The Case For a Common Good Liberalism | TaraElla Report Lab

Why there is no reason to choose 'common good conservatism' over liberalism.

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about the idea of the 'common good' from a liberal perspective. It's an important discussion to have, because I fear the West is about to see a wave of anti-liberal sentiment. For many years, people on both the Left and the Right have criticized liberalism for supposedly promoting selfishness and ignoring the common good because of its individualist orientation. With the recent rise of 'common good conservatism' as a focus of the illiberal Right, this debate is likely to heat up again soon. Here, I will offer a defense of liberalism, and explain why I believe liberalism is actually the best model for advancing the common good.

Firstly, there is nothing in liberal values and principles that inherently promotes selfishness or opposes notions of the common good. As I first pointed out several years ago, liberalism is not inherently against communitarianism, indeed, I argued that a fusion of liberalism and communitarianism could be the best way forward. Liberalism, especially the Moral Libertarian model, guarantees individual autonomy and moral agency. But that doesn't mean individuals can't or won't use that moral agency to advance what they believe to be the common good.

The key to advancing the common good is to have a culture that stresses the importance of morality, and our duty towards each other. It is these cultural values that will prevent selfishness from prevailing in the general population. Contrary to what the illiberal Right claims, widespread selfishness and lack of regard for the common good is a product of cultural dysfunction, not a product of liberal individualism. Indeed, the Moral Libertarian model of liberalism places morality at its heart, and I believe the promotion of this model will greatly help to advance the common good in the long run.

The actual difference between liberalism and more authoritarian forms of politics like what the illiberal Right is advocating, is that liberalism stresses individual autonomy. Looking at it from another angle, decision making in liberalism is non-hierarchical, whilst decision making in authoritarian conservatism is done in a hierarchical way. Hence, what constitutes the common good in 'common good liberalism' will ultimately be determined by the marketplace of ideas, especially in the long run, while the common good in 'common good conservatism' will be determined by those at the top of the hierarchy.

Hence, the choice between 'common good liberalism' vs 'common good conservatism' would essentially be a choice between decisions being made by the marketplace of ideas, vs decisions being made by those at the top of the hierarchy. And there is good reason to choose the marketplace of ideas. Firstly, the marketplace of ideas represents the thinking of many minds, the experiences of many lives, and the combined knowledge of a lot of information that a small group of elites simply can't match. Secondly, the marketplace of ideas allows for trial and error, and ideas which are objectively found to be successful can be adopted and further developed by other people. Most importantly, the marketplace of ideas allows for negotiation, where the best parts of each package of ideas can be remixed into new proposals, to create even better solutions moving forward. This is a level of complexity and efficiency top-down decision making simply can't match.

In conclusion, I believe that liberalism is, in fact, the best model to advance the common good, as long as it is practiced in a pro-common good culture. Pro-morality models of liberalism like Moral Libertarianism can also help bring about this culture. Hence, there is no reason to choose 'common good conservatism' over liberalism at all.

From Woke to Intersectional: How Words Obscure Ideology | TaraElla Report Lab

Today, I want to talk about how the use of certain words can obscure important differences in worldview, and effectively hide an ideological framing of the issues, which is why I don't tend to use such words anymore.

Woke is Whatever One Disagrees With Nowadays

Let's start with the word 'woke', and its opposite, 'anti woke'. There was once a time, a few years ago, when I used these terms quite a bit myself. Back then, 'woke', in its current form, had just entered our everyday vocabulary, and I saw that it was generally attached to views and movements inspired by critical theory. To me, therefore, 'woke' meant pro-criticalism, and 'anti woke' meant being against criticalism. The 'woke' were not old-school liberals, they instead subscribed to another ideology that aims to supplant liberalism. Hence old-school liberals were not 'woke', and this was a useful distinction. And I'm sure that many people did, and still do, use the terms roughly this way.

However, over the years, I saw more and more people throwing the 'woke' word around to mean something else. For example, opponents of Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill have been called 'woke'. Trans rights supporters in the UK have also been called 'woke'. This has happened even where arguments from critical theory were clearly not involved, and people were arguing from traditional liberal grounds. Hence, at least for some people, the usage of 'woke' appears to extend to old-school liberals too!

You see, the reason why I don't use the descriptions 'woke' and 'anti woke' anymore is because they are clearly being used by different people to mean different things, usually to frame the debate in a particular way. Hence, for example, while old-school liberals can say that proponents of critical race theory are 'woke', conservatives can also say that the old-school liberals themselves are 'woke'. Indeed, one can argue that nowadays, 'woke' is basically whatever you don't agree with. This clearly obscures and confuses important ideological distinctions, and is bad if what we want is clear communication. Hence, I have stopped using the word 'woke', for the sake of maintaining clear communication. I guess it's like how many people decided to stop using the term 'SJW' several years ago, again for similar reasons.

Intersectionality is More than Meets The Eye

Now, let's talk about another way in which fancy labels and descriptions can obscure ideological thinking. There was a brief period (in around 2016-17) when I sort of embraced the then-popular idea of intersectionality. Basically, intersectionality is about emphasizing how one can be discriminated or disadvantaged by multiple intersecting identity characteristics, such as gender, race, sexual orientation and so on. It was used to critique how mainstream feminism was dominated by the views of white middle-class women with a certain kind of background, for example. Back then, I thought that this concept could be useful in other ways. For example, LGBT activists clearly don't represent the diversity of LGBT people very well, especially those from more conservative or non-Western backgrounds. Also, in general, so-called progressive circles often don't live up to their ideal of being equally inclusive to all, because there are often long-standing dominant views on certain issues, and other perspectives are often effectively silenced. I thought intersectionality could be used to solve these problems.

However, I soon found that, in pro-intersectionality circles, there are unspoken rules about what counts as an 'intersectional' issue. For example, if a non-white person talked about how they experienced racism even in supposedly progressive circles, their views are very welcome. However, if the same person then started talking about feeling excluded because of their cultural views and values, which might not always align well with the mainstream views of the Western left, they could be made to feel unwelcome. In other words, what is considered 'intersectional' is guarded by gatekeepers, and the theoretical ideal picture of intersectionality is thus prevented from being achieved.

For about a year, I still thought that I could use reason to challenge the gatekeeping of intersectionality, so that its true ideal could be fully realized. But the more I argued, the more I read, and the more I reflected on all of it, the more I came to my final realization: that the concept of 'intersectionality' has a deeper component that is not included in the definition given by its proponents. Intersectionality is basically rooted in the ideology of critical theory, which sees society as being divided into oppressor and oppressed groups, and sees cultural ideas and institutions as a product of these oppressive relations. Therefore, intersectionality is effectively limited and biased in its application, because of the assumptions of the critical theory ideology. That intersectionality cannot live up to its ideals is therefore a birth defect that cannot be cured. This is why I ultimately left intersectionality behind.

I mean, I still like what intersectionality theoretically stands for. But I can't support a movement that is rooted in the critical theory worldview, with all its divisiveness and its problematic assumptions about the world.

Why Popularity Based Social Media is Bad for Democracy | TaraElla Report Lab

And how to fix the problem.

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to start talking about how we can fix the broken marketplace of ideas we have right now. As I said before, the key to a healthy liberal democracy is a truly fuctional marketplace of ideas, where every voice gets a fair hearing, and where the people get to make a truly informed choice. And right now, the reality is that we are far from this ideal. Clearly, there is a lot of work that needs to be done.

