So, I decided to do a follow up article discussing my own ranking of those five deadly sins of the left, and what I think are the most minor and most egregious. Here, I'll be discussing the impact these sins have on the democratic party and other left wing movements in the US, both in terms of how they alienate people, and in terms of how widespread they are committed. Without further ado, let's get to it.
#5: Growthphobia
This is the one sin I disagreed with, and it makes sense I would consider it the most minor sin committed by the left. The fact is, very few people have outright growthphobia. Most lefties believe in growth. The dominant faction of the democratic party is explicitly pro growth, and Bernie Sanders' movement is going to pursue growth under the economic guidance of modern monetary theory, which believes in stimulating the economy to grow it now, in hopes that whatever budget deficits this causes are going to be outpaced by growth. Almost no one is explicitly anti growth, with me and my minority opinion being a more grave "sinner" in this case than most lefties.
The fact is, the only anti growth people I've come across are, as the article said, a niche group of climate activists who believe we need to stop growing to stop climate change, and the anti work crowd, especially anarchists who support abolishing the state and capitalism.
Even hard line tankie socialists are growth oriented. Despite their grievances with working conditions of the west, communist countries often have no problem with work, often forcing their citizens to work as long or longer than western countries in order to maximize their own countries GDP.
The fact is, there's almost no anti growth movement in the mainstream left.
And for the sake of argument, since I'm probably more "growthphobic" than most people, I have no problem with growth in and of itself. I just dislike the idea of forcing people to work in the pursuit of maximal growth. I'm pro capitalism enough to understand that it and its growth is an engine of prosperity. I just think that these concerns need to be balances both work the freedom and autonomy of individuals and their relation to work (meaning work relations should be more voluntary, and there should be more work life balance for those who do work), and with the environment. The former goes without saying as it's my favorite topic to beat to death on this blog. The latter, well, let's face it, while technology and better methods of environmental stewardship can help, do you really think that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible? We're gonna reach a hard limit somewhere. And ultimately, one way or another, we WILL run out of room for growth. Our current practices may not be sustainable, and action in a different direction may be needed. And if we don't pursue a different direction, like I do, via a voluntaryist ideology, then it's going to come through the state mandates people fear. I feel like Americans are selfish, and obsessed with increasing material wealth, to the point that they won't make even minor sacrifices for the common good. They wouldn't do it in the 1970s during the oil crisis, and they won't do it now with COVID and the Ukraine war. Maybe this is a sin in the eyes of the public, but given I see the public acts like manchildren who don't like being told "no" once in a while, I would rather stand firm in this righteousness here.
But I understand that this IS a minority opinion. And as far as the rest of the left, they just seem to roll over and support the religion of infinite growth regardless of the long term feasibility and consequences. To some extent, I cannot blame them, as they would rather ignore the problems as long as they are not forced to face them, but I'm just saying, one day they will have to, if they do not change voluntarily.
And that's my opinion on THAT. But yeah, unless you're full on anarchist or extreme environmentalist and support forcefully abolishing the system, this is not a sin in my opinion.
#4 Retro-socialism
This is another sin that is not as pervasive as people think it is. Most lefties are NOT socialists. AT MOST, in the most optimistic calculus, perhaps 1/3 are some form of "socialist", with the majority of the democratic party still trying to avoid being associated with the label. They even wanted to use Bernie's use of the label (which is admittedly a sin) against him. But no, most people do not commit this sin.
Among the third of the party that does...a lot of them aren't literal socialists. They're socdems who think socialism is when the government does things, and have equated socialism with more moderate policies. This is a sin, as it is a poor framing issue that alienates people, and as people cool on 2016, I feel like many have turned against Bernie's message because of this framing (for example, a lot of on the fence people who could have gone Bernie back then but then went Trump and became absorbed into the republicans' populist coalition). The fact is, Bernie, at most, pushed for mild forms of market socialism like codetermination. Most of his political views were more reminiscient of social democratic and social liberal ideologies like those practiced in Europe and held by FDR. Heck, most of Bernie's platform was just fulfulling FDR's second bill of rights, and promise of things like guaranteed jobs, healthcare, and education. Nothing in his platform was radical and system changing.
