The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Nate Silver on "Why Liberalism and Leftism Are Increasingly at Odds"
"The progressive coalition is splitting over Israel and identity politics."
A very interesting post, characteristically calm and thoughtful; and Silver's track record in understanding American politics is certainly better than most people's (and surely better than mine). An excerpt, though you should read the whole thing:
A New York Times headline, for instance, expressed surprise that "many on the left" were sympathetic to Stefanik. But this isn't properly described as a battle between left and right. Rather, it's a three-way tug-of-war between the left, the right, and liberals….
Proponents of SJL usually dislike variations on the term "woke", but the problem is that they dislike almost every other term as well. And we need some term for this ideology, because it encompasses quite a few distinctive features that differentiate it both from liberalism and from traditional, socialist-inflected leftism. In particular, SJL is much less concerned with the material condition of the working class, or with class in general. Instead, it is concerned with identity — especially identity categories involving race, gender and sexuality, but sometimes also many others as part of a sort of intersectional kaleidoscope. The focus on identity isn't the only distinctive feature of SJL, but it is at the core of it.
SJLs and liberals have some interests in common. Both are "culturally liberal" on questions like abortion and gay marriage. And both disdain Donald Trump and the modern, MAGA-fied version of the Republican Party. But I'd suggest we've reached a point where they disagree in at least as many ways as they agree. Here are a few dimensions of conflict:
- SJL's focus on group identity contrasts sharply with liberalism's individualism.
- SJL, like other critical theories that emerged from the Marxist tradition, tends to be totalizing. The whole idea of systemic racism, for instance, is that the entire system is rigged to oppress nonwhite people. Liberalism is less totalizing. This is in part because it is the entrenched status quo and so often is well-served by incremental changes. But it's also because liberalism's focus on democracy makes it intrinsically pluralistic.
- SJL, with its academic roots, often makes appeals to authority and expertise as opposed to entrusting individuals to make their own decisions and take their own risks. This is a complicated axis of conflict because there are certainly technocratic strains of liberalism, whereas like Hayek I tend to see experts and central planners as error-prone and instead prefer more decentralized mechanisms (e.g. markets, votes, revealed preferences) for making decisions.
- Finally, SJL has a radically more constrained view on free speech than liberalism, for which free speech is a sacred principle. The SJL intolerance for speech that could be harmful, hateful or which could spread "misinformation" has gained traction, however. It is the predominant view among college students and it is becoming more popular in certain corners of the media and even among many mainstream Democrats.
… Now, maybe the progressive coalition will get lucky because MAGA-flavored conservatism remains such an unappealing alternative to people outside the Trumpiest 30 percent of the country. But both liberals and SJLs might find temptations: for instance, liberals will be tempted by MAGA pledges to dismantle DEI on campus, even if conservatives are also quite terrible about protecting academic freedom. Meanwhile, one of Hayek's points was that socialists and conservatives shared a tolerance, if not even a reverence, for authoritarianism. SJL and MAGA could align there as well. SJL has already moved away from the liberal tradition of entrusting people to make their own decisions — think of the since-scuttled Disinformation Governance Board, or the draconian COVID restrictions on college campuses. If Trump wins next year, this tendency will get worse, and SJLs may more openly question whether democracy works at all.
The old left-right coalitions have long been under strain as America has moved away from materialist politics to the politics of cultural grievance. The clearest manifestation of this has been intense polarization based on educational attainment (the more years of schooling, the more likely you are to vote Democrat). If, however, higher educational institutions and the ideas associated with them continue to become more and more unpopular, I'm not sure what happens next.
In the short run, this may be excellent news for conservatives — most voters aren't college graduates to begin with, and even college-educated liberals are increasingly coming to see SJL ideas as cringey and unappealing. In the long run, as anger over October 7 and the pandemic era fades, conservatives will have to offer a more appealing alternative, as the current version of the GOP espouses lots of highly unpopular ideas of its own and only the most polarizing, MAGA-iest Republicans can reliably win Republican primaries. The past 20 years of American politics have mostly been characterized by stability: the 2020 electoral map didn't look much different than the 2000 one. If the progressive coalition is breaking up, the next 20 could be much more fluid.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well I have to somewhat disagree with Silver about Liberals being less authoritarian than MAGA. Although Trump himself does have authoritarian tendencies I think as a whole and especially speech, guns, economic autonomy, energy policy that core MAGA policies are less authoritarian than liberalism. Of course some would counter with abortion rights, but of course the Supreme Court punted that back to the states, and most states seem to like a reasonable right to abortion.
But Silver dead on about SJL.
“Trump himself does have authoritarian tendencies I think as a whole and especially speech, guns, economic autonomy, energy policy that core MAGA policies ”
“authoritarian tendencies” is putting it politely.
Speech – MAGA is terrible on free speech. They are very similar to the SJL and not nearly as good on free speech as liberals.
Guns – Sure, though pretty much everyone agrees the MAGA guns in kindergarten type extremism is a bad idea.
Economic autonomy – not really. MAGA, as actually practiced by those they elect, at least, is very much a spoils for political patronage. I mean, look at Trump’s threats against various private actors (Amazon, etc.) unless they comply and DeSantis’s anti-corporate war against Disney, cruise lines, etc. They may be for less official regulation on the books, but they replace that with an eagerness to use state power to reward and punish private companies based on their political positions. That’s not what you see on from liberals (as opposed to SJL whose methodology is different than MAGA, but both are aiming to bring private industry to heel).
Energy Policy – again, you’re confusing liberals with SJL, I believe. And MAGA are no heroes here. They just want to place their thumb on the scale for their preferred energy companies/industries and ignore the externalities of those industries. Liberals do more generally advocate stronger response on climate change, but often their preferred response pays some heed to the marketplace (unlike SJL which is more directive).
And, then, there is democracy itself, which is the core of the protections for small “l” liberalism (whether you prefer conservative or liberal policies). MAGA is an imminent and grave threat to democracy. First, lying about stolen elections, then trying unconstitutional methods to “overturn” an election.
The number one threat to freedom is not electric cars, it is the loss of democracy. MAGA is the greatest threat to that. if MAGA wins, SJL will gain converts that, yep, democracy is for suckers. I don’t think things will go well for us in that event.
By joining with Democrats, conservatives can actually more effectively beat back SJL because small “l” liberal Democratic candidates will have reason to reach out to them as preferable to a coalition with SJL.
Throwing support to MAGA will just strengthen SJL.
He tried to violently overthrow the 2020 election.
He often speaks admiringly of foreign dictators.
He has explicitly promised to use the Justice Department to go after his enemies.
He wants to eliminate big chunks of the civil service so he can appoint his own loyalists instead.
He writes about “rooting out” all the vermin who don’t support him.
He laughs about being a dictator on “day one” and then stopping.
You hate Dems tho so it’s all good.
“He tried to violently overthrow the 2020 election.”
Bullshit.
“He often speaks admiringly of foreign dictators.”
Fair enough, and I’m not happy about that.
“He has explicitly promised to use the Justice Department to go after his enemies.”
Payback is a bitch, but it would be nice if he were the sort of saint who didn’t want payback.
“He wants to eliminate big chunks of the civil service so he can appoint his own loyalists instead.”
