Three Types of Left-leaning Writers to Take with a Grain of Salt
Reading about politics from a chair is often maligned, despite being something that many of us do and will keep doing. The fact is, most of us do engage with politics largely by consuming political media. Whether you end the workday by going to the gym and then going to sleep, or you wind it down by heading to an organizing meeting, the political media you consume is probably a significant part of your life.
The following is a guide to several types of writers whose hot takes should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s useful to be able to recognize them just like it’s useful to be able to recognize a wolf: if you see a wolf outside your house, and don’t know it’s a wolf, you might be in for some stress. But if you know it’s a wolf, you can go indoors and appreciate its dangerous majesty from behind a window.
I genuinely think that recognizing these types of writers makes reading articles online a much less stressful experience.
[I don’t want to single out any individuals for ridicule in this article, so if you’re curious who I was thinking of, DM me on Twitter.]
The Elite Radical
The elite radical’s writing often references their other work: “As a contributor to another movement, I feel qualified to talk about this current movement,” and so on. They tend to brand themselves as political thinkers first and writers second. Often, the ratio of writing to non-writing activist work that they do is similar to people who will call themselves “just writers, not activists.” But they see political activism, or organizing, as their primary goal, and they see their writing as an extension of that.
They assist with organizing protests, or at least facilitate the growth of popular protests that others initiate. But if you talk of specific goals — for example, labor strikes or electoral politics — they not only cower, but are sometimes diametrically opposed to those goals. Maybe they feel that others getting things done threatens their ego. Maybe they’re just conservative on the inside, and don’t actually want to get things done. Maybe they just read too much Foucault, and came to believe that life can be reduced to “power,” and so they feel like getting a group of people together for a nominally political reason is the peak of political achievement, and have negative associations with gaining tangible power that can actually be qualified or quantified.
Whatever their motivations, any time they see a notable movement that exists outside of them, they slam that movement and revert to talk of “changing the whole system.”
They can point to a lot of substantial work they’ve done, but, when they discuss how that substantial work actually contributes to their goal of “changing the whole system,” they become increasingly esoteric. They likely don’t even want to change the whole system — what they value is the status quo, and their niche within it.
If you have ever read someone who talks confidently about how to do activism but is curiously dismissive of very popular and seemingly good movements, they are probably an Elite Radical.
The Personal Politics Essayist
Like the Elite Radical, the PPE is perpetually writing negative criticisms of movements that happen without them. But, while the Elite Radical’s writing career often follows from their politics, for the PPE, it is the other way around.
I thought of calling this type of person “the thinkpiecer,” but I chose the term “personal essayist” instead for several reasons. I think that what they do does deserve a level of respect that you don’t get with “thinkpiecer,” and also a level of ridicule that you don’t get with “thinkpiecer.” I reserve the term “thinkpiecer” for people who clearly have minimal emotional investment in their work — who ask “What if this good thing were actually bad?” and churn out the content. The PPE may have a similar career path to a thinkpiecer, but they actually believe what they’re writing. The thinkpiecers are silly but pragmatic, while the PPEs are sincere but ridiculous.
The PPE often wants the world to be a better place, but they run into a snag: their politics are too idiosyncratic to line up with the reality of anyone with a different background from their own. Their investment in treating real-life conflicts as an extension of their personal lives makes them bad writers when it comes to politics. Their worldview, like their writing, is as inconsistent and whimsical it is passionate. But, because of their personal investment, and the fact that their approach to political writing doesn’t require interviewing, research, or argumentation that goes beyond “I believe this,” these writers end up being extremely prolific in comparison to others who write about politics.
The political and the personal overlap a lot of the time. We all have a hard time telling the difference. But these writers don’t get that there’s a difference at all. If you’ve ever encounter a beautifully written or breezily clever essay, but your gut tells you that maybe the writer doesn’t understand what politics is at all, you are reading a PPE.
The Socialism Marketer
The Socialism Marketer is always on the look out for signs that socialism is on the rise and has a bright future. Unlike many socialist writers, they don’t merely write about social inequality; their career revolves around Socialism as a brand.
While most socialist writers are concerned with the same issues no matter who is in power, the Socialism Marketer is specifically focused on trends that draw attention to the word “socialism.” They write articles about how, in a poll, many Americans checked off a box that says they have a “favorable” opinion of socialism. They’ll write about the popularity of quasi-socialistic programs in the USA, such as public libraries, public schools, and Medicare. These all become signs that socialism’s stock is rising.
A glance at European politics will show you that the word “socialism” can be co-opted and rendered meaningless. It is analogous to the dilution of the words “feminism” and “progress” in the USA. Some Socialism Marketers don’t get this. Some do get it, but they recognize, as many “feminist” or “progressive” writers do, that any and all mainstream attention on their product is good for them as individuals.
I feel a twinge of guilt for roasting the Socialism Marketers. They are mostly harmless and more well-intentioned than others on this list.
But the key thing to keep in mind about Socialism Marketers is that, even if 60% of their readers were fired from their jobs for sharing articles about socialism, they’d still be optimistic. They’re marketing a brand and the brand is socialism.
