Since the rise of social justice as a religion, and accelerating after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, some folks have “awoken” more than others. My old pal, Radley Balko, is one them, having had an epiphany along the way. Once the Agitator, he surprisingly, yet not at all surprisingly, took his former roomies and colleagues at the libertarian magazine Reason to task. Radley, a long-time libertarian, had a beef.
So shortly after the 2016 election, I pointed out how odd it was that the Reason homepage was dominated by stories either mocking and ridiculing the left for being fearful of what was to come, or articles about how Trump might actually be good for libertarians. https://t.co/p12e5UjFXJ
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) November 10, 2020
On the one hand, there was no shortage of constant outrage and hysteria toward Trump, such that Reason’s not pulling a New York Times-level seven editorials a day about how Trump was literally Hitler was missing from the dialogue. on the other hand, assuming one accepted the premise that Trump was a vulgar, amoral, deceitful ignoramus, obsessing over his every burp and fart was neither new nor illuminating. “Trump said something stupid” could be an hourly headline.
At the same time, there was the other side of the horseshoe counterbalancing the fringe right that was a lot easier to love, and a lot harder to criticize. One side had the putative political power, while the other side had the social power of the mob. One did its damage. The other did its damage. Radley posed the question of why, in his view, Reason challenged both mobs rather than relished the opportunity to burn people at the stake.
Yet instead of embracing the momentum, forging alliances, and converting it into useful reform, many libertarians …
… belittled the activists pushing “defund” as impractical, radical, pie-in-the-sky. *We* are supposed to be radical, impractical, pie-in-the-sky! A big part of this is that many libertarians still see the left as a bigger threat than the right. I’m baffled by this given…
… the last four years, and what’s happening right now.
It’s a fair question, although Radley framed it as a strawman, which reflects where he’s gone as opposed to where Reason went. The problem with “defund the police” wasn’t that it was “impractical, radical, pie-in-the-sky,” but it was ignorant, simplistic and counterproductive. Calling it “radical” might be true, but then radical isn’t remotely the same as effective. It’s can also mean ridiculous.
The problem with “forging alliances” is that progressives demand ideological purity. Either you were an obsequious sycophant, also known as an “ally,” or you were all the -ists that compelled your destruction. There was no “alliance” to be forged with people to whom every heretic needs to be destroyed, and everyone not teetering on the left edge of social justice was evil. Not merely wrong, but actually evil.
But the big question was why libertarians see the “left as a bigger threat than the right.” This “baffles” Radley, but even though I’m not a libertarian, perhaps I can offer an answer. First, this question, too, is oddly framed. It”s not that the left is a “bigger threat,” but a different threat. This was a point I had made earlier to Conor Friedersdorf.
As someone best characterized as center left, I’m far more concerned with the potential harm of the left fringe than the right.
Maybe I’m expecting too much. Maybe I’m doing it wrong. But I fear social justice ideology is far more insidious than flagrant racists.
To many, this was tantamount to being a Nazi sympathizer, as sadly the nuance of “insidiousness” was lost on the unduly passionate and perpetually outraged. What attraction did Trump, white supremacists or flagrant racists have to anyone who wasn’t already on board with their views? They were what they were, obvious to all. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, to entice the unwary. If you were inclined to the brutish, there they were. There wasn’t much more to it.
But social justice? It was the tool of the righteous, who usurped liberal goals like equality and twisted them to their malignant ends. It claimed to own empathy and compassion while destroying anyone who stood in its way. if you were against racism and sexism, it was an alluring option, provided you didn’t notice the fist inside the velvet glove.
It’s easy to see the big, dumb oaf standing in front of you, and know that you oppose him. It’s harder to recognize the people whispering sweet nothings in your ear from behind, ready to stick in the knife and gut you the moment you question their authoritarian demands for control.
It didn’t seem useful for Reason to parrot the daily grievances lining the bird cages of New York Times readers. There was nothing new to be said, and no lack of willing shriekers. Was it not their purpose, Radley’s purpose when he was merely the Agitator, to raise the insidious problems that the mob failed to recognize?
When this was a nation that adored its cops, couldn’t get enough Law & Order and voted for whomever called for the most Draconian punishments, Reason was challenging the mob. Radley was challenging the mob. Me too. We weren’t saying it because it was popular with huge groups of fans, but because it wasn’t. The slogan of “speaking truth to power” is slick, but over the past few years, power was split between the government, who had official power, and the mob, who learned to wield its torches and pitchforks with astounding and deadly efficacy.
So why did Reason appear, at least to Radley’s eyes, to be overly harsh on the left while not losing their minds over every instance of Trumpian insanity?
I’m glad Biden’s win means libertarians…
… will go back to being alarmists. But given the approach too many libertarians took during the Trump years, I suspect it’s going to be even more difficult to get people to listen.
Popularity is a dangerous drug. Maybe the libertarians want to be addicted to it, even if it means linking arms with the very authoritarians they abhor, if only to their left rather than their right. Beats me, because I’m no libertarian. But challenging the insidious mob is harder than challenging the obvious mob, especially when one basks in the mob’s adoration by embracing its ideology.
And I can’t really blame them.
That’s why the social justice mob is so insidious, luring those who once challenged the tyranny of the majority to its ranks, basking in the warm comfort of insipid adoration until he’s brought to his knees and silenced for heresy. But if the libertarians are what I believe them to be, there will still be a place for those who reject mob orthodoxy. They seem like a pretty tolerant bunch.
No comments:
Post a Comment