The Divided States of America
The United States may have arrived at the most significant crossroads in its history since the widespread political violence of the 1960s and, perhaps, even since the Civil War of the 1860s. If the recent trend of radical ideas creeping from the margins to the mainstream continues, I am concerned that those responsible will push Americans to the limits of what we are willing to tolerate.
If not directly, aggressively confronted with clear, reasonable speech, peaceful protest, and compelled accountability to the rule of law, I believe continued extremist overreach will inevitably lead to widespread violence as more Americans become unwilling to “substitute the ballot for the bullet.”
The narratives that drive efforts to “Make America Great Again” and the response that “America Was Never Great,” while each contains elements of truth, reduce an extremely complex history in service of two incompatible, reductionist political positions. There is a great deal of relevant historical context left out of both narratives.
For some reason, highly educated people seem to gravitate more often to the second, unreasonably negative framing of American history and society. Thus, there is ample evidence of documented Right-wing overreach in the scholarly literature. As a result, I believe the pendulum has swung too far toward a cynical Neo-Marxist interpretation of American history that functions to justify mob violence and insurrection from the contemporary Left.
In an effort to reduce political violence on the basis of what I consider false or grossly exaggerated and one-sided beliefs, I aim to persuade readers (if you are not already persuaded) to think more critically about the Left's "America bad" narrative.
"America Bad"
The role of conquest, slavery, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and brutality in America’s history are well documented. People whose recent ancestry (i.e., about 500 years ago) traces back primarily to places outside of Europe, religious minorities, people who challenged rigid gender roles, and other marginalized groups were oppressed throughout much of the country’s history.
Most Americans are well aware of those facts, as well as present-day inequalities among various identity groups in the United States. Where reasonable people disagree is about how we should respond to these facts, how much we have done to address them already and the degree to which those efforts have worked, and which other relevant factors ought to also be taken into consideration in these discussions.
Yet, these important conversations are nearly impossible to have in the present political moment. The prevailing cultural- political narrative of the American Left suggests that all disparities of outcome among groups are most certainly due, in their entirety, to oppression, institutionalized racism and sexism, hate speech, micro-aggressions, unconscious bias, and ubiquitous hate crimes and violence targeted at members of historically marginalized groups.
It also implies that rightwing speech, the alt-Right, and a “fascist” Trump administration currently present the greatest threats to American democracy and pluralism. Although racism, historical oppression, and persistent inequality are, indeed, significant issues in the present-day United States, I believe that far-Left and allied identitarian movements’ proposed solutions to these problems have, in fact, exacerbated them.
I am convinced that at this point in history the far-Left, rather than the far-Right, presents the most significant obstacles to the continuation of the country’s remarkable progress toward the realization of its founding ideals.
Growing intolerance and authoritarianism on the Left—logical consequences of the belief that utopian ends are justified "by any means necessary" - threaten to undermine the gains of the civil rights era and the remarkable accomplishments of American constitutional democracy and our largely market-based economy.
Undermining these systems will also likely undermine the sustainability of the considerable social safety nets, educational and economic opportunities, social cohesion, tolerance, and pluralism they have progressively enabled.
Obstacles to Constructive Public Deliberations
What I am saying here may seem reactionary, but I sincerely believe and will try to convince you that my arguments are both ethically justified and well-warranted with empirical evidence and rational argument. I encourage readers to work through any impulse to instinctively label and dismiss uncomfortable ideas without considering their evidence and implications.
I believe these emotional obstacles to thoughtful consideration of reasonable dissent from prevailing orthodoxies are intentional results of decades of culture-shaping and psychological programming through our social and political institutions.
I welcome constructive criticism from anyone who comes in good faith, sincerely cares about the pursuit of truth and justice, and embraces principles of basic equality, liberty, and reciprocity. I will try to do the same and am open to changing my mind and correcting the record when I am shown to be wrong about something.
Post-Truth Chaos and Identity Politics
Have we inherited a postmodern situation in which significant numbers of people from all groups have given up on the prospect of universal principles of reason, truth, and justice to solve political disputes in our diverse society? Maybe that's just where our nation is today? I hope not. I'm still trying to appeal to liberal principles as a means of resolving conflict.
I understand how people from other groups might consider the far-Right to be the greatest present threat to themselves & our country. I can respect that. In fact, most of my scholarship has been dedicated to challenging threats to liberal democracy & pluralism from the far-Right.
Donald Trump and many among his core political supporters are shockingly dishonest and uncivil. But, in my judgment, so are many people on the Left (I believed this to be the case long before Trump's presidential campaign). They just enjoy the privilege of using a moralistic rhetoric of -isms and phobias to silence criticism of their bad ideas and behavior.
The Left has done a lot of good things for our country and are responsible for much of our historical progress toward our founding ideals. But I believe progressives have considerably overreached in recent decades and Trumpism is a predictable over-reaction.
Consider the fact that, after a broad coalition of Americans secured universal liberty and equality under the law for all citizens following the civil rights era, the postmodernist, neo-Marxist New Left drastically moved the goalposts to total cultural, political, and economic transformation.