Still, despite this, there is another faction I want to discuss, and these are the literal socialists. These guys are not very common IRL, but frequent online circles that I am often a part of. These guys are people who since 2016, have radicalized into literal socialists, believing that capitalism has failed, and neoliberal democracy prevents change to such a degree that we need a literal revolution to accomplish change. And as such, the gloves have come off. These guys completely and utterly have gone off the rails. They are no longer satisfied with any changes that can occur under capitalism, including, arguably, much of Bernie's original platform. And on UBI, forget it. Back in 2016, I considered UBI a radical left concept the country wasn't ready for. Now suddenly it's a right wing plot to destroy welfare or something. The fact is, these guys are so fixated on socialism and revolution that they are often not even worth dealing with or listening to. I even see apologia for oppressive marxist leninist states like the USSR and China from these people sometimes. It's just scary.
Of course, THOSE guys are a minority. A very small minority. But they are vocal online and have poisoned the well on socialism, making others look bad. And sadly, they aren't challenged enough by more moderate and friendly factions. It feels like on the democratic side, it's either you're in with the party and all of its flaws and neoliberalism, or you're a socialist these days. Dissent isn't allowed either way due to the factionalism within the party.
But yeah, despite this, I have to consider this relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.
#3 Technophobia
This is one that's actually rather irksome to me. Because anyone who follows me should know one thing: I LOVE technology. To go back to the growth question, how do I expect us to continue to grow in a world with less work? TECHNOLOGY. We need more tech. We need automation. We need to have more tech doing more things for people. My ideal future is either some sort of post scarcity gay space communism a la star trek with replicators and stuff, or at the very least, it's a world where we can work a lot less, like say, the Jetsons, and we live rather well.
But...a lot of the left...doesn't.
The neoliberals, sure, maybe they're okay with tech. But they're okay with it from this weird dystopian capitalist direction where they support the goals, but then keep talking about creating jobs in a world where jobs no longer work. And this drives the rest of the left to be anti technology.
Like, really. The amount of lefties who see tech as a bad thing because of silicon valley billionaires is disturbing, and watching them crap on UBI and the like for similar reasons upsets me. It's like the left, even the non explicitly socialist left, is stuck in the mid 20th century. They have no imagination so simply want to return to the 1930s and 1970s with government mandated jobs programs, and unions, and labor power. But they still preach the religion of jobs and work unquestioningly, and at the idea that we move away from it, they oppose it as much as a work obsessed rightoid would, going on about how it's through our labor we gain our power through capital. They fear change, and instead come off as luddites who want to shift back to the past. It's weird to me. I never really was raised into this weird work fetishist version of the left, and when I shift left itself, I find it weird. But they seem to dominate most of the non neoliberal left, making them a significant force to be reckoned with when leaving traditional democratic party politics. I guess, given those battle lines I kind of understand. Technology is associated with neoliberalism, and neoliberalism is associated with job loss and the economic destruction of communities, so it does make sense for the counter movement to focus on maintaining and even restoring jobs. But this has the same energy as MAGA when you think about it. Hence why I believed there was so much across the spectrum appeal to bernie's movement. But idk. I always went more in the Yang direction of giving people money than relying on job creation. I guess I just wish there was more to politics than two options, one being progressive technologically but also destroying peoples' livelihoods without doing much to compensate for that, and various right and left wing movements of luddites. And because of how 2016 played out, I think we're getting the bad version of this dynamic playing out. But ultimately, i also think it may limit its appeal. The neolibs look at these people as the luddites they are, but these guys have very real grievances about loss of living standards. I wish the left would instead rally people on the basis of moving away from the gospel of jobs and leave the overt jobism to the right. Hillary Clinton was baffled about how she couldn't win people over despite talking constantly about jobs, but my own take on it is that yeah, because all of the job talk is hollow and we recognize it as platitudes. At least some of us want something DIFFERENT. Or at least a different ideology than the neoliberalism she preached at minimum. But yeah, elections do have consequences and due to the energy of the candidates' platforms, underlying ideologies, and coalitions, we're moving in a way that makes solving this problem problematic. For me, Andrew Yang was the person who spoke most openly and prolifically about these issues in ways that I personally related to, and his solutions matched mine. That's why I support and defend the guy so much despite being so inconsistent in actually fighting for such things in practice. Because I understand where he's coming from and ultimately want him and his brand of politics to succeed. Even if he is flawed as a person.
#2 Catastrophism
Okay, so now we're getting into MAJOR sins of the left. Sin 5 was kind of questionable if it was a sin. And sins 4 and 3 are held by certain aspects of the left, but are far from universal, and it's really vocal minorities that tend to spoil everything, and not the majority. These last two sins I feel are the most severe and pervasive, and I do believe that they are committed by vast majorities of the left in America, often in a cynical fashion to push agendas that would otherwise be unpopular.
While I do think the left has some things to learn from the concept of "shock doctrine" and not letting as good crisis go to waste, how the left generally pushes stuff is a bit more alienating than they think.