In recent years, there has been a lot of attention on the role of the internet and social media in the propagation of echo chambers, polarization and division. Some people have painted the role of the internet and social media in an almost wholly negative way, as if the pre-internet age was actually better. I think that is a mistaken view, because a media landscape dominated by corporate media clearly ain't a fair marketplace of ideas either. The internet and social media have at least partially democratized our media landscape, and that is a very good thing indeed. The problem is that it just hasn't gone far enough. Therefore, we should look to the possible future of a truly level playing field, rather than look back to the past of a highly restricted media, to resolve our current problems with social media.

There are a lot of problems with the way the internet and social media exist today, but I am going to focus on what I believe is the most important problem: the obsession with 'popularity'. Almost every big social media platform that exists today has a strong focus on the 'popularity' of both creators and content. We see it in the way the number of followers and likes are prominently displayed. More importantly, these metrics of 'popularity' are heavily used in the algorithms of these platforms, so that only content deemed 'popular' is visible to many people. 'Unpopular' content is quickly buried, as if it never existed at all.

The trouble with this model is, what is 'popular' can be manipulated in multiple ways. At the most basic level, content creators are incentivized to create content that cater to the narratives and emotions of particular echo chambers, so as to maximize the number of likes received, because that is the only way the algorithm will pick up that piece of content and spread it to new audiences. As a creator who refuses to play that game, I know very well how frustrating taking a principled stance can be, in the world of popularity-obsessed algorithms. Content creators who have built a following based on pandering to certain narratives generally can't walk away from those narratives either, because of the very well known phenomenon known as 'audience capture'. They are scared that their audiences will turn on them, potentially leading to a massive loss of followers overnight. This constant need to pander to certain narratives means that almost every popular creator stays in line with their chosen narrative, which creates an echo chamber effect on their audiences.

Even more sinister is the potential for money to be able to distort this whole 'popularity' thing. On the internet, one thing that we all hate is 'bots', i.e. automated accounts designed to inflate the numbers of particular accounts and spread particular messages. All the major platforms are constantly on the look out for bots, which are promptly banned when detected, but this has clearly not been able to eliminate the problem. However, all the focus on bots is perhaps distracting us from an even bigger problem: that people or organizations with an agenda, armed with adequate money, probably don't even need to use bots to achieve what they want. They can instead target their content to real people who they know will be receptive to their messaging, through advertisements, events, and even cross-promotion on mainstream media outlets. This is why the platforms can ban all the bots, and still not solve the problem of the 'popularity' model. Indeed, banning the bots likely only shifts the advantage to those who can afford even more expensive means of manipulating the metrics of popularity, thus favoring ideas and agendas backed by major financial power, effectively making the problem even worse. This shows us that the 'popularity' model can't be credibly reformed, and must be abolished or at least radically altered, if we are to have a free and fair marketplace of ideas that is good for democracy.

The pitfalls of the 'popularity' model also extend beyond the world of what we usually consider social media, even to relatively credible platforms like Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia's notability criteria is something that I have been campaigning for years to reform. Basically, for something to be on Wikipedia, it needs to be featured on at least a certain number of what is considered 'credible sources', which is most often mainstream media or mainstream media adjacent outlets. Hence, ideas not picked up by mainstream media are effectively excluded from Wikipedia, which in turn could affect the way they are displayed or ranked on Google and other search engines. Just in the past few years, I have seen many cases of Wikipedia deletion wars, in which pages of borderline-notable people are proposed for deletion. If the subject happens to have a dedicated following, or certain media connections, then they might be able to salvage their page by effectively generating a new article or two that can be used to prove that they meet the Notability criteria. Thus, the Notability criteria effectively makes Wikipedia a popularity-based platform, just like social media. And it can obviously be affected by financially backed interests too. Let's be honest: we all know that it ain't too difficult for rich and well-connected people to get their ideas published in so-called 'credible sources'. Wikipedia's Notability criteria thus ultimately pose the same problem as the likes-driven algorithms of social media platforms.

Now that we've identified the problem, we need to do something about it. The cynical among you might say that, internet companies are ultimately businesses, and they will do whatever necessary to promote their business interests, which would include spreading content deemed to be 'popular'. However, it is not like that their business interests don't include the need to respond to widespread demands for change. And it is clear that demands for change do work on internet companies: for example, just in the past few months, YouTube stopped displaying the dislike count for videos, a change which is quite small indeed, but clearly in the right direction. Ultimately, the key to pushing companies to reform their practices is popular demand from its customers. This is why we need to keep this discussion going, keep the ideas for reform coming, and effectively elevate the cause of social media reform to social movement status. Imagine that, if the social media reform movement were to grow to become as big as the climate action movement one day, the companies simply wouldn't be able to ignore our demands.

In recent years, there have been growing calls for getting money out of politics. But as I have demonstrated, there really is no way to get money out of politics without also getting the obsession with popularity metrics out of social media and the internet more generally. Thus fundamentally changing the popularity metric-based internet landscape should be taken seriously as a core pillar of making our societies more democratic.

Building the Future Liberal Coalition | TaraElla Report Lab

Why Dave Rubin is Wrong, and Liberals Don't Need to Move Right

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about where I want to see liberalism go in its future development, and how those of us who believe in free speech, free debate and a healthy marketplace of ideas can advance these values in our current context. As I said before, there is still a lot of work to do if we want to make our Western democracies truly liberal, and the new media age that is just beginning provides both opportunities and challenges. Therefore, having the correct strategy to navigate this landscape is important.

In recent years, there has been a lot of debate about whether 'the Left' or 'the Right' is a more suitable ally for liberals. Traditionally, liberalism has been seen as a force of the Left, broadly speaking. In the past century, liberals have acted to improve the social safety net, bring about civil rights reforms, and protest the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, as part of the 'Left' political coalition, and these achievements are very cherished by many of us. However, in the past decade, some factions of the Left have turned against core pillars of liberalism like free speech, anti-identitarian universalism and scientific objectivity, which has caused many liberals to repeatedly doubt our place and our future in the 'Left' coalition.

In light of our increasing tension with some parts of the Left, some people on the Right have repeatedly tried to woo us to move into the Right, with some success. Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report, who famously made the 'Why I Left the Left' video, has in recent years become much more comfortable identifying himself as part of the Right, and he apparently thinks we should all do the same. Commenting on Bill Maher's increasing frustration with the Left, Rubin recently said that old school JFK-style liberals should now consider themselves the moderate part of the conservative movement, and they need to be willing to stop voting for Democrats and start voting for conservative Republicans like Ted Cruz and Glenn Youngkin.

From what I see, Rubin appears to be advocating that we take a side, the 'Right' side of politics, and stick to it consistently, including at the ballot box. Rubin certainly looks like he has found a comfortable home on the Right. The problem is that, people like Rubin don't seem to be critical enough of the illiberal elements within the Right, even as they are clearly gaining ground. Seeing this development, I certainly don't share Rubin's optimism about the Right as a good home for liberals going into the future. Besides, politics is not just about free speech and taking a stand against critical theory. It is also about the climate, health care, economic policy, and many other things. And I doubt many liberals (including myself) can ever be comfortable with the conservative stance on these matters. While we can find common ground with conservatives and work together on free speech and taking a stand against critical theory, there's no reason why we should have to give up our values and beliefs in other areas of policy that are just as important.