In my judgment, the far-Left is most responsible for fostering identity politics, undermining social cohesion and a common national identity, and deconstructing modernist, Western enlightenment notions of mutuality, objective truth, and classical liberal justice since the late 1960s.
I am persuaded that it is more accurate to see Trumpism, the alt-Right, and populist nationalism as a predictable counter-revolutionary over-reaction to rather than the cause of many of our current political and social problems.
In stark contrast to the mainstream Left's hyperbolic narrative of ubiquitous oppression from the Right, I am personally more concerned about bigotry and intolerant authoritarianism from the far-Left.
I believe that the greatest present threats to liberal democracy and pluralism come from Antifa and Black Lives Matter militants, radical identitarians, and socialists on the far-Left. Though there are objective arguments why I believe this is the case, I imagine my own subjectivity has a lot to do with this politically charged, controversial value judgment.
For example, I am a European American male of German, Scots-Irish, English, and French heritage; so I identify and others identify me as a white man. These aspects of my identity are personally meaningful to me, and I view them in positive terms.
I do so with no hatred toward people from other identity groups. I also respect others' rights to personally identify with whatever group however they want. However, others' feelings about my subjective identity matter to me about as much as I imagine my feelings about their subjective identities matter to them - that is to say, not a whole lot.
When people like me say innocuous things like this it tends to shock and anger people on the Left. Why is this? I suspect because it challenges their unearned power and privilege. That is, I believe that the contemporary Left's power is derived, not from holding the moral high ground, the reasonableness of their ideas, or appeals to universal principles, but from privileged appeals to emotion, identity, mob harassment, and moral shaming of political opponents.
When people like me explicitly tell them we won't play by their non-reciprocated, irrational, illiberal rules, they don't know how to respond. Maybe they have simply lost the plot? Maybe our nation's remarkable progress has brought us to the point where they need to ditch far-Left Marxist nonsense and consider embracing Mills, Rawls, or some other principled liberal centrist as a political compromise?
Especially in a deeply divided, extremely diverse society, any political compromise needs to appeal to universal principles of ethics and justice. Likewise, any truth claims or political demands that we expect others to take seriously should be supported by public reasons and evidence that reasonable adults should be able to understand.
Alas, we find ourselves in a "post-Truth" era in which our central social institutions, cultural masters, and political leadership have little credibility with substantial portions of the public.
Many on the Right, for instance, reject the well-warranted scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, the body of empirical evidence demonstrating that human beings contribute significantly to climate change, and the scientific consensus that wearing masks and socially distancing can significantly slow the spread of Covid-19 and help prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed with sick patients.
Many on the Left also reject the well-warranted scientific theory of evolution by natural selection – at least insofar as it applies to human populations. That is, zealous commitments to rationally indefensible, radical egalitarian positions prevent them from acknowledging that various human populations evolved in relative isolation for at least 40,000 years prior to the age of European exploration, which began in the late 15th century.
Fears of appearing racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted toward historically non-dominant groups apparently compel most on the contemporary Left to talk as if all group-based disparities of outcome are certainly caused solely by oppression. But how do they know this to be true? And what are reasonable people to make of the postmodern Left's widespread rejection of the very notion of objective truth?
Though some of the more creative and intellectually limber socialists suggest institutions can mysteriously take on human agency and oppress even without actual oppressors, the implication is clear: People doing better than you, in any way, are doing so because of injustice.
This is the implicit message from the mainstream Left, though it is most often framed in a euphemistic rhetoric of peace, love, and unity. It follows that opposition to radical politics and irrational epistemology is oppressive, hateful, and divisive.
Sweeping generalizations and grand narratives assert that human injustice causes all social problems, foreclosing the possibility of cosmic injustice contributing to any group-based disparities of outcome prior to or in lieu of any serious inquiry into other plausible explanations.
For instance, progressives implicitly endorse Rousseau's "myth of the noble savage," perhaps because acknowledging how violent, cruel, and unjust most of human history has been would also require them to acknowledge that all Americans and others living in contemporary liberal democracies are remarkably "privileged" by comparison to almost everyone in the world - past or present.
Likewise, perhaps most importantly, taking a deeper and more accurate historical perspective would compel principled progressives to acknowledge that our "oppressive" society is, in fact, objectively more free, peaceful, and prosperous than perhaps any other civilization in human history.
Furthermore, simply because the possibility conflicts with their political commitments, many on the Left suggest it would be totally reasonable for evolution to have had no influence, whatsoever, on the human differences that we observe today.
While most people who study such questions take an agnostic position about whether this is, in fact, true, the social justice orthodox, faith-based assumption that evolution played absolutely no role in socially significant human differences rests on a truly astounding mathematical improbability. It nevertheless dominates contemporary discourse on the intersections of identity and politics.
This phenomenon is significant because the far-Left's hyperbolic "oppressor-oppressed" rhetoric and resulting militant activism and policy proposals suggest that it should be obvious to everyone that all group-based disparities of outcome result solely from oppression at the hands of pathologically evil Straight (i.e., homophobic, trans-phobic, etc.), White (racist, white supremacist, etc.), Males (sexist, patriarchal, misogynistic, etc.).
