Political Moderates Must Stop Being Fearful Sitting Ducks
The center will not hold unless we come out fighting for it
These days, political moderates across the West are living in perpetual fear. This fear has paralyzed us, and made us weak and unattractive. We really need to get out of this state, and come out fighting for our vision. In this article, I will explain what we need to do to overcome the paralysis of the present moment.
The kind of fear political moderates most readily express is the fear of a rising populist right, which champions polarizing and often authoritarian policies. Polls that show Trump beating Biden next year, studies that provide evidence of the extreme educational polarization in countries like the US and the UK, and the shock victories of right-wing populists in places like Italy, Argentina and the Netherlands, are all seen as signs of impending doom by many moderates. Importantly, many moderates are in a hopeless mood right now, because we don't seem to have figured out a way to stop right-wing populism yet.
However, moderates also suffer from another kind of fear, that is less talked about: the insidious restriction of free speech from the far-left. Incidents of cancel culture, while sporadic and less prominent than right-populist victories, have had a chilling effect on free speech, making many afraid of speaking up. This has hindered much needed discussion on many contentious topics, and allowed the radical left position to become the default position on many issues, in many intellectual circles. Given the radical left position of the 21st century West is often rooted in postmodern critical theory, this also provides a shortcut to legitimize these unsound theories, bypassing the scrutiny and debate that usually takes place before new ideas are widely accepted.
I believe that these two dynamics actually reinforce each other, which is why moderates must try to overcome both at the same time. The normalization of far-left ideas and practices rooted in postmodern critical theory leads to a loss of long-standing norms around free speech, political civility, universalism and more. This provides the perfect excuse for the populist right's authoritarian approach to politics. Frustration towards the package of ideas and practices often referred to as 'wokeness' also sends many voters towards the populist right, something that Democratic strategists seemed to begin to realize after their shockingly poor performance on Election Day 2021. Moreover, we really can't solve the educational polarization problem without truly staring down the postmodern critical theory problem. The working class is never going to accept a politics that is based on philosophical premises far removed from the realities of everyday life. If given a choice between postmodern sophistry and authoritarian populism, they would always choose the latter, even if it is objectively the greater evil. This is why I have long argued against the approach of many of my fellow moderates who advocate that we 'deal with right-populism first' and 'ignore the distractions on college campuses'. Wokeness is far more than a college campus issue, and we can't deal with the populist right without also dealing with wokeness either.
On the other hand, a strong populist right leads to more support for the view that politics is about power and oppression in left-wing circles, and that old-school liberalism is too weak to fight against the new enemy. This is why, during the four years that Trump was president, support of the far-left swelled to historically high levels. This means that we also can't stop the postmodern far-left without providing an alternative, credible opposition to the populist right. (This is also why the idea that we should support people like Trump and DeSantis to fight wokeness, promoted by people like Dave Rubin and Christopher Rufo, doesn't make sense at all.)
Overall, it is clear that, to halt the march of the extremists on both sides, those in the middle must come out to fight, rather than continue to be sitting ducks hoping that the center will somehow manage to hold, because it will certainly not hold if we don't change course quickly. Moreover, right now, many people see the moderates as weak, either against the postmodern far-left or the populist right. Nobody wants to join a team of sitting ducks who clearly aren't having much effect on the direction of society. To overcome this, we really need to speak up more about what we truly believe. For example, many moderates have very real concerns about the positions and actions of 'woke' activists, and the influence they are having on center-left parties like the Democrats and Labour, but they decide to give only muted criticism in fear of upsetting their further-left friends and colleagues. On the other hand, within 'anti-woke' circles, many moderates are concerned about the influence of the populist right, but only hint at their discomfort, or worse, just disengage from anti-woke circles altogether, paving the way for a far-right takeover. All this must change. There must be no more mealy mouthed, apologetic non-criticisms of things that we are, deep down, very concerned about. We must come right out swinging, against the rising tide of extremism on both sides, even if it will upset many people. We didn't ask for it, but right now, we really are in a war on two fronts situation, that we just need to accept, and fight back accordingly.
Why Freedom Needs Practical Progressives and Moderate Conservatives
This combination allows practical reform without ideological obsession
Recently, I've been talking about the conditions that promote, or hinder, freedom. Focusing on abstract ideas is bad for freedom. Aiming for practical solutions for real world problems is good for freedom. Tribalism is bad for freedom. Commitment to objectivity and rationality is good for freedom, as is commitment to building and maintaining a good order in society. Finally, compassion is also good for freedom, because it helps maintain other pro-freedom conditions, like objectivity, and prevent anti-freedom conditions, like tribalism. The goal, of course, is to move society towards the things that are conducive to freedom, and away from the things that are harmful for freedom.
