We Actually Have Four Major Ideologies in Competition, Rather than Two
Or, why most people actually never 'left the left' or 'left the right'
In recent years, narratives stating 'why I left the left' or 'why I left the right' have proliferated in the online media. One of the reasons is because partisans naturally love a defection story, because it gives their side credibility. However, in the past decade, more people than usual reported changing sides, or at least feeling newly politically homeless. Additionally, many of these people say that they themselves did not change, but rather, their former comrades changed and left them behind. Given the frequency this phenomenon has appeared, I think it must represent something real. But it's perhaps not what you think it is.
For those who are not my regular readers, I will give you a bit of background about my own experiences. I think I have gone through three distinct phases of political development. I started out identifying with the 'progressive' side of politics when I was in college in the 2000s. We opposed the Iraq War and the religious right together. Later, in the 2010s, I found myself increasingly dissatisfied with a left that kept mainstreaming certain controversial ideas from academic philosophy, to build a new illiberal politics. I was surprised to find common ground with some on the right, at least on opposing this new ideology that was threatening to supplant old-school liberalism. Still later on, starting in the past few years, I have been getting increasingly alarmed at the authoritarian-populist New Right's agenda, and more and more I am feeling like this is the biggest threat to our freedom right now.
If we used the conventional left-right dichotomy to describe my political movements over the years, I guess you could characterize me as being on the 'left' and in opposition to the 'right' in the 2000s, leaving the left for the center and even finding some common ground with the 'right' to oppose the changed 'left' somewhere in the 2010s, and then parting ways with a changing 'right' to stand firmly against them in the center in the 2020s. In a way, I guess I 'left the left' at one point, and then later at least 'parted ways with the right' at another point, because my attitude towards them turned rapidly from sort of friendly to skeptical, even though I was never really in the right per se. You could even say I have been all over the map politically, which would kind of make sense because I have long felt politically homeless. I would also say that I haven't changed much, but both the left and the right have undergone all kinds of changes in the past two decades.
However, what I have realized with the passage of time is that there is a major part of the 'left' I agree with but another major part that I vehemently disagree with, and it is the same with the 'right'. Thus overall, I could agree more with either the 'left' or the 'right' depending on which element was dominant on each side at the time. I did a lot of reading, thinking and philosophizing, and eventually came up with the following: the 'left' or 'progressive' side of contemporary Western politics, broadly speaking, consists of numerous distinct philosophies, with the two major ones being 'constructionism' and 'utilitarianism'. The 'right' or 'conservative' (colloquially speaking) side likewise consists of numerous philosophies, with the two major ones being 'organicism' and 'reactionism'. Basically, I agree with utilitarianism and organicism, but strongly disagree with constructionism and reactionism. (Note that I'm not a utilitarian philosophically, but I do often agree with the utilitarian approach when it comes to practical politics.) On this, I haven't changed at all in the past two decades. But the balance of forces within both the 'left' and the 'right' had undergone several changes during this period, which led to me shifting back and forth as to which side I seemed to agree with more.
Let me explain what each major philosophy is first.
Constructionism sees society as made up of interlocking socially constructed systems of oppression, historically constructed to favor the privileged, or the 'oppressors', in society, like white people, men, straight people, and so on. It sees the key to progress as deconstructing these social constructs, and then reconstructing society in a radically different way. Postmodernism and critical theory are the 'tools' that could be used in the process of first challenging, and then deconstructing, these social constructs. In the constructionist worldview, gradual and piecemeal reform, often favored by utilitarians, can only prop up the current system, and are therefore seen as largely useless.
Utilitarianism sees the goal of politics as to help as many people achieve as great an amount of happiness as possible, and avoid as much suffering as possible. It is descended from the confidence in rationality driving social progress found in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Utilitarian progressive-liberalism has a long history, descending from the great British thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. When one argues that gay marriage should be legal because it would make gay couples happy while not harming anyone else, or that abortion should be legal because women would be harmed by being forced to carry unviable and/or unwanted pregnancies, one would be making a utilitarian argument.
Organicism is what I sometimes call 'genuine philosophical conservatism', as it represents the position of great historical conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke. Organicism does not oppose all change, indeed it was Burke himself who said that 'a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation'. Burke clearly understood the necessity of allowing justified change to happen so that the overall picture of society could be effectively conserved. Organicists do not oppose all change, but they strongly oppose change that is rooted in abstract ideas and philosophy, that aims to sweep away long-standing tradition rather than improve upon it, and that is not shown to be practically necessary but merely theoretically justified. Burke developed his ideas during the French Revolution, when radical change that was justified on abstract philosophy, and explicitly aimed at destroying long-standing traditions, were implemented by some misguided revolutionaries. This stands in contrast to, for example, the American Revolution which happened during the same generation, where the aim was to establish good government and protect individual liberty, rather than to sweep away everything that existed. The American Revolution was an example of change that many organicists could accept, the French Revolution contained many elements that were unacceptable to the organicists on the other hand. The reason is because organicists believe that society is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to theories and abstractions. Therefore, radical change based on abstract philosophy alone is almost certainly going to have unintended bad consequences. This is why the organicists believe that any change must be rooted in the existing society's traditions and needs, and gradually evolve over time, if it is to be a good change.
