Why We Need to Rejoin Liberalism, Progressivism and Conservatism
It's actually very logical once you drop the tribalism
In recent years, I have been exploring my own sympathies with the liberal, progressive and conservative philosophical traditions, and I have found that I indeed have a lot of sympathy towards all three traditions. At first glance, this might seem odd: after all, aren't these traditions supposed to be opposed to each other? This thought made me dig deeper. And then I realized that, no, these philosophical traditions are not actually opposed to each other at all. It's just tribalist politics, and the political parties and politicians encouraging such tribalism, that make it seem like so.
When we talk about a philosophical tradition, we need to start by considering what that tradition represents. The (classical) liberal tradition represents individual freedom, free speech and freedom of conscience, and it has been the tradition most geared towards the pursuit of the objective truth in Western history. The progressive tradition represents the passion to make things better for both people living in the here and now, as well as generations into the future, using the power of rationality, creativity and compassion. The conservative tradition represents the lived wisdom of history, and the warnings against misguided radicalism it brings. Seeing it this way, the three traditions are actually complementary. The progressive impulse requires the liberal commitment to free speech and objectivity to keep it from straying into either impractical fantasy or tyranny. The progressive impulse also requires the conservative tradition to keep its excesses in check, to prevent it from being needlessly divisive, and to prevent its descent into chaos, tyranny, or both. Liberalism requires the progressive impulse to give it meaning, and hence justification for continued relevance. It also requires the conservative tradition to defend it from illiberal radicalism. Finally, conservatism is at its best when it is acting to provide checks and balances against potential progressive excesses. If the progressive impulse were to cease to exist, conservatism would have lost its original purpose, and would likely degenerate into paranoid reactionism.
Thinking about it this way, we can see the pathologies that are currently plaguing the Western political landscape, and how they have arisen in the first place: wokeness represents a form of progressivism that is without liberalism, and also resistant to the checks and balances of conservatism. On the level of theory, postmodern critical theory makes wokeness possible, by rejecting both the values that underpin the liberal tradition, and the entirety of our traditional inheritance that underpins conservatism, by painting both as a product of oppressive power relations. Thus postmodern critical theory has bred a 'progressivism' that is in practice regressive, harmful and oppressive. However, the reason why this could have happened in the first place was because the circles in which postmodern critical theory had been able to take hold had already largely rejected liberalism, and made conservatism taboo. This largely happened in the aftermath of the radical wave of the 1960s-70s, and reflected the ideological worldview of the radical activists of that era. It was the creation of a 'progressive' intellectual scene that fundamentally rejected both liberal and conservative philosophy that made the development and rise of postmodern critical theory possible in the first place. Without such a scene, voices representing both the liberal and conservative traditions would have been able to provide a much needed checkmate to the postmodern critical theory worldview, and hence force the progressive impulse back onto its previous left-liberal path, where it was actually doing quite well.
A similar thing has actually been happening on the right too. Since the 1980s at least, the American right has been out to make 'liberal' a dirty word, with considerable success. This has made any embrace of liberalism on the right more and more taboo over the years. Eventually, some people came to the conclusion that, to be truly on the right, one had to reject liberalism in its entirety. This is why moderate members of the US Republican Party and the UK Conservative Party have been derided by those on the hard right as RINOs or even 'leftists'. Some hardline New Righters even consider President Reagan to be not truly of the right! These developments have created the space for a 'conservatism' that is hostile to liberal values, as well as any hint of the progressive impulse, to develop. However, this new form of right-wing politics, by definition, strays from what true conservatism is, because as I have noted multiple times, true conservatism doesn't oppose change per se, but only radical change that is rooted mainly in abstract ideas, and/or represent a radical rupture from long-standing traditions. What we need to remember is that conservatism arose in response to radical progressivism's excesses, and was an attempt to curb those excesses, with the most prominent historical example being Edmund Burke's critique of the French Revolution. However, what must also be remembered is that Burke, and many other prominent conservative thinkers, actually supported reasonable attempts at reformist change during their lifetime. Moreover, in the English-speaking West, liberalism has been a strong influence on our politics in one way or another since the days of the Magna Carta at least, which means that a genuine English-speaking conservatism must necessarily be liberal to a great extent. Thus, a 'conservatism' that fundamentally rejects both liberalism and progressivism cannot be a genuine conservatism. It would be reactionism, i.e. an attempt to completely reject all change, using whatever means possible. Looking back, the social policies of the right had already descended into reactionism in the late 20th century, a time when they ran scare campaigns against video games, rap music and gay marriage to win votes. This kind of political campaign helped the right win elections, but it also cultivated a highly reactionary base, which led to the educational polarization of politics, and also sowed the seeds for Trumpist reactionary populism, as well as the illiberal (and at times anti-democratic) 'New Right' (which is basically the 'high fashion' counterpart to the 'pop culture' of Trumpism, and arguably more dangerous).
In conclusion, the progressive impulse without the guidance of liberal values and the checks and balances of conservatism led to the rise of wokeism, and 'conservatism' turned entirely against liberalism and progressivism led to the right becoming reactionary, which sowed the seeds for Trumpist reactionary populism. The misguided radical activists of the 1960s-70s created the conditions for the former, while the political strategy of the right in the 1980s-90s created the latter. Overall, it is the pitting of progressivism against liberalism/conservatism, and the pitting of conservatism against liberalism/progressivism that has allowed all this to happen. Therefore, to heal the divide, to end the polarization, and to restore sanity, we need to urgently re-unite the liberal, progressive and conservative political traditions. This really is the antidote to the toxicity of our politics.
The Limitations of Nihilistic Tribalist Politics
'Owning' your opponents is empty and boring after a while
I noticed that many people seem to have checked out of the political discourse in the past two years or so. This has been happening especially in the more extreme parts of both the left and the right. What were once popular online hangouts are now virtually dead. Anecdotally, I've heard that many people who used to be passionate leftists or Trumpists just a few years ago seem to have stopped talking about politics altogether. I guess this just shows how extremist, tribalist, 'own' your enemy type politics gets very tired after a while. This is especially true when life isn't very great in general for a lot of people, which is what has been the case in recent years. Especially in tough times like this, only a positive politics will get people hopeful again. The kind of negative politics that peaked around 2020 or so deserves to be in the dustbin of history, and I hope it stays there for good.
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).