Defenders of Liberal Values

This week in Fantasy Intellectual teams, one even defends the right of Nazi sympathizers to speak

The intellectuals who present the most reasonable arguments, according to the scoring system for Fantasy Intellectual Teams, share a dedication to liberal values. Last week we saw this clearly demonstrated.

Andrew Sullivan eloquently describes the way that critical race theory is antithetical to liberal values.

Am I exaggerating CRT’s aversion to liberal modernity? I don’t think I am. Here is how critical theory defines itself in one of its central documents. It questions the very foundations of “Enlightenment rationality, legal equality and Constitutional neutrality.” It begins with the assertion that these are not ways to further knowledge and enlarge human freedom. They are rather manifestations of white power over non-white bodies. Formal legal equality, they argue, the promise of the American experiment, has never been actual equality, even as, over the centuries, it has been extended to everyone. It is, rather, a system to perpetuate inequality forever, which is the single and only reason racial inequality is still here.

I recommend the entire essay. Likewise, I recommend a conversation between Richard Hanania and Jesse Singal on the latter’s recent book about the unreliability of some well-known social science research. Listen to the way that Hanania, who clearly admires Singal’s work, frequently plays devil’s advocate, forcing Singal to deal with objections to his thesis.

Jonathan Turley’s dedication to the liberal value of free speech is evident in his post on the case of Nicholas Brock, a British neo-Nazi. Brock, who clearly holds repugnant views but has never acted on them, was given a four-year prison term, to which Turley objects.

The fantasy intellectual who is emerging as Most Valuable Player by leading in several scoring categories is Robert Wright. Listen to what Wright says to Robert Wiblin, especially minutes 28-38, about the way that tribalism and psychological biases are impediments to solving important problems. The rest of the podcast elaborates on these themes.

Many fantasy intellectuals are thinking about this problem. Amanda Ripley continues to discuss ways to reduce what she calls high conflict. See this interview with Ripley in Washingtonian.

The most obvious thing that everyone I followed who shifted out of high conflict did was to distance themselves from the conflict entrepreneurs in their lives. First, figure out who those people or platforms are. Then put some distance between you and them, whether it’s changing who’s on your social media feed or which news outlets you listen to or subscribe to. People who use the language of war when there is no war, people who dehumanize others—at least notice who they are. And then also don’t assume that shaming or publicly embarrassing your opponents will work. 

Last week, in We Don’t Need a Civil War, I tried to summarize Ripley’s interview with Yascha Mounk. Mounk’s project, the Persuasion Community, is worth following if you are interested in reasonable discourse.

Many of us are aware of the ways that public discourse has deteriorated. I am encouraged by people who are trying to make things better.