The article mostly seemed to focus on minorities of climate activists, rather than the majority of the left, but this sin is committed by the majority of the left.
First, to focus on that original context, yes, the left, a la Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Howie Hawkins, etc., do abuse this in relation to climate change. We've studied climate change before, and I'm going to be honest, it is a very serious crisis that should not be ignored. BUT, these elements of the left do exaggerate the severity, arguing we only have a few short years to solve it completely or we are DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY, and push radical and expensive political agendas to solve it. While using the crisis of climate change to push say, a jobs program is good politics, the severity of the issue IS grossly overstated, and honestly, if it's not absolutely needed, I'd rather put that money toward a UBI.
I dont blame Bernie for starting a discussion on this topic. I think he did move discussion on this issue to the left, and this is what forced Biden to adopt build back better, a much more realistic climate plan that is more moderate than Bernie's, but is based on similar principles. Think a green new deal lite. But, Biden's plan is...realistic. He aims to solve the issue more by 2050, not 2030, and the IPCC, who the far left draws their ideas from push for 2050 as a final deadline, not 2030. So we have roughly 30 years to fix this, not 10, and while we shouldnt waste time and kick the can down the road, I kind of feel the left is dishonest for exaggerating the crisis to push this.
I mean, I used to be on the right, and this kind of catastrophism on the left is nothing new. And this is actually a huge reason why climate change denialism is so common on the right. People on the right have argued that the left always makes these crazy doomsday predictions, and that they never happened (remember when it used to be global cooling and we were supposed to go into an ice age or something? a boomer will tell you). And that's the problem with catastrophism. It's the boy who cried wolf, and as such, no one listens when the real wolf shows its head. But it isn't just climate change that manifests this particularly nasty sin of the left, as I'll discuss, this is a pervasive problem that the left really needs to work on.
So...remember 2016? Remember Hillary Clinton's campaign? For much of the left, her campaign was based almost entirely on catastrophism. She offered very little to the left. if anything, she alienated us committing the OTHER pervasive sin, while offering little in terms of worthwhile politics otherwise. So what did her entire campaign rely on? What would happen to us if we DIDN'T vote for her. Her political machine was quick to point out that the court would be in peril if we didn't elect her, and constantly screamed about how if we didn't vote for her, we were DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY! Scalia dying and the congressional obstruction of a replacement just punctuated the point. And did we listen? No. Did I listen? No. Because I believed in the higher principle of not giving into extortionists. But that is the problem with catastrophism, if you overblow a catastrophe that will happen in order to score political points, you risk alienating the same people you want to support, who just won't listen to you because you pissed them off. And Clinton did this a lot in 2016.
She also did it with the Russia thing when she lost. Rather than admit and acknowledge she alienated and pissed people off, she settled in on the narrative of Russian interference. Was there Russian interference? Sure. But were many people going to listen to her about it? No, because she alienated them and lost credibility. She didnt use her voice responsibly, and given how her and her machine's behavior tried to paint all political critics as pawns of putin, both on the right among Trump voters, and also Stein voters like myself, many people just didn't want to hear it. I'm going to be honest, I tuned out a lot of the Russiagate stuff the democrats were pushing during the Trump administration. I didn't care. Because they lost their credibility with me. It seemed clear they were pushing this stuff purely as politics, and were blowing the stuff up to avoid having uncomfortable discussions about their own flaws, and I refused to take the bait, instead moving in the opposite direction and doubling down in my own perspective.
The same happened when Trump took power. People screamed he was a racist, an authoritarian, and the whole antifa became a thing. And while the left loves to gaslight and pretend those people dont exist, yeah, they did, and yeah, they were torching cars in DC on inauguration day. I even used my own voice to condemn this behavior when it happened. But yes, this is why we actually have had increased polarization in the trump era and not in a good way. A lot of the left gave up civility when Trump got into office, screaming he was a nazi, blah blah blah. And again, it seemed so overblown, that I just tuned out.
Looking at it now, there were elements of truth in all of their claims.If Hillary didnt get elected, the court was in peril, and the balances has shifted because of the trump administration. Russia did interfere with our election. And Trump is a racist and an authoritarian. A lot of the democrats' catastrophism did come true. So why is this a sin? Because of HOW they pushed their messages, and used their voice. It seemed clear to me that the left was explicitly trying to push an agenda in order to win political points for themselves. They used the points too forcefully, trying to keep people in a state of shock and awe, in which they ignore all their concerns and win the argument over them, not by beating them in a fair debate, but by distracting them. By keeping the public in a constant state of shock, it kept their mind off of other issues of more importance, and for someone like me, who cared more about my own vision than those catastrophies, I just tuned out completely. It was boy who cried wolf syndrome.