Reactionism is basically the view that social change should be indiscriminately opposed, and at all costs. This, of course, is very different from organicism, which actually recognizes that the right kind of change and reform is necessary. Reactionaries often glorify an imagined past, which leads to a view of society as fallen or corrupted, which in turn justifies their strident opposition to all proposals for further change (because such ideas are the product of a fallen society), and their desire to undo at least relatively recent changes. Unlike organicists, who actually strive to protect all of our long-standing values and institutions for future generations (Edmund Burke famously said that 'society is indeed a contract... between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born'), reactionaries don't mind knocking over these things if they deem it necessary to stop further social change, or if it enables them to roll back some relatively recent social changes. Generally speaking, reactionism has no use for the intellectual refinement, objectivity and cautiousness that characterize organicists. Instead, reactionaries are emotionally charged, and often conspiracy minded, which are two of the reasons why they mindlessly oppose change rather than take a rational look at what is actually being offered.
Now, let's discuss how the two ideologies that are supposedly on the 'same side' nevertheless contradict, and at times could actively be in conflict with, each other.
Constructionism vs Utilitarianism on the left: In the constructionist worldview, gradual and piecemeal reforms, often favored by utilitarians, can only prop up the current system, and are therefore seen as largely useless. On the other hand, utilitarianism is agnostic as to whether our society is made up of interlocking socially constructed systems of oppression. Utilitarians want more people to be happy (or at least suffer less) in the here and now, and if 'deconstructing systems of oppression' does not clearly lead to this, they have no reason to support it. Also, this is not often pointed out, but constructionist activism would actually be opposed by utilitarianism if it would lead to more suffering in the here and now. Constructionist might believe that the process of things getting worse at first is needed for 'true' progress, but utilitarians would not agree. Where utilitarians see constructionist activism as leading to unnecessary suffering, they would be opposed to it. This is actually one of the biggest reasons why, in the 2010s, when constructionists briefly seized the narrative on the left, some utilitarians decided to 'leave the left'. Many 'anti-woke liberals' are actually utilitarians (with the remaining being moderate organicists).
Organicism vs Reactionism on the right: Organicists and reactionaries can work together well when they are both committed to opposing the kind of change proposed by constructionists. However, regarding the kind of change proposed by utilitarians, they are more likely to disagree, because organicists can accept social change under the right circumstances, while reactionaries cannot. For example, many organicists have come to accept the legalization of gay marriage in recent years, but it seems most reactionaries cannot accept it no matter what. Therefore, organicists and reactionaries (and even some utilitarians) could form an effective alliance whenever the constructionists are dominant on the left, such as in the 2010s or the 1960s-70s. However, when utilitarians take back control of the left (like they did in recent years), this alliance inevitably weakens. If, at this time, the reactionaries attempt to seize control of the right, it would make the organicists even more uncomfortable about being in the same tent as the reactionaries. This is why, many moderate conservatives, who are actually organicists, are 'leaving the right' in the era of Trump and the New Right, or at least taking a firm stance against the rise of the authoritarian-populist New Right, who are actually reactionaries.
And then, let's look at the two pairs of 'classical' 'left-right' conflicts:
Constructionism (L) vs Organicism (R): Constructionism and organicism are inherently opposed to each other, because their respective underlying worldviews are diametrically opposed and incompatible. Organicists believe that whatever already exists, while it might not be perfect, nevertheless represents many generations of wisdom and lived experience, and hence should be cherished. On the other hand, constructionists believe that whatever already exists is largely the product of historical power relations, is therefore oppressive to women and minorities, and hence should be challenged and deconstructed. Another important point is that constructionists believe that philosophical theory offers them accurate insights as to how the status quo can be challenged and dismantled, but this would constitute an attempt to radically change society based on abstract theory alone, which the organicists would certainly oppose. Therefore, constructionism and organicism are opposites in their most fundamental views about the nature of society and humanity, and cannot be reconciled at all.
Utilitarianism (L) vs Reactionism (R): Utilitarianism and reactionism are also inevitably going to be opposed to each other on multiple issues. This is because utilitarians would embrace change whenever it is justified by the change creating more happiness or reducing suffering, which means they would naturally be taking the 'progressive' side in many debates. On the other hand, reactionaries, by definition, almost always oppose change, because they see it all as the product of a fallen society. This inevitably puts them on a collision course with utilitarians who believe change can make things better. There is therefore no world in which the utilitarian and the reactionary could get along with each other.