The absence of compelling evidence of widespread oppression from these groups in 2020 requires impressive mental gymnastics to blame all group-based inequality of outcome on invisible (yet omnipresent and omnipotent) "systemic" or "structural" oppression.
That is, oppression must be endemic in the liberal democratic ("fascist," "white supremacist," "heteronormative patriarchal") institutions because they were originally established by straight white males, who tend to be over-represented in high status positions. It follows, because group-based inequality of outcome persists today, different standards as well as redistributive policies and practices are necessary to "correct" this social injustice.
Whatever else this is, it is not ethical or just. It is irrational, bigoted, unsustainable, and overtly discriminatory. The most pressing obstacle to unity, therefore, is that some Americans prioritize the pursuit of group-based equality of outcome by any means necessary on the basis of these unwarranted beliefs - reason and basic standards of decency toward one's political opponents be damned.
Other Americans believe far-Left philosophies, policies, and practices are profoundly delusional and destructive. Most of them/us prioritize national sovereignty, security, family, reciprocity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Because the Left dominates so much of our "respectable" public discourse, however, expressing these perfectly reasonable beliefs, values, and commitments is enough have oneself labelled with a litany of -isms and -phobias and pushed to the margins of polite society.
Our Political Present
Over 20 years of studying and teaching history, philosophy, economics, and politics has convinced me that the most rational and least oppressive of all imperfect political systems is a constitutional democracy with a mostly market-based economy - a system guided by the ideals on which our country was founded and toward which it has made remarkable progress.
A substantial portion of the American people today (especially during the Trump presidency), however, talk as if our country is (or is/was becoming) a fascist dictatorship. On that counter-factual basis, an increasingly unhinged far-Left wages violent and destructive insurrection. In comparison to the level of force necessary to retake our city streets, anarchist, communist, and black chauvinist militants are handled with kid-gloves by a heavily restrained, liberal democratic (or, perhaps “democratic socialist”) police force.
Meanwhile, "useful idiots" on the mainstream Left gaslight gullible Americans into accepting the absurd notion that these violent uprisings against our constitutional, democratic government are justified. For example, otherwise sane Americans support the radical Black Lives Matter organization.
Most haven't the foggiest notion that the organization’s leaders admit they are "trained Marxists" functioning as a revolutionary vanguard. Neo-Marxist identity politicians may have, in fact, successfully stoked racial resentment and anti-American sentiment to the point of no return for our frayed social fabric.
The far-Left's ratcheted-up 50-plus-year-long cultural and political revolution is allegedly justified by an "evil oppressor in every corner" narrative that directly contradicts the best social science. This "socially constructed" conspiracy theory erroneously claims that a structurally racist police force is systematically killing innocent black victims on the arbitrary basis of their skin color.
In a country of 40 million black people, what number of unarmed, innocent black victims per year clearly murdered for no good reason by police would justify this sweeping indictment? How many sensationalized, out of context video clips constitutes a "systemic" campaign of targeted, racial genocide? Think about that for a minute.
The hyperbolic rhetoric of "racist cops gunning innocent black people down in the streets" is inspiring violence and destruction. By any rational standard, this assertion is clearly not true. It is destroying the social cohesion needed to keep the country intact. Furthermore, the movement's excesses drive away potential allies and distract from very real problems of violent crime, police brutality, and racial profiling, harming millions of African Americans.
On the basis of BLM's demonstrably false narrative, more people have been killed in riots in the last 3 or 4 months than the total of 15 unarmed black people (out of a population of around 40 million African Americans) who were shot to death by police during the entire year of 2019!
It seems like every time a black person is shot or killed by police, no matter the context, nearly instantaneous riots inevitably begin. Yet, most of these cherry-picked, non-representative, sensationalized, out of context cases turn out far less clear cut than their violent and destructive behavior should require.
Most Americans are willfully ignorant of rationally uncontested facts that
(A) black men make up 6-7% of the U.S. population but commit over 50% of the murders in this country and (B) despite being outnumbered 5 to 1 by white Americans, black Americans are far overrepresented among perpetrators of inter-racial violence (perpetrators who are black are responsible for 85% of the interracial violence between the two groups).
These facts should be known. They should compel people to reject the delusional belief that, in today's America, evil white people are constantly engaging in acts of targeted violence against innocent black victims. This is not a reasonable belief. It is also causing great harm, division, and violence.
Thus, it should be understandable how hard it is for opponents on the Right to stand patiently on the sidelines, quietly watching as aggressive, intolerant "trained Marxist" militants call for violent revolution on the basis of a patently absurd notion that our country, its liberal, democratic institutions, and every single member of my racial/ethnic group are irredeemably evil and oppressive.
Identity and (In)Tolerance
Many on the Left are unwilling to tolerate peaceful demonstrations against and dissent from social justice orthodoxy. Many on the Right seem increasingly less willing to tolerate lawlessness, the initiation of violence, and State discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics of identity, regardless of a person's politics, identity, or worldview. These are mutually exclusive, logically incompatible visions for America's future. These - and not fascism vs. anti-fascism or racism vs. anti-racism, as the Left often suggests - are the real choices we face as a nation.
