TaraElla's Political Theory of Everything & Moral Libertarian Talk

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

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.

Audience Capture and the Anti-Woke Movement | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from The Problem with the Anti-Woke Movement Right Now by TaraElla.

As I often say, tribalist peer pressure is the most dangerous thing in this world, and we need to be able to resist it if we are to have a healthy cultural and political discourse. However, this is often easier said than done, especially for those whose living depend on like-minded people paying to read their work. Perhaps those whose income isn't dependent on their audience in this way, like myself, need to work extra hard to counter this.

An additional problem is, your audience does not always stay the same either. What you need to remember is that, they too can be exposed to biased reporting from various media sources, and their own Overton Window could be unconsciously shifting as a result. In the world of anti-woke media, this situation is particularly of concern, given the unevenness of the playing field. Much of anti-woke media, like most other English-speaking news media, is either based in America or has heavy American involvement, and is therefore inevitably connected to certain parts of American politics. In the current American political landscape, forces aligned with the Republican Party are much more likely to want to invest in setting up anti-woke media outlets, given that wokeism actually divides the base of the Democratic Party due to demographics. It is simply a matter of political self-interest. This means the most well-funded anti-woke media outlets tend to be Republican-aligned, with Democratic-aligned anti-woke media being almost non-existent, even though there are many anti-woke Democrats out there. This situation, in and of itself, creates a strongly uneven Overton Window, where there is an overall effect of ideas and voices from the Right being treated more generously than those from the Left, in the anti-woke world.

To be the lone liberal anti-woke voice pushing back against Republican-aligned anti-wokeism requires principles and bravery, principles and bravery that unfortunately many commentators don't have. Personally speaking, I started opposing wokeism because of my commitment to the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for every individual, which required me to take a strong stance against postmodern activists' challenge towards free speech norms in many parts of Western society. I guess the fact that I entered anti-wokeism on the basis of principle means that my work has been less affected by tribalist forces.

How Tribalism Defeated 2010s Classical Liberalism | TaraElla Clips

About five to seven years ago, there was a lot of energy around the idea that we should seriously explore and debate big ideas, that nothing should be taboo, and more good faith debate can only lead us closer to the truth. It really felt like a classical liberal revival was in the air, with irrational postmodernist forces being the only thing that could stand in our way.

Yet, by 2020, this energy seems to have receded, and after the 2020 US Elections, I haven't even seen a hint of this optimism anywhere in (relatively) mainstream media. Nowadays, everywhere you look, there is negativity, us-vs-them sentiments, moral panics, and more negativity. The thing is, when one embraces negativity and fear, classical liberal values no longer make that much sense. They could even be seen as showing weakness towards the enemy. The summer of optimism for big ideas has given way to a harsh and bitter winter.

So why has this happened? I think, unfortunately, the answer is that too many people have fallen for something that I consider to be the root of most of the evil in this world: something we can broadly call tribalism. Tribalism has destroyed meaning, and created fear of the unfamiliar in its place. As a result, too many people adhere to dogma that they probably know is wrong (or at least questionable) in their hearts, just to demonstrate loyalty to their tribe. For these people, nothing matters, except being part of their tribe. I think this is very dangerous. I mean, major errors have been made, minorities have been persecuted, wars have been started, and people have been killed, all because of this kind of tribalism.

What's Next for Free Speech and Classical Liberalism | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from Two Perspectives: The People Don't Want Culture Wars by TaraElla.

Many people out there have been talking about a 'vibe shift' throughout this year. Even President Obama has become bolder on pushing back against extreme wokeness. I mean, cancel culture still exists and is still a problem, and woke voices will always be part of the cultural landscape absent attempts at censorship, but the ideological movement has met great resistance, and support appears to have somewhat collapsed, at least for now. With high profile 'woke' incidents becoming less and less common, the 'anti-woke' energy among classical liberals has diminished. A void has been left behind, and it has been taken up by hardline right-wing forces aligned with movements like National Conservatism, Christian Reconstructionism and Catholic Integralism.

So where do those of us who were opposed to 2010s wokeness go next? There are two options, basically. Given that the original criticisms about 'woke' cultural changes were rooted in classical liberalism, we could simply rebuild the classical liberal consensus, and move on from the 'woke vs anti-woke' disruption of the previous decade. This would prove that our intentions in pushing back against the 'woke' were noble after all, and that social justice minded people really have nothing to fear from our victory over wokeism. Or we could allow the 'anti-woke' movement, now dominated by reactionaries, to continue to drive the conversation, pushing the pendulum way to the other direction, and discrediting the original premise on which we opposed wokeism in the first place. History is actually full of these over-corrections, and allowing them to proceed is certainly not a good idea. Indeed, the 2010s 'woke' wave are sometimes thought to be due to the overreach of the Religious Right in the 1980s to 2000s. If we don't prevent over-correction towards the reactionary side, there will certainly be another, perhaps even bigger, 'woke' wave in the not too distant future.