Yeah, and good for him. The idea that a professional civil service would just impartially do the work died decades ago. If elections are to mean anything, the unelected part of the government has to be brought to heel.
“He writes about “rooting out” all the vermin who don’t support him.”
Yeah, not happy about that rhetoric.
“He laughs about being a dictator on “day one” and then stopping.”
Not the sort of thing I want a President doing, but is that worse than 25% dictator for 4 years, like we’ve experienced lately?
Yes, Brett, your negative partisanship has made you authoritarian as all hell.
Trump starts rounding up journalists you’ll be right here to explain and apologize.
Brett is authoritarian? You’re so full of it.
You can’t tell the difference between a label and a principle.
Beyond supporting Trump to the hilt:
-pro censorship in libraries and schools
-does not believe in the negative rights paradigm, because that would mean illegals get rights
-wants to regulate social media to associate with conservatives,
-wants to force big business not invest based on ESG.
-supports DeSantis going after Disney for pissing him off
-is against gay marriage
-is fine with making voting harder if it makes him feel more secure about our elections.
-has expressed support for lynching judges
-thinks the book ‘Camp of Saints’ is prophetic re: immigration
-thinks gays have been at the forefront of every pandemic ‘in history.’
That last one isn’t authoritarian, it’s just hateful.
“Beyond supporting Trump to the hilt:”
Which I don’t. You somehow missed me complaining about the bump stock ban, for instance? Or the fact that I’m supporting DeSantis this time around?
“-pro censorship in libraries and schools”
This is a fundamental category error: If you control my speech, that’s censorship. If *I* control my speech, that’s just deciding what to say. The government’s own libraries and schools are engaged in the government’s own speech, they are categorically incapable of being censored by their own government.
Now, if we were talking about the government telling people what books they could have in their own libraries, or in private schools, THAT would be censorship!
“-does not believe in the negative rights paradigm, because that would mean illegals get rights”
You’ve got two things mixed up here: I don’t believe in negative rights because negative rights are the “divide by zero” of moral reasoning. Of course, you’re proud to not care about logic, so that wouldn’t mean anything to you.
The other thing is P&I vs ‘substantive due process’. Substantive due process is an oxymoron invented to partially accomplish incorporation under the 14th amendment without undoing the Slaugherhouse Court’s evisceration of the Privileges and Immunities clause. I object to it because that’s not what the 14th amendment means, and courts should not treasure, preserve, and expand upon mistakes, they should correct them.
Rights incorporated under the P&I clause belong only to citizens. Illegals aren’t citizens, but, of course, neither are tourists…
“-wants to regulate social media to associate with conservatives,”
No, I’d just restore Section 230 to its original meaning, where internet platforms are only spared liability for a limited range of moderation, not anything goes.
“-wants to force big business not invest based on ESG.”
Since ESG is a violation of fiduciary obligations, and often involves racial discrimination, too, sure.
“-supports DeSantis going after Disney for pissing him off”
I’m fine with Disney losing special corporate privileges. Don’t expect to stay in bed with a government you’re attacking.
“-is against gay marriage”
If accomplished by judicial fiat, sure.
“-is fine with making voting harder if it makes him feel more secure about our elections.”
For relatively trivial levels of “harder”, that’s right. I don’t want psychic hotline voting just because somebody decides it’s too much trouble requiring voters to fill out a ballot…
“-has expressed support for lynching judges”
Literally, WTF?
“-thinks the book ‘Camp of Saints’ is prophetic re: immigration””
Yeah, I think lifeboats can be overloaded and sink.
Mr. Bellmore is authoritarian.
And delusional and disaffected.
And antisocial and autistic.
And bigoted and backward.
And destined for replacement.
Leftists frequently freak out over the possibility that their opponents might at some point in the future do to them exactly what they are doing today. There is not a serious or honest soul among them.
Now would you say I hate Dems?
I’ve never said that, and never will, most of my family are Dems. Politics isn’t important enough to hate people, at least not to me its not.
You seem to project a lot.
You should read what sarcy wrote two days ago.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/10/presidential-immunity-does-not-bar-suits-against-trump-for-his-conduct-on-january-6/?comments=true#comment-10351170
It’s conspiracy to obstruct/deny rights. And if you ever read the indictment, you’ll see specific direction is not part of the charges. His days-long leadup via twitter, what he did the morning of, and how he acted after? Those are all part of the charges.
This is even farther afield that claiming that Trump’s speech contained coded messages to the Proud Boys. To merely state the allegations of the indictment is to refute it.
A creative prosecutor could indict the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) , Adam Schiff, and Robert Mueller.
Since they’re not explicit, coded was the only alternative to “not there at all”.
Brett fails communication 101.
Meaning is a binary of ‘explicitly in the text’ or ‘coded.’
You yourself see a TON of implied meaning in what liberals say all the time. Do you call that coded? You do not.
Your consistency with yourself has been slipping lately.
He used standard political rhetoric. If that was inciting an attack, Democrats incite attacks every day. Believe me, do NOT go there, you won’t like eating what you’re trying to dish out.
You’re the one that tried to say if it’s not explicit it’s coded.
But I’m quite willing to go there, because what you read into liberal speech isn’t what even most conservatives here do.
You accuse liberalism of being the real tyrants.
Maybe you don’t hate tyrants, but you sure show it in a weird way.
I said I don’t hate Dems, there might be a few authoritarians among them that I could muster some ire for.
But for the most part I think CS Lewis nailed it:
”
Sign up
My Books
Browse ▾
Community ▾
Join Goodreads
and meet your next favorite book!
Sign Up Now
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
It’s hard to hate people like that until they are actually in control, because obviously they love me and want what’s best for me.
But I certainly feel like I “need to fight like hell” to keep them from gaining enough power to make my life a hell on earth.
It’s hard to hate people like that until they are actually in control, because obviously they love me and want what’s best for me.
Paternalistic contempt awaiting hatred is not better!
You think I hate conservatives? That’s why I hang out here? I get along fine with conservatives. Play D&D with a whole passel of ’em.
I don’t hate you Kaz; I do think you fool yourself and get regularly dragged in the comments for it.
Exasperated is about as much as I got for you.
One clue on that is I never had to put you on mute.
These complaints about Trump being authoritarian are never based on what he actually did.
You want to toss American Citizens out of the country for disagreeing with you.
You’ve pegged the authoritarian meter, so of course you love Trump and pretend the shit he did above doesn’t matter. Because that shit has your full support.
Freedom via authoritarianism is a quote common path among the foolish and bitter.
b.s.
Roger S wants to deport American Citizen Ilya Somin for posting bad things on about immigration and border policy.
Trump wasn’t a competent authoritarian. That doesn’t mean he’s not authoritarian by nature.
These complaints about Trump being authoritarian are never based on what he actually did.
Roger S, Trump actually organized and set in violent motion an attempted coup, to seize and hold power after losing an election. How much more authoritarian can you be?
Missed that. If you are talking about 1/7/21, the violence was almost entirely on the part of the government. Of course, Pelosi had the video from that day extensively cherry picked, before being seen by the public… it is finally being released with the new Speaker, and it almost all shows very peaceful protesters, and government employees attacking peaceful crowds and protesters, with little, if any provocation.