Would I act differently by the way if I had to do it all over again? No. Because if I did, I would be abandoning my own vision and being caught up in the political BS they WANT me caught up in. They dont want people thinking about UBI and healthcare, that's the point. They want people supporting them because of the court and russia and trump being bad. In a sense the democratic party amounts to starting fires and then screaming that the electorate has to put them out or else they all burn. And recognizing that for what it was, I recognized if I gave into that, it would encourage them to keep using the tactic to keep my attention off of what I want to discuss, and as such, keep me distracted in perpetuity until the tactic no longer worked and I'd have to stand up to them anyway. Therefore, no, I regret nothing. I instead blame the democrats for relying on catastrophes to push their agenda, and condemning them for alienating people, including myself. I only mention my perspective on it to explain my own approach to it, and how the power of catastrophe eventually backfires as people become callous and simply stop caring. And then whatever legitimate points they raise are then ignored. A true leader would use their power responsibly, pointing out issues not to strongarm people into political gains, but to actually point out issues they want to solve. They acknowledge the problem and frame it realistically, while not using an obnoxiously shrill voice to try to bully people into support for their causes.
So yes, this is perhaps one of the greatest sins of the modern left, but there is one that is even worse in my opinion.
#1 Identity politics
Now, some self righteous lib is gonna scoff at this and ask do I really hate identity politics that much? If so, I might be a right winger, or a white male or something. Im not going to claim innocence of any of these things. On the right wing claim, I'm an EX right winger. I was originally a Reagan/Bush conservative who listened to Rush Limbaugh, back in the early-mid 2000s. Since then I mellowed out and eventually shifted left. But, what convinced me to move left WAS NOT identity politics. Around 2012, identity politics had long been a dormant thing. I remembered Rush Limbaugh complaining about the clintons using them in the 1990s, and I remembered the 2008 primary had a lot of toxic identity poltiics being flung between the Clinton and Obama camps, but by 2012, it had long been dormant. And I came over to the left through secular humanism, and my deconversion from Christianity, as well as the realization that trickle down economics is a scam. So I built up a new left wing ideology that basically amounted to Yang's 2020 platform roughly, but with a more progressive flair.
And in 2016, I supported Bernie. Only to be constantly called a racist and sexist. And in keeping with the catastrophism of the Clinton left, I was constantly being told if I don't vote for Clinton the people who will suffer most are minorities and the like. Don't I care about the minorities? And in keeping with my psychology of tuning out the left when they try to extort me into voting for them, I developed a distaste for these politics, seeing the left as insisting I give up all of my concerns on the altar of white male liberal guilt. Sorry, not freaking doing that. Because I never cared about this stuff much. I was willing to WORK with activists on this stuff toward mutual goals pre 2016, but post 2016, I cooled on them a lot, as they showed themselves to be major ideological opponents to deal with.
So why this is #1 instead of #2, especially given the links to catastrophism? Because identity politics as practiced has far more negative implications for the future of the left than catastrophism does. Catastrophism is a form of shock doctrine intended to inundate voters in crisis after crisis to break their will and make them complacent, but the ideology that really underpins a lot of these efforts is postmodernism and identity politics. Identity politics is the unifying force that allows the democrats to bring together the coalitions it has, and is why the left is so ineffective at solving real problems. Because no matter what stripe of lefty you are, you're most likely going to be somewhat postmodernist. Even I have some elements of that perspective in my views, as you guys know if you read my understanding the times analyses. I mean, it's a legitimate perspective. But it's the one thing that does bring together the neoliberals, the left, and the minority coalitions into the democratic party. It's almost like a religion. Attracting people toward certain issues and distracting them from others. For the centrists, identity politics is the feeling that the white neolibs get for pretending to do something, without doing anything. They care. And that's all that makes you good in the church of the democrats. Loud, obnoxious, virtue signalling. Not ideas, not other ideologies, not solving problems. Just caring about the underprivileged and virtue signalling the right things. For POC, it appeals to them directly. They are an oppressed minority in this system, and no the problem isnt some broader issue with capitalism or anyrthing, it's racism. Or if you're a woman, it's sexism. or if you're gay, it's homophobia. The point is, it boils down the big debates in society to be about various isms and phobias, leaving no ground for a more broad based rights based or otherwise universal ethos that brings people together. And for the left, identity politics is a stumbling block, like everything else. Lefties like me who want things like universal healthcare, or UBI, are often encouraged to give them up and vote for the democrats on the basis of solidarity with the underprivileged. These guys just become another hostage that the democrats throw in our face, silencing us and suppressing us from doing anything.
