All my life the majority of smart, educated people have talked up the Left in such a way as to indicate that leftism is “cool.” I still hear it today.
Color me incredulous.
But I will admit that, long ago, this “Left Is Cool” mantra made a modicum of sense.
How?
The Right was moralistic and censorious, in the days of my childhood; the Left, less so, especially when engaging in the left’s sophomoric relativism — though leftists were, I do recall, prone to shouting and marching in “protests,” which they thought were cool but were, instead, cool’s opposite, hot. Right-wingers, on the other hand, paraded their offense-taking regarding sex, drugs, blasphemy and evolution while expressing outrage in moralistic high dudgeon, and always with an undercurrent of an itch to use government as censor, abrogating free speech rights as well as the freedom of the press.
Uncool, man; there is nothing “cool” about moralism and the suppression of free speech.
Today, this has been completely reversed. The Left is now utterly dominated by shrill, moralistic would-be censors, and the traditional leftist protest — all the shouting — has turned into mob-action shout-down brigades. Free speech as a political commitment has utterly evaporated left of center, with Yes But-ing everywhere:
We’re for free speech, yes . . . but hate speech isn’t free speech, and free speech isn’t freedom from the consequences of speech!
Not being complete morons, leftists elide the threat implicit in their idea of “legitimate” consequences (“you speak and we will get you fired, or worse”) and never acknowledge the sheer contemptuous hatred on their part when going off on each habitual iteration of a “hate speech” rap.
Why did the Left descend into moralism while the Right ascend to free speech advocacy?
Two words: cultural power.
Long ago the Left captured the commanding heights of the culture. And that, my friends, is power. And power, every schoolboy knows, corrupts.
Those who try to consolidate their power become censorious and moralistic. It is as natural as were their demands for freedom when they were out of power.
Similarly, the Right has been expelled from the key cultural positions. Out of power, right-wingers naturally swing to freedom.
It is the first law of political liberty: Out of power, people say they want freedom; in power, they try to secure more power, often in the cause of “security,” sometimes in the name of “justice” or “equality,” occasionally even taking “liberty” in vain . . . for those with power over others, liberty must run against the grain.
Now we see how “radicals” become “conservatives,” and conservatives radicalize. It depends on their relevant contexts, their situations. And the context that matters most? Power — propinquity to power; quantity of power; scope of power. The more you have, the less liberty means to you.
And why is that?
Because liberty is a sort of equilibrium of force. It is the condition where, by rule of law or custom, force is not initiated against others, each being free from initiated force. And coercive force is the most obvious form of power. When you lack it, the argument for liberty seems clear: let us share power equally. But when you possess it, giving it up to allow others to share? Well, that seems counter-intuitive at best.
We live in an interesting moment, because right now the Left is at apogee and is thus filled with the confidence that dominance provides.
Not radical any longer, leftists instead aim to conserve power (even if by overkill, pushing the envelope of their instinctive socialism). Thus they are now the conservatives. Further, their dominance being so well established, they have become hubristic. Add to this the recent multi-pronged attacks upon them, and no wonder they have become hysterical.
Pride goeth before a fall. Expect a legitimation cascade — an authority collapse — soon. Or else tyranny. Or first the one, then the other.
twv
Wirkman Comment 