I think we can tie the aforementioned observations into an overall outlook. I would call this the practical progressive outlook. It is practical because it is centered on practical problem solving. That is, we would focus on practical solutions to resolve problems and improve things in the real world, and avoid being tied down by abstract philosophy and theory. Looking at the bigger picture, we would aim to ensure that the social order actually serves the needs of all, and aim to gradually improve everyone's ability to pursue a good life over time. Overall, I think it is actually very similar to the original aspirations of the classical liberals from the past.
Firstly, practical means not being tied down by ideology. Classical liberals like John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill had a belief in freedom, and guiding values and principles stemming from this belief. But beyond this, they were not overly ideological, because that would hinder freedom itself. Classical liberals also understood that life is not perfect, and they would never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The institutions built by followers of classical liberal thinking were designed to promote freedom in a practical way, rather than to bring about an imagined utopia. Such institutions were also practically built with the need for people to compromise in mind. In contrast, some parts of the contemporary Western left, under the influence of postmodern critical theory, believe that seeing everything in oppressor vs. oppressed terms, trying to deconstruct every aspect of language and culture, mindlessly challenging traditional norms beyond actually demonstrable need, and refusing to compromise, would magically lead to some kind of utopia on Earth. This is clearly ideological and not practical. The results also speak for themselves: confusion over what social justice is, backlash to the concept of social justice itself, and a general rise in reactionary sentiment is what this ideology has brought. A practical progressivism will be able to stop and reverse all this, just by being, well, practical. It's time to throw away all the postmodern theory, and look at what could be done to resolve problems and improve things in the real world.
We would also need to get over, or at least tame, the tribalist and adversarial nature of Western politics. As I recently demonstrated, 'left' and 'right' are arbitrary linguistic constructs, and treating them as real categories would just lead to more tribalism and irrationality, as well as a focus on the abstract rather than the practical. While 'progressive' and 'conservative' are often thought of as opposed to each other, this is actually an illusion caused by tribalism. Conservatism, as properly understood in the Burkean, philosophical sense, is not opposed to all change, but only radical change that is rooted in abstract ideas, that are alien to a given society's traditions. There is a good reason for this: change that is rooted in abstract philosophy rather than practical needs, especially if it is alien to the traditions of a given society, is likely to generate chaos, followed by a reactionary response. Hence, Burkean conservatism is basically about saving the progressive impulse from its dark and destructive side. We need to reintegrate the Burkean conservative critique into progressive philosophy itself. This will ensure that any change will be born out of actual need, not philosophical theory. It will also ensure that any change will aim to build on our long-standing traditions, rather than be part of a misguided attempt to deconstruct everything and rebuild everything from scratch. Indeed, a combination of Burkean conservatism and the compassion driven desire to improve conditions for everyone, would make a very good foundation for a reformist politics.
On a related note, I really need to emphasize that to be practical inherently means being constructively reformist, and opposing attempts to burn everything to the ground and start over again, in the misguided hopes of reaching some magical utopia. The realistic among us would understand that the world is not perfect, and can never be. Creating utopia on Earth is not possible, and attempting to do so will only lead to unnecessary misery and suffering. If you think about things practically, it is easy to understand that the odds of getting something good out of burning everything to the ground and starting from scratch is pretty low. This alone is more than enough reason to oppose such schemes of revolutionary change. Also, if you don't build on the traditions of a given society, all you are left with is trying to build a society upon abstract ideas, philosophy and theory, which we know is inevitably going to be inhumane and bad for freedom.
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).
You can also read and follow TaraElla's second substack, focused on political philosophy, here.
Great piece.
The point about the two dynamics reinforcing one another is a good one.
I would only say that the tribalism that we need to fight means our argument might fall on deaf ears. So I think it might be worth acknowledging some insights from post-structuralism to get the conversation started on some common ground. I think the progressive movements that are called woke by some, are bad interpretations of post-structuralist type philosophers, but I could be wrong. I would probably be called a post-structuralist by most people, but I do not draw the same conclusions or approve of the same means as some social justice activists, although I might share their ends.
Very well said. I’ve been having similar thoughts. There’s a passivity and resignation among moderates that’s troubling. We really need a coalition of the sane right now, which means reasonable people need to shake off their listlessness and join the fight. It’s time for the center to assert itself without apology or equivocation.