I agree that liberals should probably stop thinking of ourselves as being on 'the Left' on every issue automatically. But that doesn't mean we should all move to the Right. Instead, what I advocate for is a holistic liberal movement that transcends party lines and ideological factions. A holistic liberalism needs to be broad enough to respond to, and potentially be changed in the process, by critics on both sides, so sticking to one side or another isn't the correct choice. Instead, the future coalition of liberalism should be broad enough to allow both left-leaning and right-leaning people to thrive within it, bringing their diverse perspectives to the table, challenging us to think harder about how to expand the scope of freedom and how to make the marketplace of ideas better all the time. This necessarily means there won't be unity at the ballot box. A free-thinking community of liberals shouldn't expect or demand this kind of conformity anyway. A genuinely liberal movement can't be committed to serving a political faction or party, or it will cease to be genuinely liberal.

Therefore, I think the future coalition of liberalism should not be concerned about agreement on matters of electoral politics at all. Individual liberals should be encouraged to make their own decisions at the ballot box, we should respect each other's free conscience, and that should be it. Instead, there are many other matters that require urgent attention, where we will be able to advance the core values of liberalism far better than by engaging in electoral politics. Examples include developing solutions to cure the ills of social media, demanding changes to how mainstream media operates, fixing the imbalance of perspectives in certain parts of academia, and so on. Engaging with these issues is difficult but necessary. A new liberal coalition that focuses on these issues will need to be comfortable about the fact that we might have different views when it comes to various social and economic matters, and we might support different political parties or vote differently from each other as a result. But it will be built on the common ground of being committed to free speech, free debate, and wanting to make the marketplace of ideas freer and fairer. And that's already plenty of common ground to work on.

We Need To Talk About The Illiberal Right | TaraElla Report Lab

How the rise of the illiberal right reflects the failures of liberalism

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to talk about an increasingly important issue: the rise of the illiberal right. In the past few years, I have been talking a lot about threats to liberalism coming from the Left. However, there has also been a growing movement of illiberalism within the Right, that has become, in my opinion, big enough to warrant serious attention from those of us who worry about the erosion of liberalism. I think that, going forward, we should be giving equal attention to the illiberal right and the illiberal left alike. After all, the last thing we want is for illiberalism to take over both sides of mainstream politics.

Let's talk about the appeal of the illiberal right. Why are people attracted to the illiberal right? To be honest, I think their message actually resonates with a lot of people. The illiberal right likes to talk about how liberalism has failed because it has led to a landscape of broken families, social problems, and collapse of tradition, and many people are finding that talk attractive. I think that the rise of the illiberal right reflects some fundamental failures of liberalism, failures that I believe we must seriously address if we are to stop the growth of the illiberal right. These failures can be divided between the failures of libertarians, and the failures of progressive liberals, because they belong to completely different categories, but when added together they represent one big frustration towards liberalism for many people. It is this frustration that the illiberal right is capitalizing on.

Let's start with the libertarians, one of the two main branches that descended from 19th century liberalism. Conventional libertarianism has been generally very good with free speech and civil rights issues. Libertarians have never had a problem with people expressing their sincerely held opinions, whatever they might be. However, the core criticism of the illiberal right towards libertarians is that their excessive commitment to capitalist economics has contributed to a landscape of broken families and social problems, and I think this is, unfortunately, true. Liberalism is about freedom, including the freedom to choose to live the life you believe in. However, if the economic circumstances make it not quite possible to build a healthy family life, can we still say that there is this freedom of choice? The problem with conventional libertarianism is that, in many cases, it leads to a situation where there is freedom of choice when you have the money. Otherwise, you might find it difficult to even fulfill your basic needs, which for many people would include providing a healthy life for their families. This would indeed discredit the idea of liberalism for many, if not most, people.

Now, let's look at progressive liberals, the other main branch descended from 19th century liberalism. Progressive liberals have always advocated for a strong social safety net, which would greatly ease the economic pressure of living in a capitalist society for working families. This could be attractive to some of the people who would otherwise be inclined towards the illiberal right. Indeed, during the 2019 US Presidential primaries, many conservative-leaning people expressed interest in ideas like a UBI, Medicare For All, and a higher minimum wage. However, progressive liberals don't exactly have a good record on free speech, and this is a real barrier for many people. Liberalism is only credible when it truly commits to fair and neutral process, and to a level playing field between ideas and opinions. You do not need to agree with the opinion expressed, but you have to allow people to truly express what their conscience says, and you have to allow the debate to play out fairly. Under the influence of various postmodern critical theories, the Left has increasingly moved away from this commitment, and I think it's a mistake. The illiberal left is also directly fueling the rise of the illiberal right, because, when there's not much room for rational and fair debate in good faith, everything quickly descends into a game of grabbing power and wielding it against your enemies. Notice how the illiberal right likes to essentially use the rise of the illiberal left to justify its own illiberalism. It really is a vicious circle.

My conclusion from this analysis is that, to stem the rising tide of the illiberal right, I think there needs to be a serious discussion about what liberalism stands for, and how we can make liberalism credible again, in the context of the 21st century. I think we need to return to the roots of liberalism, i.e. freedom. We need a liberalism that is committed to providing practical freedom for people, in the real world they live in. Economically, this is likely to require moving away from the neoliberal model. Socially, there is going to be a need to re-emphasize fundamental values like free speech, freedom of conscience, and the value of open and rational debate, so traditional and new ideas alike can be on a level playing field. On both ends, there will be a need to move away from long-standing de-facto alliances that are strangling us, and this will take courage. But I believe it's the only way to save liberalism.

What I've Learned About Politics | TaraElla Report Lab

The ideas matter, the personalities do not. And polarization is not like the media says.

Welcome back to TaraElla Report Lab. Today, I want to look back on what I've learned so far, in the four years I have been regularly and seriously doing social and political commentary. I believe the things that I'm talking about today apply generally to all of my commentary, and is of great relevance to both my past and future work.

I guess the most important lesson I have learned is that what the media is telling us about political polarization is not entirely true. I said 'not entirely true' because, unfortunately, it is not false either. The Western world right now is indeed quite politically polarized, at least on a macro or aggregate level, and this does seem unprecedented in our history. Don't get me wrong, I do think this is unhealthy and it needs to change. However, when people talk about the polarization, there is almost an assumption of a simplified model, where people are reliably split into two camps, and their views on various issues are almost entirely predictable. What I've found is that this is a severe misrepresentation of the truth. Instead, on the individual level, there is quite a lot of variation in terms of how people actually see the issues, as well as the reasoning behind their views, which I think is actually the more important thing.

I think people only appear to congregate into two masses because political parties and news media generally come in two contrasting flavors. People generally support the political party closer to them, and consume the news media they are more comfortable with, which means they end up picking either team red or team blue almost all of the time. However, almost nobody is entirely blue or entirely red! When you're dealing with individuals, you really need to talk to them, and listen with an open mind, to understand where they actually stand. I think this individual variability shows that people are still mostly independent thinkers to some degree, which is a great relief! It also means that there is still plenty of room for big tent movements where we find common ground to resolve controversial issues.

