Part of the problem with this debate is people tend to confuse critiques over strategy with moral condemnation.
There's a frustrating cartoon that has gone around Twitter for years where a guy responds to some mild "woke" criticism by becoming a Nazi. The cartoon is supposed to point out that it's the fault of the guy who chooses to be a Nazi, not the person criticizing him that is to blame for his choices. I find this frustrating because, while it is true that the guy who chooses to become a Nazi is a moral agent and to blame for choosing to be a Nazi, its also very clear that many people respond to a certain type of scoldy woke criticism in a reactionary fashion, sometimes to the point of becoming Nazis (or at least Nazi-ish). You don't have to get into whether that type of woke criticism is moral to look at the situation and conclude that, if you want to limit the number of Nazis in the world (probably a decent goal), you should try to avoid engaging in activities that cause more people to sign up to be Nazis. At the same time, people are moral actors and, being a Nazi is, in fact, bad, and you deserve moral condemnation for going down that route, even if someone "made" you do it.
To use a perhaps provocative analogy, a woman who goes to a frat party and intentionally gets blackout drunk does not deserve to be raped, and any man who rapes her in that state is deserving of moral (and legal) condemnation, but I'd still recommend against women intentionally getting blackout drunk at frat parties.
These are indeed things people seem to conflate constantly and have great difficulty in untangling in their minds. Perhaps, many don't want to and just want to react.
I find those sorts of cartoons incredibly annoying. Bluesky is full of them and the people who post them are rarely willing to discuss their implied meanings. It’s like they’re intended to end all debate.
I agree with you that many of them are annoying. But, still, I'd say there a few which concisely express an important idea. This one, for example, is a classic:
It's exaggerated, but such cartoons aren't known for being subtle.
But I find it interesting that so many right-wingers seem to be arguing it's true, only as the reverse of the obvious reading. That the "woke" better never, ever criticize - or else. Maybe more precisely, the "left" should never criticize the "right" in any way the "right" finds objectionable - while of course the "right" is free to heap abuse on the "left" as much as possible.
"becoming a Nazi" is in itself something that could debatable, depending on circumstances. It is very frequent that "woke" cargo cult zombies say stuff like that to anyone that dares to question "woke"/"left" group think.
even people that self-disclose being "Nazis" may not actually qualify under the historical definition, or in terms of how they act in the real world.
The truth is, we need a functional “left” and a functional “right.” This is not about sides to me this is about what moves the needle. In ideal circumstances, the job of the left when operating in a healthy mode is to look at complex systems and the externalities they create that negatively impact people at the lowest parts of the social strata. Their role is to say hey, this needs to be fixed, here are some reforms to mitigate these problems.
The job of the right when functioning in a healthy mode is to say, let's not reform too much, let’s preserve these systems, institutions, and work together to improve them for the greater good because they have value. Then in theory there's a healthy, productive conversation, that happens between the left and the right that finds common ground, solves problems, and moves the needle for American society.
On the other hand, when the left is operating in an unhealthy mode. The attitude is let's tear everything down, let's destroy it all because it's all corrupt. The right's response to this is to say, well, no, we're not going to change anything now. In fact, even things that are no longer of use, we're just going to hang on to them forever.
As a result, you get what we have: a dysfunctional political environment where each side are now enemies to one another, and nothing changes.
What is worse is that our media amplifies negative messaging because that is their business, which Radical Insider covered quite well here.
Though in the US it seems to be the right tearing everything down at the moment. You need a functioning conservative movement, which could perhaps be more on the left than the right. I think we saw that to some extent in the Brexit debate in the UK where Remain was more conservative and on average more to the left than Leave.
Helen, this article combined with yesterday’s is just stellar. I so envy your ability to articulate your thoughts on this topic, which are fully in alignment with my own. Thank you!
“What if dialogue, moderation, reason and concern for the truth are not actually abstract, “ivory-tower” style luxury beliefs but a more effective way to address problems and resolve conflicts than leaning into increasingly extreme and polarised partisan narratives?”
That is similar to my perspective. I care very little about whether or not my perspective is left, right, or whatever. Except for those people who have empirically derived expertise, I care little about who else expresses a similar perspective. I care much more that my perspective is firmly anchored in best overall fit with the available relevant (empirically confirmed) evidence and, proceeding from that anchor point, which can take time and effort to reach and is open to reconsideration, is also practical and ethically sound. Unfortunately, there can be tension between that anchor point and the “also” because one of the facts about how the universe operates is that public opinion exhibits a recurring tendency towards gravitating in favor of a mismatch with the facts about how the universe operates for a variety of reasons, which is sometimes also a relevant fact, and not all of those reasons are easy or quick, or even always feasible, to overcome.