Hayden, there is nothing exculpatory in showing that a criminal does not break the law all the time. You get charged with crimes for the lawbreaking you do, not for the otherwise legal stuff you mostly do.
You are in denial, by the way. The evidence to convict Trump has not come mostly from Democrats. It has come, and by and large will come, from Trump’s close associates and co-conspirators. Those have disclosed enough already to assure Trump’s name gets filed in historical archives under the, “Treason,” rubric. That will happen whether or not Trump escapes trials or convictions this year or next.
He tried to violently overthrow the 2020 election.
— He; done a better job if that was his intent
He often speaks admiringly of foreign dictators.
— You gotta work with the A-holes — unless you want to start another 30-40 new wars.
He has explicitly promised to use the Justice Department to go after his enemies.
— He ever do it????
He wants to eliminate big chunks of the civil service so he can appoint his own loyalists instead.
— Not a bad idea
He writes about “rooting out” all the vermin who don’t support him.
— He ever done it?
He laughs about being a dictator on “day one” and then stopping.
—and?!?
He; done a better job if that was his intent
You’re ascribing to him a degree of competence that is unevidenced.
In my experience liberals tell themselves they’re more respecting of rights by the simple expedient of denying that the rights they like to violate ARE rights. Gun ownership, economic rights.
Not that they have a monopoly on that technique, but it gets a tad conspicuous when they apply it to rights that are literally enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
I do recall a commenter on the Monday Open Thread who promoted “goods cause” requirements for all rights, not just gun ownership.
I think that was actually sarcasm.
In my experience liberals tell themselves they’re more respecting of rights by the simple expedient of denying that the rights they like to violate ARE rights.
You have a particular definition of the 2A, and 1A, and also hate civil rights.
This is not an insight into the liberal mind; it is is just your usual ‘everyone who disagrees with me is lying about what they really believe, because they want evil things.’
This is why you will support Trump no matter how authoritarian he gets.
Libs who have the gall to disagree with you about the Constitution need to be controlled before they do it first!
This is not an insight into the liberal mind; it is is just your usual ‘everyone who disagrees with me is lying about what they really believe, because they want evil things.’
Not everyone.
The leadership, spokesholes, and moneymen do want evil things.
Wank
Oh, that’s persuasive.
Democrats would put people in prison for peacefully owning a gun. They’d regulate political speech, and specifically when it matters most. That’s a quarter of the bill of rights, right there.
And the GOP would ban abortions, gay marriage, pornography, and books, while wanting to Christianise the US, restrict what is taught in history classes, make legal immigration more difficult, expel legal residents who don’t agree with “American values”…and so on and so forth.
Fundamentally, the current GOP wants a two-tier US, with first-class citizens who are straight white Christians (though some Jews and Blacks would get a special pass if they’re “house-trained”), and everyone else is second- or even third-class citizens.
See,, two can play at that game…though only the GOP thinks that to be a real American you have to be one of “us”.
The reason that so many right-wingers don’t see themselves – or Trump – as authoritarian, and may even laughably self-describe as libertarian – as we often see on the main Reason pages – is that, lacking any reasonable degree of empathy (one of the hallmarks of the modern American right) , they think in terms of how the government should treat them and what their rights are. They don’t care if at the same time other groups are deprived of rights – they don’t count.
.
Setting aside everything else you get wrong, the GOP isn’t the party of Ronald Reagan anymore. MAGA does not respect economic rights.
They don’t respect economic rights as much as they should, but it wasn’t MAGA that tried to make Saule Omarova comptroller of the currency.
Well I have to somewhat disagree with Silver about Liberals being less authoritarian than MAGA.
The only way this excerpt makes sense is if you assume that Silver means “small-l liberal” by the term. That is, in the “classical” sense.
“This book is racist and nobody should buy it! Let’s protest this racist speaker!”
“This book promotes degeneracy and we’ve passed a law to have armed agents of the state enforce a ban. Also, let’s have the state ban by force teachers talking about anything besides cis-hetero orientation and providing age appropriate sex education because !”
Enlightened centrists: “This is the same.”
No, you raging moron, *banning speech by law* and *calls to voluntary action* are not being ‘equally bad on speech’.
And abortion (you’re lying to either me or yourself if you think a federal ban isn’t coming the minute they have the votes), anti-drag and anti-trans laws (which are absolutely targeting adults too), opposition to drug policy reform… it’s telling that you think leaving the wealthy and corporate interests free to stomp us with their boot just as hard as an authoritarian government represents “less authoritarian”. Maybe if you’re wealthy, so insulated from the oppressive laws controlling your body.
No part of the left besides an extreme minority fringe is anywhere near as authoritarian as any flavor of ‘votes Republican’. Claiming otherwise is just delusion.
No part of the left besides an extreme minority fringe is anywhere near as authoritarian as any flavor of ‘votes Republican’. Claiming otherwise is just delusion.
Physician, heal thyself.
The political left is even trying to force pronouns on us, through force of law.
https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/961-15/nyc-commission-human-rights-strong-protections-city-s-transgender-gender
And you are completely mischaracterizing the Florida law, which btw doesn’t prevent parents from teaching whatever they want to their kids.
For anyone else wondering what SJL referred to, from the linked article:
“However, the purpose of this essay is to argue that socialism now has a worthy successor in the Hayekian triangle — what for purposes of this essay I’ll call Social Justice Leftism (SJL) but is more commonly referred to as “wokeism”.”
Thanks. Whatever you call it, they have taken over the Democrat Party. Classical iberals do not exist as a political force anymore.
Polls show a significant percentage of the Democratic Party are not leftists.
Liberals’ acquiescence to the loudest and most obnoxious portion of their party speaks to their moral cowardice after being bullied.
How have liberals acquiesced to the obnoxious left? They freaking hate Joe Biden and the entire Dem delegation.
The left calls Biden a genocide supporter who loves to starve children in service of Capitalism.
It’s possible their notion of the obnoxious left and the left’s notion of the obnoxious left are not the same.
Absaroka : “For anyone else wondering what SJL referred to….”
Three Points :
(1) This past election the Right went all-in on their “woke” bullshit and the voters yawned. Seems like the unwashed masses can recognize bloated over-sold P.R. hysteria as opposed to actual issues and real life. I wonder when the pundits and chattering classes will catch up?
(2) When someone explains how “woke” results from a “focus on group identity”, I have to laugh. The most extreme example of that is today’s Right. You see, white people constitute a group identity too. They’re not the normative base from which all other identity follows.
(3) Speaking of laughter, the “woke hysteria crowd” got around to me and mine. I guess it was inevitable given their insatiable need to scrounge up new material. After all, how long can you keep recycling the same faux scandals in this university and that? I think this blog got eleven or twelve posts out of the Stanford farrago. That’s how hard up they are.
I won’t say the entire screed linked below is brainless hyperventilating nonsense. Everyone despises MSG. Everyone considers the Penn Station demo a monstrous architectural crime. But aside from that, it’s laugh-out-loud ignorant. But that’s where all this “woke” business leads your typical Rightie. They think they’ve found some “unified field theory” of Leftie evil and IQ points just drain from their skull.
https://tomklingenstein.com/recovering-anti-woke-architecture/
Bonus link on the best chance I see to rectify the Penn Station disaster. It’s not perfect (something hardly possible in a universe containing James Dolan), but it just might be doable. It shows what can be accomplished with some careful excisions, additions, and revisions to an existing fabric.
