Tracinski's Equivalence Theory between Left and Right
Liberal blindness is at work again and puts us all at risk
Robert Tracinski, a classical liberal with strong “Objectivist” (i.e., the philosophy of Ayn Rand) leanings, has published an article on Quillette which unintentionally explains why liberalism, even in its more moderate and reasonable “classical” variants, constitutes a threat to the survival of the republic. Tracinski contends that classical and “anti-woke” liberals should avoid allying themselves with conservative nationalists. ”If anti-woke liberals pursue an ideological coalition with anti-woke illiberals, it is liberalism that will lose out,” he insists. Why? Because Tracinski seems to believe, or at least implies, an equivalence of rottenness between the woke left and conservative nationalism:
There is a basic rift on the “anti-woke” Right that is increasingly coming out into the open. Some of us oppose the censorious conformism of the social-justice Left because we are classical liberals who believe that freedom of speech and inquiry are critical to the functioning of a free society. Then there are those whose opposition rests on the belief that they should be the ones imposing limits on free inquiry in the name of traditional values. They don't want a free society, they want a virtuous society, in which their idea of virtue is promoted by government.
Now I won’t get into all the reasons Tracinski provides to prove his point. They are based on cherry picking quotations from conservative nationalists and then interpreting them in the worst possible way. Thus he quotes Rod Dreher as declaring, “We need to unapologetically embrace the use of state power.” Tracinski interprets this as a push “for intrusive bans on any teaching considered offensive to [Dreher’s and other conservative nationalist] political and religious sensibilities.” But what’s wrong with that? Tracinski seems to believe that there is something sinister in parents controlling what schools teach their children, especially if these same parents are Christian and conservative, rather than liberal or libertarian. Perhaps he believes that schools should teach “classical liberal” or even “objectivist” values. If so, how is that not embracing state power to enforce one’s own views?
Tracinski could argue that he is against public education altogether and would like to see it entirely privatized—but since he lacks the political agency to attain such a reality, his objection is without weight. As long as we are stuck with public schools, the issue of whether schools should teach the values of the children’s parents or someone else’s values becomes paramount. Centrist liberals act as if it is some kind of conspiracy against free speech or “enlightenment” values for parents to oppose having their children indoctrinated in an alien ideology. But the real scandal is when schools are allowed to teach the nation’s youth to hate their parent’s values. There is absolutely no excuse for that.
Tracinski’s alienation from reality reaches its apex when he tries to argue that classical and centrist liberals don’t need the nationalist right:
Glenn Youngkin's recent victory in Virginia’s statewide election indicates that woke ideology is poisonously unpopular. Given the chance, people will vote against it and will cross party lines to do so. Nationalism is unnecessary, ideologically and electorally, to achieve this result. In fact, given that Youngkin performed far better than Donald Trump, who lost the state decisively a year earlier, nationalism is almost certainly a hindrance.
This is appallingly ignorant and delusional. Glenn Youngkin won because both disaffected liberals and Trump supporters joined forces. Disaffected liberals are not enough, by themselves, to defeat the woke left—nor is it even close. But there’s a bigger problem here—a problem of judgment, or the lack thereof. Tracinski believes that the woke left and the nationalist conservatives are equally bad. This is sheer prejudice. Where, might I ask, would Tracinski, if forced to choose, rather live: Hungary or Venezuela? Maybe Hungary isn’t in all respects Tracinski’s ideal—and that’s fine—but it’s a significantly better place to live than Venezuela. We don’t all get to choose to live in the ideal societies of our innermost fancies. Sometimes the best really is enemy of the good. Societies are imperfect arrangements, and a wise person seeks to find a place to live that, for the most part, works—that is, provides a fair measure of economic and personal freedom while at the same time keeping violent predators at bay.. Yet Tracinski, in his thirst to have everything his own way, would rather empower the radical left than to align himself with people who, through hard-experienced, have learned that liberal tolerance won’t work to defeat the left. And the left has to be defeated. Radicals have penetrated to an alarming extent within the nation’s most important political, economic, and cultural institutions. If they are not removed from those institutions, they will destroy the country. That’s what they do—that’s their M.O. Tracinski, in his liberal arrogance, apparently has no fears along these lines. But he is just wrong—and catastrophically wrong at that. For those who have any doubts on this score, just look at the way the Biden administration is handling the federal debt and what they’re doing to the economy’s supply chains. This ruling elite is not fit to rule. They are incompetent and stupid beyond all measure. A coalition of anti-elitists and anti-leftists is the only way forward at this point. Anything short of that spells the end of the republic.
Greg Nyquist is author of The Psychopathology of the Radical Left and The Faux-Rationality of Ayn Rand.
Greg, your essay reminds me that a free republic must rest on the rock of virtue. It cannot for the foundation we have chosen: resting on a desire for material prosperity, with any moral issues swept under the rug. Now that we're in the middle of multiple, impoverishing crises, we see just how sandy that foundation is.
So what virtues are we taking about? Let's just focus with the classic cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude. A prudent people does not fight unjust wars, while at the same time being alert to the machinations of real enemies. A temperate people doesn't do drugs: that's just one aspect of this virtue, but think of the enormous benefit to the republic fro this alone. The cardinal virtue of justice includes honesty: just think how so many political evils would have been avoided if people were committed to the truth rather than their own biases. And then there's fortitude, which includes courage. Think if we had the courage to nip so many pernicious trends in the bud ("resist the beginnings" being a tenet of wisdom), armed with the truth. Instead we gave our intelligence over to rationalizations of every kind.
Our schools need to inculcate the cardinal virtues, so that young people can make proper use of the facts of history and the facts of science. (Church-based schools should also teach the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.) I believe that a virtuous young generation would be able to live independently by their late teens and to begin to establish families by their early 20s at the latest.
It's my hope that the anti-woke liberals and the anti-woke conservatives have enough virtues in common--like a commitment to the truth--that they will forge a viable coalition.
So true Greg, but there is no sufficient resistance now, in light of the left’s complete subversion of the educational system, the media, and the deep state throughout government, rather than at some point when the time is right; counter revolution with arms. We need to cut to the chase, as most likely the next election will be decided by the voting machines again, as in our last national election and the Georgia senate election, and as in Venezuela, which when Chavez instituted the dominion machines, the left never lost another election; this is our fate if we don’t act soon.