A very interesting post, characteristically calm and thoughtful; and Silver’s track record of understanding American politics is certainly better than most people’s (and certainly better than mine). An excerpt, although you should read the whole thing:
For example, a New York Times headline expressed surprise that “many on the left” were sympathetic to Stefanik. But this is not properly described as a battle between left and right. Rather, it is a three-way tug-of-war between left, right and liberals.
SJL proponents generally hate variations on the term “woke,” but the problem is that they also hate almost every other term. And we need that some term for this ideology because it encompasses quite a few distinctive features that distinguish it both from liberalism and from traditional socialist-oriented leftism. In particular, SJL is much less concerned with the material condition of the working class, or with the class in general. Instead, it is concerned with identity—particularly identity categories that relate to race, gender, and sexuality, but sometimes many other categories as well, as part of a kind of intersectional kaleidoscope. The focus on identity is not the only distinguishing feature of SJL, but it is at the heart of it.
SJLs and liberals have some interests in common. Both are “culturally liberal” when it comes to issues such as abortion and gay marriage. And both disdain Donald Trump and the modern, MAGA version of the Republican Party. But I think we’ve reached a point where they disagree in at least as many ways as they agree. Here are some dimensions of conflict:
- SJL’s focus on group identity stands in stark contrast to the individualism of liberalism.
- SJL, like other critical theories that emerged from the Marxist tradition, tends to totalize. For example, the whole idea of systemic racism is that the entire system is set up to oppress non-white people. Liberalism is less totalizing. This is partly because it is the entrenched status quo and is so often well served by incremental changes. But that is also because liberalism’s focus on democracy makes it intrinsically pluralistic.
- SJL, with its academic roots, often appeals to authority and expertise, rather than entrusting individuals to make their own decisions and take their own risks. This is a complicated axis of conflict because there are certainly technocratic forms of liberalism, while I, like Hayek, tend to view experts and central planners as error-prone and prefer instead more decentralized mechanisms (e.g. markets, voting , revealed preferences) for decision making.
- Finally, SJL has a radically more limited view of freedom of expression than liberalism, for which freedom of expression is a sacred principle. However, the SJL intolerance of speech that may be harmful, hateful, or spread “misinformation” has gained momentum. It is the predominant among students and it is becoming increasingly popular in certain corners of the media and even among many mainstream Democrats.
… Perhaps the progressive coalition will get lucky because MAGA-flavored conservatism remains such an unattractive alternative to people outside the Trumpiest 30 percent of the country. But both liberals and SJLs can be tempted: Liberals, for example, will be tempted by MAGA promises to dismantle DEI on campus, even though conservatives are also pretty bad at protecting academic freedom. Meanwhile, one of Hayek’s points was that socialists and conservatives had a shared tolerance, if not even reverence, for authoritarianism. SJL and MAGA could join there as well. SJL has already broken away from the liberal tradition of letting people make their own decisions — think of the since-scuttled Disinformation Governance Board, or the draconian COVID restrictions on college campuses. If Trump wins next year, this trend will worsen, and SJLs may more openly question whether democracy works at all.
The old left-right coalitions have been under pressure for some time now as America has moved from the politics of materialism to the politics of cultural discontent. The clearest manifestation of this is the intense polarization based on education level (the more years of education, the more likely you are to vote for the Democrat). However, if higher education institutions and the ideas associated with them become increasingly unpopular, I’m not sure what will happen next.
In the short term, this could be excellent news for conservatives — most voters are not college graduates to begin with, and even college-educated liberals are increasingly coming to view SJL ideas as weird and unappealing. In the long run, as anger over October 7 and the pandemic era fades, conservatives will need to offer a more attractive alternative as the current version of the Republican Party embraces many deeply unpopular ideas of its own and only favors the most polarizing, MAGA- Most Republicans can reliably win the Republican primaries. The past twenty years of American politics have been largely characterized by stability: the electoral map of 2020 did not look much different from that of 2000. If the progressive coalition disintegrates, the next twenty could take on a much more fluid character.