Another important thing I have learned is that we should focus on the ideas, and not the personalities. If you attach your hope to a personality, they will almost definitely disappoint you some time in the future. Even someone who you think you agree with almost 100% today is basically guaranteed to disappoint you on something down the track. Throughout the history of TaraElla Report, I have shown great interest and even expressed support in many personalities, and to be honest the vast majority of them ended up greatly disappointing me on one or more important issues later on. (In some cases, the disappointment was indeed severe, although I generally don't talk about it in public because I don't want the drama.)

Which is why I have learned to say that, for me, the personalities don't matter, it's the ideas that matter. A related thing is, the fact that I have expressed interest in a person's ideas, or even support for a person, doesn't mean endorsement for all their ideas and positions. I have always thought that this was a self-evident thing, but in this age of rampant 'guilt by association', I think I need to spell it out more clearly.

Finally, I want to talk about my views on being positive vs negative. I would say I am very positive towards humanity, the goodness of human beings, even though I have a negative view on a lot of things about the status quo we are in. There's no logical incompatibility between positivity towards humanity, and negativity towards the status quo. I've found that too many people, in their bitterness towards the status quo, also lose their faith in humanity in general. I think Herbert Marcuse's views in Repressive Tolerance is a good example of this, and arguably also Michel Foucault's views on discourse and power. I think that's a dead end we should actively avoid. The antidote would be to have faith in our fellow humans, and our ability to make things better. We might need some time, we might need some more clarity and understanding, but we will get there.

Why We're Actually Living in an Illiberal Dystopia | TaraElla Report Lab

And why anyone OK with the status quo is not a liberal at all.

Welcome to another new series of the TaraElla Report, which I will call TaraElla Report Lab. In this series, we will be reimagining how liberalism can be like, because that is the only way we can keep its spirit relevant to our times.

Today, I want to expand on a point I made in an article two weeks ago: as a liberal, I have absolutely no interest in defending the status quo. I certainly think the negativity towards the status quo from the Left as well as the Right is very justified. We live in a time when corporate interests, wealthy donors, the military industrial complex, and anti-liberal philosophies alike all distort what some people think of as 'liberalism'. It's like how, back in the 19th century, some so-called 'liberal' pseudo-democracy apologists justified withholding the vote from working class people using a selective reading of John Locke. We certainly regard this stance as illiberal nowadays, and rightly so. Hopefully, people from the future will see our status quo as illibeal in the same way.

The truth is, the status quo we are in is far from the liberal ideal. Therefore, establishment 'liberals' who uphold the status quo, who think that things are mostly fine as they are, aren't real liberals, to be blunt. We need to remember that, at the heart of liberalism, there's a fundamental commitment to liberty and equality, and this has to include a free and fair exchange of ideas in what we like to call the marketplace of ideas. If liberalism doesn't mean this, it means nothing at all. Therefore, we need to examine every issue through this lens. Let's face it: it is clear that our status quo really isn't compatible with liberalism, understood this way. Indeed, I believe the fundamental problem with our status quo is that it is in many ways the exact opposite of what is intended by liberalism. There is effectively no free flow of ideas, and no equal opportunity for ideas to demonstrate their merit.

Let me explain. One of the biggest problems we have right now is that many of the commonly held political positions, on both sides of politics, are popular because people with an agenda have been promoting them, in their respective echo chambers. This is, of course backed by money and organization, so there's no way someone without the same kind of money and organization can compete, no matter how sound their ideas are. The situation is further amplified by corporate media, which generally caters to one or the other side of the polarized political landscape, so they can maximize profits. All this means there is effectively nothing like a level playing field for ideas and opinions anymore. The marketplace of ideas, one of the most important parts of a liberal society, is totally dysfunctional right now. I believe a true liberal would have to see this as one of our top problems.

A related problem is that the media, and other opinion influencers, consist of mostly the same kind of people. Almost all of them went to the same prestigious colleges, know the same few circles of people, and have the same kind of experiences in life. There's really not much diversity in the influencer class, which contributes to the conformity and the insularity of the echo chambers. Now, this phenomenon actually applies to everywhere from journalism to academia, to the music industry, and it needs to be fixed across the board. However, in terms of politics, the consequences are particularly serious, because they include things like increased polarization, important issues and viewpoints being excluded from the discussion, and even the manipulation of public opinion. These things can mean the difference between success and failure in resolving important issues, justice and lack thereof, even war and peace. I believe the current situation cannot be acceptable to anyone who is actually committed to liberal values.

This is why I actually welcome all ideas that have the potential to challenge the very problematic status quo we find ourselves in. It's why I even suggested that certain nuanced, academic forms of critical theory might in fact be useful, when taken in moderation, as a mirror holding our liberalism up to scrutiny, to examine if we are indeed staying true to our values. However, the critical theory Left basically has the same problem I just illustrated. The Theory Left's thinkers are made up of people who went through the same kind of training in college and grad school. The career incentives and disincentives, as well as the potential social consequences people might face, keep the echo chamber from being challenged too seriously. This is why I can't trust the Theory Left to come up with anything better than the status quo either. Just like the status quo's opinion influencers, the Theory Left's thinkers aren't operating in anything like a free market of ideas. It's why they have produced so many fundamentally problematic and illiberal ideas. Using an analogy from the Hunger Games, if the status quo is President Snow, the Theory Left is President Coin, and is definitely no better.

That is why we need a 'back to basics' liberalism. True liberalism that is about true liberty, including a commitment to independent thinking and a functional marketplace of ideas. This is the kind of progress we need right now.

Why Critical Race Theory Could Impede Progress & Innovation | TaraElla Report LvCT

One of critical race theory's biggest issues is its epistemology of knowledge

Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism vs Critical Theory. In this new series, we will explore the differences between the critical theory worldview and the liberal worldview.

Today, I want to talk about one of the most controversial ideas found in critical race theory (CRT), and indeed, in all forms of postmodernized critical theory more generally: the view that certain values, ideas and forms of knowledge can be tied to a specific identity group. In CRT and adjacent thinking, we see this manifest as things like saying that traditional math education is 'white', liberalism is 'white', or the idea of meritocracy is inherently 'white'. In more extreme cases, even the objectivity that underpins science could be considered 'white'.

What I want to note here is that this form of thinking is certainly not limited to CRT. For example, many of the aforementioned things can be accused of being 'patriarchal' too, using the lens of some feminist critical theories. Indeed, postmodernized critical theory has plenty of influences to make them think this way. These include the core critical theory view that all dominant ideas in society are there to serve the dominant (or oppressor) groups, and the Foucauldian postmodernist idea that all knowledge and discourse is primarily shaped by power dynamics. The contemporary Theory Left's habit of assigning cultural ideas to identity groups is not limited to the dominant groups either, as seen in theories about 'cultural appropriation', which generally apply to minority cultures. Obviously, the culture in question must, in the first place, be defined as the property of an identity group, for these theories to work.

The main problem I have with this model of thinking is that it impedes the impartial discovery of objective truth. It also impedes the exchange of ideas between cultures, and ultimately the freedom of innovation that is required for social progress. In other words, what we have here is a model of thinking that essentially wants to throw out the best things about the Enlightenment, the very things that underpinned the great progress in science, technology and civil rights alike in the past two to three centuries. What I'm concerned about is that, many people don't quite fully grasp how important it is to defend these things.