I believe that if America continues down its fifty year path toward the far-Left's vision of intersectional socialism and discriminating (in)tolerance, it will undermine any remaining social cohesion in this country. Millions of other American patriots and I are unwilling to tolerate those who would use violence or other forms of coercion to impose intersectional socialism on an unwilling population.
Those who have framed the predominant narrative on the Left appear to believe justice requires society to be governed by laws and institutional policies and practices that openly discriminate against some and in favor of others. This is the pernicious philosophy of intersectional socialism. I, like many other Americans, fundamentally reject this vision for our country and consider it a political nonstarter.
Likewise, I adamantly oppose public laws, policies, & practices proposed by authoritarians on the far-Right that would openly discriminate against individual members of what many on the Left consider oppressed victim groups. For instance, I am a married, heterosexual family man. However, I consider all consenting relationships among adults morally equal and believe the government should not discriminate against people in any such relationship.
I was raised as a Catholic, which undoubtedly influenced who I am today, but I am tolerant of other people's freedom to practice their religion or live according to their worldview, so long as they do not infringe upon others' right to do the same.
Calling all opponents' (including classical liberals) of the far-Left "fascists" and "racists" is disingenuous, harmful nonsense. It is inspiring violence and needs to stop. For instance, almost no Republicans disagree with the unobjectionable assertion that black lives matter.
We just recognize that different human populations have different statistically significant patterns of behavior. We are convinced that comparatively high rates of violent crime in poor black neighborhoods necessitate the active presence of law enforcement to enhance and maintain public safety.
The fact that the vast majority of African Americans also want the police to continue the same level of patrols in their neighborhoods is further evidence of BLM's radical, revolutionary vanguard positions.
Republicans are not evil, racist, fascists. We do not want to dominate or oppress others. We simply want all people to follow the same laws and be held to the same standards in our diverse, multi-racial constitutional democracy. Nearly all Americans oppose imperialism, slavery, genocide, and any other form of unjust violence, repression of human rights, or other nonconsensual human interaction.
Most of us would be happy to be true allies (i.e., equal partners with reciprocal terms of cooperation) to anyone who wants to fight these evils. But, like our opponents, there are also limits to what we are willing to tolerate. Emotional manipulation and social shaming campaigns will no longer intimidate or silence us. We will never be the sort of "allies" (i.e., groveling toadies to identitarian militants on the far-Left) that Antifa, BLM, and other intersectional socialists demand of us.
Unlike many on the Left, we don't believe that a long history of cosmic and human
injustice necessitates a radical intersectional socialist diagnosis and prescribed treatment. We consider any form of Marxism a non-starter.
I personally believe that intersectional socialism in a diverse society like ours would require perpetual discrimination and selective violation of individual rights on the basis of immutable intersecting identity categories. I, for one, do not consent to this vision for our future. Surely people on the Left care about consenting, mutually-beneficial relationships? If our country is to remain intact, both the Right and the Left have to commit to reciprocal terms of cooperation.
Therefore, as an embodied subject with a full range of human interests, I will not cooperate with any individual, group, system, or institution that uses identity groups as a basis for denying anyone - including me - equal treatment as a human being.
What About Our Future?
I want to draw others' attention to what I consider counter-factual rhetoric that functions to disguise many of intersectional socialism's intolerant and undemocratic
means to utopian ends. I will directly challenge the intolerance, bigotry, and political violence used to suppress dissent from this increasingly predominant, irrational, dogmatic worldview.
As the phenomenon of Donald Trump’s presidency has clearly shown, nor will we maintain a commitment to civility, mutuality, and compromise while a subversive enemy wages a violent revolution to impose its will on an unwilling population. Many of us are running out of patience with the violent, intolerant far-Left and its "long march" to further bend our liberal, democratic institutions toward intersectional socialist dystopia. This project is an all-out effort on my part to encourage a peaceful political alternative to escalating violence and anarchy before it's too late.
It is my wish that, if those on the far-Left falsely believe America is fundamentally and irredeemably oppressive (as opposed to being one of the most free and prosperous countries in all of human history), they will pursue a peaceful path to political independence from their alleged oppressors rather than continuing their increasingly transparent and violent quest to suppress all political opposition to their ongoing revolution.
I began this project as an effort to freely express controversial views in a peaceful effort to resist this vision for America's future. To borrow a line from Dylan Thomas, however, I will not "go gentle into that good night" as the far-Left vanguard, with the help of the mainstream Left, routinely slanders, harasses, campaigns to "cancel," and initiates violence against those who do not toe the line.
Just as our opponents constantly say they are willing to use any means necessary in pursuit of intersectional socialist ends, the millions of American patriots who share my views are equally willing to use whatever means we consider necessary to defend ourselves against an increasingly emboldened far-Left and preserve constitutional democracy.
Opponents of the Trump administration called themselves "the resistance." Those who use such militant rhetoric should be aware, however, that opponents of the authoritarian Left, will also resist any philosophy, group, or individual that would destroy our great civilization in pursuit of utopia. If necessary, we will use any means necessary to defend ourselves and preserve individual liberty, equality under the law, and constitutional democracy for all American citizens.
