The Conservative Case For Trans Acceptance: Compassion & Personal Responsibility
The Conservative Case For Trans Acceptance: Compassion & Personal Responsibility
Plus, The Case for a Libertarian Post-Leftism
Welcome back to my series on building the conservative case for trans acceptance, where I will look at how trans people and trans issues should be accommodated from the perspective of long-standing values. Today, I will talk about the value of compassion, which is actually one of the most long-standing values we have. The fact that it has stood the test of time is proof that compassion is important to society, although many people who claim to be conservative seem to forget this. Compassion is key to maintaining a peaceful, functional and stable society, and we simply cannot go without it.
From the perspective of compassion, society should generally try to accommodate people's needs as much as possible, so they can live happy and productive lives. Given that the condition of gender dysphoria is medically proven to exist, and that social and medical transition is proven to be the best way to alleviate dysphoria at least for some cases, a compassionate society should try to accommodate the basic needs of trans people, so they can live happy and functional lives. Note that you don't necessarily have to agree with trans people's views on gender identity for this to be true. The point here lies solely in being compassionate to others. You also don't have to agree with every trans activist demand. Just reasonable accommodation of trans people's needs would be enough.
Of course, this compassion is also a two way street. Trans people also need to be compassionate towards other people, and take their concerns seriously. Therefore, we can't just shut down people who reasonably raise their genuine concerns and label them as 'transphobic'. We need to engage, in good faith, with their concerns, and see how we can address them.
This is just a brief reminder, but an important one. Belief in personal responsibility is an important conservative value. Conservatives, as well as classical liberals, rightly reject collective responsibility and collective guilt. Which is why I reject that the antics of the most extreme trans activists should have any effect on me, or what I'm advocating for. I do not agree with most of their agenda, and I'm not responsible for it. In fact, I have repeatedly outlined my disagreements with that agenda previously, you can check out my previous articles and videos if you're interested. The point is, you should consider my proposals on their own merit, without implying that I agree with the agenda of other people I can't control. If you think 'trans people' should be treated as a collective whole, and that is it OK to blame trans people collectively for the actions of some activists, then you aren't even conservative.
Post-Leftism Failed Because it was Taken Over by the Populist Right
In the aftermath of the second defeat of Bernie Sanders in 2020, some leftists, particularly those of a class-first persuasion, decided to become 'post-left'. Aware that the identity politics faction of the left probably contributed to Bernie's defeat, and also aware that with the cultural left in tow they probably can't do much to appeal to the working class, they decided to split away from the left. Some of these post-leftists began to work with the populist right, which earned them scorn not only from the left, but also from many people who are not fans of the populist right, including moderates and classical liberals for example. From there, the idea of the post-left began to sour, and eventually fade away. While I find it regrettable that at least part of the post-left class of 2021 chose to join the populist right, I still think we should explore the post-left idea more. I think there are important insights we can find there.
Firstly, the post-left class of 2021 were not the first people who called themselves post-left. For example, there is a strand of anarchism called 'post left anarchism', which sees the 'left' as associated with outdated ideas, strategies and models of change that they want to break free from. Although I don't support anarchism, I can certainly see where this critique of the left is coming from. The common thread that links 'post left anarchists' with the post-left class of 2021 is disillusionment with the 'thing' called the left, because it doesn't seem to be able to achieve its stated goals at all, which frankly is a kind of disillusionment I have personally experienced too. I think it is necessary to delve deeper into this.
The question we need to ask here is, 'what is the left'? Note that I'm not referring to 'center-left' political parties like the US Democrats and British Labour here. Rather, I am referring to those who proudly declare themselves to be 'leftists' or 'on the left'. (People like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Keir Starmer don't go around doing that, and the people who do don't consider them to be fellow leftists either.) The terms 'left' and 'right' originated in the context of the French Revolution, and since then, they have not had a consistent meaning across time and place. Therefore, when trying to answer 'what is the left', we need to be context specific, which means we really need to ask 'what is the left in the West today' instead. While historically, the left stood for free speech, it is clear that our current left does not always do that. Also, while historically the left represented the working class, the New Left we have today represents mainly identity politics groups instead, with working class politics often only an afterthought for them. Therefore, the 'left' does not imply much in the way of consistent beliefs. Instead, from what I see, it is basically a club that shares a particular outlook, a belief in at least a substantial part of a set cannon of philosophical theory, and adherence to a particular interpretation of history, particularly regarding the events of the previous century.
