As an Anti-Woke Liberal, This Worries Me A Lot
Emotionally charged reactionary sentiment is fueling the rise of Pre-Fascism
Recently, I have been examining the growing influence on the right of the view that society is in decline because the wrong people are in control, an idea that I have characterized as pre-fascist based on historical precedent. Given that this worldview appears to be both the necessary and sufficient condition for a highly authoritarian, and possibly even full-blown fascist politics, I think it is important that classical liberals treat its rise as a serious matter, and dedicate enough resources towards arguing against it and providing healthier alternatives in its place. To argue against something effectively, we need to first understand it. Which is why, in this article, I will attempt to examine the origins of pre-fascist ideology. The idea that 'society is in decline because the wrong people are in control' can be broken down into two parts: firstly, that society is in decline, and secondly, that the wrong people are in control. I will examine the two parts in detail, separately.
The idea that society is in decline is an attractive one to many people, whenever social change is too rapid, long-standing fundamental traditions are being challenged, as well as whenever the economy isn't doing too well. Unfortunately, we have all these elements happening at the moment. The current economic conditions are a likely after effect of the pandemic, and it's not something we can change, so it is not going to be our focus here. On the other hand, more progressive-minded people should have been aware that the 'woke' cultural progressivism of the 2010s was never going to be sustainable. Its demands that society change the language that it has long been using, and its insistence that what was once acceptable is, in many cases, no longer to be tolerated, is simply too much for society to bear. Even in the better cases, the 'woke' movement wanted to build utopia in one go, declaring that all injustices, no matter how small, could no longer be tolerated. This 'everything at once' strategy was bound to fail. In the worse cases, activists tried to reify academic philosophical theory in the real world, and made demands that were clunky, unreasonable, and ultimately unnecessary for justice. Long-standing norms like free speech and freedom of conscience were also repeatedly challenged with things like cancel culture and de-platforming. All this, in turn, led to widespread unease across society, which provided the conditions for a backlash.
If what happened was only a backlash against the excesses of 'woke' activism, and aimed to bring everything back to the sensible middle, then it would have been of great benefit. I believe we really need to get back on the path of the sustainable liberal reformism that gave us everything from civil rights and universal suffrage to marriage equality. This, I maintain, was the original intention of the 'anti-woke' movement, and I still aim to represent this view in my writings arguing against postmodern criticalism. But far-right actors with an agenda had other ideas. They wanted to use the backlash to damage liberalism itself, take away existing rights and freedoms in the process, and perhaps institute a 'regime change' right here in the West, by replacing classical liberal norms with something more like Hungarian-style 'illiberal democracy'. This is where the 'wrong people are in control' part comes in. The illiberal right keeps trying to convince those frustrated with 'wokeness' that the wrong people are in control of the culture, the universities, Hollywood, and even the corporate world. They make up conspiracy theories to discredit the people they don't want to be in charge. Now, about four years into their attacks on our social fabric, their goal of total regime change is becoming clearer and clearer to more and more people.
Given the common ground these actors share with actual fascists, they have also come onboard this new right-wing movement, bringing with them the occasional racist or antisemitic rant that has been increasing in frequency to the point where it can no longer be ignored. What those who want 'illiberal democracy' and actual fascism share here is what I call the pre-fascist ideology: that under classical liberal norms, the wrong people are in control of society, and this needs to change. To achieve this, long-standing classical liberal norms must be brushed aside, ignored, or even outright abolished. Thus, while classical liberals have spoken against 'woke' activism in the hopes of restoring classical liberal norms, the illiberal-right and actual fascists want to use the 'anti-woke' backlash to usher in a regime change that would end the classical liberal social contract itself in the West. Therefore, from a classical liberal point of view, those who are merely admirers of 'illiberal democracy' are actually no different from full-blown fascists in terms of their intentions and the threat they pose to classical liberal values. The fact is they share the same general outlook, and pose the same kind of threat to classical liberalism.
In many ways, the illiberal right is objectively much closer to actual fascists than to the conservative wing of classical liberalism. This is why, I believe, the whole pre-fascist threat to classical liberalism needs to be treated as a whole, and opposed as a whole, rather than debating who is actually 'closer to fascism'. As classical liberals, we should be less interested about whether they are actually fascists or close to historical fascism in their views, and more interested in the kind of threat they pose to individual liberty in the here and now. It is the anti-liberal common ground they share, rather than the differences between the factions, that is important, if what we are concerned with is the threat they pose to individual liberty.
Let's look at it this way: there are actually three elements to the pre-fascists' strategy in attacking liberal society: firstly, riling up anger against the sources of widespread frustration; secondly, coming up with conspiracy theories and biased rhetoric to paint it as a problem of the wrong people being in control; and finally, attacking classical liberalism for letting all this happen. They encourage people to use an emotionally charged, rather than rational, attitude to confront 'wokeness'; they encourage people to blame certain individuals and corporations, rather than think rationally, when it came to frustrations about both wokeness and other things in life; and finally, they keep promoting illiberal solutions to the problems we face, justifying it using 'emergency mode' rhetoric like what was seen in Michael Anton's infamous 'Flight 93 Election' essay. Riling up people's emotions is the common underlying theme in all these elements. Furthermore, when confronted about their differences with conventional conservatives, they resort to yet more emotionally charged 'emergency mode' rhetoric, like how 'Reagan supporters don't know what time it is'. They are always trying to rile up emotions, rather than to constructively contribute to rational discourse. This is why ultimately, the thing that is fueling the rise of pre-fascism is the promotion of an emotionally charged reactionary worldview. If we can successfully counter this, then we can successfully stop pre-fascism.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).