I bet it’s in response to people on the right identifying as “classical liberals” and such. The phenomenon I’m referring to started on the center and right about three or four years ago.
It’s more about disillusioned lefties who are done with identity politics and mainstream media than righties trying to rebrand as something less conservative.
A lot of those people that are “done” with identity politics are playing it just as much as the left does. I used to be one of those disillusioned lefties that didn’t see that hypocrisy. I used to be a guy that watched Dave Rubin and Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro and Sargon and those other hacks. I know the crowd. They can’t go more than a couple sentences without mentioning identity. Jordan Peterson is obsessed with identity. He can’t stop talking about gender identity and how society disadvantages men and how people need Christian morals to be good and all that shit. He and his ilk play the identity politics game. The idea that these people are against identity politics is dishonest. They’re against the left’s identity politics, but that’s it.
I don’t agree with your assessment of most of that crowd; the main reason they bring up identity is to refute what’s being said by the left, and I’ve never heard them argue in favor of a particular identity or offer up one’s identity as an excuse for their behavior or beliefs. I’m just not hearing what you’re hearing when these people present their views.
Random political thought:
I’ve seen a lot of “leftists” vs. “liberals” stuff lately, and I wonder, since when did “liberals” become synonymous with specifically center-left democrats? I always thought “liberal” was just a general term that encompassed the entire left.
A lot of center-right and even straight-up rightwing people have been trying to make some distinction between “liberals” and people that are more socialistic as a way to co-opt the term liberal.
Just as the right has the alt-right, whose views are too extreme or racist for the typical conservative, the left has been overrun with wackos who have as much in common with their far-right “enemies” as they do with their own party (see: Horseshoe Theory).
I agree, but I’m going to need examples of how the left is “overrun” by these wackos. I’ve asked you many, many times for evidence of this and you’ve yet to give it to me so please do. I think it’s an important conversation.
Some recent examples:
The firing of James Damore
Google’s firing of Damore was completely unjustified. He presented a reasoned argument regarding not just why women are underrepresented in tech, but how Google could change their policies to encourage more women to enter the field. I read the memo and while some argued against his data and conclusions, nothing he wrote would be considered radical or incendiary in scientific journals and the dude is rational almost to a fault. He was smeared by the mainstream media as alt-right and misogynist and he lost his job.
The deplatforming of Alex Jones
Alex Jones was deplatformed in a coordinated effort by major media companies. Agree with him or not (I don’t watch the guy, I know him mostly from the whole Sandy Hook thing and some memes), having corporate entities who are powerful enough to instantly erase someone’s online presence because the company’s management doesn’t agree with their views should concern everybody, regardless of politics or personal feelings.
Who cares though, right? It’s Alex Jones. That guy’s insane! The point is that everyone should care when major publishing platforms can shape political discourse by silencing or amplifying certain voices. Anyone who claims to be concerned about Russian interference in our elections via social media and isn’t concerned about what happened to Alex Jones is making their decisions based on ideology and not law or right vs. wrong.
YouTube demonetization
The frequent and unexplained demonetization of YouTube videos in order to rob them of their income should also be concerning. Many videos by “conservatives” (i.e., anyone not openly left) are flagged as problematic either by community reports or YouTube’s own moderators. Conveniently, they remain flagged—and therefore unable to earn advertising revenue—until a further manual review is performed. The videos often have advertising revenue reinstated, but they don’t get the revenue they missed while they were flagged, only future revenue. Most videos from popular YouTubers get most views right after they go live, so most revenue is lost.
When I say “overrun”, it’s kind of a sloppy way of saying that real people’s lives are being affected by emotional assholes with an axe to grind; even if the “wackos” are a minority, they’re loud enough that some companies are listening and the position of the party is shifting.
Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.
Classical liberalism is a laissez-faire, conservative ideology. That’s not a recent evaluation of it. The people using it as a way to separate themselves from the left are misusing it because if they’re actually classical liberals then were never on the left. I also agree that there is an irrational segment of the left, particularly the one that cares more about culture and language than policy and economics, but how is that any different than the right? How is the left more irrational and emotionally driven than Trump’s portion of the rightwing?
It’s not. I’m a centrist, remember? The biggest change in my political views over the last several years is the realization that the left isn’t automatically “on the right side of history”. Both sides have their insane fringes, and the fringes have shifted the boundaries of what’s conservative vs. liberal. The fringes are destroying our ability to meet in the middle and progress as a society. Add dying traditional media who are desperate for clicks into the mix and you have a disaster.