Woke Right is bad framing specifically because it implies a derivation of Woke Left. It's not. As you hint at, the "Woke Right" is simply old school racial tribalism. It's neither new nor evolved. It is, however, fed by the Woke Left, which fans the flames of racialization.
That being said, the anti-Woke Right is fundamentally a liberal project that is quite different from the "Woke Right". It seeks to restore the liberal order. And this is not going to happen via debate club. Like it or not, it means directly tearing down the infrastructure built by the Woke Left. That need not include illiberal laws and regulations. But it most certainly needs to include firing people, disbanding DEI, and within the Government, explicitly pivoting it's messaging and output away from the Woke Left ideology and towards one of merit and individuality.
I really don't observe concern for the poor and the marginalized breaking out along left/right lines.
The disagreement between people thus concerned is over the extent to which the coercive power of the state should be brought to bear in the effort, with plenty of reasons to believe that the wrong government intervention is worse than no government intervention.
Your characterization of that concern as the province of the left is a left-wing stereotype meant to conflate government intervention with sincere concern, to shut down that conversation.
I've met enough conservatives who would share their last loaf of bread with a stranger, and enough lefties who wouldn't lift a finger other than to vote, to know that they aren't just exceptions to some rule. It's just not a difference between left and right.
I wonder if the rise of social media, where many of us wear our political identities like badges, has made the wishy-washy criticism more potent. Who wants to be seen as wishy-washy? Far cooler to be a Che Guevara or whoever the right wing equivalent is (Musk?), and when you make it ultra clear what side you’re on you get more likes and follows. Extremism pays.
Not sure, but there has been a controversy since James Lindsay started talking about it. Seems like convoluted gibberish to me, but I'm not British except by 1/4 of my ancestry almost 300 years ago.
Well, the problem here "... rise of the illiberal right is so alarming that you feel more sympathy for the woke and a responsibility to join in solidarity with them against a bigger threat not to do that ..." is that it feels like an enemy-of-my-enemy situation. That doesn't equal friend. But being urged to fight a two-front war seems like a more certain loss. Moreover "... restore its credibility with the general public ..." seems like a trap. I'm getting more and more convinced that it's absolutely and completely impossible for the "left" to be so moral that the right-wing hate-and-lie machine can't smear it with its utter disregard for truth. See any of the tweets from the richest man in the world for proof. This is a bad joke when Trump is re-elected President, after trying to stay in power, and then pardoning all of the violent mob which threatened to kill his opponents. Pre-emptive reply - this isn't "two wrongs make a right" - this is "integrity has nothing to do with credibility with the general public".
When you advocate "opposing authoritarianism and ideologically-driven bullshit consistently", what does that mean? In an earlier thread, I was posting from MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Rereading it, there's a substantial portion where he discusses what he's trying to do strategically, with non-violence but taking direct action (this latter part is erased from the remaking of him as a Republican). The "woke" have an answer for what they want to do - apply power against their enemies. The MAGA's have an answer for what they want to do - apply power against their enemies. Your answer is what? Tell people to play nice with each other? To reply to something I wanted to think about in that earlier thread, you asked:
"Meanwhile, you by having feelings that are more sympathetic to the woke & telling me about them in my comments but not presuming to have any suggestions at all on how to meaningfully restrain the radical right-wing are?"
No, I'm venting my frustrations over the current state of the country. I make no pretense to doing anything to fix it, because I can't do so. I'm not going to say that I'm Advancing The Cause in any way, except for the most infinitesimal chance my perspective has an effect in terms of issue analysis. But it would be self-delusion if I thought that was likely to be the case.
"Presume to say what you think the solution and set it out powerfully and convince people."
I don't think I was even able to convince anyone earlier that MLK wasn't a Republican (meaning, he favored strong government action in the service of racial - and social - justice). It just bounces off. That's how futile it is for me to try to convince people of anything.
Also it requires a little active reflexivity to be liberal. Those who are liable to identify strongly with dogmatic positions will display less reflexivity, even though we assume they are capable of it because they can point at people, and pointing requires a theory of mind (but probs not empathy, or its been turned off).
Rothbard or somebody like that stated that the "left", including communists, hold historical remnants of "conservative" ideology with reference to the classic definition of "conservatism" from the Ancien Regime.
Such ancient "conservatives" were opposed to the Reformation and Enlightenment for instance. Rosseau is a "leftist" case in point (Romanticist, anti-science). The intellectual and artistic elites in medieval times hated the expanding middle classes for their "crass commercialism" (as opposed to the "earth spiritual purity" of starving, illiterate, diseased, poor peasant class), just as leftists/communists do.