Good job, woke architects!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/07/arts/design/penn-station-renovation-proposals.html
Plus the extreme hyper-focus on colleges and universities, and only a tiny percentage of colleges and universities at that.
Thanks, EV, very interesting article. This part:
“But also, I suspect that an increasing number of liberals will a) more clearly recognize that they belong to a different political tribe than the SJLs and even b) will see SJLs as being just as bad as conservatives.”
speaks to me; the coercive nature of SJLs has always been a turnoff for me (as was the coercive nature of e.g. Moral Majority conservatives in their day).
“the coercive nature of SJLs has always been a turnoff for me (as was the coercive nature of e.g. Moral Majority conservatives in their day).”
Yes. (Of course, MAGA has now wed the authoritarianism inherent in Moral Majority dictates with populist economics which give lip service to responsibility but, as can be seen in the Trump years, even (especially?) in the pre-pandemic Trump years, is primarily about tax cuts and extravagant spending).
With Trump in control of the GOP and all the plausible contenders unwilling to speak against him, the Republican Party is, for the foreseeable future, lost to the small government (non-authoritarian) aspects of Reaganism. That leaves the Democratic party which currently has a distinctively non-SJL in the White House (though, of course, there is some reaching out, as there always was from Republicans to pre-MAGA/Tea Party types, but it hasn’t been captured by them).
For those that value having a small “l” liberal party, there’s only one game in town and that is supporting the Democratic Party in 2024 while it is still primarily in control of non-SJL, authoritarian types. If Democrats lose, the lesson they “learn” will be the same one that the GOP “learned” with the losses of McCain and Romney and that is that moderation and small “l” liberalism is for losers and extremist, authoritarian (or authoritarian-adjacent) candidates are the way to go. Let’s don’t teach voters this lesson.
I don’t want to have to choose between the modern day equivalents of fascists and communists.
The moderates in the Democratic party are the only ones holding the line.
For those that value having a small “l” liberal party, there’s only one game in town and that is supporting the Democratic Party in 2024 while it is still primarily in control of non-SJL, authoritarian types.
El Oh El
Yeah, I wish him good luck with that. Biden has been much, much worse than Trump on the ‘authoritarianism’ front.
Biden seems to view the Constitution as a “cute suggestion”.
He’s been horrendous in terms of authoritarian tendencies.
For those that value having a small “l” liberal party, there’s only one game in town and that is supporting the Democratic Party in 2024 while it is still primarily in control of non-SJL, authoritarian types.
It’s time to put the bong down for a while.
It’s worth noticing the significant similarities between SJL and MAGAC in contrast to regular liberalism.
1. Both focus on group identity (MAGAC gives lip service to individuality but is highly motivated by group politics).
2. Both have a totalizing view in which they perceive the whole system is rotten and needs to be overthrown.
3. Both make appeals to authority. Great leader “trust me” authoritarian authority isn’t academic or expert autuority, but it’s an appeal to authority of a kind all the same.
4. Both have a constrained view of permissable free speech (radically different constraints, but similar with respect to the existence of constraints all the same).
On all four issues, SJL and MAGAC are more like each other, despite their perception of each other as enemies, than either are like conventional liberalism.
May I suggest they are alike BECAUSE of their perception of each other as enemies? Both define themselves in opposition to enemies. Both need enemies to exist and would be nothing without them. This makes them both more alike each other than either are like conventional liberalism.
Two armies may be each other’s enemies, but they are more like each other than either than either is like people of peace.
“On all four issues, SJL and MAGAC are more like each other, despite their perception of each other as enemies, than either are like conventional liberalism.
“May I suggest they are alike BECAUSE of their perception of each other as enemies? Both define themselves in opposition to enemies. Both need enemies to exist and would be nothing without them. This makes them both more alike each other than either are like conventional liberalism.”
This. Exactly this. Both are reactionary and authoritarian-leaning, at best.
Also, right now, MAGA controls the GOP. SJL does not control the Democratic party. There’s only one way out and that is for non-authoritarians “traditional’ conservatives to kill off MAGA and strengthen the non-SJL part of the party. They are likely to get more policy wins from that coalition (in addition to preserving democracy), than throwing in with the “burn it all down unless we get our way” MAGA “conservatives”.
SJL doesn’t control the Democratic party?
I’m a liberal. I get that the elected Democrats in Washington aren’t SJLs. But down ballot in the cities, and even in Democrat appointed policy makers/regulation writers/committee staff, SJLs are pervasive and institutionalizing identity-based preferences, speech regulation, central economic policies, and all the rest. And the Washington liberals silently hold their coalition together not just by ceding details of policy-making, but by SILENTLY pretending it’s one good tent. Democratic voters don’t even know the nature of this difference; they see it as just left and far left…flavors of the same thing.
Credit to Nate for identifying the fault line that puts me with people who call themselves conservatives, and yes, Republicans. When Democrats start standing up for liberalism, I’ll join the effort. But four more years of the destruction of classical liberal values that is being led by the Democratic party? I can’t bet when you guys are going re-awaken the tradition of liberal values you’ve ceded to SJLs.
Trump and MAGA look so scary to the left because they (you) have spent 6 years painting people on the right as demons and pariahs. I see you have that same commitment to demonization. So I’ll be caucusing with my friends on the right until you guys show a spine in this battle for CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (free expression, individual dignity, equal treatment under the law, economic freedom, restraint in government).
(And don’t remind me of what’s wrong with the right; I’m living it with eyes wide opening and waiting for you guys to rediscover classical principles.)
I’m a liberal. I get that the elected Democrats in Washington aren’t SJLs. But down ballot in the cities, and even in Democrat appointed policy makers/regulation writers/committee staff, SJLs are pervasive and institutionalizing identity-based preferences, speech regulation, central economic policies, and all the rest.
This is hand-waiving vibes-based stuff, which is something all political valiances do; but you’re using it in service of ‘leftists are everywhere you’re not looking!’
You don’t sound like a liberal. Oh I see, its because you’re using the ‘classical liberal’ semantic game.
You’re a conservative, buddy. Deal with it.
As I said: free expression, individual dignity, equal treatment under the law, economic freedom, restraint in government
If that’s conservative, then sure, fine. Where would that put you? How’s my list different from yours?
Oh dear, it’s worse; you think you’re a libertarian.
You say one thing about actually it’s called ephebophilia and I’m out.
free expression, individual dignity, equal treatment under the law, economic freedom, restraint in government
Where’s our difference, Sarc?
It’s in the details Bwaah.
Classical liberals generally see economic freedoms as the be-all.
I believe that free expression is in tension with civil rights, and sometimes loses.
Dignity requires a lot more social support And it also includes civil rights. And freedom from fear, which includes access to at least Medicare-level health care.
I believe in economic freedoms, but they are not the only freedoms there are. Taxation is not theft.
Markets need regulation to avoid market failures. Markets are sometimes degenerate for certain things; water, electricity. But also health care and Internet access. Other methods of distribution are appropriate.
True freedom is operational freedom, maximizing choices even for those without a lot of $$ to throw around.
Restraint in government but also restraint in business. The most free society has each with sufficient power to check the excesses of the other.
