Main Edition
US
FR
March 24, 2023 - 6:42pm
Conservatives are losing the culture war and it’s because they are being divisive, argues John Burn-Murdoch in an interesting FT piece today.
The underlying message seems to be that conservative parties should go with the radical progressive flow in order to woo the next generation of voters, even if that means ushering in a wholesale change to the culture that most voters don’t want. This is a classic of the ‘it’s inevitable, so submit’ progressive neoliberal genre, which is deeply misleading.
The problem with the argument begins with terminology. Counted as culture war issues are immigration and gay rights. But gay equality and marriage rights are old battles long won by liberals. Immigration is a live political issue, but reaches back to the late ’80s in Europe and late ’90s in Britain. This is not what is meant by ‘culture war’.
Instead, the term ‘culture war’ refers to a new rift between cultural socialism, which pushes for equal outcomes and ‘emotional safety’ for identity groups; and cultural liberalism, which cleaves to free speech, due process, equal treatment without regard to race, gender or sexuality, and objective truth.
A second set of objections are by posed another group, including but not limited to cultural conservatives, which wants to preserve and protect works of national heritage: statues of Winston Churchill or original names like Edinburgh’s Hume Tower. They don’t want children being taught that white people or Britain are distinctively racist or that the British Empire is uniquely evil. They wish to defend literature such as the Greco-Roman canon or Roald Dahl from being bowdlerised. They seek to protect the traditional meaning of words like ‘woman’ or the gendered syntax of languages like Spanish. These are but a few examples, but they illustrate the breadth of changes that have been taking place across the culture over the past decade.
It’s also worth being clear about who started this ‘culture war.’ While it is true that conservatives have played their part in deepening culture war divisions, it is the progressive Left who have been doing this kind of thing for far longer. Indeed, they have been promoting partisan ideas in schools and companies for decades. But when the Right resists this onslaught, be this at school board meetings or in national politics, that’s considered to be a culture war.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat does “progressive” mean exactly?
Anyway, you say that “For instance, most under-35s favour a ‘colour-conscious’ approach to race”
To me that means that the under-35 are old fashion racists.
I’m not sure what progressivism is, but it sure ain’t liberalism.
After dipping my toes in the DEI space a few years ago, I found out that these people are live to exclude and are chronically self-righteous.
Discrimination Exclusion Inequality for sure.
Division Inequality and Exclusion
Division Inequality and Exclusion
Discrimination Exclusion Inequality for sure.
“What does “progressive” mean exactly?”
Irrationalist racist regressive.
It is just another word for:
Depravity
You’re right, I should have mentioned this aspect. Thanks.
You’re right, I should have mentioned this aspect. Thanks.
It is just another word for:
Depravity
I’m not sure what progressivism is, but it sure ain’t liberalism.
After dipping my toes in the DEI space a few years ago, I found out that these people are live to exclude and are chronically self-righteous.
“What does “progressive” mean exactly?”
Irrationalist racist regressive.
What does “progressive” mean exactly?
Anyway, you say that “For instance, most under-35s favour a ‘colour-conscious’ approach to race”
To me that means that the under-35 are old fashion racists.
Perhaps conservatives are more likely to be getting on with useful tasks whereas the progressive left is obsessed with political and cultural issues and works at it full time.
Consequently they have taken over teaching, academia and the bureaucracy at all levels of government.
To beat them you would have to be as obsessed as they are and that means abandoning the useful and responsible tasks. So you would merely become them. I don’t see a solution.
The Achilles heel of progressivism is that it is funded largely by taxpayers money through the schools and universities. Crack down on these institutions and you get rid of millions of ideologues. The federal government could neuter universities overnight by changing research funding rules. Public schools are harder but conservatives are arguably better at small scale grassroots community organizing than progressives – so they are starting to take over school boards, etc.
Teaching, academia and bureaucracy — i.e., the shaping of young minds and the good running of the country — *are* useful tasks. The fact that so many on the right don’t see this is a good part of the reason why they keep losing.
The Achilles heel of progressivism is that it is funded largely by taxpayers money through the schools and universities. Crack down on these institutions and you get rid of millions of ideologues. The federal government could neuter universities overnight by changing research funding rules. Public schools are harder but conservatives are arguably better at small scale grassroots community organizing than progressives – so they are starting to take over school boards, etc.
Teaching, academia and bureaucracy — i.e., the shaping of young minds and the good running of the country — *are* useful tasks. The fact that so many on the right don’t see this is a good part of the reason why they keep losing.
Perhaps conservatives are more likely to be getting on with useful tasks whereas the progressive left is obsessed with political and cultural issues and works at it full time.
Consequently they have taken over teaching, academia and the bureaucracy at all levels of government.
To beat them you would have to be as obsessed as they are and that means abandoning the useful and responsible tasks. So you would merely become them. I don’t see a solution.
“the term ‘culture war’ refers to a new rift between cultural socialism, which pushes for equal outcomes and ‘emotional safety’ for identity groups; and cultural liberalism, which cleaves to free speech, due process, equal treatment without regard to race, gender or sexuality, and objective truth.”