It seems very weird that the "left" had/has such deep hatred of the middle classes (Third Estate) that they recycled medieval hate ideology to oppose the middle classes and classical liberalism.
Minor quibble (hope I didn't miss this point if you made it in the article), liberals/progressives/leftists have always been "racist", "sexist", etc.
Consider that both "Progressive" Presidents of the USA: Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were psychotic xenophobes, racists, sexists and bloodthirsty war mongers. There are many other examples of people that were/are prominent, and just day-to-day people. I used to work for a 60s leftist activist, protestor/hippy-dippy type that grew up in crime-ridden Oakland, California and was a ridiculous racist that had to be threatened with social ostracism (before "PC", "woke", etc.) to hire black people. The hippy (a sociopathic fossil, Cluster B personality type of course) also related her employees like shit, while claiming to support Union activism (as long as it fed votes to the Democrat party, which she was a cult member of).
The purported belief system of people like that was, on the surface, anti-racist/anti-sexist, but their actual, "inner" thinking and outer behavior was far different.
I mean, the word "progressive" was embraced by both parties back then.
I grew up in the south during the seventies and eighties. Newt Gingrich was my congressman (and also a good friend of my mom). To me it was obvious that a lot of the party realignment that started then was because of race.
Something to note is that in the original Roe v Wade decisions, five of the seven justices who voted for it were Republican appointees. 50 years later all six of the justices who voted to overturn it were also Republican appointees.
We used to get Xmas cards from Reagan and my mom was on the state Republican party board.
Newt had to run for congress three times before finally getting elected in 1978. My mom supported him when he was a nobody professor at West Georgia College.
Part of the problem with this debate is people tend to confuse critiques over strategy with moral condemnation.
There's a frustrating cartoon that has gone around Twitter for years where a guy responds to some mild "woke" criticism by becoming a Nazi. The cartoon is supposed to point out that it's the fault of the guy who chooses to be a Nazi, not the person criticizing him that is to blame for his choices. I find this frustrating because, while it is true that the guy who chooses to become a Nazi is a moral agent and to blame for choosing to be a Nazi, its also very clear that many people respond to a certain type of scoldy woke criticism in a reactionary fashion, sometimes to the point of becoming Nazis (or at least Nazi-ish). You don't have to get into whether that type of woke criticism is moral to look at the situation and conclude that, if you want to limit the number of Nazis in the world (probably a decent goal), you should try to avoid engaging in activities that cause more people to sign up to be Nazis. At the same time, people are moral actors and, being a Nazi is, in fact, bad, and you deserve moral condemnation for going down that route, even if someone "made" you do it.
To use a perhaps provocative analogy, a woman who goes to a frat party and intentionally gets blackout drunk does not deserve to be raped, and any man who rapes her in that state is deserving of moral (and legal) condemnation, but I'd still recommend against women intentionally getting blackout drunk at frat parties.
These are indeed things people seem to conflate constantly and have great difficulty in untangling in their minds. Perhaps, many don't want to and just want to react.
I find those sorts of cartoons incredibly annoying. Bluesky is full of them and the people who post them are rarely willing to discuss their implied meanings. It’s like they’re intended to end all debate.
I agree with you that many of them are annoying. But, still, I'd say there a few which concisely express an important idea. This one, for example, is a classic:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/386:_Duty_Calls
Part of the problem with this debate is people tend to confuse critiques over strategy with moral condemnation Yeah the Woke Minded Hive
This is the cartoon:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi
It's exaggerated, but such cartoons aren't known for being subtle.
But I find it interesting that so many right-wingers seem to be arguing it's true, only as the reverse of the obvious reading. That the "woke" better never, ever criticize - or else. Maybe more precisely, the "left" should never criticize the "right" in any way the "right" finds objectionable - while of course the "right" is free to heap abuse on the "left" as much as possible.
"becoming a Nazi" is in itself something that could debatable, depending on circumstances. It is very frequent that "woke" cargo cult zombies say stuff like that to anyone that dares to question "woke"/"left" group think.
even people that self-disclose being "Nazis" may not actually qualify under the historical definition, or in terms of how they act in the real world.
The truth is, we need a functional “left” and a functional “right.” This is not about sides to me this is about what moves the needle. In ideal circumstances, the job of the left when operating in a healthy mode is to look at complex systems and the externalities they create that negatively impact people at the lowest parts of the social strata. Their role is to say hey, this needs to be fixed, here are some reforms to mitigate these problems.