What we need to be able to say is that, there is objective truth and knowledge, and it is a worthy endeavor to discover and learn it in the most robust way, regardless of race or other identity characteristics. A strong commitment to the objective truth, via the study of science, math and so on, cannot be tied to any race, because we're talking about the objective truth, and it is by definition valid for all. Good ideas, good music, good designs and so on can't be 'white' or 'black' or belong to any other race either, because the power of innovation belongs to the whole of humanity, and shouldn't be limited by the boundaries of identity. I believe that, if we fail to defend these fundamental truths, we will have failed the future of humanity.

On Academic vs Political Versions of Critical Race Theory | TaraElla Report LvCT

Why the real worry is not the academic stuff, but the activist adoption of CRT's ideas.

Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism vs Critical Theory. In this new series, we will explore the differences between the critical theory worldview and the liberal worldview.

Last time, we talked about why critical race theory (CRT), and critical theory in general, are inherently revolutionary and anti-liberal to some extent. At the end of the last episode, I briefly discussed how there are different 'levels' of CRT, and how an academic and nuanced approach to CRT might still be compatible with liberal commitments, but a politicized and revolutionary approach might not be. Today, I want to expand on this point.

Hypothesis vs Fact

CRT is based on a set of assumptions, including the idea that racism is ordinary and pervasive in America and several other Western countries, and that the political system in these countries are inherently unfair towards non-white people. Therefore, it is often said that, in CRT, the question being asked is not 'is racism present in this scenario', because it is always assumed to be present. Rather, the question being asked becomes 'how is racism being present and affecting this scenario'. It also logically follows that CRT tends to assume that racial disparities are due to 'the system' being racist, and applies this assumption in its analysis of all kinds of racial disparities.

I think a critical distinction that needs to be made here is whether the central assumptions of CRT are being presented as hypothesis or fact. As a liberal, I believe in being open-minded in our search for the truth. As such, I welcome people coming up with and exploring all sorts of hypotheses. This is why I am so passionate about free speech.

What I cannot accept, and what many people cannot accept, is when hypotheses are being treated as facts, without adequate objective evidence to conclusively prove their truth. This is especially concerning, if such 'truths' are being used to develop solutions to cure social ills. Think about this: you would expect your doctor to be practicing evidence-based medicine. Why shouldn't we expect those proposing social change to practice evidence-based politics?

Academic vs Politicized Critical Theory

This brings me onto the next point. CRT, indeed all of critical theory, started out as academic theory. As some might say, the core assumptions of CRT might be controversial, and might not always be true, but it remains a useful 'lens' to do research and thinking around. I have no problem with the existence of CRT as a lens of academic inquiry, as long as we remain very aware of the limitations of the products of such academic inquiry. (In the past, I have also raised concerns regarding the balance between criticalist perspectives vs other perspectives in contemporary academia, but that's another issue.) If the insights from academic CRT are taken with awareness of their limitations, and in balance with other perspectives, then the results might not always be incompatible with liberal commitments.

What I, and I suspect many people, have a problem with is the popularized and politicized form of CRT. What I mean by 'popularized and politicized CRT' is where ideas from CRT thinking, like colorblind racism, the pervasiveness of white supremacy, intersectionality and so on are taken out of the academic context, and applied in popular culture, political debates, and especially the culture wars. Unlike academic CRT, this form of 'CRT' is much less nuanced. After all, when doing academic work, one is generally encouraged to think about the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of one's work. However, in politics, especially in the culture wars, no such requirement applies. Indeed, such reflexivity is often seen as weakness in the face of the enemy. Thus politicized CRT is much more dogmatic, much more rigid, and often incompatible with liberal commitments to individual-level equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, and so on. Therefore, it is justified, even for liberals who are otherwise OK with academic CRT, to be concerned about CRT-type ideas being applied outside the university setting.

An even more worrying trend in recent years has been the adoption of CRT and associated ideas as part of a wider revolutionary agenda by those with a revolutionary, as opposed to reformist, political orientation. In this new revolutionary adoption of CRT, the assumptions of CRT are taken as fact, and indeed as justification for the need to overturn the current (liberal) system. Furthermore, in extreme cases, any opposition to CRT could be painted as 'upholding white supremacy', a view essentially justified on the grounds of Foucaldian postmodern philosophy rather than objective reality. Now, this would indeed be the opposite of an evidence-based approach to resolve our social ills. And I truly fear where such a misguided approach will lead us to.

Why Critical Race Theory is Inherently Anti-Liberal | TaraElla Report LvCT

Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism vs Critical Theory. In this new series, we will explore the differences between the critical theory worldview and the liberal worldview. I will also be discussing, from a liberal perspective, how we might handle the conflicts the inevitably arise, and how we can stand our ground firmly while still being constructive about advancing social justice. At least in the beginning, I will be focusing on critical race theory, because it is the most discussed form of critical theory right now, but the themes I will be discussing can actually be applied to most, if not all, types of critical theory.

Last time, we talked about why CRT, and critical theory in general, are inherently revolutionary, and can be counter-productive for those of us who believe in a reformist path to progress. This time, I'm going to talk about a related topic: why critical theory in general stands opposed to the commitments of liberalism. In my recent work on CRT, I have often said that CRT is anti-liberal, and liberals should take a stand against CRT. Every time I've said this, some people have demanded that I explain it in more detail. Well, here it is.

The Liberal Reformist vs the Anti-Liberal Revolutionary

The Western progressive divide of reform vs revolution that I discussed last time is also highly correlated with another divide, that of liberal vs anti-liberal. Liberalism is a cannon of philosophy, political theory and ideals that has its roots in the Enlightenment. Liberals generally believe in liberty and equality between individuals, although there have always been differences in terms of how that might be defined and achieved. While liberals believe in individual liberty, they believe in civilization being the key to guarantee liberty. Hence, liberals are believers in an ordered liberty based on a fair and commonly accepted social contract, which sets them apart from anarcho-individualists, for example. Another common belief among liberals is the importance of pursuing objective truth, and the belief that the improvement of the human condition comes from pursuing and knowing the truth. Many foundational liberal thinkers, including John Locke and John Stuart Mill, are often considered to be great empiricial thinkers. Mill's commitment to free speech was rooted in his desire to let the sound ideas prevail over time. For many liberals, individual liberty, and the free speech and freedom of conscience that comes with it, are inherently linked to the need to pursue truth and knowledge.

The reformist progress of the 19th and 20th centuries (and indeed, even more recent reforms like gay marriage) were all largely rooted in liberalism. Over successive generations, liberals shaped the political systems of the West around their values and ideals. The gradually liberalizing political system allowed reforms like universal suffrage, civil rights, freedom of association and unionization, and so on to happen, which then served to reinforce liberal values, and inspire further rounds of reform. Hence, in this context, the committed reformist is inevitably a liberal, at least to some extent. The reverse is also true: liberals generally haven't seen the need for revolution in a long time, given that the liberal project is already being rolled out gradually via reform. While we still have a long way to go to realize the promise of liberty and equality for every individual under all circumstances, from a liberal point of view, things are improving all the time, and we have very good reason to stay the course.

Therefore, in the context of the 20th and 21st century West, the revolutionaries are generally discontents of liberalism. Basically, these people believe that liberalism will not lead to the betterment of humanity, because it has not brought about their desired utopia. More on this later.

