Two Perspectives: The People Don't Want Culture Wars
This is the Real Lesson of the US Midterms
Perspective 1
The People Are Pushing Back Against Anti-Woke Culture War Politics
And about time too. The swing towards reactionary culture war-ism is dangerous.
In light of the Republican Party's unexpectedly poor results in the US Midterm elections, there has been much soul searching on the Right. Many hypotheses have been made as to why the Republicans performed poorly. Some Republicans have said that they wished their party would drop the culture war issues and focus on economic policy. In response, the usual culture warriors wasted no time in defending the 'need' to continue fighting the culture wars against the 'woke', and how other factors (e.g. Trump, poor candidates like Dr. Oz, poor campaigning) are to blame instead. It seems to me that the culture warriors on the Right want their fellow Republicans to blame everything but the culture wars, which they insist are very popular.
However, this simply doesn't line up with reality. The polls show that culture war concerns are not among the top priorities of voters. The Right has turned up the culture wars all through this year, and it has led to poor performance after poor performance in elections across the West, in France, Australia, Britain, and now America. In Australia, more than half a dozen seats long held by the conservative Coalition have now gone to climate-focused independents, and in Britain, the Conservatives have lost several of their traditionally prized local councils. I've also witnessed people finding reason to 'walk away from the Right' every time the culture wars heat up, whether we are talking about abortion, LGBT issues, or indeed, free speech. The evidence is clear: the reactionary culture war stances increasingly taken up by 'anti-woke' activists and politicians are unpopular, and they are alienating more and more people.
Part of the reason why anti-woke culture war politics has become unpopular is because it has gotten more and more authoritarian and regressive. The fundamental reason for this, in turn, is because the 2010s woke wave is now in recession. I first made the observation late last year, but more recently, even staunchly anti-woke culture warriors have begun to notice the change. Meanwhile, many people out there have been talking about a 'vibe shift' throughout this year. Even President Obama has become bolder on pushing back against extreme wokeness. I mean, cancel culture still exists and is still a problem, and woke voices will always be part of the cultural landscape absent attempts at censorship, but the ideological movement has met great resistance, and support appears to have somewhat collapsed, at least for now. With high profile 'woke' incidents becoming less and less common, the 'anti-woke' energy among classical liberals has diminished. A void has been left behind, and it has been taken up by hardline right-wing forces aligned with movements like National Conservatism, Christian Reconstructionism and Catholic Integralism. To be honest, much of recent 'anti-woke' culture war politics just sounds like 1990s and 2000s religious conservatism repackaged, and most of us certainly don't want that.
So where do those of us who were opposed to 2010s wokeness go next? There are two options, basically. Given that the original criticisms about 'woke' cultural changes were rooted in classical liberalism, we could simply rebuild the classical liberal consensus, and move on from the 'woke vs anti-woke' disruption of the previous decade. This would prove that our intentions in pushing back against the 'woke' were noble after all, and that social justice minded people really have nothing to fear from our victory over wokeism. Or we could allow the 'anti-woke' movement, now dominated by reactionaries, to continue to drive the conversation, pushing the pendulum way to the other direction, and discrediting the original premesis on which we opposed wokeism in the first place. History is actually full of these over-corrections, and allowing them to proceed is certainly not a good idea. Indeed, the 2010s 'woke' wave are sometimes thought to be due to the overreach of the Religious Right in the 1980s to 2000s. If we don't prevent over-correction towards the reactionary side, there will certainly be another, perhaps even bigger, 'woke' wave in the not too distant future.
We should also note that the 'woke recession' won't last forever, or even for a long time. Much of Generation Z still agree with those ideas. And they are still dominant in certain social movements, for example LGBT activism. Therefore, we only have a limited window of time to establish a better alternative, to convince people to abandon postmodernism and critical theory, so that there won't be a total takeover by these ideologies in the future. As I previously analyzed, postmodernism and critical theory are anarchic, anti-order ideologies, built on the idea that hierarchy and norms are inevitably oppressive. The best way to argue against this view would be to demonstrate that an ordered liberty works well in practice, especially in terms of inclusiveness and fairness. Therefore, what we need to do urgently, is to rebuild the classical liberal consensus, bring about good order via free speech and good faith discussion, and create room for rational debate so that controversial social issues can be resolved. We must stop the anti-woke backlash from going all the way towards creating a bad order based on reactionary culture war politics. Otherwise, it will end up reinforcing critical theory's arguments, and destroy any hope of resurrecting classical liberal norms in the future.
