Why the Great Political Realignment has been Cancelled
Plus, Why I Argue More Frequently With the Left
…I think there were a few reasons why many 'heterodox' thinkers entertained the idea of a realignment, even when evidence for it seemed flimsy in hindsight. The embrace of postmodern critical theory by many on the left, and associated activist tactics like cancellation and de-platforming, was genuinely horrifying for many of us who still held classical liberal values. This cannot, and should not, be downplayed in any revisiting of that era's history. Many of us truly thought that the postmodern radical left was going to bury liberal values for good, and we were making a last stand trying to defend those values. It really was that desperate for some of us. The prospect of realignment provided a glimmer of hope for us that there would still be somewhere that would take us in without forcing us to convert to the new orthodoxy, and a new home for us where we could still speak our minds and fight back against the new orthodoxy on the left. I have to admit that, for me, the thought of realignment became a bit attractive during some time in 2017-18, when I lost hope about the broadly-defined 'left' remaining liberal. Still, I knew there was no way I could support the right as it existed in general, let alone a right led by Trump, so my realignment fantasies also consisted of the fall of both Trumpism and neoconservatism on the right (perhaps both sides fatally injuring each other in a fight to the death), and the rise of libertarianism to dominance on the right. Anyway, by 2019, when the Democratic primaries were under way, the diversity of the candidates was what persuaded me that an old-school liberal didn't need to hope for realignment yet, that between the ideas presented in that primary and the people supporting them, all hope of a true liberal comeback was not lost.
The reason why I spent so much time recounting that particular period in the late 2010s was to demonstrate the real desperation many of us old-school liberals were feeling, and how that desperation led us to embrace the idea of realignment to differing degrees. Looking back, dishonest actors on the right took advantage of our desperation, and sold their version of realignment to us. In their words, everyone opposed to the new illiberal orthodoxy would be on the New Right, fighting back against the woke left. (Someone even tried to welcome Obama into the New Right!) Somehow, all these old-school liberals would be welcomed with open arms into the right, even as they increasingly embraced Trumpism and populism, which are clearly not compatible with any kind of liberalism. How exactly the arrangement would work was not well explained at the time, but nowadays we know exactly how it works: old-school liberals are welcomed into the right if they check their liberal values at the door, and start mindlessly supporting Trump and/or DeSantis. Well, thanks but no thanks. If we could put up with illiberalism, why couldn't we just have accepted the new orthodoxy on the left in the first place?
Why The Left Keeps On Failing
The left knows its defeats well. There's even a very well described phenomenon of left melancholy. Yet, after every single defeat, it just digs in deeper. It takes no responsibility for leaving people disappointed, and making a mess of society in the process. It is able to do that by avoiding facing reality. Again, right now, it looks like history is repeating, with works coming out of the left, spinning the defeats of their recent past as somehow heroic, worthwhile, or at least not of their own fault. We're seeing in real time how the left avoids learning the lessons it should be learning.
The left is able to avoid reality via the use of philosophy, sophistry and echo chambers. It's sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes, played over and over again in slightly different forms, over the centuries. In fact, that's how postmodern critical theory started…
Why I Argue More Frequently With the Left
…The final reason is that I am, fundamentally speaking, interested in progress rather than reaction. Given that I'm not interested in turning back the clock to the 1950s, the 19th century or even earlier, I don't start out with much common ground with the reactionary right. My fundamental disagreement with the illiberal right is that reflexively opposing progress and wishing to turn the clock back is not a healthy or productive attitude to have. However, this argument has been made by many people already, and I don't think I have much more to contribute in this area. On the other hand, both the left and myself actually share a common starting point: the belief that society and life can be improved, that our best days could still be ahead of us. Where we differ is in how we get there. This provides plenty of room for argument and debate. It also means my arguments against those on the left I disagree with are basically open-ended, continuously modified by the situation out there, and always subject to further refinement over time. This, ultimately, is what makes arguing with the left much more interesting for me.
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).