One of us is a proud member of the Left. The other rejects the Left. One of us writes sympathetically of Jordan Peterson’s critique of postmodern neo-Marxism. The other does not. One of us is no fan of Marx. The other is. One of us hopes for the election of Bernie Sanders as president of the United States. The other would consider that a tragedy.
In today’s world, this should be enough to establish us as intellectual adversaries with no chance of bridging our divide. We disagree about a lot, and our disagreements hinge on some of the most contentious issues of the day, particularly right-wing populism and Social Justice activism. But after a recent, public 51-letter exchange, it was clear that this was not the case. Indeed, there was no reason that respectful engagement should ever have been foreclosed. This article explains why.
First, we don’t disagree about everything. In fact, in our letter exchange, we “gradually mov[ed] towards a position of unexpected agreement on the moral and methodological priority of the individual; though we … cash that out in very different ways.” Moreover, the one who rejects the Left has nonetheless been supportive of many progressive causes, as evidenced by his writings for The Good Men Project from 2016 to 2018. He is also not entirely unsympathetic to philosophers like Heidegger, Foucault and Nietzsche, who have influenced left-wing postmodern intellectuals over the last half century, and about whom the other has published several sympathetic essays.
In the summer of 2019, one of us proposed an exchange on Letter to discuss social, economic and political inequality, with a particular focus on the leftist mode of critique. The other accepted. During that exchange, we had an opportunity to learn more about our differences of opinion. As a result of our respectful and thoughtful correspondence, we also discovered a mutual commitment to honest intellectual inquiry and a mutual regard for the dignity of the individual and a recognition that social, economic and historical circumstances cannot be ignored when determining how to advance the cause of justice.
We share a vision of open and honest intellectual inquiry and a commitment to the dignity of the individual and the progressive pursuit of better social conditions, to promote human dignity and potential. Perhaps most importantly, in our current age of tumult, we believe that impossible conversations are, in fact, possible.
Reaching across the aisle can often seem like a thing of the past in this time of worldwide hyper-polarized political partisanship. Things have gotten to the point at which even calls for civility are interpreted as apologetics for right-wing or left-wing extremism, which cannot be tolerated in the age of Twitter and Trump. Yet both of us continue to engage with each other, in the belief that civility is not the same as delicacy. Indeed, one of us has also had contentious exchanges with philosophy professor Ben Burgis over capitalism, socialism and the war on terror. Like our own conflicting interpretations of Jordan Peterson’s diatribes against postmodern neo-Marxism, these debates and conversations have been civil, but certainly not delicate.
There is a critical difference between good faith and bad faith engagement. In the former, the goal is to think rigorously and defend one’s position as well as one can, while remaining open to the possibility that one might learn from an adversarial interlocutor. One should welcome critique. One should also strive to be open minded and attempt to engage when someone makes a good argument, even one with which one is not inclined to agree. So, we argue. In good faith and with an open mind.
We know how far apart we are in our outlooks. One of us is an aficionado of Machiavelli, inclined to be pessimistic about humanity’s commitment to dispassionate inquiry, truth and justice. The other is more optimistic, though he remains somewhat Beckettian in his outlook towards progressivism (his motto is fail, fail again, fail better). He feels that progressives need to acknowledge the substantial failure to secure economic fairness which marked the twentieth century, while commending the many victories for women, LGBT people and racial minorities. But in the future, he hopes for, and believes in, the establishment of a left-liberal democratic polity, where democratic deliberation is encouraged and resources are distributed in a more equitable manner to ensure all have a comparable and fair shot at the good life.
In our outrage-fueled age, it seems almost impossible to avoid turning political adversaries into caricatures. We aim to push against that tide, for the sake not only of making our own arguments stronger, but to demonstrate that it is possible to have impossible conversations. We are respectful and civil without being delicate or milquetoast in our arguments.
In the truth we trust—even if that truth remains elusive, and we cannot often agree on what it is.