If not directly, aggressively confronted with clear, reasonable speech, peaceful protest, and compelled accountability to the rule of law, I believe continued extremist overreach will inevitably lead to widespread violence as more Americans become unwilling to “substitute the ballot for the bullet.”
The narratives that drive efforts to “Make America Great Again” and the response that “America Was Never Great,” while each contains elements of truth, reduce an extremely complex history in service of two incompatible, reductionist political positions. There is a great deal of relevant historical context left out of both narratives.
For some reason, highly educated people seem to gravitate more often to the second, unreasonably negative framing of American history and society. Thus, there is ample evidence of documented Right-wing overreach in the scholarly literature. As a result, I believe the pendulum has swung too far toward a cynical Neo-Marxist interpretation of American history that functions to justify mob violence and insurrection from the contemporary Left.
In an effort to reduce political violence on the basis of what I consider false or grossly exaggerated and one-sided beliefs, I aim to persuade readers (if you are not already persuaded) to think more critically about the Left's "America bad" narrative.
"America Bad"
The role of conquest, slavery, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and brutality in America’s history are well documented. People whose recent ancestry (i.e., about 500 years ago) traces back primarily to places outside of Europe, religious minorities, people who challenged rigid gender roles, and other marginalized groups were oppressed throughout much of the country’s history.
Most Americans are well aware of those facts, as well as present-day inequalities among various identity groups in the United States. Where reasonable people disagree is about how we should respond to these facts, how much we have done to address them already and the degree to which those efforts have worked, and which other relevant factors ought to also be taken into consideration in these discussions.
Yet, these important conversations are nearly impossible to have in the present political moment. The prevailing cultural- political narrative of the American Left suggests that all disparities of outcome among groups are most certainly due, in their entirety, to oppression, institutionalized racism and sexism, hate speech, micro-aggressions, unconscious bias, and ubiquitous hate crimes and violence targeted at members of historically marginalized groups.
It also implies that rightwing speech, the alt-Right, and a “fascist” Trump administration currently present the greatest threats to American democracy and pluralism. Although racism, historical oppression, and persistent inequality are, indeed, significant issues in the present-day United States, I believe that far-Left and allied identitarian movements’ proposed solutions to these problems have, in fact, exacerbated them.
I am convinced that at this point in history the far-Left, rather than the far-Right, presents the most significant obstacles to the continuation of the country’s remarkable progress toward the realization of its founding ideals.
Growing intolerance and authoritarianism on the Left—logical consequences of the belief that utopian ends are justified "by any means necessary" - threaten to undermine the gains of the civil rights era and the remarkable accomplishments of American constitutional democracy and our largely market-based economy.
Undermining these systems will also likely undermine the sustainability of the considerable social safety nets, educational and economic opportunities, social cohesion, tolerance, and pluralism they have progressively enabled.
Obstacles to Constructive Public Deliberations
What I am saying here may seem reactionary, but I sincerely believe and will try to convince you that my arguments are both ethically justified and well-warranted with empirical evidence and rational argument. I encourage readers to work through any impulse to instinctively label and dismiss uncomfortable ideas without considering their evidence and implications.
I believe these emotional obstacles to thoughtful consideration of reasonable dissent from prevailing orthodoxies are intentional results of decades of culture-shaping and psychological programming through our social and political institutions.
I welcome constructive criticism from anyone who comes in good faith, sincerely cares about the pursuit of truth and justice, and embraces principles of basic equality, liberty, and reciprocity. I will try to do the same and am open to changing my mind and correcting the record when I am shown to be wrong about something.
Post-Truth Chaos and Identity Politics
Have we inherited a postmodern situation in which significant numbers of people from all groups have given up on the prospect of universal principles of reason, truth, and justice to solve political disputes in our diverse society? Maybe that's just where our nation is today? I hope not. I'm still trying to appeal to liberal principles as a means of resolving conflict.
I understand how people from other groups might consider the far-Right to be the greatest present threat to themselves & our country. I can respect that. In fact, most of my scholarship has been dedicated to challenging threats to liberal democracy & pluralism from the far-Right.
Donald Trump and many among his core political supporters are shockingly dishonest and uncivil. But, in my judgment, so are many people on the Left (I believed this to be the case long before Trump's presidential campaign). They just enjoy the privilege of using a moralistic rhetoric of -isms and phobias to silence criticism of their bad ideas and behavior.
The Left has done a lot of good things for our country and are responsible for much of our historical progress toward our founding ideals. But I believe progressives have considerably overreached in recent decades and Trumpism is a predictable over-reaction.
Consider the fact that, after a broad coalition of Americans secured universal liberty and equality under the law for all citizens following the civil rights era, the postmodernist, neo-Marxist New Left drastically moved the goalposts to total cultural, political, and economic transformation.
In my judgment, the far-Left is most responsible for fostering identity politics, undermining social cohesion and a common national identity, and deconstructing modernist, Western enlightenment notions of mutuality, objective truth, and classical liberal justice since the late 1960s.
