the chuddening
06-12-26

I only regularly participate in one Discord server, a political server for centrists ranging from the center-left, to moderate, to center-right.

I quite like it. I’ve always felt more moderate than most of the online left, but could never adequately articulate this discrepancy.

In 2024 I got really into politics and started finding niche political subreddits, where I slowly began forming my own political identity. It’s been a largely fruitful experience. I realized the larger forces at play behind current events, learned their historical context, and discovered a new frame of reference. All of this threw cold water on various hot topics, and helped me see the bigger picture.

I used to suffer with political anxiety. Taking a more measured approach to political news and influences helped a lot; my own beliefs started shifting in turn. The more I learn, the more I moderate on my ideas. I wouldn’t say I’m a “conservative” now, but I’m not entirely “liberal” either, at least according to the modern definition; although I certainly qualify a classic liberal. I suppose a more accurate claim would be that I am no longer a leftist or exclusively left-leaning.

As far as primary sources, one of the best I came across was Francis Fukuyama. Reading his articles about populism and modern politics helped me understand today’s political system and my own position within it.

Another great resource is blogger Noah Smith/“noahpinion”. He writes on current events in a very easy to understand style. His takes on popular ideas and discourse are generally pragmatic and level-headed, backed by a strong core of classic liberalism. I particularly liked his posts on shoplifting and the Democrats warming up to Hasan Piker.

Neither of these authors are “conservative” in the common sense of the term. I actually haven’t read any truly conservative writers yet (Thomas Sowell is at the top of my list, though!)

But in today’s climate, anything to the right of the far-left is often branded as conservative. The far-left itself is even viewed as moderate—a mere stepping stone to more “effective” or “pure” systems of government and politics like anarchism, socialism, and communism.

I find this trend exhausting. It’s part of a larger phenomenon known as the Omnicause, wherein disparate political issues are all conglomerated together under an arbitrary banner of “intersectionality”. It’s the purity tests to end all purity tests; if you stray from one cause, you disgrace them all.

The Omnicause conflates diverse economic, political, and sociocultural problems as symptoms of one root disease, whether that be capitalism, colonialism, or heteronormativity. Its answers to these problems are equally simplistic and generalizing.

Reality is often more complicated than we give it credit for. Politics cannot be flattened to one-dimensional praxis. But in an era of social media algorithms, everyone is incentivized toward polemics; idpol (short for “identity politics”) is the chief motivator behind this phenomena.

Identity politics are exactly that: politics formed on the basis of identity. Politics do not simply parallel sex, gender, race, and class, but are necessarily derived from them—whether it be an individual, a group, or an entire nation, all are defined by what they are.

Idpol provides a powerful function for both the far-right and the far-left. In the far-right, we see this play out with MAGA and Christian-nationalism. In the far-left, idpol takes shape in the form of Marxism and radical queer theory.

These identifiers can be roughly outlined as such:

Regardless of context, idpol always postulates an “in-group” and an “out-group”. It divides people based on their social status, which naturally creates an “us” versus “them” mentality.

This dichotomy becomes shorthand for which persons are valid and which are not. Tribalism lays the groundwork for populist thinking, which provides candidates, activists, influencers, and commentators fodder to rile up their base.

The process repeats; entire demographics are demonized. Political rebukes are taken to be empirical fact. Immigrants really are terrorists out to destroy Western society; white, cisgender, heterosexual men really are agents of colonialism out to eradicate queer, POC culture.

If you think this mentality is regressive, you aren’t alone.

Several years ago I became disillusioned with modern trans discourse, which was growing increasingly polarized and extreme. Advocacates no longer championed trans rights, but had moved on to pushing narratives of gender abolition, class warfare, etc. To be fair, the trans community has always existed in tandem with leftist groups; but its mainstream focus remained fixed upon medical and legal protections.

This is no longer the case. The trans community has fallen victim to the Omnicause, wherein trans rights cannot be achieved unless a systemic sociopolitical reconstruction occurs throughout all sectors of human society.

I’m sorry, but can we get it together? Trans people can no longer safely immigrate to the United States. Trans citizens in Kansas can’t legally drive anymore unless their licenses match their birth sex. Our access to healthcare is under attack, especially for trans youth, who have already lost the fight in places like Tennessee.

The answer to these problems isn’t to overthrow capitalism, but to work within the system and use the levers available to us to influence legislation, judiciary action, and political opinion. It’s not glamorous, but it never will be. It never was to begin with!

Idpol reduces complex, nuanced, and multi-faceted issues into simplistic heuristics that generate fantasies of easy fixes, like rounding up immigrants and deporting them en masse, or dissolving capitalism and building a utopian economic system which accommodates the humanities as much as it does agriculture.

So, yeah… Rant over, lol.

I’ve always sat in the middle of the political aisle. But it only became apparent as both sides hedged closer to the extreme, leaving me more or less politically stranded.

As such, I’ve decided to start reading more political publications. I’m going to start with National Affairs for conservative thought and Washington Monthly for a liberal perspective. Both are quarterly publications focused on long-form content, and neither have fallen under the influence of their extremist counterparts.

Here’s a quick round-up of my own political beliefs:

• capitalism is the most optimal and egalitarian economic system
• I am skeptical of public healthcare
• an American global hegemony is the most preferable choice out of existing superpowers, and has helped encourage global democracy since WWII
• a smaller government is better than a large one
• A.I. is good, actually
• Israel has a right to exist
• gender abolition is foolhardy; additionally, there is an empirical difference between male/female and man/woman
• thus, gender/sex is not wholly socially-constructed
• freedom of gender identity and sexuality is paramount to freedom of speech
• communism/socialism/anarchy/etc is dumb
• interventionist foreign policy is more beneficial than it is harmful²
• Not All Cops Are Bastards
• landlords and property developers are not inherently evil, and provide valuable services
• YIMBYism is the only correct housing policy

Keep in mind this is a non-exhaustive list, just shit off the top of my head.

Anyway, I took this political typology quiz from Pew Research which inspired this post. I got “Pragmatic and Polite Right”, which I don’t disagree with save for the bit about being Republican-leaning. Had some of the questions been worded differently, I could’ve just as likely ended up at “Left out Left” or “Order and Opportunity Left”.

A politically mixed (though Republican-tilting) group, they lean conservative on economics and the role of government, while tilting more liberal on issues related to race and foreign policy. They prize civility and cooperation in politics.