Equal treatment of the law is absolutely an area we differ. Because I believe in structural headwinds putting individuals on unequal footing. And in general that our various meritocracies are very much not doing their job; the playing fields they assume are level are not.
(This is not just race and gender)
“free expression, individual dignity, equal treatment under the law, economic freedom, restraint in government”
Those are my emphasized values. And these are your reservations:
Why free expression has to lose
Why dignity means Medicare
Why economic freedom needs to greater constraints
Why free markets can’t provide adequate internet service
Why we need more restraints on business
Why equal treatment under the law is absolutely an area we differ, because of “structural headwinds”
Why meritocracy is a problem
Why we need to “level the playing field” (which presumably moves to a focus on equalization of “disparate outcomes” instead of equalization of opportunities)
Why it’s not just about “race” and “gender” (but presumably about the larger SJL-preferred list of preferenced disadvantages)
I know I’m being unfair, because I too believe that details of how each of these is reflected in policy, and in law, is essential and nuanced. I too believe in regulation, and taxation, and provisions for welfare. I believe in our civil rights laws. (Like I said, I’m a liberal.)
But it’s all about the degree of each of those things. And in referring back to my list at the top, I think the summary of our differences is this:
I believe in expanding those values to make a better world. And you believe in greater restriction of those values in order to make a better world.
In Nate’s lexicon, I believe you are a Social Justice Leftist, and that I am a Classical Liberal. But regardless of the labels we choose, I think you have been helpful in clarifying our differences.
After acknowledging nuance, your summary is I want to restrict good things and you want to expand them.
Hard turn to fail right there.
And then you further tell me what I am and think.
Do better.
“Classical liberals generally see economic freedoms as the be-all.”
Well, sure. If you’re poor, you’re screwed. If somebody can keep you from earning a living unless you knuckle under, they’ve got you by the short and curlies, you have to do as they say.
“I believe that free expression is in tension with civil rights, and sometimes loses.”
Well, yeah, but that’s because you’ve got a really crazy notion of what “civil rights” are. Kind of like the ACLU, you define civil rights in a circular manner: They’re whatever you think the government should be protecting, and never mind what the Constitution might say.
Free expression IS a civil right, by the way. Which just goes to show how deep in contradiction you fundamentally are.
Civil rights are often legislatively protected, not Constitutionally protected.
That seems to have you confused.
That’s because for all your accusation, you are the one who reads into the Constitution every right you want, and reads out every right you don’t.
The correct term for legislatively granted ‘rights’ is “privileges”, because what the government can give, it can take away.
And this gets back to the negative rights vs positive rights issue: Often, positive rights actually contract the liberty of people around you.
A negative right of gays to ‘marry’? It’s not what the word meant, but knock yourselves out, no skin off my nose if you hold a ceremony and wear rings.
A positive right to SSM? Suddenly you’re going around forcing people to bake you cakes. And looking for people who don’t want to do it, just for that joy of rubbing their faces in the fact that you’ve got the government standing behind you, ready to beat them up if they refuse.
Easily 90% of the opposition to SSM was people realizing that it wasn’t going to stop at letting gays ‘marry’, that there’d be more to it. And there was.
The correct term for legislatively granted ‘rights’ is “privileges”, because what the government can give, it can take away.
Your semantic formalism is not actually how legal folks talk – legislatively granted rights are a thing.
I mean, the government can give and take away constitutional rights as well.
I can’t help but note that in your arguments as to the legitimacy of gay marriage, you missed the whole big government authoritarianism inherent in that double standard.
Your libertarianism looks like bog standard social conservativism in every outcome, you just want a better branding for it.
“Trump and MAGA look so scary to the left because they (you) have spent 6 years painting people on the right as demons and pariahs.”
What are you smoking?
The GOP has been literally painting Democrats as secret devil-worshipping child molesters for longer than that. The turn seven years ago was when even that dishonest, barely committed to the principles they-espoused “conservative” party turned that into the heart of their party, instead of the fringe. And with it, they began demonizing minorities and immigrants and LGBTQ+ people. Whence your concern for individual dignity and equal treatment under the law?
They full on abandoned any pretense of caring about responsible fiscal policy. So much for economic freedom, other than the freedom of the very well-to-do to abuse the not-at-all well-to-do.
Trump came in promising to “tighten up” the libel laws, he used (and tried to use) the government to punish speakers who said things he didn’t like. DeSantis has carried on a similar battle, going to war with Disney because of what they said. Stifling free speech in various ways (don’t say gay, book banning, etc.). Attempts to criminalize drag shows. And, yes, I remember well how much Trump and the present-day GOP stood up for peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors, Colin Kaepernick, and the like. Trump openly yearning for the days when protestors would be sent out on stretchers, encouraging his supporters to attack protestors anyway with promises to pay their legal bills. It’s simply not plausible that free expression is a core value for you and that leads you the GOP.
And on and on.
Your math only works if you like the objects of the suppression, oppression, and economic favoritism better than the SJLs’ objections of suppression, oppression, and favoritism. As Nate has it, they are the same thing, just with different end policies. The means they advocate are the same. And you are throwing your lot with the GOP which has made the full turn.
It matters that, as you admit, “the elected Democrats in Washington aren’t SJLs.” It matters equally that the elected Republicans are the right wing equivalent of the SJLs. Which you essentially admit and, to the extent you’ve accepted Nate’s framing, don’t deny.
Your choice makes no sense given your stated preferences and those two facts. One party has been captured by the illiberal element within it. The other hasn’t. That is, at the end, the only thing that really matters at this moment in history. (And you already see backlash and splitting in the Democratic party, i.e. resistance to the SJL, whereas the GOP has wholly capitulated and non-MAGA Republicans have quit.)
I am examining my preferences as we speak. Neither party is based on principles, but on conglomerations of voting factions. Both have embraced whatever socialists they can get to vote with them. And socialists are the enemies of freedom and individual dignity.
I have to hold my nose, pick a party, and vote.
For what it’s worth, Silver cites a piece: Why I Am Not a Conservative by F.A. Hayak (written in 1960). Though I’m only some way through it, it looks like a well-reasoned examination of the forces at play here.
I see my choice as being between the side that is attacking abortion and immigrants, and the side that is attacking modern liberalism. The nasty invective from the socialist right is not as scary to me as the silence from moderate left as their socialist bedfellows are permitted to cast their attack on liberal values as being “humanistic.” They, socialists on the right and left, are the enemies of personal dignity, and proudly wield their coercive forces in service to their demagogues of the day.
Awaken the liberal wing of the Democratic party and I’ll join you. But the cries about “attacks on our democracy” are a cruel joke with the SJLs leading the chant. You’re playing nice with a monolithic anti-democratic enemy within. In their view, nobody deserves the vile freedoms we have attained.
‘In their view, nobody deserves the vile freedoms we have attained.’
Bollocks they do. You describe speicifc threats posed by the right, invoke vague scary abstracts threatened by the left.
Exactly this.
And, as Bwaah earlier conceded, the SJLs aren’t leading anything. The Democratic party isn’t controlled by them and they are not the primary audience to whom the party caters. MAGA does run the GOP and has done all it can to run anyone else out of the GOP (or force them to bend the knee). And, yet, somehow, Bwaah finds common cause with MAGA.
