The Regressive Left (revisited)

[Jolly_Penguin]

The term "regressive left" was originally coined to mean liberals who betray the liberal principles of free speech, assembly, identity politics, prejudice, and tolerance of unpopular ideas, in the name of promoting or defending what they see as social progress.

Many on the right took it up from there and applied it to all liberals, as a slur, much in the same way that many on the left took up "neo-conservative", as a slur, and applied it to the entirety of the right.

Here are two great insights on it, from the left, and from the centre:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=315icKVWb6w[/youtube]

I'm enjoying this so far, but I do have to call David out on his characterization of regressive behavior and shutting down debate as a "right wing tactic". It is an apolitical political tactic, if you will. It is nothing more than power attempting to preserve itself.

It is the political underdog who will always promote liberal values such as freedom of speech, press and assembly, civil liberties, tolerance of unpopular or "offensive" opinions and free and open debate. In the 60s on US campuses (and prior), the underdog was the progressive left, and the establishment was deeply conservative--even "centrist" positions were conservative compared to what they are today.

Because it was the right that was in power (overall--not just in government, but in social and educational institutions), it had the ability to suppress differing viewpoints and challenges to its hegemony, and it did so. The left were the political underdog, and thus valued freedom of expression (because they relied on it in order to be allowed to voice their unpopular opinions).

It was here that the political left became conflated with certain liberal values, and the right associated with illiberal ones. The campus free speech movement in the US was, by necessity, a movement of the left because it was students on the left whose voices were being marginalized. NOT because holding freedom of speech as sacrosanct is an inherent property of leftism, but because at the time, the left absolutely depended on freedom of speech.

Now, we look at universities in the US, and what do we see? 80% of faculty describe themselves as democrats, socialists or on the political left. This ratio isn't so extreme in STEM, but in the Humanities, the social sciences, interdisciplinary studies, arts, psychology, philosophy and essentially all similar faculties, the ratio goes up to about 40 to 1.

That is, 40 left-leaning faculty members for every one conservative one.

Keep in mind, there is very little politics involved in solving a Navier-Stokes equation. There's a definite correct answer, and all other answers are incorrect. When it comes to the softer disciplines, the questions asked here are not correct/incorrect questions--they're much more vulnerable to political interpretations.

And in these very faculties, leftist professors outnumber conservative ones about 40 to one. I expect most would describe themselves as feminists, too.

That is leftist political hegemony in every university faculty and program where politics actually matter.

And like the right wing faculty and administration did during the 1960s, it will do what it can to preserve itself, even if that means throwing free speech, open debate and other liberal principles under the bus.

And who is fighting for freedom of speech on campuses now? Why, what do you know? It's anti-feminists. It's conservatives. It's Christians. It's pro-life activists. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education spends most of its time defending the rights of these people more than anyone else these days, despite the fact that its founder came up during the leftist free speech movement of the 60s.

Not because liberal values like freedom of speech and open debate are intrinsic properties of the right, or of religion, either, but because now it's THEIR turn to need it.

Liberal values are not about left or right--they're about limiting political hegemony and preserving the right to heterodoxy, no matter who is in power. This is WHY so many of them are written into the constitutions of various countries. Because neither the right nor the left will truly value them when they can afford to set them aside.

This is not a right or left problem, it's a human problem.

They both hit the nail directly on the head. What Karen speaks of is a real problem, on both the left and the right, that ideologues of both sides push to ignore. I have no doubt that one of the earliest responses to this OP will be somebody declaring that the regressive left does not exist and is a mere bogeyman to attack the left as a whole, in an attempt to shut down discussion of an actually real phenomenon. I also have no doubt that if I posted this on a more centrist or right-wing board, somebody would declare all on the left to be regressive.

Recently, we've seen a resurgence of the term "Classical Liberal", now used to mean the opposite of what the "regressive left" was supposed to mean. The problem with that is that libertarians and people on the actual right, like Paul Ryan, can claim to be Classical Liberal, because the historical links of the term regarding economic policy rather than the liberal ideals I mention in the first paragraph to this post.

Is maybe another word more useful? What word would you use to mean what Karen is writing about above? I like the word "illiberal" for this, because I think it can be fairly applied to both the left and the right. It is after all the right where a whole lot of violation of these values still takes place, especially in religious context. But does the "illiberal right" make any connection in anyone's head? Or the "liberal right"? That sounds like an oxymoron to most I think. I think we need a better word for this.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, is the fact that the majority of staff at universities are liberal a hiring bias or because conservatives tend to be less educated? If one of the core values at the heart of your ideology is attacking education, you'd expect to see a lot less of them apply for positions as educators. Also, is there some kind of glut of conservatives with PhDs in the Humanities who are currently in the unemployment lines? I haven't heard of that being an issue and if it was, I'd expect to have noticed a flurry of special snowflakes letting everyone who'll listen to them hear about how oppressed they are. Do you have any links to that?