Why It's Not Really About Social Justice

To justify their view that liberalism is the stumbling block to utopia, the revolutionaries generally resort to painting a bleak picture of the results of liberal reform (as you would expect). This is why CRT thinkers and supporters often like to downplay or take a pessimistic view of the achievements of the 20th century civil rights movement in improving racial justice in America, for example. It's also why radical feminists often downplay the very real advancement in women breaking the glass ceiling in the past 50 years, or why revolutionary LGBT activists often dismiss concrete achievements like marriage equality. It's all about liberalism not working for the people. Which is clearly not true. But it's the narrative that the various critical theories, including CRT, like to promote over and over again. The harm of this is that it reduces the energy and enthusiasm for further reform (which is what the criticalists want, but would be very bad for minorities who are still waiting for their equal opportunity).

As you can see, the bitterness of criticalism is squarely aimed at liberalism itself. Underlying this bitterness towards liberalism is often an (in my opinion misguided) view that liberalism enslaves humanity in some way. For example, I did a detailed two-part analysis of the real motivations behind critical theorist Herbert Marcuse's justification to limit free speech, and I concluded that it was due to a desire to abolish Freudian repression rather than a desire to advance social justice.

Indeed, given that liberal reformism has produced good results for social justice so far, there really can be no justification to 'burn it all down' without proof that the alternative is going to be better. Therefore, my logical reasoning has led me to the conclusion that the anti-liberal sentiment at the root of criticalism is not really about social justice at all. Rather, criticalists romaniticize an imagined utopia, and are bitter towards liberalism for failing to deliver this impossible utopia. What criticalists do not understand is that their utopia isn't possible because of human nature, biological constraints, scarcity of resources, and so on. No system can completely overcome these limitations. It's a fact that criticalists, in their revolutionary optimism, have generally not been willing to face.

Critical Theory Opposes the Core Values of Liberalism

Besides trying to discredit the fruits of liberalism, contemporary critical theories also often attack the foundational values of liberalism. This is why they don't have much appreciation for free speech, freedom of conscience, objectivity and empiricism, all fundamental ingredients of liberal philosophy. In more extreme cases, there is also skepticism towards things like electoral democracy, equality of opportunity, and even scientific truth.

I think the core conflict here is that, while liberals believe that the objective truth will liberate and advance humanity, criticalists clearly don't believe that. Instead, they believe that the objective truth either doesn't exist or is not knowable (inspired by postmodernism), and what is important are dynamics of power and oppression (which is the core critical theory view) and repression (from Marcuse). Therefore, liberals are dedicated to pursuing the objective truth, and setting up values and systems that allow us to do that, while criticalists will always decry these values and systems as being oppressive. This actually represents an irreconcilible difference, no matter which way you look at it.

Torwads a Constructive Liberal Attitude on CRT

Therefore, as liberals, in the face of the rise of critical theory thinking, we must stand our ground firmly. At the level of overarching values, it's either our way or their way. There is really no ground for compromise here. This is what I mean when I say that liberals should be unafraid to take a firm and public stance against CRT.

On the other hand, liberalism isn't against the existence of CRT (or other types of critical theory) as one school of thought among many that exists in the marketplace of ideas. As someone once put it, liberalism isn't opposed to critical theory being one available perspective to examine social issues. However, critical theory, in its political activist form, often demands the acceptance of its assumptions about the world, to the exclusion of many liberal principles, due to its core view of culture being a ground for power struggle between groups. The truth is, critical theory comes in many different 'levels', from an academic lens that might be useful for research but is also aware of its potential limitations, to a politicized form that essentially demands acceptance of its doctrines in all areas of cultural and political life. Thus, some 'levels' of critical theory could be compatible with a liberal political system, whilst the more extreme levels might not be. As a liberal, I think it is important to make this distinction.

Furthermore, even as a liberal, I have to admit that the concerns raised by CRT (or other types of critical theory) are not always invalid. Referring back to the aforementioned point about academic forms of critical theory with appropriate nuance, I don't deny that they could be useful for revealing aspects of racism that could be ignored by mainstream thinking. As liberals, we should always welcome a diversity of perspectives, and we should always be open-minded about the need to further improve society for marginalized individuals and communities. As such, we can think of some forms of academic CRT as a mirror, holding our liberalism up to scrutiny, so that we can make sure we remain on the path to removing racism.

However, the key to standing our ground as liberals is that the social and political actions we support in the name of anti-racism must be rooted in a desire to better adhere to liberal ideals like moving towards race blindness, fostering equal opportunity for every individual, and so on. With this in mind, we would certainly have to stand against proposals from certain CRT thinkers (e.g. Ibram X. Kendi) which contain elements that betray the aforementioned liberal vision.

Why Critical Race Theory Can't Escape Its Revolutionary Roots | TaraElla Report LvCT

Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism vs Critical Theory. In this new series, we will explore the differences between the critical theory worldview and the liberal worldview. I will also be discussing, from a liberal perspective, how we might handle the conflicts the inevitably arise, and how we can stand our ground firmly while still being constructive about advancing social justice. At least in the beginning, I will be focusing on critical race theory, because it is the most discussed form of critical theory right now, but the themes I will be discussing can actually be applied to most, if not all, types of critical theory.

In the first two parts of this series, I want to talk about the roots of critical race theory (CRT), and the roots of critical theory more broadly, and what this means in terms of its incompatibility with liberal and reformist thinking. I will be highlighting where the conflict actually lies, and what we could do about it as committed liberals.

To understand the roots of CRT and critical theory more generally, I think we need to place these schools of thinking in the wider landscape of Western progressive philosophy. In particular, we should examine it through two important perspectives: the reform vs revolution split, which I will be focusing on today, and the liberal vs anti-liberal split, which will be the topic of the next installment.

Why CRT is Inherently Revolutionary

The reform vs revolution split has always been a fundamental divide in Western progressive philosophy, theory and politics. In the beginning, Europe was ruled by absolute monarchies, and the only path to progressive change seemed to be revolution. However, after a messy period, where there was a combination of revolution, reform, reaction and backsliding, the reformist program began to show great promise by the late 19th century. The gradual success of reformism, including the arrival of democracy, the expansion of free speech, the gradual expansion of the franchise to all adult citizens regardless of race, religion, gender or class, and the legalization of trade unions and collective bargaining, fundamentally made Western society better by the 20th century. Objectively, the successes of the reformist program were undeniable. This meant that, as time went on, more and more progressives became committed to the reformist path, and rejected the need for any further revolution. On the other hand, there were those who continued to insist on the need for revolution.

Up until World War II, the revolutionary faction of Western progressivism was still quite strong. This was supported by a workers' based revolutionary Left, which made sense because of the continued poverty and misery of the working class. However, around the time of WWII, further progress was made, in the form of the New Deal in America and a generous social safety net covering healthcare, education, unemployment and more in many European countries. By the mid 20th century, it was clear that workers in the West were much more satisfied with their lives, and revolution was clearly not imminent, given the majority were happy with the status quo broadly speaking. Thus even more progressives, union leaders and thinkers alike, gravitated towards reformism.

Revolution became a lonely cause in the West, and committed revolutionaries were desperate to find a way forward. In particular, they needed to find new revolutionary subjects, now that a purely workers' revolution was highly unlikely. It was at this time that the fundamental ideas behind CRT gradually became popular among academically inclined revolutionaries. While Critical Theory was invented by the Frankfurt School back in the 1930s, it only became popular and influential after the 1960s, particularly in the English speaking world. It was also in the mid 20th century that the various ideas that would become postmodernism first emerged in France, and later spread to the English speaking world.