I am persuaded that it is more accurate to see Trumpism, the alt-Right, and populist nationalism as a predictable counter-revolutionary over-reaction to rather than the cause of many of our current political and social problems.
In stark contrast to the mainstream Left's hyperbolic narrative of ubiquitous oppression from the Right, I am personally more concerned about bigotry and intolerant authoritarianism from the far-Left.
I believe that the greatest present threats to liberal democracy and pluralism come from Antifa and Black Lives Matter militants, radical identitarians, and socialists on the far-Left. Though there are objective arguments why I believe this is the case, I imagine my own subjectivity has a lot to do with this politically charged, controversial value judgment.
For example, I am a European American male of German, Scots-Irish, English, and French heritage; so I identify and others identify me as a white man. These aspects of my identity are personally meaningful to me, and I view them in positive terms.
I do so with no hatred toward people from other identity groups. I also respect others' rights to personally identify with whatever group however they want. However, others' feelings about my subjective identity matter to me about as much as I imagine my feelings about their subjective identities matter to them - that is to say, not a whole lot.
When people like me say innocuous things like this it tends to shock and anger people on the Left. Why is this? I suspect because it challenges their unearned power and privilege. That is, I believe that the contemporary Left's power is derived, not from holding the moral high ground, the reasonableness of their ideas, or appeals to universal principles, but from privileged appeals to emotion, identity, mob harassment, and moral shaming of political opponents.
When people like me explicitly tell them we won't play by their non-reciprocated, irrational, illiberal rules, they don't know how to respond. Maybe they have simply lost the plot? Maybe our nation's remarkable progress has brought us to the point where they need to ditch far-Left Marxist nonsense and consider embracing Mills, Rawls, or some other principled liberal centrist as a political compromise?
Especially in a deeply divided, extremely diverse society, any political compromise needs to appeal to universal principles of ethics and justice. Likewise, any truth claims or political demands that we expect others to take seriously should be supported by public reasons and evidence that reasonable adults should be able to understand.
Alas, we find ourselves in a "post-Truth" era in which our central social institutions, cultural masters, and political leadership have little credibility with substantial portions of the public.
Many on the Right, for instance, reject the well-warranted scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, the body of empirical evidence demonstrating that human beings contribute significantly to climate change, and the scientific consensus that wearing masks and socially distancing can significantly slow the spread of Covid-19 and help prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed with sick patients.
Many on the Left also reject the well-warranted scientific theory of evolution by natural selection – at least insofar as it applies to human populations. That is, zealous commitments to rationally indefensible, radical egalitarian positions prevent them from acknowledging that various human populations evolved in relative isolation for at least 40,000 years prior to the age of European exploration, which began in the late 15th century.
Fears of appearing racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted toward historically non-dominant groups apparently compel most on the contemporary Left to talk as if all group-based disparities of outcome are certainly caused solely by oppression. But how do they know this to be true? And what are reasonable people to make of the postmodern Left's widespread rejection of the very notion of objective truth?
Though some of the more creative and intellectually limber socialists suggest institutions can mysteriously take on human agency and oppress even without actual oppressors, the implication is clear: People doing better than you, in any way, are doing so because of injustice.
This is the implicit message from the mainstream Left, though it is most often framed in a euphemistic rhetoric of peace, love, and unity. It follows that opposition to radical politics and irrational epistemology is oppressive, hateful, and divisive.
Sweeping generalizations and grand narratives assert that human injustice causes all social problems, foreclosing the possibility of cosmic injustice contributing to any group-based disparities of outcome prior to or in lieu of any serious inquiry into other plausible explanations.
For instance, progressives implicitly endorse Rousseau's "myth of the noble savage," perhaps because acknowledging how violent, cruel, and unjust most of human history has been would also require them to acknowledge that all Americans and others living in contemporary liberal democracies are remarkably "privileged" by comparison to almost everyone in the world - past or present.
Likewise, perhaps most importantly, taking a deeper and more accurate historical perspective would compel principled progressives to acknowledge that our "oppressive" society is, in fact, objectively more free, peaceful, and prosperous than perhaps any other civilization in human history.
Furthermore, simply because the possibility conflicts with their political commitments, many on the Left suggest it would be totally reasonable for evolution to have had no influence, whatsoever, on the human differences that we observe today.
While most people who study such questions take an agnostic position about whether this is, in fact, true, the social justice orthodox, faith-based assumption that evolution played absolutely no role in socially significant human differences rests on a truly astounding mathematical improbability. It nevertheless dominates contemporary discourse on the intersections of identity and politics.
This phenomenon is significant because the far-Left's hyperbolic "oppressor-oppressed" rhetoric and resulting militant activism and policy proposals suggest that it should be obvious to everyone that all group-based disparities of outcome result solely from oppression at the hands of pathologically evil Straight (i.e., homophobic, trans-phobic, etc.), White (racist, white supremacist, etc.), Males (sexist, patriarchal, misogynistic, etc.).