Finally, we need to examine the remaining two, less talked about, 'left-right' pairs:
Utilitarianism (L) vs Organicism (R): there is actually not much incompatibility between these two factions. They are the only pair of factions that can actually get along with each other, but the tragedy is that they are often separated by the left-right political divide in two-party systems. In fact, I have long argued that a synthesis of utilitarianism (what I called 'practical progressivism') and organicism (what I called 'moderate conservatism') would lead to a sustainable reformism, because the organicist philosophy would keep the progressive impulse of the utilitarians grounded in practical reality, and prevent well-intentioned compassionate utilitarians from being confused about their mission by what is essentially constructionist propaganda, for lack of a better word. Organicism could also help make the utilitarian case for change, simply by its arguments against constructionism. To bring utilitarianism and organicism together, we first have to dismantle the artificial left-right divide.
Constructionism (L) vs Reactionism (R): these two are the ultimate opposites, and they both pride themselves on being anti-establishment because they were marginalized in mainstream politics until recently. A common fantasy among both constructionists and reactionaries is that, after the moderates in the middle (like the utilitarians and the organicists) have been eliminated from the competition one way or another, there will one day be a big fight between these two extremes, which will define the future of humanity. However, in real life right now, there are not many opportunities for these two factions to actually fight each other directly, because of the existence of the many moderates coming between them. What is important to understand, however, is how the fantasy of fighting and winning against the other extreme shapes the mentality of both constructionists and reactionaries.
Going forward, I will be exploring the dynamics of the interactions between the four factions more. I believe that thoroughly understanding how things play out between the four worldviews, and where the potential points for conflict, cooperation and deception are, is going to be very important in helping us navigate the current Western political landscape.
On the Dialectic of Freedom: Positive Libertarianism and Critical Libertarianism
This is how to bridge the divide between left-libertarians and right-libertarians
Last time, I talked about the need to build a cross-spectrum alliance of various types of libertarianism, to save the libertarian brand from being devoured by the reactionary right. Traditionally, the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism was seen as rooted mainly in economic issues, and finding common ground and building bridges on economic matters is surely going to be an important part of our work going forward. However, looking at things from a higher, more philosophical level, I think the main difference between left-leaning libertarians and right-leaning libertarians is the difference between emphasizing what I call 'positive libertarianism' vs what I call 'critical libertarianism'. Let me explain.
What I mean by 'positive libertarianism' is the idea that freedom can and should be positively advanced, and that more freedom also allows society to be improved, because rationality will prevail. This is the core foundational idea of classical liberalism, and it has been behind many major improvements in Western society in the past several centuries. The abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement, the expansion of free speech norms, the anti-war movement, and the legalization of interracial marriage and gay marriage were all inspired by the positive libertarian spirit.
On the other hand, we do have to acknowledge that not all social change, including changes that have been sold to us as 'progressive', actually lead to more freedom. In the past decade, wokeness was promoted as an idea that would advance social justice, but it clearly leads to a loss of freedom, including most importantly, free speech and freedom of conscience. This is where what I call 'critical libertarianism' comes into play. Critical libertarianism is all about protecting existing, hard won freedoms from being eroded by misguided attempts at change. It seeks to critique all proposals for change, looking at ways they might intentionally or unintentionally undermine freedom. Indeed, I think a lot of classical conservative philosophy could fall under the critical libertarianism umbrella. Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, came up with his most famous ideas in the face of the authoritarian excesses of the French Revolution. More recently, I think liberal skepticism towards wokeness was another moment where a critical libertarian movement emerged.
While positive libertarianism and critical libertarianism seem like opposing forces, and they are indeed sometimes seen as in alignment with opposing sides of the political spectrum (positive libertarianism being aligned with forces seeking 'progress' and hence left-leaning, critical libertarianism being aligned with 'conservative' forces and hence right-leaning), they actually compliment each other. Both are needed to promote and safeguard freedom. If we only had positive libertarianism, the quest for freedom could be turned into its opposite by misguided steps forward. If we only had critical libertarianism, we could end up becoming so paranoid as to turn reactionary and hence authoritarian. Only an optimal balance of the two will lead to the maintenance and promotion of freedom. It's just like how the balance between a practical progressive impulse and a moderate, rational conservative impulse lead to a healthy and productive reformism.
Once we recognize that positive libertarianism and critical libertarianism are actually both needed for freedom, and can complement each other, we should be able to recognize the same about left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Rather than seeing them as separate, unrelated things, or worse, opposing parties, we should see them as two complementary halves that make up a whole. This should be the basis on which we try to find common ground between left-libertarians and right-libertarians.
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).