In Praise of the Politics of Rejection
It is by rejecting bad agendas that we get to have a truly non-aligned politics
Rejection is often thought of as a negative word. However, it recently dawned on me that the formative events of much of my own politics were actually rooted in rejection. In the aughts, my politics revolved around rejecting the Iraq War and the broader ‘War on Terror’ narrative. Later on, it also encompassed rejection of the religious right, because they insisted on re-electing the administration responsible for the war as long as they opposed gay marriage. By the teens, it was the left’s turn to be the target of my rejection, with the rise of cancel culture, oppressor vs. oppressed critical theories, and anti-science postmodern philosophy. More recently, the populist right’s divisive culture wars, willingness to use authoritarian state power to wage these culture wars, and general anti-science attitude have become the latest targets of my rejection.
While all three groups of phenomenon that I rejected were promoted by different political factions (neocon hawks, the ‘woke’ left and the MAGA/populist right respectively), there are actually several things common to all of them. Firstly, all three were attempts to seize on very real frustrations and worries in the community to justify a grandiose, unjustifiably broad, and deeply authoritarian agenda. In each case, while there are real issues that need to be addressed, there could have been more practical, non-ideological, non-divisive, non-tribalistic and pro-freedom ways of addressing those issues. Terror attacks could be prevented by better policing and intelligence operations, social justice is best served by taking an evidence-based approach to issues, and cancel culture can be defeated by upholding classical liberal values, for example. However, in all three cases, those promoting the grandiose authoritarian agenda falsely claimed that the simpler solution would be ‘weak’, ineffective and/or inadequate. In all three cases, they appeal to emotion rather than objective facts in making those claims.
Secondly, in all three cases, those promoting the grandiose authoritarian agenda tried to shut down free speech that questioned their agenda. This is because the agenda simply wouldn’t survive rational scrutiny. The Iraq War wouldn’t have made America and the West any safer from terrorism. Cancel culture and postmodern critical theory are actually deleterious for social justice. On the other hand, cancel culture won’t be defeated by more cancel culture, in the form of book bans and right-wing governments joining the culture war and trampling on free speech. These are all self-evident facts that become apparent to most people once emotionally charged appeals are successfully deflected and defeated.
Thirdly, the grandiose authoritarian agenda in question is (was) actually rooted in deeply ideological and philosophical positions, rather than being actually rooted in the immediate issues and frustrations. This means that their promotion as a solution to these issues and frustrations is deliberate and opportunistic, rather than honest and organic. This is another reason why those promoting the grandiose authoritarian agenda have been unfriendly to free speech, in all three cases. They do not want their deeply ideological worldview to be exposed, because this would make most people skeptical of their agenda.
Finally, in each case, to stand against the grandiose authoritarian agenda being presented is (was) actually essential for the preservation of free speech, freedom of conscience, objectivity, scientific integrity, compassion, and more. All three are very good examples that demonstrate the necessity of rejection of bad ideas, especially where they are packaged into a broad ‘transformative’ agenda to be achieved by authoritarian means, in protecting our long-standing freedoms and values. They demonstrate that skepticism towards grandiose authoritarian agenda, especially when they are backed by the forces of well-funded media outlets, limitations on free speech and/or peer pressure in any shape or form, plays a crucial role in preserving our freedoms and values. Far from being negative, rejection is the immune system of society, defending what we have from being destroyed by rogue actors and actions. This is why I believe it’s time we actually formally recognize the importance of rejection as part of our arsenal of political tools to defend and promote freedom, and give it the pride of place it deserves in history.
Note that praising and practicing rejection doesn’t mean we simply reject every new idea on offer, in a nihilistic or ‘blackpilled’ way. Instead, we should reject overly broad, authoritarian, grandiose ideological agendas and narratives, while having a strong preference to work with individual issues on an issue-by-issue basis, in a practical and non-ideological way. For example, I’m actually a big supporter of many great reformist ideas, from the Universal Basic Income (UBI), to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), to further limiting arbitrary political power, for example by limiting executive pardons. These positions are not part of an overarching grandiose agenda seeking to re-make society in authoritarian ways, nor are they exclusive to those who are committed to a particular worldview, ideology or political philosophy. Instead, they are simply ideas that people came up with to make society fairer, based on real problems that have been observed in real life. A politics of rejection that excludes grandiose authoritarian agendas actually leaves more space to debate and work through proposals for practical reform like these.
Finally, if we practice the politics of rejection consistently, i.e. equally towards grandiose authoritarian agendas coming from all camps, we will end up with a truly non-aligned politics that values independent thinking, free speech and freedom of conscience. And I believe the Western world really needs a truly non-aligned politics right now. Let’s face it: all those political factions or tribes promoting their own authoritarian agendas want you to be part of their tribe, so they can build the critical mass required to enable them to enact their agenda. In this regard, the neocon hawks, the ‘woke left’, the populist right, and other factions are basically the same. A true politics of rejection would reject them all equally. This is in contrast to a politics that only focuses on rejecting one agenda, like the 2010s anti-woke movement did. While refusing to align with the ‘woke left’, some people got pulled gradually to align with the equally authoritarian populist right instead. It was the narrow focus on rejecting only one set of ideological politics that allowed the movement to be partially hijacked by another ideological tribe. Learning from that mistake would point us in the direction of practicing a politics of consistent skepticism, consistent rejection of all ideologically-driven grandiose authoritarian agendas, and hence consistent non-alignment. Here’s three cheers to a consistent politics of rejection!
Also recently published...
Why is Everything So Boring Now?
The incentives favor clickbait and conformity
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Progressive Conservative Manifesto, the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series. She is also the author of her autobiography The TaraElla Story.
Regarding the Iraq War. It was "sold" as a very patriotic thing but the American taxpayers are going to pay for it until 2050. And not to speak about all dead civilians in Iraq