And on society as a whole, these politics, much like catastrophism, are polarizing. Some people buy into them completely, and others are overtly driven away by them for whatever reason. Me being driven away by them due to my competing ideological framework.
And a huge problem with these politics is they do not even lend themselves to criticism, rather they encourage repression in illiberal ways, in which anyone who is against them must just be racist or sexist or transphobic what have you. Or alternatively, "privileged". A catch all term to shut down all discussion on the matter of basis on your identity.
I admit, the right does a lot of the same thing with white identity politics, and their own versions of divide and conquer, but, I feel like the identity politics really does drive away a lot of independents looking for an alternative to the GOP, only to find the democrats to be obsessed with identity. And without any other underlying ideology that resonates, many are pushed away. Some back toward the GOP, and others, like me, left politically homeless.
I admit, I'm white, I'm male, Im straight, I'm cis. I may be autistic. I guess I got that going for me, but all in all, these politics don't benefit me much. And I know people will think I'm a selfish jerk for pointing that out, but like I like to say, you cant expect me to care. And the demographics end up speaking for themselves. People with my demographic profile are overwhelmingly trumpers. The only thing that spared me that fate was being college educated. College educated people lean more left because the right has ignorant as fudge politics that appeals to ignorant as fudge people. But other than that, I'm literally just a straight up "conservative" type voter demographically. And people who fit my profile, minus the education, vote OVERWHELMINGLY conservative. Why is that? Well, there are multiple reasons, but a big one in recent years IS identity politics. Seriously. A lot of us WERE coming over prior to 2016. We millennial white men, we were raised conservative, but between the Bush years and the recession, we quickly abandoned it, first to become libertarian, and then eventually liberal. And we were becoming more and more attracted to populist left wing politics a la Yang and Bernie. Sure, the traditional neoliberal model never attracted us for many reasons. It never worked, it always had flaws, and it was always unattractive. But there was a lot of cross party appeal among more populist lefties.
But...we were always "too white", we cared too much about things like universal principles, and we quite frankly wanted to do things different. We were losing our religion, and told we were too white for that because POC lefties were religious. We were economically more left wing and social democratic than our neoliberal peers, and we were told we were too white for that. We were told we just didnt get minorities in obnoxious and alienating ways, and the identity politics in 2016 that Hillary played might have united POC behind her, but it also threw a lot of us white male progressives out of the party and the left in general in some cases.
And that's why it's the biggest sin. For as much as the democrats claim to be a big tent, they seem to have little interest in white males seeking to flee the GOP. We're not "woke", some of us might be "too racist" due to some people being impure in the eyes of the religion of wokeism. if you're not completely subservient to wokeism, you're deemed an opponent of it, which was where I ran afoul of them.
I mean, Im educated. I actually understand critical theory. I understand the issues. I sympathize to some extent. But despite getting 80% there, because I wasnt 100% there, I was deemed trash to these people, and told I either had to fall in behind them unquestioningly, or not be in their ranks at all. I chose the latter.
Seriously. Not only does wokeism and identity politics divide people and alienate them, it literally drives entire demographic blocks out of the democratic big tent, unless they're completely willing to submit to their extreme ideology. We cannot solve problems like this. And we are dividing the country. When people like Andrew yang talk about the country heading toward civil war, wokeism is a huge reason for it. Instead of giving people an ethos that unites people, it unites some, while throwing others out of the left entirely, only to be absorbed by an emerging fascist republican party in its place.
Conclusion
That said, discussing the five sins, the biggest ones are identity politics and catastrophism, which are approaches to politics that can drive entire blocs of voters out of the left entirely, and alienate people for potentially a generation. The other sins are more minor, with them only being committed among vocal minorities of lefties, rather than the democratic party at large. And the least minor of them I struggle to even see as a sin, at least in moderation.
But yeah, for most of these things, I agree, the left at large is best off if they tone down these things, or abandon them altogether. We need a left that is at least not overtly anti growth, that tends to not abuse the S word (socialism), that is pro technology, and doesnt engage in obnoxious catastrophism and identity politics that polarize people and at times drive entire demographics away from them as a result.If we did those things, we would be in a lot better shaped and more able to bring together a diverse coalition of people to solve the problems of the 21st century. As long as the left commits these sins, they are limiting their appeal to people outside of their core groups of support, which quite frankly leaves a lot on the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment