A very helpful analysis Helen, as I was never fully convinced by the argument which seems to be implied in the widely shared Colin Wright cartoon linked to below (although the cartoon did begin to explain why I have recently been accused of being ‘right wing’, even though my allegiance to classical liberal values has not changed): https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17MngW3GFr/?mibextid=wwXIfr. I found the following two sentences of your article particularly helpful:
‘People who think in terms of “centrism” tend to see principles as relational rather than consistent. They see them as defined by where someone stands, not by what one stands for.’ As an aside, it may be worth noting that the term ‘universalism’ seems to be acquiring negative connotations in some contexts e.g. when used to characterise the rigid ideological position of those who refuse to acknowledge the very clear - to me at least - reality that not all cultures - and thus not all forms of immigration - are the same.
Not the same, no. Some argue that they are equally good and then this is relativism rather than pluralism. They criticise universalists for our humanist stance which claims that all people have equal worth, not all ideas.
There is, of course, just one race - the human race - but the collapsing, and thus denial, of significant cultural differences does seem to have contributed to some of the negative consequences of immigration and multiculturalism.
I seem to have missed that excellent piece Helen. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. Back briefly to the idea of connotations, isn’t it interesting how the word ‘discrimination’ is almost exclusively used as a pejorative by the ‘Critical’ Social Justice Movement? If they were a bit more ‘discriminating’ on occasion then perhaps they wouldn’t come out with so much ‘uncritical’ nonsense.
I do have a question from a rather individualist perspective as it relates to immigration: how do you know what culture someone has? I suppose you could issue a questionnaire, but it seems stupidly easy to game (though perhaps the types of culture that we'd like to limit would be either unwilling to dissemble about some questions, or would be turned off from coming in the first place?).
To me, at least, "let's reduce immigration from majority Muslim countries" or something similar is the opposite of individualism.
In reality, many principled people who currently find themselves in the “centre” do so because
that’s where their values have placed them. Liberals — those who value individual liberty — are here now because our commitments to democracy, free expression and freedom of belief put us at odds with both the authoritarian “woke” and the authoritarian “anti-woke.”
---
The problem with that position in an American context is that the political landscape in USA today exists of a pretty openly fascist executive that talks openly about ending democracy.
A left-wing equivalent of that just doesn't exist politically. Yes sure it's fair to critique fractions of the left wing of being authoritarian woke and thus in opposition to liberal values. But we can't expand that into claiming that Biden or Obama was roughly the same as Trump, just in the opposite direction.
They were not.
The extremists are in control of the right. They are not on the left. USA has two parties of relevance. A right-wing populist pretty openly fascist one. And a very moderate left party that frankly has mostly policies that'd count as centrist in most of Europe.
Somebody on the right who does not want to uphold liberal principles consistently or criticise liberalism on their own side will say, "Show me which institutions are dominated by right-wing ideologies. Sure you can criticise some political overreach and extremists on the right but the right just doesn't have the institutional power that the left does. Stop telling me to focus on curbing the power of the right which is limited by presidential terms of office and checks and balances and focus on fixing the culture and institutions which are totally captured by the left and dominate what people are allowed to think and whether they can have jobs or not."
I'm not going back and forth with apologists on the left who want to focus only on the incumbent government and ignore the institutions or the right who want to focus only on universities and schools and other institutions and ignore the fact that their president is threatening the process of democracy itself. It's not as though, if we decide that one of these is worse, the other problem will go away. Or as though by focusing solely on the other side and trying to stop people criticising our own, people won't notice the problems on our own and react against it. We need to have consistent principles. People like me on the left are of most use trying to fix the left and strengthen it and people on the right are of best use trying to address the issues on its side. Partisan analysis of problems of illiberalism will only increase polarisation and tribalism. We need to be consistent.
Is there even a meaningful spectrum anymore that describes left and right principles?
I used to see it as individualism vs collectivism, but that model seems to have disintegrated.
To be in the middle was basically some form of social democracy, and that’s where most westerners stood.
But when BLM got sponsored by Nike, and men put in women’s prisons under the banner of social justice, it became clear that reality is too chaotic for one dimension to describe.
I think so, yes. I describe myself as liberal because I hold those values at the bottom and left because I support progressive taxes, nationalised healthcare and other services, focus primarily on class issues and workers rights and so support trade unions, social housing, welfare programmes etc.
But does liberalism map onto that spectrum? It’s easy to see where it’s not: any position that’s authoritarian, but is it a left-right thing?
I can see how liberalism was once obviously opposed to the traditional model of a universal hierarchy, with god at the top. But so much has changed since then, I’m not sure.
I mean the literal “not sure” as opposed to “sure it’s not”.
I am left but I am primarily liberal and the latter is the axis I can share with a wider range of people. I try to bring together people who hold any political or ideological position in a liberal way. Liberal leftists, like me, liberal conservatives, liberal socialists, libertarians, liberal Christians, liberal Muslims, liberal Jews, liberal anti-racists, liberal feminists etc. Anybody who opposes authoritarianism and defends the rights and freedoms of people who aren't them and sees people as individuals and part of our shared humanity and wants to resolve our conflicts with democratic processes and robust debate.
No, it's a different spectrum, but the spectrum of left and right still meaningfully exists when it comes to policies on economics, housing, healthcare, welfare, employment etc. When I vote, I vote left because I favour those policies. Liberalism is a higher overarching value, though. People can hold left-wing or right-wing views in liberal or illiberal ways. Liberals on the economic right - libertarians - will tell me that I am not liberal economically because freedom includes freedom of markets and minimal taxes and they'd be right. I am least liberal economically because I favour progressive taxes and some regulation on markets. So, they're not entirely different spectrums.
Wonderful work, thanks again for your steady voice in such giddy times....
A very helpful analysis Helen, as I was never fully convinced by the argument which seems to be implied in the widely shared Colin Wright cartoon linked to below (although the cartoon did begin to explain why I have recently been accused of being ‘right wing’, even though my allegiance to classical liberal values has not changed): https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17MngW3GFr/?mibextid=wwXIfr. I found the following two sentences of your article particularly helpful:
‘People who think in terms of “centrism” tend to see principles as relational rather than consistent. They see them as defined by where someone stands, not by what one stands for.’ As an aside, it may be worth noting that the term ‘universalism’ seems to be acquiring negative connotations in some contexts e.g. when used to characterise the rigid ideological position of those who refuse to acknowledge the very clear - to me at least - reality that not all cultures - and thus not all forms of immigration - are the same.
Not the same, no. Some argue that they are equally good and then this is relativism rather than pluralism. They criticise universalists for our humanist stance which claims that all people have equal worth, not all ideas.
There is, of course, just one race - the human race - but the collapsing, and thus denial, of significant cultural differences does seem to have contributed to some of the negative consequences of immigration and multiculturalism.
Yes, I addressed that in my last piece.
https://www.hpluckrose.com/p/stop-talking-nonsense-about-culture-ed6
I seem to have missed that excellent piece Helen. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. Back briefly to the idea of connotations, isn’t it interesting how the word ‘discrimination’ is almost exclusively used as a pejorative by the ‘Critical’ Social Justice Movement? If they were a bit more ‘discriminating’ on occasion then perhaps they wouldn’t come out with so much ‘uncritical’ nonsense.
I do have a question from a rather individualist perspective as it relates to immigration: how do you know what culture someone has? I suppose you could issue a questionnaire, but it seems stupidly easy to game (though perhaps the types of culture that we'd like to limit would be either unwilling to dissemble about some questions, or would be turned off from coming in the first place?).
To me, at least, "let's reduce immigration from majority Muslim countries" or something similar is the opposite of individualism.
In reality, many principled people who currently find themselves in the “centre” do so because
that’s where their values have placed them. Liberals — those who value individual liberty — are here now because our commitments to democracy, free expression and freedom of belief put us at odds with both the authoritarian “woke” and the authoritarian “anti-woke.”