It’s not classical liberal values that attract him. Of that, we can be sure.
SJL does not control the Democratic party.
LOL!
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1551984522685829120
Because Kamala Harris controls the party?
That is a LOL.
for instance, liberals will be tempted by MAGA pledges to dismantle DEI on campus,
This is weak. Very weak. Even those who dislike DEI are not willing to replace it with DeSantis style higher ed policies.
Incredibly weak.
So you may hate race and identity based enrollment but will defend them to the death against being dismantled? So you’re fine with telling kids they’re evil oppressors just for being born because that is what you’re decrying.
Who is “defend[ing] them to the death against being dismantled”?
This just isn’t a “to the death” issue for anyone. Fight in the courts and legislatures? Sure. Grouse about how someone is an AA hire? Yeah, that happens.
But “to the death”? Ridiculous.
SIlver’s been getting in twitter fights with idiots.
He’s not taking it well, I hear.
No kidding. He should just have the good sense to mute/pretend to mute everyone who makes it even remotely difficult for him to maintain his preferred shtick!
There’s the post-left who are drifting MAGA
There’s the identity politics over all who are all into trans stuff these days.
There’s the ‘No war but class war’ folks who think posting is praxis. That’s where you find the pro-Hamas assholes who think only America can
Foolish folk all. Maybe as bad as MAGA but for their being without political power.
I’m also not sure these leftists and post leftists I think they’re more at odds with liberals now than in 2016 after Bernie lost.
(needless to say Bernie is now an apostate.)
“Post-Left” are a group that nowadays just hates Dems. That is indeed MAGA adjacent.
Glenn Greenwald, Tim Pool, and the like.
They didn’t leave the left, the left left them.
Well, if you relabel “not all-in for all the latest Wokey Woke has to offer” as “hates Dems,” I guess that makes you correct in a technical and self-fulfilling but otherwise unhelpful way.
Most people think there are still a lot more than two points on the political spectrum, though.
It’s okay to admit you don’t read Glenn Greenwald.
He’s 24-7 shit on Dems. And not just for ‘Wokey Woke’ stuff.
You need to consider that your reference frame is not in the center.
You are free to do the same. It is not 24/7 shit on Dems.
Trump isnt “authoritarian”, everyone has him pegged completely wrong. Trump is narcissistic. He doesn’t want to command everyone, set up rules, and organize things, that’s actual work, and he is way, way too lazy for that. He just wants to be TOP DOG. He wants TO WIN.
Dunno why people can’t see that. I worked for dozens of guys just like him in my career.
Interesting take. Makes sense to me.
Not mutually exclusive. People have been saying both about him for years without one contradicting the other.
This is a drum that Bill Maher has been thoughtfully beating for some time now: that the woke nonsense hijacking the label “liberalism” these days is actually in direct opposition to classical liberalism.
The stuff that calls itself ‘liberalism’ has been in direct opposition to classical liberalism since at least the 30’s; That’s why ‘liberalism’ started needing the modifier “classical”, after all!
Conservatism used to claim to be all about law and order, patriotism and personal morality based on Christian values. Now it’s just more and more explicitly driven by the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
Note well that I didn’t say “conservatism”, I said “liberalism”. The original “liberals” were what we call libertarians today.
Then the Fabian socialists (They literally used a wolf in a sheep skin as their emblem.) came along, and got the clever idea of calling themselves “liberals”. They were so successful that after a while actual liberals had to call themselves “classical liberals” so people wouldn’t confuse them with socialists.
Meanwhile the difference between classical conservativism and modern conservatism is a flaked-off coat of respectability paint.
Yes, the whole ‘woke nonsense’ thing has been invented and pushed relentlessly by the right and various stooges to obscure and also justify their assaults on minorities and women. The reality of wokeness is just thinking those assaults are bad.
my, that cross you wield must be very heavy.
Not as heavy as your swastika.
Wait . . . do recent posts indicate Prof. Volokh actually believes conservatives are going to turn the tide of the culture war? Not just slow the pace of liberal-libertarian progress. Not end a half-century trajectory of modernity, reason, inclusiveness, and education in America. But instead the culture war’s casualties are going to become the victors?
That racism, gay-bashing, and hatred of immigrants are going to become fashionable again (outside the knuckle-dragging conservative backwaters)?
That his recent transphobic turn is a popular position rather than a disqualifying fetish?
That misogyny, gun nuttery, anti-abortion absolutism, and childish, silly superstition (bigot-approved flavors only, of course) are going to win the day in modern, improving-against-conservatives’-wishes America?
That the racial slurs he can’t seem to stop publishing are about to make a comeback?
Is that what has caused this blog to turn hard toward polemics, ignorance, multifaceted intolerance, and belligerent disaffectedness?
Good luck with all of that, clingers.
Nate has the same blind spot in this article as he did in his last one on the alleged horrible state of free speech at universities.
Yes, SJL is intolerant of hateful speech. But they aren’t trying to make it illegal. It’s not a free speech thing, it’s about the social acceptability of hate speech (and misinformation, etc).
As we’ve seen, people who find their once-acceptable speech to suddenly be getting them canceled sure are pissed about it. But they’re not getting arrested, or denied government services. Really they’re getting the thing they always say they want bad speech to get: more speech. They just don’t like the reality of finding themselves outside of the mainstream. In other words, they’re snowflakes.
We know SJLs privately and secretly talk to the management of Facebook and Twitter to ask them to take down Misinformation®™.
Exactly.
So SLJ’s want corporate oligarchics running everything?
Do you realize that Buttigieg is hated by the SJL portions of the LGBTs? It’s because he’s too “white” in the sense that I don’t think you or MAGA or any of the right-wing culture warriors really understand.
The question is simple: from the perspective of a minority, what’s the goal? Is it to be accepted into the mainstream of society? Or is it to undermine the very concept of mainstream society such that everyone has equal sway?
This is the whole idea behind queer theory and it’s retarded. You can’t be a mainstream counterculture movement, it’s an oxymoron. Either your goal is to become part of the prevailing culture or your goal is to remain a weird fringe. If you think your goal is to turn the weird fringe into the prevailing culture, you’re a dumbass.
The prevailing culture is what SJL types mean by “whiteness.” It doesn’t really have to do with race. It just means the political mainstream, which in a democracy, comes with some power. Gay marriage was about giving gay people ab opportunity to be “white,” which Buttigieg accepted. Lots of “Hispanics,” including Proud Boys guy, have decided tbey’d rather be “white” than a “minority.” It’s the same thing that played out with Italians, then Irish, etc. In the end, they became “white.”
So the question facing western society is… should we keep expanding the definition of a singular mainstream culture called “white” to include more and more identities, or should we reject the idea of a shared mainstream culture?
I’m very in favor of Buttigeig and against the queers. I think people want, and should want, to be part of society.
I think you’re making excuses for them. Suppose I started attacking “blackness”, saying it had to be done away with, and when you called me a racist, I said that I didn’t literally mean race, I just meant gang culture. Think you’d buy that for even a moment?
Why should I buy it from people who are always claiming to be sensitive to even implied racism? I shouldn’t. If they really didn’t mean race, they’d use a different word!
