Critical Theory Hypocrisy and the Need for a Third Political Party
This blog article is inspired by a podcast I listened to recently with Dr. Frank Fukuyama, whose books I have read in graduate school. I have expanded on some of the things heard in that podcast, which can be found at the link below:
Anyway, a major rallying issue on the Right the last few years has been about critical race theory or CRI, which the Right believes is being propagated by the ideological Left, especially in schools. Critical race theory is but one sub-genre of studies originating out of early twentieth century German critical theory. What anti-CRI claimants often don't project in their arguments is that undergirding all critical theory is the concept of freedom and liberty.
Critical theory focuses on freedom-limiting power structures. Generically, this is a philosophical system that combines liberal ideology (not political liberals in the American context, but freedom focused classical liberalism) with social science systemic studies. Its goal is to get down to the base roots of systemic power structures that limit freedom. Critical race theory is no different. Its aim is to get down to the core systemic failures that contribute to racial inequity.
Is there a systemic racism at play today?
I would say yes, but with a caveat. I would describe it as residual or derivative racism, but maybe not overt or deliberate racism. In other words, it includes the systemic hang-overs from segregation and racism that came before the Civil Rights Movement. It could be as simple as an antiquated law on the books that came with Jim Crow, but was not rectified in Civil Rights and still has effects on minority populations. It could be the social structures that perpetuate minority poverty, which might lead to criminality, which in turn leads to enhanced police tactics, which in turn is perceived as racism by minority populations. There's a system at work that whether or not any frontal racism is involved, there is still a connection to earlier racism and it needs addressing.
Where the Right gets it right is that some of this critique can become hyperbolic. Yet, I think the Right is often ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, the Left often gets entrenched in hyperbolic views of the issues or hypersensitivity, to the point that every conservative act is seen as a return to a racialized past or a challenge to racial identity. For example, the Left's political correctness has elevated ideas like cultural appropriation, to the point that one cannot wear an emblem of another race or ethnicity without being lumped in with those who have committed genocide, ethnic rape, slavery, or other violence. While some things, such as sports team mascots could have racialized histories, appropriation claims have perhaps gone too far and blanketed all minority centered emblems as racist. Interestingly, cultures develop in history by borrowing and sharing, and that happens through trade perhaps more-so than violence. Just look at the cross-fertilization between Japan and America today.
On the other hand, the Right tends to focus on the Left's potential for over-inflating race theory, which inadvertently under-inflates their perceptions of racial problems in society. The Right also views all critical theory as connected to Derrida and Foucault, who were two of the major contributors to postmodern thought, including relativism and deconstructionism. I agree that such ideologies are potentially dangerous, but critical theory at its core can be a vehicle for healthy skepticism that seeks to right wrongs in the hopes of ensuring the greatest amount of liberty possible.
Additionally, the Right is guilty of their own critical theory excesses, though I doubt many on the Right would be aware that they have a critical theory base. They do indeed have something synonymous with critical theory, which I label as critical political theory. There might already be the use of that term in other ways, but what I mean by it is the suspicion that there are systemic political power structures that need deconstructing to ensure the preservation of conservative principles. This power structure would be deemed the deep state, and its criticism has been expressed hyperbolically in a plethora of conspiracy theories, including Q-anon driven sex-cult subversion stories concerning the body-politic, climate science denialism, ultra-nationalism, and election fraud conceptualization. Skepticism in all these areas is one thing, but the religious fervor that many apply to these views has only furthered the breakdown of mutuality and civic dialogue.
The point of this writing is not to decry critical theory, but to demonstrate that as with any idea, it can be taken too far to ideological extremes. This reflects our present culture and political system. There is a divide that is widening as both sides of the aisle combat one another for political and ideological superiority. I think the Right is more entrenched than the Left, but the Left is in no way innocent. The famed political scientist Francis Fukuyama has called this political divide a v-tocracy, with v meaning veto. So far as we are entrenched into our own sociopolitical camps, less is getting done politically as each side vetoes the other by avoiding reasoned debate and consideration. There is less compromising or the hammering out of workable political solutions in favor of ideological immovability.
James Madison, the primary author of our Constitution, in his works in the Federalist Papers has motioned that having a multiplicity of factions is good for the nation, because it slows down the political process so that bad legislation is not passed knee-jerk via populism or a tyranny of a majority. However, he expected coalitions to form between factions on issues so that this slow-roll is not stalled completely and business is accomplished, though cautiously. Unfortunately, we have two main political parties who are no longer real big-tent coalitions, but polemical enemies. When these sides retreat to their ideological bases, they work less and less together, to the point that winning seats and shifting power is necessary to pass "their" legislation. This is where each side vetoes the other, through gerrymandering, the abuse of the filibuster, vitriolic political campaigning, and dirty tactics like abusing election appeals processes in order to retain power.
We need a solution that moderates. We need a moderating political party to challenge the binary disregard of the Republicans and Democrats. I do not mean a centrist party, which muddles policy or hybridizes policy in a wishy-washy way. I mean a party that forces the others to lower their ideological immovability toward getting back to business. I mean a party that seeks to truly apply representation by giving people options that aren't the big R or D, which likely do not reflect some people well enough, but with being the only players likely to win has trapped people in their votes. We need a viable third party, but not to become a triumvirate, but to pry open the door for more parties and more representation.
To accomplish this goal, we need a political structure that honors the republican (meaning representative) nature of our historic heritage. This is why I support ranked choice voting and open primaries.
With regard to ranked choice voting, voters select their top candidates and in each cycle, and the pool is winnowed down until a winner who best encapsulates a balanced representation of the whole nation is chosen. It may be a better representation than the binary system we currently have. For one, it helps weed out polemics and extremists. It forces candidates to position themselves not on the merits of their political ideologies, but on representing the whole. It also means presenting clarity of message and cooperation to earn the votes of the people. It civilizes elections.
As a side note, this does not mean that candidates abandon their principles or ideologies. Instead, it fosters the spirit of cooperation. For example, suppose I am a candidate for some office. Maybe my primary issue is responsible government spending. Yet, maybe my position is the minority position. Knowing that ranked voting is a thing might 1. motivate me to hone my position and market it beyond my party's constituency, 2. refine and clarify the key critical points over the negotiable ones, 3. evaluate the opposing points to find common ground, and 4. position myself on my willingness to reach across the aisle over the rigidity of my party's polemics.
Perhaps that sounds like a watering down of conviction, but in reality it's applying realism toward real solutions that don't alienate half the country. It doesn't abandon belief, but strategically builds momentum for it as work is done toward amiable solutions with any opponents. It is highly deliberative, which is what I call the Madisonian-middle, because it reflects James Madison's envisioned processes outlined in Federalist Paper # 10.
Second, I like open primaries because they allow for independents to vote for whomever is running and it allows opposite party voters to give their voice, thus moderating representation away from political polemics. It used to be that party nominees were selected by parties alone and not through publicly held primary elections, but if we are to have primary elections, moderation ought to take place and that means open primaries.
Currently, there is one party being formed that sees these principles as necessary controls to the political stall we are currently in -- the Forward Party. Check them out at the link below.
Comments
Post a Comment