The absence of compelling evidence of widespread oppression from these groups in 2020 requires impressive mental gymnastics to blame all group-based inequality of outcome on invisible (yet omnipresent and omnipotent) "systemic" or "structural" oppression.
That is, oppression must be endemic in the liberal democratic ("fascist," "white supremacist," "heteronormative patriarchal") institutions because they were originally established by straight white males, who tend to be over-represented in high status positions. It follows, because group-based inequality of outcome persists today, different standards as well as redistributive policies and practices are necessary to "correct" this social injustice.
Whatever else this is, it is not ethical or just. It is irrational, bigoted, unsustainable, and overtly discriminatory. The most pressing obstacle to unity, therefore, is that some Americans prioritize the pursuit of group-based equality of outcome by any means necessary on the basis of these unwarranted beliefs - reason and basic standards of decency toward one's political opponents be damned.
Other Americans believe far-Left philosophies, policies, and practices are profoundly delusional and destructive. Most of them/us prioritize national sovereignty, security, family, reciprocity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Because the Left dominates so much of our "respectable" public discourse, however, expressing these perfectly reasonable beliefs, values, and commitments is enough have oneself labelled with a litany of -isms and -phobias and pushed to the margins of polite society.
Our Political Present
Over 20 years of studying and teaching history, philosophy, economics, and politics has convinced me that the most rational and least oppressive of all imperfect political systems is a constitutional democracy with a mostly market-based economy - a system guided by the ideals on which our country was founded and toward which it has made remarkable progress.
A substantial portion of the American people today (especially during the Trump presidency), however, talk as if our country is (or is/was becoming) a fascist dictatorship. On that counter-factual basis, an increasingly unhinged far-Left wages violent and destructive insurrection. In comparison to the level of force necessary to retake our city streets, anarchist, communist, and black chauvinist militants are handled with kid-gloves by a heavily restrained, liberal democratic (or, perhaps “democratic socialist”) police force.
Meanwhile, "useful idiots" on the mainstream Left gaslight gullible Americans into accepting the absurd notion that these violent uprisings against our constitutional, democratic government are justified. For example, otherwise sane Americans support the radical Black Lives Matter organization.
Most haven't the foggiest notion that the organization’s leaders admit they are "trained Marxists" functioning as a revolutionary vanguard. Neo-Marxist identity politicians may have, in fact, successfully stoked racial resentment and anti-American sentiment to the point of no return for our frayed social fabric.
The far-Left's ratcheted-up 50-plus-year-long cultural and political revolution is allegedly justified by an "evil oppressor in every corner" narrative that directly contradicts the best social science. This "socially constructed" conspiracy theory erroneously claims that a structurally racist police force is systematically killing innocent black victims on the arbitrary basis of their skin color.
In a country of 40 million black people, what number of unarmed, innocent black victims per year clearly murdered for no good reason by police would justify this sweeping indictment? How many sensationalized, out of context video clips constitutes a "systemic" campaign of targeted, racial genocide? Think about that for a minute.
The hyperbolic rhetoric of "racist cops gunning innocent black people down in the streets" is inspiring violence and destruction. By any rational standard, this assertion is clearly not true. It is destroying the social cohesion needed to keep the country intact. Furthermore, the movement's excesses drive away potential allies and distract from very real problems of violent crime, police brutality, and racial profiling, harming millions of African Americans.
On the basis of BLM's demonstrably false narrative, more people have been killed in riots in the last 3 or 4 months than the total of 15 unarmed black people (out of a population of around 40 million African Americans) who were shot to death by police during the entire year of 2019!
It seems like every time a black person is shot or killed by police, no matter the context, nearly instantaneous riots inevitably begin. Yet, most of these cherry-picked, non-representative, sensationalized, out of context cases turn out far less clear cut than their violent and destructive behavior should require.
Most Americans are willfully ignorant of rationally uncontested facts that
(A) black men make up 6-7% of the U.S. population but commit over 50% of the murders in this country and (B) despite being outnumbered 5 to 1 by white Americans, black Americans are far overrepresented among perpetrators of inter-racial violence (perpetrators who are black are responsible for 85% of the interracial violence between the two groups).
These facts should be known. They should compel people to reject the delusional belief that, in today's America, evil white people are constantly engaging in acts of targeted violence against innocent black victims. This is not a reasonable belief. It is also causing great harm, division, and violence.
Thus, it should be understandable how hard it is for opponents on the Right to stand patiently on the sidelines, quietly watching as aggressive, intolerant "trained Marxist" militants call for violent revolution on the basis of a patently absurd notion that our country, its liberal, democratic institutions, and every single member of my racial/ethnic group are irredeemably evil and oppressive.
Identity and (In)Tolerance
Many on the Left are unwilling to tolerate peaceful demonstrations against and dissent from social justice orthodoxy. Many on the Right seem increasingly less willing to tolerate lawlessness, the initiation of violence, and State discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics of identity, regardless of a person's politics, identity, or worldview. These are mutually exclusive, logically incompatible visions for America's future. These - and not fascism vs. anti-fascism or racism vs. anti-racism, as the Left often suggests - are the real choices we face as a nation.