I first learned of Derek Black’s ideological odyssey from fanatical young white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and “Stormfronter” to ardent tolerance and diversity advocate in the Spring of 2018, when a friend of mine forwarded me a link to Utah Valley University (Orem, UT) philosophy professor C. Thi Nguyen’s April 18, 2018 *AEON NEWSLETTER* piece “Why it’s as hard to escape an echo chamber as to flee a cult,” which he thought I might find interesting–as I indeed did. A few months later, sitting in a doctor’s waiting room, I picked up their copy of the September 13, 2018 PEOPLE magazine for lack of anything better there to read, and serendipitously found “Derek Black Embraced White Nationalism Until Friends Opened His Eyes,” by PEOPLE staffer Johnny Dodd, based on a PEOPLE interview with Black, and also citing Pulitzer Prize-winning *Washington Post* reporter Eli Saslow’s book *Rising Out of Hatred: The Awakening of… Read more »
A couple of years ago, I came across a wonderful story about how patient, friendly, respectful conversations can persuade even fanatical supporters of wrongheaded ideologies to reconsider their views and prejudices, without insults, demonization, or name-calling. In 2018, I happened to read a few articles–initially forwarded by a friend and serendipitously found in a magazine browsed in a doctor’s waiting room–describing the political and philosophical turnabout of a zealous young white nationalist activist gradually converted to liberalism and tolerance by a few college friends. The articles portrayed the ideological odyssey of 29-year-old (in 2018) white nationalist activist turned ardent tolerance and diversity advocate Derek Black, son of “Stormfront” founder Don Black and godson of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. They depicted the once anti-Semitic Black’s growing friendship in college, blossoming into romance, with Jewish fellow student Allison Gornik, one of the college friends chiefly involved in his turnabout! The… Read more »
I fully, wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Church and Matt McManus’ concluding advice to be “respectful and civil without being delicate or milquetoast in our arguments,” to “avoid turning political adversaries into caricatures.” And I applaud their essay’s title of “Civility Without Squeamishness.” However, our contemporary political polarization makes it very difficult, on both sides, to be either respectful and civil without seeming delicate, milquetoast, or squeamish, or forthright and honest without seeming to caricature and demonize one’s opponents (or even just those one happens to disagree with). If you dare to mention or criticize injustices in our society or agree with even moderately liberal critics, you can be accused of “political correctness,” being a “social justice warrior,” or even “cultural Marxism,” while if you dare to question identity politics, “woke” tactics, “critical race/gender theory,” or “intersectionalist” dogmas you get accused of “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “mansplaining,” “sexism,” “racism,” or being… Read more »
To deserve to be taken at all seriously, today’s Leftists need to concede, about their fellow Leftists, a paraphrasing of Churchill:
Never (in the history of modern democratic governance, at least in a major country) have so many been so very vociferous about a public issue, only to have been so decisively refuted so quickly (by the Mueller and Horowitz Reports).
And, they must concede, that the “Obstruction of Congress” article vs. Trump was legally laughable, esp. with the recent Circuit Court ruling vs. the Dem demand for McGahn testimony.
To deserve to be taken at all seriously, today’s Leftists need to concede, about their fellow Leftists, a paraphrasing of Churchill:
Never (in the history of modern democratic governance, at least in a major country) have so many been so very vociferous about a public issue, only to have been so decisively refuted so quickly (by the Mueller and Horowitz Reports).
Someone tell this man to have a word with the Virginia state government, which seems hell-bent on using its power to utterly crush people who disagree with it.
That’s the problem with reasonable leftists; they are few and far between and have no real power. They can not persuade other leftists to be reasonable. They are nice to talk to once in a while, but that’s about it. They certainly have no pull on the Left.
That’s the problem with progressivism i.e. far leftism, and why it’s also de facto authoritarian fascism: if you don’t toe a very narrow line of party mandated beliefs, you embody everything that is morally reprehensible, regardless of any reasoning of how one got to that verdict. It is settled and there is no retrial in the Court of Progressive Opinion.