The job of the right when functioning in a healthy mode is to say, let's not reform too much, let’s preserve these systems, institutions, and work together to improve them for the greater good because they have value. Then in theory there's a healthy, productive conversation, that happens between the left and the right that finds common ground, solves problems, and moves the needle for American society.
On the other hand, when the left is operating in an unhealthy mode. The attitude is let's tear everything down, let's destroy it all because it's all corrupt. The right's response to this is to say, well, no, we're not going to change anything now. In fact, even things that are no longer of use, we're just going to hang on to them forever.
As a result, you get what we have: a dysfunctional political environment where each side are now enemies to one another, and nothing changes.
What is worse is that our media amplifies negative messaging because that is their business, which Radical Insider covered quite well here.
Welcome To The Hate Economy
How Media Division Fuels Profit and Control
Radical Insider
https://substack.com/inbox/post/155847626
Very well put, yes. I could not agree more!
Though in the US it seems to be the right tearing everything down at the moment. You need a functioning conservative movement, which could perhaps be more on the left than the right. I think we saw that to some extent in the Brexit debate in the UK where Remain was more conservative and on average more to the left than Leave.
It's what the people voted for
Excellent part 2. “Both/and” !!!
That was actually a divergence! Part II was meant to be out today but I felt the need to write about this so it will be out tomorrow
I stand corrected. Excellent divergence! 😀
Helen, this article combined with yesterday’s is just stellar. I so envy your ability to articulate your thoughts on this topic, which are fully in alignment with my own. Thank you!
“What if dialogue, moderation, reason and concern for the truth are not actually abstract, “ivory-tower” style luxury beliefs but a more effective way to address problems and resolve conflicts than leaning into increasingly extreme and polarised partisan narratives?”
That is similar to my perspective. I care very little about whether or not my perspective is left, right, or whatever. Except for those people who have empirically derived expertise, I care little about who else expresses a similar perspective. I care much more that my perspective is firmly anchored in best overall fit with the available relevant (empirically confirmed) evidence and, proceeding from that anchor point, which can take time and effort to reach and is open to reconsideration, is also practical and ethically sound. Unfortunately, there can be tension between that anchor point and the “also” because one of the facts about how the universe operates is that public opinion exhibits a recurring tendency towards gravitating in favor of a mismatch with the facts about how the universe operates for a variety of reasons, which is sometimes also a relevant fact, and not all of those reasons are easy or quick, or even always feasible, to overcome.
Woke Right is bad framing specifically because it implies a derivation of Woke Left. It's not. As you hint at, the "Woke Right" is simply old school racial tribalism. It's neither new nor evolved. It is, however, fed by the Woke Left, which fans the flames of racialization.
That being said, the anti-Woke Right is fundamentally a liberal project that is quite different from the "Woke Right". It seeks to restore the liberal order. And this is not going to happen via debate club. Like it or not, it means directly tearing down the infrastructure built by the Woke Left. That need not include illiberal laws and regulations. But it most certainly needs to include firing people, disbanding DEI, and within the Government, explicitly pivoting it's messaging and output away from the Woke Left ideology and towards one of merit and individuality.
I really don't observe concern for the poor and the marginalized breaking out along left/right lines.
The disagreement between people thus concerned is over the extent to which the coercive power of the state should be brought to bear in the effort, with plenty of reasons to believe that the wrong government intervention is worse than no government intervention.
Your characterization of that concern as the province of the left is a left-wing stereotype meant to conflate government intervention with sincere concern, to shut down that conversation.
I've met enough conservatives who would share their last loaf of bread with a stranger, and enough lefties who wouldn't lift a finger other than to vote, to know that they aren't just exceptions to some rule. It's just not a difference between left and right.
I just have personally found the blaming of the left for the excesses of the right to be a tired argument.
I wonder if the rise of social media, where many of us wear our political identities like badges, has made the wishy-washy criticism more potent. Who wants to be seen as wishy-washy? Far cooler to be a Che Guevara or whoever the right wing equivalent is (Musk?), and when you make it ultra clear what side you’re on you get more likes and follows. Extremism pays.
Right-wing Wokesism? who the Fuck came up with this? Has to be a woky.
Not sure, but there has been a controversy since James Lindsay started talking about it. Seems like convoluted gibberish to me, but I'm not British except by 1/4 of my ancestry almost 300 years ago.