There are stupid people on both sides who think that’s what “whiteness” means. But that’s not what it means.
More of a motte and bailey defense, I suspect.
they became white, because they are white not BIPOC
What a very dumb dumb racist thing to say.
Was your account taken over or did you just have a recent stroke? You’ve become insubstantial.
Randal, what you call dumb and racist is ethnologically correct. That is the substance. If you want to deny facts, then you proved your narrow-minded arrogance.
Go back to your kindergarten class
what you call dumb and racist is ethnologically correct.
Isn’t this what dumb racists have been saying since the beginning of time? It’s never “I’m a bigot with subjective prejudices.”
If “whiteness” isn’t racial, call it something nonracial.
Would anyone believe David Duke if he said a derogatory use of “blackness” was nonracial?
Discussions of race in the US are supposed to focus on blackness. Whiteness had and has nothing to do with race issues in the US.
“Whiteness had and has nothing to do with race issues in the US.”
This comes very close to being self-contradictory.
Close?
If it’s not racial, don’t give it a racial name.
Well, yes. The utter refusal of some white people to think whiteness had or has anything to do with race in America.
So we’re going from saying it’s unconnected with race to saying it *is* connected with race?
Maybe linear thinking is a characteristic of whiteness? /sarc
Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realise you genuinely didn’t spot the sarcasm.
See if you can spot the sarcasm here:
Nige’s posts are fully coherent and make a lot of sense.
There you go. Feel better now?
I was being sincere about the sarcasm, by the way, I can see where you missed it and got confused, mea culpa.
“Ask them” and “pass laws forcing them” are not equivalent, even when it’s the government asking.
Conservatives have been passing laws compelling them to host certain speech.
We do?
You know who kept demanding Twitter take down stuff he didn’t like? Trump.
“Yes, SJL is intolerant of hateful speech. But they aren’t trying to make it illegal. It’s not a free speech thing, it’s about the social acceptability of hate speech (and misinformation, etc).”
It’s about ‘social acceptability’, where “social acceptability” means things like being able to be employed, use banking services, have access to all the bits and pieces of normal life, to not be a pariah who would be lucky to get a job sorting garbage for scraps. When you say “intolerant”, you don’t mean frowning at somebody, you mean setting out to ruin them.
It’s an exaggerated version of the way conventional society can treat people who openly hold outlier views. Only wielded by people who themselves have outlier views, who have captured the choke points of society, and set out to force the majority to conform to THEM.
It’s about ‘hate speech’ where “hate speech” just means any speech you disagree with, period. Doesn’t have to be false, it can be something as simple as not humoring a guy pretending to be a girl. What was OK to say yesterday can become forbidden tomorrow, without notice, and applied retroactively.
That latter is what has created this Red Queen’s race of escalating extremism, because in that kind of war, the only winning move is to escalate first, push the other guy out of the tent before he does it to you. So ‘woke’ keeps getting ever more extreme, it’s a moving target.
Yep. And it’s the same game that was played for thousands of years by white people, straight people, Christian people, whatever. Oh no Brett, you experienced a small taste of what it’s like to be an outsider! Boo hoo. You’re what’s now known as a snowflake: someone who wishes they represented the prevailing culture, but actually doesn’t. Accept it Brett: you’re no longer special. The Chinese lady at the laundromat has as much claim to being a patriotic American as you do.
Yeah, I’m experiencing what it means to be an outsider while holding conventional views.
You see, imposing sanctions, ‘outsidering’, people who hold outlier views, is not great from a libertarian viewpoint, but it does enhance social stability and mesh well with the naked ape in the man.
‘Outsidering’ people who hold conventional views, and know damned well they’re not outliers? Equally bad from a libertarian standpoint, but it’s ALSO anything but stabilizing, and intentionally so. And it seriously conflicts with the naked ape’s expectations.
So, even aside from the rather obnoxious part where the minority is dictating to the majority what views they may hold without being sanctioned, it’s a bad idea.
people who hold conventional views, and know damned well they’re not outliers?
Brett you often say you’re an outsider. Are you speaking on behalf of some third party here?
I’m an outsider on some things. Less so on others.
What an arrogant SOB you are Randal.
Grow up.
You didn’t used to be like this.
Maybe you need to log off for a bit.
‘Doesn’t have to be false, it can be something as simple as not humoring a guy pretending to be a girl.’
There’s nothing simple about the right’s raging transphobia.
‘the only winning move is to escalate first’
I.e. do what you were going to do anyway then blame everybody else for your actions. Ban books, ban drag shows, pass anti-trans laws, ban abortion, destroy universities, destroy schools, scapegoat migrants, deny climate change, support the creation of worthless middle-men creaming money from people trying to access essential services etc etc.
Brett Bellmore rails against association choices he doesn’t like.
Still claims to be a libertarian.
But they aren’t trying to make it illegal. It’s not a free speech thing, it’s about the social acceptability of hate speech (and misinformation, etc).
When it comes to colleges enforcing these rules on campus, this is a distinction without a difference.
But they’re not getting … denied government services.
Except for being denied a college education. Colleges are considered the government in nearly every single instance.
When we move beyond the free speech question, SJWs both in and out of the government have pressured universities to adopt sexual assault proceedings that violate due process and has ruined the lives of many men.
Yes, the men were not arrested. But their lives were ruined all the same.
College sexual assault proceedings are a sham but that’s not really about speech.
When it comes to colleges enforcing these rules on campus, this is a distinction without a difference.
Not entirely… students aren’t getting arrested fortunately! But I get your point.
Consider though that campuses are sensitive to some SJL-proscribed speech (harassment) but not all (misinformation). That proves that universities aren’t in it for the speech suppression, they’re in it for the DEI.
Suppression of harassing speech, as we found out recently, turns out to be something that the right wants too, if its aimed at them. I’m sad about that… everyone seems to want to be a snowflake, given the chance.
Generally, it’s good style to have the full name of something before you just run the initials. WTF is SJL?
Generally when someone posts an excerpt with a link to the full piece then if you need some context you click through to the full piece.
It’s Social Justice Leftism.
Trying to bring back a variation on SJW. Talk about intellectually bankrupt.
It would appear, under Nate’s proposed lexicon, that the group we call the “left” is mostly a coalition of two groups with significantly differing principles: Social Justice Leftism (a.k.a. “woke”) and Classical Liberals (traditional American leftist values).
Sarcastro calls me a conservative. (He likes name-calling.) I’m actually a Classical Liberal.
Sarcastro needs to cope with the new lexicon, and the likely fact that he’s in the SJL camp. When you unwind the insidious redefinition of “liberalism” by the SJLs, you realize that SARC WAS NEVER A LIBERAL. And the Rev WAS NEVER A LIBERAL.
Classical Liberalism (a term that now seems to offend Sarc) is the great American way. It reflects the fruits of the Enlightenment. Some of its most common values are free expression, individual dignity, equal treatment under the law, economic freedom, and restraint in government.
DEAL WITH IT, Sarc. DEAL WITH IT, Rev. You’re not liberals; you’re Social Justice Leftists, nasty illiberal people, and false prophets of an ugly brand of leftism that will be on the losing side of history.
I don’t identify with the identitarian left. Or the left at all; I consider myself a liberal not a leftist.