Now, the whole issue of shutting down opposing points of view is a valid one. People should hear conservative and offensive viewpoints and the way to deal with them is to laugh at their idiocy or rebut their poor logic, not shout them down. For instance, that Nazi dude Steve Bannon was banned from a forum in New York and so some people here in Toronto invited to come speak here. That wasn't because he had something useful or valid to say, but because he had as much right to say it and defend it as everyone else. It's like with the Mohammed pictures bullshit - one person's right to be free to offend you is more important than your right to not be exposed to something which you find offensive.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, is the fact that the majority of staff at universities are liberal a hiring bias or because conservatives tend to be less educated? If one of the core values at the heart of your ideology is attacking education, you'd expect to see a lot less of them apply for positions as educators. Also, is there some kind of glut of conservatives with PhDs in the Humanities who are currently in the unemployment lines? I haven't heard of that being an issue and if it was, I'd expect to have noticed a flurry of special snowflakes letting everyone who'll listen to them hear about how oppressed they are. Do you have any links to that?

I haven't heard of any such group of people either. But is interesting that when I was at Laurier, for example, about 15 years ago, the number of liberal leaning and conservative leaning profs in my psychology program (my undergrad) was maybe 2:1. Now it is more like 40:1. And we do see a lot of radicalization happening at the same time. What happened with Lindsay Sheppard would not even have been imaginable when I walked those same halls and sat in the same classrooms she later did.

Now, the whole issue of shutting down opposing points of view is a valid one. People should hear conservative and offensive viewpoints and the way to deal with them is to laugh at their idiocy or rebut their poor logic, not shout them down. For instance, that Nazi dude Steve Bannon was banned from a forum in New York and so some people here in Toronto invited to come speak here. That wasn't because he had something useful or valid to say, but because he had as much right to say it and defend it as everyone else. It's like with the Mohammed pictures bullshit - one person's right to be free to offend you is more important than your right to not be exposed to something which you find offensive.

Exactly. And it hits me pretty hard when I see the voices for free speech switching from the left to the right. Karen's reasoning for why it happens makes sense. anti-blasphemy type laws and pressures were mostly from the right, but now we've seen them from the left.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY[/youtube]

 

[Gun Nut]

The republicans were successful at labeling all democrats as a group of regressive liberals, and the democrats biggest failure in history was letting that happen... embracing it, even.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The republicans were successful at labeling all democrats as a group of regressive liberals, and the democrats biggest failure in history was letting that happen... embracing it, even.

The Republicans spend decades branding "librul" as a bad thing. But now they are lumping us in with the illiberal left, because "liberal" isn't bad anymore? Now some of them even call themselves classical liberals.

 

[Jarhyn]

One thing I have to point out here, there is a significant difference between free speech (what the left wants, an what everyone ostensibly now has) and free access to an audience (what the right wants, and the left refuses to concede).

 

[untermensche]

Nothing unusual about educated people that would rather teach than make a lot of money not liking the ignorance of the current right.

The current right in the US is religious fundamentalism and economic sadism.

Where the disconnect exists is between the philosophical left and the political left.

The political left is not that different from the political right.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

One thing I have to point out here, there is a significant difference between free speech (what the left wants, an what everyone ostensibly now has) and free access to an audience (what the right wants, and the left refuses to concede).

Point taken.

But lets stop confusing the left with the liberal. I think that is one of the key problems here. The left doesn't all want free speech, nor does the right all want free access to audience. The reverse also happens.

I do still think the left and the liberal go together more often than not, but I definitely see than changing quickly. Someday we may see right wing liberals, which sounds like a contradiction to today's ear.

 

[laughing dog]

Isn't identity politics a bitch when the identities are blurry?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Isn't identity politics a bitch when the identities are blurry?

Why are you saying bitch? Are you a misogynist or a self-hating dog?

 

[PyramidHead]

I personally don't believe that there is any sense in wasting time trying to identify the exact term to describe people who get offended in a way that offends you. When looking at things like identity politics and free speech as isolated from questions of class, the temptation to fit every position into a taxonomy can be seductive. In the end, though, the only groupings that matter are if you are in a position of vulnerability, dependency, exploitation, servitude, and powerlessness, or if you are in a position of privilege, access, control, luxury, and mobility. If you belong to the first group, and you've been successfully duped into directing your frustrations at other people in that group for whatever reason, you need a helping hand, not a label. Above all else, those of us who belong to that group should not disparage one another for whatever meager impact our wasted activity has on public discourse. The situation is analogous to the pamphlets released by Exxon Mobil giving everybody advice on how to reduce their carbon footprint. Start biking to work a few times a week. Get a more fuel-efficient car. Try washing your hands in cold water from now on. I mean, those aren't bad ideas, but we're not the ones who need to change our behavior, Exxon and corporations like them are. The same can be said of regressives, illiberals, or whatever your heart desires to name them. The world-conversation today is dominated by booming voices broadcast by newsmedia giants, megachurches, political parties, and Hollywood producers. College professors and their students are not among them, and are allowed some anger about that, misdirected though it may be when it lands at the feet of the similarly disenfranchised who happen to be saying something they perceive as threatening. This isn't a showdown between worldviews worthy of careful description, it's the distracted, scrappy infighting that breaks out in the prison yard when we're allowed some fresh air.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

Well, once the left is remotely in a position to be eliminating the rights of people, then we can talk. Last time I checked, it was an unchecked right-wing majority on SCOTUS that threatened civil rights.