Creating Space for a Liberal Conservatism | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

To include liberal conservatives in the liberal discourse doesn't mean that progressives need to give up their values, beliefs and policy goals. It merely requires that conservative ideas and voices be given an equal hearing, as long as they are within the classical liberal consensus. It would also require progressive liberals to be aware of, and consciously reject, some ideas that have their roots in postmodernism and critical theory. These include Michel Foucault's idea that speech and discourse are exercises of power, and Herbert Marcuse's idea that indiscriminate tolerance is repressive, expressed in the famous Repressive Tolerance essay. These ideas were gradually mainstreamed by radical activists in the past 50 years, and they have caused a crisis of confidence in old-school liberal values like free speech and freedom of conscience, as well as a distortion in how liberalism is practiced more generally. These ideas need to be consciously rejected once and for all, by those who are truly committed to liberalism.

Within the framework of classical liberal norms, there is still much unique ground a liberal conservatism can cover. Liberalism must remain committed to values like individual liberty, free speech, equality before the law, and civil rights guarantees for everyone, including minorities. These principles must not be compromised, and we must take a firm stance against the illiberal positions of culture war reactionaries. On the other hand, there is still plenty of room for a conservatism that doesn't violate the aforementioned principles. For example, there can be a focus on building stronger families, curing the problem of high divorce rates, restoring public decency and modesty as a norm, and so on. Indeed, without the divisiveness of culture war politics, we can better bring people into a coalition to achieve these aims.

How to Win the Argument with the Illiberal Right | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

While those on the Left often end up basically attacking all of conservatism, I believe this is the wrong approach. Conservatism represents a basic pattern of human thinking, and many people are inclined towards that way of thinking, at least to some degree. Conservatism exists because it is evolutionarily adaptive, and it is not going to go away, despite the wishful thinking of the Left. Therefore, the only way to fight against an illiberal conservatism is to build up a liberal conservative alternative.

It all starts with making room for conservative minds and voices within liberalism, and ensuring that they are on an equal playing field. One thing I have advocated for over the years is the inclusion of liberal conservatives, i.e. conservatives who agree to uphold the classical liberal consensus, in liberal culture and politics.

Liberalism is actually a set of commitments, based around respecting individual freedom of conscience, favoring objective evidence over superstition and dogma, and building a good order based on these principles. As such, it actually does not exclude conservative-leaning minds, as long as they too support these principles.

Why Anti-Woke Politics is Ultimately Harmful for Free Speech | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Previously, I argued that the postmodern critical theory approach to politics, which has been behind what some have described as extreme 'wokeness', is essentially a kind of anarchism. Elsewhere, I expanded on this argument, focusing on the fact that it is the rejection of all forms of coercion and hierarchy, and the intention to deconstruct the status quo (without a concrete goal to build something else) that makes postmodern criticalism a form of anarchism. I also said that:

"...the order upheld by liberal society must be a good order, one that is fair to all and one where individuals living under it can truly thrive. Critical anarchists in particular have used liberal society's past and present injustices to justify attempts to dismantle it. The best way to disprove the case for critical anarchism is therefore to maintain a good and just order. This is why reactionary 'anti-woke' culture war politics isn't helpful."

To summarize, the best argument against all forms of anarchism, including this new postmodern critical anarchism, is to demonstrate that order is conducive to justice in practice. We need to demonstrate that, in practice, the social contract of the classical liberal consensus can fulfill its promises of liberty, equal opportunity and the chance to pursue happiness for all.

Why Free Speech Shouldn't be an Anti-Woke Thing | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Far too often, cancel culture that comes from the supposedly 'non-woke' is not taken as seriously. It's like how when, earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis used the power of the state to 'punish' Disney for speaking up against his Don't Say Gay law, and 'anti-woke' free speech forces didn't unite to oppose the move as some might have expected. This just shows how the 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' lens is of limited utility in defending free speech, and well past its expiry date, in a time when cancel culture can almost equally come from all sides.

This is why it's time we moved away from a 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' narrative, towards a narrative that opposes cancel culture and defends free speech on the grounds of traditional classical liberal ideals. We should highlight the fact that free speech holds the promise of getting us closer to the truth, and also therefore building sound consensus and good order in society. Cancel culture destroys this promise, no matter what direction it is coming from, and no matter who is being targeted. Moreover, taking sides in culture wars would also harm this promise, because this would make it impossible to be committed to the objective truth, and building a good order for all. This is also why we need to be very wary of people who want us to join a tribe and play the culture war game.

Why Cancel Culture Isn't About Accountability | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

Cancel culture isn't simply holding someone accountable. The aim of cancel culture is silencing people, rather than holding people accountable. It's an attempt by activists to silence voices and ideas they don't like, with an intention to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas. The (unspoken) logic of cancel culture is simple: if the opposition's argument isn't heard, it would be easier to win the debate. It is therefore basically a form of cheating. As I previously said, the promise of free speech is that it will get us closer to the truth, and lead to good order in society. However, this would only work if ideas are truly put on a level playing field, and the flow of information isn't hindered or distorted. This is why cancel culture is the enemy of truth and good order. It's a shame that too many 'intellectuals' in the West don't seem to understand this nowadays.