The problem here is that, the aforementioned cannon of philosophical theory has come to contain more and more postmodern critical theory centered on identity, and old-school class-first leftists have been gradually pushed to the side of what constitutes the 'left' in the 21st century West. No matter how much the New Leftists deny it, identitarian New Left theory does conflict with class-based old left beliefs, and the two just can't be made totally compatible and harmonious with each other, no matter how much jargon is used to that effect. The New Left also clearly has a strong aversion to the more conservative culture of the working class, which is likely to have descended from the ideas of thinkers like Herbert Marcuse. Unlike mainstream liberals who at least want to find a compromise on cultural issues with the conservative working class, the New Left often rejects any need for compromise as a matter of principle, because of their commitment to postmodern critical theory, which sees traditional culture as inherently oppressive, and importantly, unreformable. This uncompromisingly radical attitude necessarily pushes the working class away (and into the arms of the populist right). While some class-first leftists, including Bernie Sanders, have largely tried to avoid cultural debates while remaining in the same tent as the New Left, others have become increasingly frustrated. The post-left, then, consists of people from this 'old left' who have been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about their place in the new, postmodernism embracing, identity politics heavy left.
I think the post-left is correct when they say that the 'left' as it currently exists can't appeal to the working class. Firstly, identity politics is inherently divisive, and can only serve to divide the working class. The emphasis on 'white privilege' and 'male privilege' also alienates large swaths of the working class, and even more problematically, makes people more likely to think of their own place in politics in terms of their own race and gender. Secondly, the Western working class is largely passionate about freedom. The postmodern critical theory driven restrictions on free speech are simply not going to be acceptable to them. Thirdly, the way some people in the left refuse to deal with this reality (e.g. choosing to lament that the Western working class is too 'obsessed with freedom') essentially betrays an elitist, authoritarian attitude that further alienates the working class. Finally, the left's insistence on seeing certain current events (e.g. Trump, Brexit) through the lens of its shared historical mythology just makes them look not so normal to average people, and also hinders any attempt at developing an effective response to these events. Given that the 'left', as it currently exists, generally wouldn't entertain the idea of fixing any of the aforementioned problems, splitting away from the left and going post-left is a rational response for those who want to support a politics that can actually win over the working class. From this point of view, the rise of post-leftism is totally logical and necessary.
It is not the idea of being post-left that is misguided, but rather, the decision of some post-leftists to join forces with the populist right. The post-left is basically about taking the best insights and ideas of the left, and going elsewhere to find a new, better home for these ideas, thus effectively creating a new fusion politics. However, the populist right is not the suitable new home. While the post-left-populist-right fusion idea of a reactionary social democracy might appeal to a few people, it is going to alienate even more people. Contrary to the view of both the dissident right and the 'woke' left, the average person in the West in 2024 is not a racist, and would likely be alienated by open displays of racism. This is true especially of the younger generations, the people who will determine the success or failure of a movement in the long term. Moreover, the populist right's model of their ideal society is heavily influenced by Eastern Europe, which has a very different culture to the West. Unlike in Hungary or Russia, most people in the West are really serious about preserving their freedom. Working class or not, most of us wouldn't want to live in an Eastern European-style authoritarian state, let alone the kind of Handmaid's Tale style dystopia some in the dissident right are fantasizing about. In the context of the 21st century West, the populist right is actually going to be seen as 'weird' and a threat to our way of life by many people. Hitching your wagon to them is definitely a losing move, especially in the longer term.
A better home for the post-left would be in a newly reconstituted, broad church libertarianism. The New Left alienates the working class because it is divisive and authoritarian, problems a libertarian movement would not share by definition. On the other hand, libertarianism also needs to get out of its neoliberal economic mindset, and become more open-minded in terms of economic policy, if it wants to survive and win against the New Right. Furthermore, a libertarianism that also allows for a robust economic safety net is likely going to be a winning combination, because it is likely to be able to appeal to people from across a wide variety of backgrounds, and with a wide variety of beliefs and aspirations in life.
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).