I believe that if America continues down its fifty year path toward the far-Left's vision of intersectional socialism and discriminating (in)tolerance, it will undermine any remaining social cohesion in this country. Millions of other American patriots and I are unwilling to tolerate those who would use violence or other forms of coercion to impose intersectional socialism on an unwilling population.
Those who have framed the predominant narrative on the Left appear to believe justice requires society to be governed by laws and institutional policies and practices that openly discriminate against some and in favor of others. This is the pernicious philosophy of intersectional socialism. I, like many other Americans, fundamentally reject this vision for our country and consider it a political nonstarter.
Likewise, I adamantly oppose public laws, policies, & practices proposed by authoritarians on the far-Right that would openly discriminate against individual members of what many on the Left consider oppressed victim groups. For instance, I am a married, heterosexual family man. However, I consider all consenting relationships among adults morally equal and believe the government should not discriminate against people in any such relationship.
I was raised as a Catholic, which undoubtedly influenced who I am today, but I am tolerant of other people's freedom to practice their religion or live according to their worldview, so long as they do not infringe upon others' right to do the same.
Calling all opponents' (including classical liberals) of the far-Left "fascists" and "racists" is disingenuous, harmful nonsense. It is inspiring violence and needs to stop. For instance, almost no Republicans disagree with the unobjectionable assertion that black lives matter.
We just recognize that different human populations have different statistically significant patterns of behavior. We are convinced that comparatively high rates of violent crime in poor black neighborhoods necessitate the active presence of law enforcement to enhance and maintain public safety.
The fact that the vast majority of African Americans also want the police to continue the same level of patrols in their neighborhoods is further evidence of BLM's radical, revolutionary vanguard positions.
Republicans are not evil, racist, fascists. We do not want to dominate or oppress others. We simply want all people to follow the same laws and be held to the same standards in our diverse, multi-racial constitutional democracy. Nearly all Americans oppose imperialism, slavery, genocide, and any other form of unjust violence, repression of human rights, or other nonconsensual human interaction.
Most of us would be happy to be true allies (i.e., equal partners with reciprocal terms of cooperation) to anyone who wants to fight these evils. But, like our opponents, there are also limits to what we are willing to tolerate. Emotional manipulation and social shaming campaigns will no longer intimidate or silence us. We will never be the sort of "allies" (i.e., groveling toadies to identitarian militants on the far-Left) that Antifa, BLM, and other intersectional socialists demand of us.
Unlike many on the Left, we don't believe that a long history of cosmic and human
injustice necessitates a radical intersectional socialist diagnosis and prescribed treatment. We consider any form of Marxism a non-starter.
I personally believe that intersectional socialism in a diverse society like ours would require perpetual discrimination and selective violation of individual rights on the basis of immutable intersecting identity categories. I, for one, do not consent to this vision for our future. Surely people on the Left care about consenting, mutually-beneficial relationships? If our country is to remain intact, both the Right and the Left have to commit to reciprocal terms of cooperation.
Therefore, as an embodied subject with a full range of human interests, I will not cooperate with any individual, group, system, or institution that uses identity groups as a basis for denying anyone - including me - equal treatment as a human being.
What About Our Future?
I want to draw others' attention to what I consider counter-factual rhetoric that functions to disguise many of intersectional socialism's intolerant and undemocratic
means to utopian ends. I will directly challenge the intolerance, bigotry, and political violence used to suppress dissent from this increasingly predominant, irrational, dogmatic worldview.
As the phenomenon of Donald Trump’s presidency has clearly shown, nor will we maintain a commitment to civility, mutuality, and compromise while a subversive enemy wages a violent revolution to impose its will on an unwilling population. Many of us are running out of patience with the violent, intolerant far-Left and its "long march" to further bend our liberal, democratic institutions toward intersectional socialist dystopia. This project is an all-out effort on my part to encourage a peaceful political alternative to escalating violence and anarchy before it's too late.
It is my wish that, if those on the far-Left falsely believe America is fundamentally and irredeemably oppressive (as opposed to being one of the most free and prosperous countries in all of human history), they will pursue a peaceful path to political independence from their alleged oppressors rather than continuing their increasingly transparent and violent quest to suppress all political opposition to their ongoing revolution.
I began this project as an effort to freely express controversial views in a peaceful effort to resist this vision for America's future. To borrow a line from Dylan Thomas, however, I will not "go gentle into that good night" as the far-Left vanguard, with the help of the mainstream Left, routinely slanders, harasses, campaigns to "cancel," and initiates violence against those who do not toe the line.
Just as our opponents constantly say they are willing to use any means necessary in pursuit of intersectional socialist ends, the millions of American patriots who share my views are equally willing to use whatever means we consider necessary to defend ourselves against an increasingly emboldened far-Left and preserve constitutional democracy.
Opponents of the Trump administration called themselves "the resistance." Those who use such militant rhetoric should be aware, however, that opponents of the authoritarian Left, will also resist any philosophy, group, or individual that would destroy our great civilization in pursuit of utopia. If necessary, we will use any means necessary to defend ourselves and preserve individual liberty, equality under the law, and constitutional democracy for all American citizens.