Perspective 2
The Key to Liberalism is Diversity of Thought
The marketplace of ideas is the key to a successful reformist politics
Recently, in an article about the 2022 US midterm election results, I've analyzed how 'woke' activists are creating a dilemma for the Democrats (as well as their counterparts in other countries). The 'woke' agenda, consisting mostly of postmodern critical theory inspired activism, is broadly unpopular, and the Republicans have successfully painted the Democrats as supportive of it. Even if they stay silent on cultural issues, they can't seem to shake off the 'woke' vibe. This is because, unlike back in the 1990s, party establishments don't control the conversation in the media anymore, and hence can't control how they are perceived. The solution I suggested was to develop an alternative platform that addresses the social justice demands out there, but rooted in the long-standing classical liberal consensus instead of postmodern critical theory, including upholding values like free speech and freedom of conscience.
However, one might still ask, how would the (classical) liberal alternative be heard over the postmodern critical theory agenda? The answer actually lies in one of liberalism's most cherished values: diversity of thought. Of all the ideologies that have existed in the history of the West, liberalism is uniquely committed to diversity of thought, as reflected in its values like free speech, freedom of conscience, encouragement of rational debate, and so on. Until recently, liberal media was well known for giving all sorts of unusual views airtime, in contrast to conservative media's habit of running the same message over and over again. This kind of coverage was well suited to liberal audiences, because of their open-minded nature. However, in recent years, this liberal diversity has greatly diminished. I believe it has a lot to do with the rise of cancel culture. Journalists and media outlets, who used to take interest in diverse viewpoints across the spectrum, have been increasingly leaning towards the argument that 'harmful' ideas shouldn't be platformed. As to what is harmful, it could range from actual racism (which I agree shouldn't be entertained), all the way down to proposals for compromise solutions on issues related to racial justice and LGBT issues (which are probably essential to building consensus for reform). Activists have also attacked liberal media outlets that feature 'harmful' voices, leading to the calculation that, for reputation's sake, it might be better not to invite certain people on. All this has meant that progressive-side media has increasingly toed the activist line. I even suspect that this is actually one of the biggest reasons for the current polarization.
Restoring the diversity of thought in liberal media would stop the conservative attempt to paint everyone to their left as 'woke' on everything. The 'everything is woke' narrative would naturally be discredited in a world where diversity of thought and sincere debates are clearly the norm among those who want to reform society. Yes, 'woke' voices would still be there, they will still be part of the conversation, but it would be clear that they are not the only perspective on offer on the progressive side. Free debate would also lead to the exchange of ideas, the refinement of proposals, and yes, the formation of compromises most people can get behind, which is what needs to happen for any progressive reform to occur, or indeed, to stop reactionary policies from winning. For example, parents are rightly concerned that sex education in schools need to be age appropriate, and they need to have a say in it. Polls have repeatedly showed that a majority of Americans agree with this position, for example. However, activists on the left have made the issue taboo to discuss in liberal media. This has created an opening for people like Ron DeSantis to come up with 'Don't Say Gay' bills. A similar dynamic also exists in relation to discussions on history and race, again allowing reactionary politicians to run a culture war in that area. Restoring liberal diversity would short circuit these dynamics, and likely stop the rising tide of reactionary culture war politics.
The other important thing is that, those in favor of social reforms should welcome a re-diversified landscape, and adapt to it accordingly. This way, they can potentially greatly expand the coalitions supporting their policy goals. To do this, they need to learn to build coalitions in favor of reforms, which can include a diverse range of views about the underlying reasons for embracing particular policies. For example, I have long argued that the pro-environment coalition needs to include people who are still skeptical of climate change, but would support climate action as an 'insurance policy'. Similarly, the pro-choice coalition needs to include people who are personally against abortion, but believe the government shouldn't be involved, or otherwise believe that banning abortions isn't the answer. The LGBT rights coalition should welcome people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman in the religious sense, or who don't believe that 'trans women are women', but are still compassionate enough to support civil rights to make life easier for LGBT people, for example. The attitude they should take is, 'you shouldn't have to agree with us on philosophy to agree with us on policy'. This is the only way to build broad coalitions to achieve needed reforms.
Finally, it is only to be expected that critical theory-aligned activists will not be kind towards any attempt to develop and articulate an alternative progressive agenda that doesn't entertain their ideological point of view. Those advancing a truly liberal agenda must be prepared for smears of not being committed to social justice, or even throwing minorities under the bus. The best way to argue against these smears would be to show a genuine commitment to equal opportunity for everyone in society, regardless of race, gender, or other immutable characteristics. It is the only way to win the argument against postmodern critical theory.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Horizon books, 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.
Two Perspectives: The People Don't Want Culture Wars
The thing is that there already is an alternative to post-modernism. It is called meta-modernism and is even known as "post-post-modernism". Are you familiar with that term? https://metamoderna.org/death-to-the-individual/