The Key to Liberalism is Diversity of Thought | Rebuilding Liberalism

The marketplace of ideas is the key to a successful reformist politics

Welcome to Rebuilding Liberalism, a series where we look at how to rebuild the classical liberal consensus, and build a rational and successful reformist politics on top of this consensus.

Recently, in an article about the 2022 US midterm election results, I've analyzed how 'woke' activists are creating a dilemma for the Democrats (as well as their counterparts in other countries). The 'woke' agenda, consisting mostly of postmodern critical theory inspired activism, is broadly unpopular, and the Republicans have successfully painted the Democrats as supportive of it. Even if they stay silent on cultural issues, they can't seem to shake off the 'woke' vibe. This is because, unlike back in the 1990s, party establishments don't control the conversation in the media anymore, and hence can't control how they are perceived. The solution I suggested was to develop an alternative platform that addresses the social justice demands out there, but rooted in the long-standing classical liberal consensus instead of postmodern critical theory, including upholding values like free speech and freedom of conscience.

However, one might still ask, how would the (classical) liberal alternative be heard over the postmodern critical theory agenda? The answer actually lies in one of liberalism's most cherished values: diversity of thought. Of all the ideologies that have existed in the history of the West, liberalism is uniquely committed to diversity of thought, as reflected in its values like free speech, freedom of conscience, encouragement of rational debate, and so on. Until recently, liberal media was well known for giving all sorts of unusual views airtime, in contrast to conservative media's habit of running the same message over and over again. This kind of coverage was well suited to liberal audiences, because of their open-minded nature. However, in recent years, this liberal diversity has greatly diminished. I believe it has a lot to do with the rise of cancel culture. Journalists and media outlets, who used to take interest in diverse viewpoints across the spectrum, have been increasingly leaning towards the argument that 'harmful' ideas shouldn't be platformed. As to what is harmful, it could range from actual racism (which I agree shouldn't be entertained), all the way down to proposals for compromise solutions on issues related to racial justice and LGBT issues (which are probably essential to building consensus for reform). Activists have also attacked liberal media outlets that feature 'harmful' voices, leading to the calculation that, for reputation's sake, it might be better not to invite certain people on. All this has meant that progressive-side media has increasingly toed the activist line. I even suspect that this is actually one of the biggest reasons for the current polarization.

Restoring the diversity of thought in liberal media would stop the conservative attempt to paint everyone to their left as 'woke' on everything. The 'everything is woke' narrative would naturally be discredited in a world where diversity of thought and sincere debates are clearly the norm among those who want to reform society. Yes, 'woke' voices would still be there, they will still be part of the conversation, but it would be clear that they are not the only perspective on offer on the progressive side. Free debate would also lead to the exchange of ideas, the refinement of proposals, and yes, the formation of compromises most people can get behind, which is what needs to happen for any progressive reform to occur, or indeed, to stop reactionary policies from winning. For example, parents are rightly concerned that sex education in schools need to be age appropriate, and they need to have a say in it. Polls have repeatedly showed that a majority of Americans agree with this position, for example. However, activists on the left have made the issue taboo to discuss in liberal media. This has created an opening for people like Ron DeSantis to come up with 'Don't Say Gay' bills. A similar dynamic also exists in relation to discussions on history and race, again allowing reactionary politicians to run a culture war in that area. Restoring liberal diversity would short circuit these dynamics, and likely stop the rising tide of reactionary culture war politics.

The other important thing is that, those in favor of social reforms should welcome a re-diversified landscape, and adapt to it accordingly. This way, they can potentially greatly expand the coalitions supporting their policy goals. To do this, they need to learn to build coalitions in favor of reforms, which can include a diverse range of views about the underlying reasons for embracing particular policies. For example, I have long argued that the pro-environment coalition needs to include people who are still skeptical of climate change, but would support climate action as an 'insurance policy'. Similarly, the pro-choice coalition needs to include people who are personally against abortion, but believe the government shouldn't be involved, or otherwise believe that banning abortions isn't the answer. The LGBT rights coalition should welcome people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman in the religious sense, or who don't believe that 'trans women are women', but are still compassionate enough to support civil rights to make life easier for LGBT people, for example. The attitude they should take is, 'you shouldn't have to agree with us on philosophy to agree with us on policy'. This is the only way to build broad coalitions to achieve needed reforms.

Finally, it is only to be expected that critical theory-aligned activists will not be kind towards any attempt to develop and articulate an alternative progressive agenda that doesn't entertain their ideological point of view. Those advancing a truly liberal agenda must be prepared for smears of not being committed to social justice, or even throwing minorities under the bus. The best way to argue against these smears would be to show a genuine commitment to equal opportunity for everyone in society, regardless of race, gender, or other immutable characteristics. It is the only way to win the argument against postmodern critical theory.