were defending. They have lost sight of why things like free speech are important, and why emotionally charged action is suspect. Instead of defending and rebuilding the liberal way, these people support illiberal means of 'combating wokeness', and are hence contributing to the erosion of liberalism in Western political culture.
The liberal way of combating bad ideas is by using our own free speech to expose their flaws, and ultimately win the argument against them in the marketplace of ideas. Using government power to shut down ideas we don't like is something liberals should never support, period. And we must remember that there is a very good reason for us to take this stance consistently. Free speech must be upheld in a consistent, universal and content-neutral way, or it will cease to exist within a generation. The other important point is, the marketplace of ideas is only credible if it is truly free and fair for all individuals and all ideas.
Of course, the lack of a strong, truly liberal movement against CRT (and postmodern critical theory more generally) has pushed some people towards the illiberal type of anti-wokeism in the past few years. This is why we must take a stance for the liberal way, and make the liberal position clearly heard. We must be brave enough to upset people and break alliances if this is what is needed to uphold the liberal way. We need to remember that the future of Western political culture is at stake here.
Drag Queen Story Hour: The Liberal Way
How a minor issue became a wedge to advance authoritarianism, and why we must fight back
Welcome to The Liberal Way, a new series by TaraElla. In this series we will discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like. I think this is needed because too many people have lost sight of what the proper liberal way is. In particular, I'm concerned that some people, who started opposing postmodern critical theory on liberal grounds, have clearly lost sight of those liberal grounds they were defending. They have lost sight of why things like free speech are important, and why emotionally charged action is suspect. Instead of defending and rebuilding the liberal way, these people have become anti-woke for anti-woke's sake, to the extent that they even support illiberal means of 'combating wokeness', thus defeating their original rationale for opposing postmodernism. Not losing sight of what the liberal way should look like would prevent us from going down that path. Moreover, I believe that revival of the liberal way could potentially end the divisive culture wars plaguing the West right now.
In this first episode, I want to examine the controversy around Drag Queen Story Hour. Specifically, I want to focus on the political reaction to it, rather than the issue itself. While it is a relatively minor issue in the big picture, it has been deliberately deployed as a wedge issue in the past four years, and is effectively responsible for some changes we've seen in US Republican Party politics, and in the Republican-aligned part of the 'anti-woke' movement. These changes have brought anti-wokeism away from the classical liberal values it once proclaimed, towards what is now being called National Conservatism, which is an authoritarian movement aligned with Trumpism, that clearly doesn't value things like free speech.
The story begins with the famous Ahmari-French debate of 2019. Drag Queen Story Hour was a prominent part of that debate. Ahmari believed that the government should act to shut it down. French, on the other hand, couldn't see what the government could do about it. This was because the free speech rights that prevented government from banning Drag Queen Story Hour were also the very rights that guaranteed things like religious liberty. "So you would undermine viewpoint neutrality in First Amendment jurisprudence?" French asked. "Yeah, I would," Ahmari said. This was the difference at the heart of the debate.
Note that this is not about one's views on Drag Queen Story Hour at all. The crucial point is this: government intervention against free speech and expression, especially when it's done in a way that is clearly non-neutral, and applied to contentious moral issues where good people continue to have strong disagreements, is simply dangerous. If you allow the government to intervene against Drag Queen Story Hour, it will set a precedent that will lead to the erosion of freedom in many other, more important areas of life. Having a universal and viewpoint-neutral consensus on things like free speech is, by definition, an all or none deal, and we must fight to uphold this consensus whenever it is under threat.
Don't get me wrong. You certainly don't have to agree with Drag Queen Story Hour itself. Those who disagree with Drag Queen Story Hour can certainly speak up about their concerns. They can certainly argue against it in the marketplace of ideas. What they cannot do is to use state power to ban it. This crosses a line, similar to how Trump's denial of his 2020 election loss crossed a line. In both cases, fundamental moral principles are at stake, and we must respond by defending those principles, and clearly condemning those who want to erode them. Also note that, once a line is crossed, it is more likely to happen again, as seen in the recent movement of election denialism in Brazil, and the ongoing worry about what is going to happen in 2024 in America. This makes pushing back against those who want to cross the line even more important.
To build a strong consensus for liberal principles, we need to show that the application of such principles will be fair to everyone, and the promise of freedom will apply to everyone equally. This is why ensuring that there is free speech for all is so important, and why I have been so against cancel culture, de-platforming, and the postmodern critical theories that have supported these practices. In fact, the NatCon Right has been using the postmodern Left's violation of liberal values to argue their case for authoritarianism, and successfully inserting themselves into the mainstream of Republican politics, to the extent that multiple Republican states are now considering banning drag performances in public venues, or even taking away the parental rights of parents who expose their kids to drag. Let's face it: the postmodern Left's cancel culture has contributed to this dangerous state of affairs we now find ourselves in, and the only way this will end is by a re-embrace of liberalism, especially free speech for all.
A truly free and fair marketplace of ideas requires that all kinds of voices be heard, including those you don't like. As a Moral Libertarian, my views on social and cultural issues start from the eternally correct view that none of us are perfect, that none of us are always right on every matter, and therefore none of us have the moral right to coerce others to agree with us, either in words or action, when it comes to morally contentious matters. This is the reason I have been fighting against cancel culture from the Left. However, there is now clearly an even bigger threat to the marketplace of ideas of the West, and we must recognize it before it's too late. State-enforced book bans, legislated restriction of cultural activities, and especially intrusion into parenting rights are now being done in the name of 'fighting wokeness', and true liberals need to recognize, and speak up against, the scary implications of this kind of politics.
Why the IDW Failed | TaraElla Clips
This is an excerpt from The Problem with the Anti-Woke Movement Right Now by TaraElla.
About the time when I started actively opposing postmodernism's erosion of free speech norms, there was an interesting group of people that I considered fellow travelers back then: the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW). Dave Rubin was considered to be part of the IDW, as were figures like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. The New York Times even did an article on it. The IDW started out with a good idea: that we should be having conversations and debates about difficult topics, and we should do so in a way that is in good faith, open-minded and respectful of our differences.
However, the IDW fell apart in less than three years, torn apart by the drama of the 2020 US elections, and the rise of new forces like National Conservatism, among other things. So what went wrong? And if we could start the IDW over, what should we do different this time?
I guess the first thing I would change is the diversity of thought represented, so that it would be truly reflective of the marketplace of ideas out there. The IDW ended up being unable to withstand certain challenges because it didn't maintain an Overton Window that was broad enough and balanced enough. This meant that much of the discussion didn't take into account the broad range of diverse views and attitudes out there. There was too much agreement on important issues, which led to unreasonable expectations of mutual agreement developing over time. In turn, this led to disagreements being taken personally, and relatively minor developments being able to upset the consensus of respectful debate.
I guess the lesson of the IDW is that, if you want to start a movement based on the idea of a free marketplace of ideas, then your Overton Window should be broad and balanced enough to encompass the whole marketplace out there, with only limited exclusions. This would also ensure a balance of perspectives, and hence sustainability in the long run.
-
He was the perfect trap the far-left set for us Back in 2018-19, when Jordan Peterson was at his peak, and going around promoting his critic...
-
Having studied, analyzed and talked about the ideology and philosophical theories of the contemporary Western far-left so much for several y...
-
Vested interests don't want us to talk about the negative effects Many people are saying that the 2020s are the age of artificial intell...
