Why I Argue More Frequently With the Left
The left and the right are fundamentally different in important ways
Today, I want to address an issue some people have with my writing. While I have always maintained that I strive to argue for freedom, and against irrationality, on all sides, some people have pointed out to me that I seem to argue more frequently with the illiberal left than the illiberal right. Having examined my work from the last year, I have to agree that, yes, this is objectively true. While I did criticize the right on plenty of occasions, I have indeed criticized the left on relatively more occasions. Here, I will examine the reasons for this imbalance.
The first reason is that the left still appeals to reason and intellect more, at least relatively speaking. While postmodern critical theory is basically anti-objectivity and anti-science, and arguably anti-rationality too, it is still presented in a semi-rational, academically sounding package. This is why it enjoys so much support among intellectuals and academically-inclined people. All this means to defeat postmodern critical theory, we need to make rational arguments against its specific worldview and doctrines. On the other hand, the worst features of the illiberal New Right are often promoted through riling up people’s emotions, via things like conspiracy theories, moral panics, and repeated biased framing. There is generally not much appeal to the intellect. Therefore, to defeat this kind of political campaign, rational arguments against the specifics are less useful. Rather, I think that general arguments against tribalism, echo chambers and influencer culture are more useful.
The second reason is that, at least relatively speaking, the left are the more ‘active’ players in the political scene, while the right are the more ‘reactive’ players. What I mean is that the left are more often the ones who provoke a fundamental change in how people perceive and do politics, while the right might take up some of the trends started by the left a bit later on. A good example is how historically, the left were the first ones to embrace liberal values like free speech, and the right followed suit to some extent later on. This was how free speech became a universal value in the West. More recently, the left started to walk away from liberal values and free speech under the influence of postmodern critical theory. This soon led the right to abandon classical liberalism too, often justified on the grounds that the left don’t respect those values anymore. This pattern is unsurprising, because it is generally the left’s nature to seek change (whether that change is good or bad), and the right’s nature to reflexively react to social changes (this is why they are called reactionaries). Therefore, to fix the problems of the political landscape, especially in the longer term, it would be more effective to focus on what the left does.
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.
Originally published at https://taraella.substack.com.
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).