You seem to care more if college students protest Milo SJW Yannopoulus (can't care enough to double check spelling) than the Supreme Court shredding the Voting Rights Act or endowing corporations with civil rights.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

Well, once the left is remotely in a position to be eliminating the rights of people, then we can talk. Last time I checked, it was an unchecked right-wing majority on SCOTUS that threatened civil rights.

You seem to care more if college students protest Milo SJW Yannopoulus (can't care enough to double check spelling) than the Supreme Court shredding the Voting Rights Act or endowing corporations with civil rights.

But he's a liberal....

 

[untermensche]

With friends like that.....

 

[Politesse]

Now, we look at universities in the US, and what do we see? 80% of faculty describe themselves as democrats, socialists or on the political left. This ratio isn't so extreme in STEM, but in the Humanities, the social sciences, interdisciplinary studies, arts, psychology, philosophy and essentially all similar faculties, the ratio goes up to about 40 to 1.

That is, 40 left-leaning faculty members for every one conservative one.

This may have something to do with the blatantly non-factual nature of conservative social beliefs. I think it would be difficult to graduate with an advanced degree in any of the social sciences while clinging to a radical conservative position, and it would present a practical dilemma for an artist, whose work by nature implies and requires the ability to reach across the supposed limitations of social categories like race and gender.

 

[laughing dog]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

Neither - we should whine about the unfair blurring of these ideological concepts that make your identity politics so confusing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

Well, once the left is remotely in a position to be eliminating the rights of people, then we can talk. Last time I checked, it was an unchecked right-wing majority on SCOTUS that threatened civil rights.

You seem to care more if college students protest Milo SJW Yannopoulus (can't care enough to double check spelling) than the Supreme Court shredding the Voting Rights Act or endowing corporations with civil rights.

... and here they come. The posts I predicted. What you don't get is that the illiberal left and right and identity politics left and right support one another. Insist on structuring and viewing the world through that framework, and it can go left or right. Authoritarianism is on the rise all around.

 

[ruby sparks]

Like many others here, it seems, it appears to me that the so-called illiberal, 'authoritarian', 'regressive' left is nowhere near as much of an actual or influential 'thing' as it's (often conveniently) made out to be. Nor am I convinced that supposed identity politics is what cost the Dems the presidential election. My impression is that such things are overblown, and that to a large extent they involve caricatures and dubiously alleged bogeymen or Aunt Sallies. Not entirely unlike Reds Under the Bed in some ways. Slightly Orwellian possibly.

Anyhows, the USA hardly has much at all of a proper bloody 'left' in the first place!

And imo it might be a better place if it had.

But what America calls 'the left' is mostly just 'the middle' or even right of centre, by international standards. Including in academia, as far as I can tell. As for within Feminism, are we really going to exaggerate the influence of a small if noisy minority (of radicals) within what is already a small minority (Feminists) of the population, and even of just women? As for how many actual racists or bigots there are on the 'left' compared to the right, I'll not be holding my breath waiting for big comparative numbers.

 

[Jarhyn]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

Well, once the left is remotely in a position to be eliminating the rights of people, then we can talk. Last time I checked, it was an unchecked right-wing majority on SCOTUS that threatened civil rights.

You seem to care more if college students protest Milo SJW Yannopoulus (can't care enough to double check spelling) than the Supreme Court shredding the Voting Rights Act or endowing corporations with civil rights.

... and here they come. The posts I predicted. What you don't get is that the illiberal left and right and identity politics left and right support one another. Insist on structuring and viewing the world through that framework, and it can go left or right. Authoritarianism is on the rise all around.

A lot of identity politics boil down to the fact that conservatives have been consistent in the last (decade? Century? Since the beginning of humans as a species?) in othering people. There weren't gays or straights until someone decided "those people who have sex with men" needed to be identified and vilified. There weren't 'trans' people until people decided that it was unhealthy for 'boys' to act like 'girls' and visa versa. The left would, I believe, largely be happy with a world where these distinctions were never made, where the law just said people could fuck anyone they wanted in any way they wanted as long as it didn't create inbred babies, or unconsenting parties. We would be fine with a law that says people can dress and act and feel however they want, and be served as 'the public'. We would be fine with the complete stripping of 'identities' from politics, generally, to be replaced with entirely neutral, agnostic, identity-free shit.

The problem is that we have been GIVEN and has FORCED upon us "identities". I don't like identities to be enumerated. I use them for the benefit of precious snowflakes who insist that they need this crutch to understand me and my place in the world in relation to them.

To steal from The Handmaiden's Tale as portrayed by HBO: if you did not want us to be an army, why would you give us a uniform?