Thank you for that concise distinction. My head spins with political/cultural terminology these days. The author’s distinction reminds me that the left-leaning culture warriors are not liberal in the traditional sense, although they might find it politically expedient to ride on the coattails of that term.
Concur JB. The Author distilled the essence about as well as anyone in that paragraph.
Of course these things are inevitably over generalised and we should be cautious about that too. These aren’t formally constituted political entities. One can often find people holding a range of categorised views across different subject matter.
Concur JB. The Author distilled the essence about as well as anyone in that paragraph.
Of course these things are inevitably over generalised and we should be cautious about that too. These aren’t formally constituted political entities. One can often find people holding a range of categorised views across different subject matter.
“the term ‘culture war’ refers to a new rift between cultural socialism, which pushes for equal outcomes and ‘emotional safety’ for identity groups; and cultural liberalism, which cleaves to free speech, due process, equal treatment without regard to race, gender or sexuality, and objective truth.”
Thank you for that concise distinction. My head spins with political/cultural terminology these days. The author’s distinction reminds me that the left-leaning culture warriors are not liberal in the traditional sense, although they might find it politically expedient to ride on the coattails of that term.
So says Mr Kaufmann in his final paragraph – but surely it is a bad sign for us all. Moral absolutism reveals unwillingness (perhaps inability) to think in any but the most superficial and judgemental way. It also provides moral fuel for those of an aggressive and domineering temperament.
If that is the kind of mind our higher education system is fostering perhaps it is time (as David Horowitz has suggested) to defund the universities.
I suspect that nothing would help as much as defunding universities, at least the humanities, education and sociology departments. I don’t think culture would suffer at all: academics have shown themselves unworthy of the classics.
I suspect that nothing would help as much as defunding universities, at least the humanities, education and sociology departments. I don’t think culture would suffer at all: academics have shown themselves unworthy of the classics.
So says Mr Kaufmann in his final paragraph – but surely it is a bad sign for us all. Moral absolutism reveals unwillingness (perhaps inability) to think in any but the most superficial and judgemental way. It also provides moral fuel for those of an aggressive and domineering temperament.
If that is the kind of mind our higher education system is fostering perhaps it is time (as David Horowitz has suggested) to defund the universities.
The really sinister thing about woke culture is that they do not have defined goals such as achieving ‘equality’ or ‘equity’, the driving force is just more wokism.
The work of the revolutionaries is never done, according to Paolo Freire, bc as soon as one revolution is done, it becomes the status quo, so yet, another revolution is needed. It’s continual disruption and destabilization. Exhausting. Hopefully as gen z gets older, they get tired of it too. Lol
Feminism provides a good illustration here. At one point achieving equality required “stuff for women, and nothing for men”.
.
Now that equality has effectively been achieved, most feminists still want exactly the same to go on ad infinitum. Take a look at the Labour front bench and “hold onto your hats” after the next U.K. election.
Feminism provides a good illustration here. At one point achieving equality required “stuff for women, and nothing for men”.
.
Now that equality has effectively been achieved, most feminists still want exactly the same to go on ad infinitum. Take a look at the Labour front bench and “hold onto your hats” after the next U.K. election.
…the “will to power” no less.
The work of the revolutionaries is never done, according to Paolo Freire, bc as soon as one revolution is done, it becomes the status quo, so yet, another revolution is needed. It’s continual disruption and destabilization. Exhausting. Hopefully as gen z gets older, they get tired of it too. Lol
…the “will to power” no less.
The really sinister thing about woke culture is that they do not have defined goals such as achieving ‘equality’ or ‘equity’, the driving force is just more wokism.
I find the terms “cultural socialism” and “cultural liberalism” quite useful, since “liberalism” has been misappropriated by the left for some time and it places the liberal viewpoint back in its…erm… rightful place, and in opposition to the socialist worldview.
One thing the author gets wrong is the view that immigration has been a live political issue in the UK “since the 90s”. Has he never heard of Enoch Powell, or the National Front? I’m not conflating those two: Powell was an intellectual and the NF barely had a braincell between them, but the issue has been prominent since the Windrush arrived from the Caribbean.
The idea that the Conservative Party would somehow embrace cultural socialism is also pretty wide of the mark. All the evidence in terms of its legislative programme in the final couple of years before the next election suggests otherwise. This includes the blocking of the SNP move on gender self-ID and of course the bill to block those entering the country illegally from ever seeking asylum.
More astute analysis please, Unherd.
Likewise SM I found that distinction between CS and CL v useful summary.
I suspect though that people will tend not to be 100% either way on all matters, but depending on the specific issue may lean in different directions. But nonetheless one of those explanations one can see oneself sharing with others too because it’s simple, clear and understandable.
I agree too the Author seems to understate that immigration been an issue for much longer than he assumes. Of course I’d argue that shows that in fact we’ve a track record in successful assimilation and shouldn’t get quite as worked up about it now as we sometimes do – I mean look at who’s PM, Foreign Sec and Home Sec. (Anyway separate debate)
One always thought at some point the gender ID issue would rebound a bit on a party leading the charge and such is the case with the SNP.
