The Left and Right are Both Hypocritical
Consistently Standing for Freedom is the Only Sound Alternative
What do the words 'left' and 'right' actually mean, in the context of our time and place, the early 21st century West? By the standards of objective reality, they actually mean nothing at all. The 'left' tribe has very contradictory elements, like class-first old school socialists who base their whole politics on the working class, as well as elite academia-based postmodernists, whose worldview and beliefs are totally alien to the working class, and they don't even care. Hence the 'left' is pro-working class and anti-working class at the same time. The 'right' tribe is arguably even more contradictory. I once had a friend who told me that the 'right' was for freedom. The further 'right', the more freedom, she argued. How then would you explain 'postliberal' thinkers like Patrick Deneen, Ron DeSantis's War on Disney, the book bans and the drag bans? I don't think you can seriously argue they are not part of the 'right'. Hence the 'right' is both pro-freedom and anti-freedom.
Indeed, if a political concept can mean both one thing and its opposite, this would inevitably invite double standards, hypocrisy, sophistry, and the worst kind of charlatanism. And this is exactly what is happening in both the 'left' and 'right' tribes. After all, what is 'left' or 'right' is always up for redefinition, as long as you have the influence, money and power to do so. 'Left' and 'right' are ultimately social constructs with no meaning, and no purpose except for making people believe and support things they wouldn't otherwise have, and ultimately help certain dishonest actors gain political power. This is why neither the 'left' nor the 'right' is honest or intellectually consistent these days.
The best way to overcome this is to resist the temptation to join the 'left' tribe or the 'right' tribe, or indeed any other tribe. Instead, we should determine what is most valuable to us, and assess each idea and policy with our own conscience. For example, what I'm most concerned about, in the context of the 21st century West, is the erosion of freedom and independent thinking by culture warriors from both sides. Therefore, whenever a new idea or policy comes up, my first instinct is to ask, is this good or bad for freedom? Sometimes 'left' ideas are good for freedom, but unfortunately these days more often than not they are likely to be bad for freedom. Sometimes 'right' ideas are good for freedom, but again, unfortunately these days more often than not they are likely to be bad for freedom too. This means that, effectively, most of the time I'm either opposing the left or the right. I guess this is the inevitable stance of the classical liberal, in an era where freedoms are being eroded from every direction. By refusing to join either tribe, and relying on my own independent thinking instead, I can take an honest stand for freedom each and every time.
Classical liberalism was invented in Western Europe as a response to the religious conflicts that had plagued the continent since the late middle ages. The basic rationale was that, if government and politics basically stayed neutral on religious issues, then the conflict could come to an end. This is the reason why America was founded without a state church, for example. Over time, liberalism was able to slowly bring the religious wars to an end. Besides that, liberalism also ushered in a new era of respect for free speech, freedom of conscience, pluralism in ideas and worldviews, and scientific discovery. It is arguably one of the most effective philosophies the West has ever come up with.
While the religious wars are long gone, old habits die hard in every culture. What the religious wars showed us was that in Western culture, issues of right and wrong are often settled by conflict rather than consensus. Compared with most other cultures on Earth, the West is much more prone to society-wide philosophical conflicts. Let's face it: this history, plus the individualistic nature of the West, means that we aren't going to become a consensus society anytime soon. If the arguments and conflicts aren't fought over religion, then they are likely to be fought over other grounds. This is why, in an era where people are less religious than before, the culture wars have replaced the religious wars.
While the religious wars were cured by liberalism and its separation of church and state, this model of neutrality has not yet been fully extended to other, non-theological conflicts. This has effectively allowed the politicized religious wars of the past to be reborn as politicized culture wars. The 'woke' postmodern left, the reactionary 'postliberals', and every faction in between are effectively like the churches of the past, with both a worldview and doctrine that its followers have to adhere to, and a goal to capture and control the politics of the country and dictate its policies. This means that, just like several hundred years ago, the West is now on the brink of permanently heightened conflict and repeated tragedies, unless something is done to stop the culture wars in its tracks.
The answer, I believe, is to extend the classical liberal model of religious neutrality to other areas of life and culture generally. Rather than just being neutral about religion in a narrow sense, the state should be neutral about competing moral claims as much as possible. It should allow individuals, families and communities to preach and practice their sincerely held moral values, as long as it doesn't take away from the freedom of other individuals, families and communities to do the same. Competing moral worldviews can then truly compete in the marketplace of ideas, with their success or failure ultimately judged by the objective reality of the long-term outcomes of their adherents. This is what Moral Libertarianism is, in a nutshell. When everyone can do their own thing, and they can be confident that in the future, should their views be correct, they will be rewarded by objective reality, there will be no need for the culture wars at all.
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.