Why Illiberalism Is Not Liberalism
A podcast with Peter McCormack
I enjoyed speaking to Peter McCormack. Peter initially contacted me wanting to talk about whether liberalism has failed, whether liberalism has become illiberal, whether we have become epistemically fragmented and how we can address all of that. We did talk about all of that - no, we are failing to be liberal, which is quite a different thing, and we address that by appealing to our own tribes to care about what is true and about individual liberty - but also much more.
Here is Peter’s description:
”Helen Pluckrose joins me to discuss how liberalism was lost and why free speech, individual liberty and viewpoint diversity need to be defended from both the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right.
Helen explains why liberalism does not mean “left wing”, why it is better understood as the opposite of authoritarianism, and how critical social justice, identity politics and language policing have changed the way people think, speak and behave. We discuss the rise of woke ideology, DEI, equality vs equity, trans rights, queer theory, free speech, institutional capture and why suppressing ideas usually makes them more powerful.
We also get into whether Britain needs a liberal revolution, how the anti-woke movement can become authoritarian itself, and why the future may depend on liberals on the left and right defending freedom within their own tribes.”


This is the distinction I wish more people would make:
Liberalism hasn’t “failed” in some grand metaphysical sense. We 've gotten lazy about doing liberalism.
It's not a national asset sitting safely in a glass case. Liberalism requires maintenance work: defending speech you dislike, checking your own tribe’s censorious impulses, taking off your team jersey, and remembering that “my side is right” is not a theory of liberty.
Thanks for posting Helen, I had not seen this.
I always enjoy listening to your musings on liberalism.