Contemporary critical theories of all kinds, including CRT, generally incorporate influences from the original Critical Theory of the German Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse's Freudo-Marxian theories, French postmodern philosophers like Foucault and Derrida, and other philosophical fellow travellers. This inheritance makes them inherently revolutionary at their roots. In particular, they are inherently revolutionary because of a core assumption that lie at the bottom of their worldview, an assumption that scholars of CRT have plainly stated in various ways in their works. The assumption is that there are pervasive systems of oppression based around oppressor group vs oppressed group dynamics working throughout society, and that our political and legal systems, as well as our cultural conventions and institutions, are all inherently part of these systems of oppression. The implications of this is that trying to reform our way to social justice is futile, and we must burn it all down and start over again.

The Conflict Between Reform and Revolution

In recent years, there has been a view among some on the Left that reform and revolution are not incompatible. This is a romantic view, and one that is often promoted by revolutionaries who want to recruit followers from reformist movements. But an objective appraisal of the evidence shows otherwise. As I often like to point out, the gay marriage movement was successful because it was clearly reformist, and there was not much revolutionary sentiment to compete with it at the time. On the other hand, the 1960s and 70s ended up a mixed bag, and was followed by the reactionary 1980s because revolutionism limited the progress of reform. As somebody who is passionate about making people's lives better in a practical way, I definitely know which path I want us to go down. (And it's clearly not the revolutionary path.)

Reform and revolution are incompatible because reform is about making the existing society better, and revolution is about tearing it apart to start all over again. Reform harms revolution by reducing the need for revolution, just like with the working class in the early to mid 20th century. This is why many true revolutionaries don't really welcome the success of reformism. I actually think this explains the negativity of CRT thinkers towards the fruits of the civil rights movement. On the other hand, revolutionary politics harm reformism by creating a constant threat that the social fabric, and people's familiar lives, are going to be pulled apart and turned upside down. This prospect is understandably unwelcome for many people, and will be met with a reactionary attitude, which will also lead to the widespread rejection of reform.

Indeed, reformism builds the broad public support required for change in democracies by promising to make everyone's lives better. Revolutionary politics and rhetoric in the background makes our case less credible. The specific oppressor vs oppressed model used in various critical theories further creates the impression that social change will create winners and losers, by 'turning the tables of oppression'. This, of course, further undermines the case for any change among the general public. This is why reform and revolution are always going to be at odds with each other. There is no denying this fact.

The trouble with the rise of CRT is that, since the paths of reform and revolution are inevitably in conflict in multiple ways, the popularization of an inherently revolutionary mode of thinking is going to distract from, and even harm, the prospect of further reform. Indeed, this is happening not just with race and CRT, it is also clearly happening with LGBT activism, which has generated a new wave of backlash that trans people like myself are very aware of. It's what's inspired me to speak up against this new wave of revolutionary politics. Because ultimately, it's what's best for people that matters, and what's proven to help is sticking to the reformist path that has delivered evidence-based benefits.

In the next part, I will talk about why CRT and critical theory in general are inherently anti-liberal. I will also talk about how we, as reformists, liberals, and practical progressives, can develop a constructive approach towards critical theory, that allows us to stand our ground when it comes to key liberal values and principles, while still having space to acknowledge the potential academic value of CRT and other similar theories.

A Better Way To End Racism? | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I'm going to talk about how to end racism again. Previously, I have explained quite a few times why I believe critical race theory is very unhelpful in the fight against racism. I have also spent an episode outlining how our understanding of cognitive biases from empirical psychological studies can help us understand and prevent racial discrimination.

Today, I want to approach the problem from another angle: I believe that a stronger social fabric is perhaps what is most needed for the continued advancement of racial equality.

Firstly, a strong social fabric increases social trust, which makes it less likely that people would distrust others on the basis of superficial differences like skin color.

Secondly, a culture that is inclusive and not divisive makes it more likely that people will see their neighbors as being in the same boat, which would lead to a higher likelihood of caring for their welfare, regardless of race, gender or other immutable characteristics.

Furthermore, shared values like concern for one's family can provide common ground for mutual understanding, while strong social institutions can help bring people together, regardless of cultural background.

Therefore, to truly end racism, we might need to think outside the box. We might need to start doing things differently: perhaps we should start by getting rid of the influence of ideologies and theories that serve to divide people. We should probably also water down the post-1960s tendency to endlessly critique everything, and start thinking about how we can build society back up again. In other words, we should aim to make society better, not tear it down or tear it apart.

How The Culture Wars Make Us Dumb and Powerless | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I want to talk about why the culture wars are making us dumber. Basically, it comes down to the fact that culture war politics make many people choose a team based on one or several issues, and they often decide to follow the other positions of that team. What I mean is like, for example, people who choose a side for economic reasons but also adopt all their social or foreign policy positions.

The problem is that, these people are choosing social convenience over independent thinking. It is because of this choice that tribalism and polarization are on the rise. Eventually, a situation develops where those who pick a side and stick with their side all the time become the norm, and independent thinkers like myself become the exception. Politics becomes a battle between two unthinking masses.

A lot of people benefit from this model, actually. The establishment elites on both sides win, because it allows them to build coalitions that don't otherwise make sense, and win elections on empty platitudes. The business elites win, because they can pitch their media products to one side or another, and they can afford to completely ignore the non-conforming independent thinkers, which provides a much easier business model for them. Another thing is, this polarization serves to permanently divide the people, so the status quo still prevails, no matter how unpopular it is. As you can see, the establishment elites really like it this way.

Which is why, contrary to what some people may think, it is not anti-establishment at all to be tribally divided and polarized, no matter which side you are on. No real change to the status quo can come out of that, ultimately. It is also why cancel culture is not progressive at all. Cancel culture seeks to reinforce the divides. By preventing people from reaching across the divides, nothing meaningful can ever be done, and the status quo can never be changed. We should wake up to this reality, and stop being played by the establishment elites.

UBI, Medicare For All, Climate Action: Where Did Progressives Go Wrong? | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I'm going to talk about why progressives who champion things like a UBI, better health care, and climate action across the Western world, have had relatively little success, compared to opinion polls which show their policies to be popular in theory. I'm also going to offer a new way forward, one that is still not talked about much by many champions of these policies.

Much has been said about why, some European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, can have such a strong social safety net, while countries like America, and to a lesser extent the UK and Australia, cannot. Some commentators on the Right have pointed to the cultural homogeneity of Scandinavia, but I don't think that's the reason. Rather, we should take a look at history. The social safety nets of European countries were generally established in the decades following World War II. Political circumstances around that time meant that Europe, particularly Scandinavia, made the most progress during that era, America made relatively little progress beyond the New Deal, and the UK, Canada and Australia were somewhere in between. After around 1980, however, basically no Western country made any further great progress in terms of strengthening the social safety net, and most have even seen backsliding. Therefore, if European progressives were championing universal health care in 1950, they were much more likely to get it compared with American progressives who are championing it today.