You’re trying to bring back an old lexicon. And it’s not well adopted and will just cause confusion to those you speak to, even if you use all caps.
As to taking upon yourself the mantle of the enlightenment, and I can’t join…
The enlightenment was not so simple. Marx was part of the enlightenment, while ur-conservative Burke was part of the anti-enlightenment.
“free expression, individual dignity, equal treatment under the law, economic freedom, and restraint in government”
I’m for more of the above, and you are for less.
All the best liberals have a mantra they prefer to engage,ent and tell other people what they think.
Practice more humility.
So what? Everyone’s ‘for’ those things. A lot of people who are ‘for’ those things are going to vote for a man who in under indictment and has promised to be a repressive authoritarian who arrests enemies and opponents and puts people in camps.
If I was to point out that there was never really a time when the Great American Way did not involve degrees of subjugation, exploitation and repression you’d call me a Social Justice Leftist, despite the fact that it’s true. It’s CRT and wokism, I must hate white people and freedom. That’s it. That’s what constitutes the vast majority of people being dubbed ‘SJLs.’ ‘Oh no, banning books, drags races, abortion, passing anti-trans laws, dismantling universities, going absolutely ape-shit becuase someone sent a trans tik-yoker some beer – these are bad things.’ Oh you SJL you!
The framing of this entire thing is bullshit from top to bottom. There’s this ridiculous false equivalence between people who think it should be socially acceptable to be trans and people who think they’re dangerous child-mutilating groomers who have to be banned from even changing their names. And so on and so on. This is typical amoral dithery horse-racey punditry of the centre.
I tried to explain to him there can be different ideas of how to implement these values above even if we both support them (especially dignity!); he retreated into a ‘you hate these values actually.’
Childish, but vastly better than many on here.
I retreated to:
“I believe in expanding those values to make a better world. And you believe in greater restriction of those values in order to make a better world.”
(The values were “free expression, individual dignity, equal treatment under the law, economic freedom, restraint in government”)
I could say ‘you believe in restricting dignity and equal treatment in favor of the actual values you prefer.’
But I won’t do that; because I believe you are in good faith in attempting to balance those values; we disagree as to the specific contours and implementation. And from what you say, we don’t even disagree that much.
Extend to me the same courtesy that I’m in good faith when I say that I am not into restricting those values, and when I say I’m not a leftist.
I appreciate you making this point.
Even if you did fall under some defined category of “leftist,” that wouldn’t rob me of my sense of your humanity. (I have socialist friends. I abhor their politics aside from loving them and enjoying being with them.)
I’m very uncomfortable with conversations like this, in a forum like this, for the degree to which it is so easy, in words, to dehumanize the participants. The fact that others are watching these conversations is very material; you’re not my only audience when I speak to you. I feel disgusted by my own remarks insofar as they would appear to demean you. I really don’t mean to demean. And yet, I score cred if other think I do.
In “real life,” I always prefer one-to-one conversations with nobody else in the room. Despite my disdain for the term “safe space,” especially as it applies to university campuses, it’s very important to me, and instrumental in conversation, to be sure the person to whom I am speaking feels safe in conversing with me.
There’s no safe space here. Such is the nature of this type of forum. But anyway, you’ve already convinced me of your humanity. Our agreement in principle seems to be, and probably is, much greater than is apparent. But in argument, it’s all about the differences. Thanks for engaging, and allowing me to engage.
It depends. Some people think human dignity means getting access to free health care whenever it’s needed. Others think it’s shelling out thousands to middlemen for insurance that won’t cover everything, leaving people with crippling debt. Ne’er the twain shall meet.
All these labels are meaningless today.
The two sides are a) those who prefer individual freedoms and b) those who prefer state control of the individual.
Now all we need are a couple of clever names for those groups.
My contribution is a) patriots and b) fascists.
Or Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion…..
I don’t think Silver is capturing the divides on the left very well, at least not in an original way. Seems like he’s just describing the classical divide between liberal and progressive, not the split among progressives. There’s a lot of people who disagree with the anti-free speech DEI “race is everything” garbage that sets up a hierarchy of oppression where you must defer on everything to the people claiming to speak for those at the top, myself included, we do see class as central, and have economically progressive views sharply at odds with moderate Democrats like Joe “The Senator from MBNA” Biden.
This is old news.
The left has never marched in lockstep. They would sometimes rather fight each other than against a common enemy. We saw this parodied in “Life of Brian” and shown in real life in “Reds”.
By contrast, the right has authoritarian tendencies and is prone to the “Dear Leader” mentality (most recently with Trump).
Speech codes are a descendant of the 1970’s insistence on “politically correct” terminology. It was criticized by liberals for years in rapier-like fashion before conservatives learned about it and turned it into a bludgeon.
.
If this were true, it would be “the Squad” (instead of Republicans) complaining about universities’ hands-off approach to the crazed “anti-Zionists.”
It isn’t true, of course. SJL’s “view on free speech” can be summarized as: Hate-speech (broadly defined) against groups we like must be banned. Hate-speech — or, for that matter, violence — against groups we dislike is perfectly fine.
Back in 2020, Tucker Carlson noted that, paradoxically, “as we become ever more sensitive about the harm that words supposedly do, we become less concerned about [actual] physical violence.” At the very same time that various institutions increasingly police our language (i.e., seek to punish “offensive” language), physical attacks / assaults are less likely to be punished. The same entity that will fire X for saying something that, supposedly, offends some religious / ethnic / racial group, will not fire Y for anything he says and, possibly, even for assaulting X. The same people who’re screaming for X to be prosecuted for something he says or writes, want Y to not be prosecuted for anything he does. It’s all a question of whose ox is being gored.
None of this is true, of course. Just your frenzied grievance fantasies hard at work.
A difference between MAGA and SJL is that MAGA officeholders will find that the government bureaucracy is filled with SJL advocates who will fight the officeholders’ actions/initiatives/directives at every opportunity.
Nate Silver on “Why Liberalism and Leftism Are Increasingly at Odds”
Leftism and liberalism have always been at odds.
They’re haven’t always been at odds, they’ve just moved past multiple stop points for liberals and now they find themselves in the crosshairs of the war machine they built with the leftists.
Dennis Prager regularly says that the American tragedy is that liberals fail to recognize leftists as their true enemy.
So
Proponents of SJL invented the term woke. They have only decided that they don’t like it because the other side started to use it to mock them.
Much like “fake news” was first a media attack then was used as an attack on the media.
Ain’t Trump a genius? He reminds me of Rush Limbaugh (to whom he gave a medal, as I recall).
He got you suckers to fall for it, but that’s hardly genius.
Proponents of SJL invented the term woke. They have only decided that they don’t like it because the other side started to use it to mock them.
Is this a sign of some bad behavior? Seems a pretty ordinary way terms and brands can work in society, especially in politics.
It was a word used by black people. So it was fair game for mockery and distortion and demonisation.
“The progressive coalition is splitting over Israel and identity politics”
How strange. Israel is founded on identity politics — it is a pure expression of the concept.
The excerpt uses the abbreviation SJL before defining it. It means “Social-Justice Leftism”, but best to include the definition in the post.
Thanks. I had no idea what it meant, and I’m confident that if the OP had remembered he was writing for an audience outside himself; he’d have included that info.