Likewise SM I found that distinction between CS and CL v useful summary.
I suspect though that people will tend not to be 100% either way on all matters, but depending on the specific issue may lean in different directions. But nonetheless one of those explanations one can see oneself sharing with others too because it’s simple, clear and understandable.
I agree too the Author seems to understate that immigration been an issue for much longer than he assumes. Of course I’d argue that shows that in fact we’ve a track record in successful assimilation and shouldn’t get quite as worked up about it now as we sometimes do – I mean look at who’s PM, Foreign Sec and Home Sec. (Anyway separate debate)
One always thought at some point the gender ID issue would rebound a bit on a party leading the charge and such is the case with the SNP.
I find the terms “cultural socialism” and “cultural liberalism” quite useful, since “liberalism” has been misappropriated by the left for some time and it places the liberal viewpoint back in its…erm… rightful place, and in opposition to the socialist worldview.
One thing the author gets wrong is the view that immigration has been a live political issue in the UK “since the 90s”. Has he never heard of Enoch Powell, or the National Front? I’m not conflating those two: Powell was an intellectual and the NF barely had a braincell between them, but the issue has been prominent since the Windrush arrived from the Caribbean.
The idea that the Conservative Party would somehow embrace cultural socialism is also pretty wide of the mark. All the evidence in terms of its legislative programme in the final couple of years before the next election suggests otherwise. This includes the blocking of the SNP move on gender self-ID and of course the bill to block those entering the country illegally from ever seeking asylum.
More astute analysis please, Unherd.
Progressivism is “up to date ism.” A progressive is a person for whom the most important question is “what time is it?” The more progressive the more urgent the question, and the more urgent the question the less time one has. Every tick of the second hand proves everything false.
Progressivism is “up to date ism.” A progressive is a person for whom the most important question is “what time is it?” The more progressive the more urgent the question, and the more urgent the question the less time one has. Every tick of the second hand proves everything false.
Cosnervatives are realizing the long term consequences of letting universities, media and schools at the end of their ennemies.
Cosnervatives are realizing the long term consequences of letting universities, media and schools at the end of their ennemies.
I find it helps to consider previous crises of belief and structures and sincere, but near diametrically opposed, adversaries; the nearest parallel I can think of is the Reformation and then Counter-Reformstion.
In both of these instances, the 16th century and now, there were positive arguments for change but they came at a cost of denigrating opposition as inherently wicked. When the Counter-Reformation came, it did the same to its opponents; it took well over a century for the Wars of Religion to burn themselves out and formal, institutional, discrimination did not disappear for many decades later: in Britain, it took until 1829.
The conclusion I draw, if I’m right, is that our current discontent hasn’t even begun yet.
LGBQT issues will be at the forefront of this. The divide is growing between those who believe that LGBQT are perfectly natural lifestyles that children need to learn at school and those who believe that consenting LGQBT adults should be able to do whatever they like, but please not in front of the children.
One side feels that their existence is at stake if their way of life is not fully endorsed by the state (and by extension the public education system), the other is fearful of children being taught dysfunctional sexual pathologies.
“Let’s learn to get along” vs “Celebrate me! Now!”
“Let’s learn to get along” vs “Celebrate me! Now!”
LGBQT issues will be at the forefront of this. The divide is growing between those who believe that LGBQT are perfectly natural lifestyles that children need to learn at school and those who believe that consenting LGQBT adults should be able to do whatever they like, but please not in front of the children.
One side feels that their existence is at stake if their way of life is not fully endorsed by the state (and by extension the public education system), the other is fearful of children being taught dysfunctional sexual pathologies.
I find it helps to consider previous crises of belief and structures and sincere, but near diametrically opposed, adversaries; the nearest parallel I can think of is the Reformation and then Counter-Reformstion.
In both of these instances, the 16th century and now, there were positive arguments for change but they came at a cost of denigrating opposition as inherently wicked. When the Counter-Reformation came, it did the same to its opponents; it took well over a century for the Wars of Religion to burn themselves out and formal, institutional, discrimination did not disappear for many decades later: in Britain, it took until 1829.
The conclusion I draw, if I’m right, is that our current discontent hasn’t even begun yet.
Blaming conservatives for the “culture wars” is analogous to blaming the Zelenskyy government for the war in Ukraine. The aggressor in the “culture wars” is always the “progressives” who want to foist some unpopular change on society through their control of elite institutions and are resisted by those who regard the status quo (or even some status quo ante) as normal, desirable, or at least better than what the “progressives” want.
“While it is true that conservatives have played their part in deepening culture war divisions…” is a bit like blaming the tenacious defense of Ukraine for the destruction being wrought there.
Blaming conservatives for the “culture wars” is analogous to blaming the Zelenskyy government for the war in Ukraine. The aggressor in the “culture wars” is always the “progressives” who want to foist some unpopular change on society through their control of elite institutions and are resisted by those who regard the status quo (or even some status quo ante) as normal, desirable, or at least better than what the “progressives” want.
“While it is true that conservatives have played their part in deepening culture war divisions…” is a bit like blaming the tenacious defense of Ukraine for the destruction being wrought there.