So what caused that change? I think we need to look at the one or two decades leading up to 1980. It was the time of the Vietnam War, the student protests, and most importantly, the rise of the Theory Left, as I illustrated in previous episodes. The Theory Left represents a significant chunk of the Left that has broken away from the workers and the unions, and re-orientated towards the intellectuals, with a new cultural orientation replacing the previous economic orientation. The problem with the Theory Left is that, their whole worldview is rooted in a suite of critical theories, which see the world primarily in terms of power dynamics between oppressor vs oppressed groups. Furthermore, the Theory Left see the existing social institutions, like marriage, family, even morality and science in the more extreme cases, as social constructs designed to keep the oppressed down. Hence, they tend to hold a negative view towards all these pillars of the social fabric. The result of all this is five decades of both conscious and unconscious attempts to weaken the social fabric, with multiple deleterious social consequences.

The rise of the New Left was associated with widespread social upheaval in the 1960s and 70s. Although the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement were noble, there was also much that was, objectively speaking, highly damaging to the social fabric. In the wake of the cultural changes, the number of broken families skyrocketed. Repeated industrial action that was designed by the radical Left to 'bring capitalism to its knees' instead resulted in workers being out of work everywhere, effectively putting an end to the post-war guarantee of a living wage for all. Society became quite dysfunctional in general. As all this was happening, some in the Theory Left turned to their theory again, and found justification for their actions in the idea that this chaos had to come before their 'new world' could be born. Theory had not only gravely harmed society, it also blinded its adherents to this fact, thus preventing a much needed correction. Thus the erosion of the social fabric continued to some extent throughout the 1980s, 90s and beyond.

Anyway, the point is, people need to believe in the society around them, to be passionate about social and economic reforms. They need to know that the system is working, they need to know that their efforts will actually go towards making life better for their fellow humans, before they can embrace new reforms. The social dysfunction brought on by the Theory Left has prevented this from happening ever since the 1970s. Therefore, to strengthen the social safety net, to deal with the coming challenge of automation, to create the consensus to end racism and bigotry, and to adequately deal with larger problems like climate change, we first need to heal society. We need to undo the injuries of the past five decades, and make people believe that their society can work well once again. Without fulfilling this fundamental requirement, any policy for major reform would remain no more than a pipe dream.

Is This The Real Reason for Cancel Culture? | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I want to continue my discussion on Herbert Marcuse's essay Repressive Tolerance, and his general utopian worldview defined around ending the Freudian concept of 'repression'. Last time, we examined how Marcuse's work inspired the post-1960s Theory Left to conflate liberation from Freudian repression with liberation from oppression, and hence ultimately confuse all forms of emotional restraint for social injustice. This has had various harmful effects, including an erosion of the social fabric, as well as creating resistance to much needed social reforms. This time, I am going to examine the association between Marcuse's worldview and the practice of cancel culture today, and why those in favor of cancelling people in the name of social justice are ultimately confused about what they are actually doing.

While Repressive Tolerance was written in 1965, and many of today's pro-cancellation activists might not even have read it, it remains a historical fact that Marcuse was the most important thinker in the 1960s-70s student movements, and the spirit of his work has been carried on in various forms by this generation. Hence, a college student today could be influenced by the Marcusean worldview through various means, even if they had never read the original source of the ideas. This is why many people have pointed to Repressive Tolerance as the ultimate source of the ideas behind cancel culture.

Why It's 'Repressive Tolerance', not 'Oppressive Tolerance'

Let's first return to my point that the essay is titled 'repressive tolerance', rather than 'oppressive tolerance', which reflected Marcuse's primary aim being liberation from Freudian repression, rather than social oppression. In other words, Marcuse was skeptical about the free market of ideas, not just because oppressive ideas could win support, but more importantly, 'repressive' ideas could win support. It is clear that, for Marcuse, even if oppressive ideas are guaranteed to lose in the free market of ideas, if 'repressive' ideas could still win sometimes, he still wouldn't be happy about it. Hence, his primary motivation was one of preventing the popularization of 'repressive' ideas, rather than just oppressive ideas, through free speech and free debate.

If we look at things from this angle, the justification behind Repressive Tolerance suddenly begins to make sense. Oppressive ideas have generally not done well in the free market of ideas. Even if they temporarily gain an audience, in the longer run, oppressive and unjust ideas have always been defeated, in the free market of ideas. Rational debate has always favored the side of justice in the end, as most recently seen in the gay marriage debate, where support grew from less than 20% to more than 60% in less than a generation. The success of gay marriage follows on from the success of civil rights, the idea of racial equality, the idea of gender equality, and so on. The free market of ideas has delivered in spades for social justice, and there is no reason why this winning streak wouldn't continue.

However, the story is different when it comes to so-called 'repressive' ideas. For example, gay marriage can actually be argued to be a 'repressive' idea, even though it is in line with social justice. What makes marriage equality a 'social justice' cause is that it provides a fair deal to both gay and straight people alike. However, the deal, the marriage contract, is one that inherently involves a lot of restraint, as discussed in the previous episode. Hence, from a Marcusean viewpoint, the victory of marriage equality, over more radical ideas like the complete abolition of marriage, actually justified the skepticism towards free speech in Repressive Tolerance. As you can see, while the logic in Repressive Tolerance doesn't make sense if you are coming from a purely social justice angle, it does make sense when your primary aim is to abolish all forms of Freudian repression, which was where Marcuse was actually coming from.

The Reason Why 'Liberation from Repression' is Justifiably Unpopular

The reason why so-called 'repressive' ideas may win in the free market of ideas is because they have inherent value. Indeed, the example of marriage shows us that restraint of our primal instincts comes with its rewards. Restraint can make us happy, secure and fulfilled. Just as importantly, restraint is the foundation of many pillars of the social fabric. A politics built around liberation from nearly all restraint would mean the decimation of the social fabric, and is something that is going to be logically rejected by the majority of people. Hence, the fact that ideas Marcuse considered 'repressive' often win in the free market of ideas is not a sign that free speech and democracy aren't working. Rather, it's a sign that they are!

Furthermore, as I argued in the last episode, a robust social contract is required for a healthy liberal democracy, and this can only happen with a good dose of emotional restraint from all citizens. Moreover, the process of debate, and indeed the process of democracy itself, is often about negotiating adjustments to the social contract. The level of restraint required in different areas of life is an important part of this. A politics built around a general rejection of restraint would thus refuse to recognize the validity of many important aspects of a healthy politics. As a Moral Libertarian, my ideal for society is for everyone to be equally able to live by their moral values, and demonstrate by example the validity of the model of morality they live by. Again, morality is inherently about restraint, and any model of politics that rests on morality would also be deemed invalid by a politics built around refusal to recognize the necessity of restraint. By extension, since a politics devoid of restraint is morally empty, there is also no possibility of real social justice of any kind. The overall conclusion from all this is, the Marcusean ideal of liberation from Freudian 'repression' is necessarily incompatible with a healthy and morally driven politics.

In conclusion, there really is no reason to practice cancel culture, the set of practices informed by the logic of Repressive Tolerance, for social justice reasons. Free speech and rational debate has a strong track record in delivering victories for social justice. Rather, the Theory Left has been under the influence of the Marcusean conflation of Freudian repression with social oppression for so long that they are basically unconsciously serving a completely different goal, that is, the abolishment of the civilized restraint of our primal instincts. Such a goal can only be achieved by abolishing free speech, because most rational people wouldn't support it. It is also a goal not worthy of supporting, or even serious consideration, because it will basically destroy civilization as we know it.