---
The problem with that position in an American context is that the political landscape in USA today exists of a pretty openly fascist executive that talks openly about ending democracy.
A left-wing equivalent of that just doesn't exist politically. Yes sure it's fair to critique fractions of the left wing of being authoritarian woke and thus in opposition to liberal values. But we can't expand that into claiming that Biden or Obama was roughly the same as Trump, just in the opposite direction.
They were not.
The extremists are in control of the right. They are not on the left. USA has two parties of relevance. A right-wing populist pretty openly fascist one. And a very moderate left party that frankly has mostly policies that'd count as centrist in most of Europe.
Somebody on the right who does not want to uphold liberal principles consistently or criticise liberalism on their own side will say, "Show me which institutions are dominated by right-wing ideologies. Sure you can criticise some political overreach and extremists on the right but the right just doesn't have the institutional power that the left does. Stop telling me to focus on curbing the power of the right which is limited by presidential terms of office and checks and balances and focus on fixing the culture and institutions which are totally captured by the left and dominate what people are allowed to think and whether they can have jobs or not."
I'm not going back and forth with apologists on the left who want to focus only on the incumbent government and ignore the institutions or the right who want to focus only on universities and schools and other institutions and ignore the fact that their president is threatening the process of democracy itself. It's not as though, if we decide that one of these is worse, the other problem will go away. Or as though by focusing solely on the other side and trying to stop people criticising our own, people won't notice the problems on our own and react against it. We need to have consistent principles. People like me on the left are of most use trying to fix the left and strengthen it and people on the right are of best use trying to address the issues on its side. Partisan analysis of problems of illiberalism will only increase polarisation and tribalism. We need to be consistent.
Brilliant essay.
Is there even a meaningful spectrum anymore that describes left and right principles?
I used to see it as individualism vs collectivism, but that model seems to have disintegrated.
To be in the middle was basically some form of social democracy, and that’s where most westerners stood.
But when BLM got sponsored by Nike, and men put in women’s prisons under the banner of social justice, it became clear that reality is too chaotic for one dimension to describe.
In the middle of all that? Fuck off, are we.
I think so, yes. I describe myself as liberal because I hold those values at the bottom and left because I support progressive taxes, nationalised healthcare and other services, focus primarily on class issues and workers rights and so support trade unions, social housing, welfare programmes etc.
Yeah, I see what you mean.
But does liberalism map onto that spectrum? It’s easy to see where it’s not: any position that’s authoritarian, but is it a left-right thing?
I can see how liberalism was once obviously opposed to the traditional model of a universal hierarchy, with god at the top. But so much has changed since then, I’m not sure.
I mean the literal “not sure” as opposed to “sure it’s not”.
I am left but I am primarily liberal and the latter is the axis I can share with a wider range of people. I try to bring together people who hold any political or ideological position in a liberal way. Liberal leftists, like me, liberal conservatives, liberal socialists, libertarians, liberal Christians, liberal Muslims, liberal Jews, liberal anti-racists, liberal feminists etc. Anybody who opposes authoritarianism and defends the rights and freedoms of people who aren't them and sees people as individuals and part of our shared humanity and wants to resolve our conflicts with democratic processes and robust debate.
Sorry, just a sort of placeholder comment to say “I’ve read and understood”. I can’t say any more than that as I need to think about it.
No, it's a different spectrum, but the spectrum of left and right still meaningfully exists when it comes to policies on economics, housing, healthcare, welfare, employment etc. When I vote, I vote left because I favour those policies. Liberalism is a higher overarching value, though. People can hold left-wing or right-wing views in liberal or illiberal ways. Liberals on the economic right - libertarians - will tell me that I am not liberal economically because freedom includes freedom of markets and minimal taxes and they'd be right. I am least liberal economically because I favour progressive taxes and some regulation on markets. So, they're not entirely different spectrums.