Well, the problem here "... rise of the illiberal right is so alarming that you feel more sympathy for the woke and a responsibility to join in solidarity with them against a bigger threat not to do that ..." is that it feels like an enemy-of-my-enemy situation. That doesn't equal friend. But being urged to fight a two-front war seems like a more certain loss. Moreover "... restore its credibility with the general public ..." seems like a trap. I'm getting more and more convinced that it's absolutely and completely impossible for the "left" to be so moral that the right-wing hate-and-lie machine can't smear it with its utter disregard for truth. See any of the tweets from the richest man in the world for proof. This is a bad joke when Trump is re-elected President, after trying to stay in power, and then pardoning all of the violent mob which threatened to kill his opponents. Pre-emptive reply - this isn't "two wrongs make a right" - this is "integrity has nothing to do with credibility with the general public".
When you advocate "opposing authoritarianism and ideologically-driven bullshit consistently", what does that mean? In an earlier thread, I was posting from MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Rereading it, there's a substantial portion where he discusses what he's trying to do strategically, with non-violence but taking direct action (this latter part is erased from the remaking of him as a Republican). The "woke" have an answer for what they want to do - apply power against their enemies. The MAGA's have an answer for what they want to do - apply power against their enemies. Your answer is what? Tell people to play nice with each other? To reply to something I wanted to think about in that earlier thread, you asked:
"Meanwhile, you by having feelings that are more sympathetic to the woke & telling me about them in my comments but not presuming to have any suggestions at all on how to meaningfully restrain the radical right-wing are?"
No, I'm venting my frustrations over the current state of the country. I make no pretense to doing anything to fix it, because I can't do so. I'm not going to say that I'm Advancing The Cause in any way, except for the most infinitesimal chance my perspective has an effect in terms of issue analysis. But it would be self-delusion if I thought that was likely to be the case.
"Presume to say what you think the solution and set it out powerfully and convince people."
I don't think I was even able to convince anyone earlier that MLK wasn't a Republican (meaning, he favored strong government action in the service of racial - and social - justice). It just bounces off. That's how futile it is for me to try to convince people of anything.
a little Mary Douglas would help here.
Also it requires a little active reflexivity to be liberal. Those who are liable to identify strongly with dogmatic positions will display less reflexivity, even though we assume they are capable of it because they can point at people, and pointing requires a theory of mind (but probs not empathy, or its been turned off).
a linkpost to my reading on Mary Douglas (should have substack links if you wish to comment) https://whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com/reading-mary-douglas-linkpost/
I am currently reading her & Ney's Missing Persons where reflexivity is the word of the page.
Rothbard or somebody like that stated that the "left", including communists, hold historical remnants of "conservative" ideology with reference to the classic definition of "conservatism" from the Ancien Regime.
Such ancient "conservatives" were opposed to the Reformation and Enlightenment for instance. Rosseau is a "leftist" case in point (Romanticist, anti-science). The intellectual and artistic elites in medieval times hated the expanding middle classes for their "crass commercialism" (as opposed to the "earth spiritual purity" of starving, illiterate, diseased, poor peasant class), just as leftists/communists do.
It seems very weird that the "left" had/has such deep hatred of the middle classes (Third Estate) that they recycled medieval hate ideology to oppose the middle classes and classical liberalism.
Minor quibble (hope I didn't miss this point if you made it in the article), liberals/progressives/leftists have always been "racist", "sexist", etc.
Consider that both "Progressive" Presidents of the USA: Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were psychotic xenophobes, racists, sexists and bloodthirsty war mongers. There are many other examples of people that were/are prominent, and just day-to-day people. I used to work for a 60s leftist activist, protestor/hippy-dippy type that grew up in crime-ridden Oakland, California and was a ridiculous racist that had to be threatened with social ostracism (before "PC", "woke", etc.) to hire black people. The hippy (a sociopathic fossil, Cluster B personality type of course) also related her employees like shit, while claiming to support Union activism (as long as it fed votes to the Democrat party, which she was a cult member of).
The purported belief system of people like that was, on the surface, anti-racist/anti-sexist, but their actual, "inner" thinking and outer behavior was far different.
I mean, the word "progressive" was embraced by both parties back then.
I grew up in the south during the seventies and eighties. Newt Gingrich was my congressman (and also a good friend of my mom). To me it was obvious that a lot of the party realignment that started then was because of race.
Something to note is that in the original Roe v Wade decisions, five of the seven justices who voted for it were Republican appointees. 50 years later all six of the justices who voted to overturn it were also Republican appointees.
Clueless.
Not an argument.
We used to get Xmas cards from Reagan and my mom was on the state Republican party board.
Newt had to run for congress three times before finally getting elected in 1978. My mom supported him when he was a nobody professor at West Georgia College.
What did you do in 1978-1988?
still clueless.