After election defeats, political writers are quick to explain that if only the politicians had read my book and followed my advice, things would have been different for our side.My pitch is a bit different. Please read It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics, but not for a winning electoral strategy.
If candidates opposed to reactionary authoritarian nationalism had advocated the positions I endorse, Trump and like-minded Republicans still would have won control of all three branches of the US government. But at least Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party, and activists further left (the category I put myself in) would have lost gracefully by being more honest.
The book starts with an analysis of contemporary intellectual culture (defined in a non-snobby way, not just people with advanced degrees but the way we think together) before taking on three hot-button topics in today’s politics—race and white supremacy, sex/gender and the trans movement, and the economic implications of an ecological worldview.
On race: I don’t hesitate to criticize the jargon and haughtiness of some anti-racist activists and acknowledge the failures of many institutionalized DEI programs, arguments that may have resonated with some white folks who voted for Trump. But I also argue that the United States remains a white-supremacist culture and that we white people have an obligation to change. Such “messaging” wouldn’t have won Democrats many white votes.
On sex/gender: Mainstream feminism in the United States has gone all-in on the demands of the trans movement, even though that movement has never offered a coherent account of transgenderism. The Republicans exploited that incoherence effectively. For a decade, I have articulated a feminist challenge to transgender ideology, a position that would have made the Democrats a more credible voice for women’s rights. But because my analysis is rooted in a radical feminist critique of institutionalized male dominance, it’s bound to scare away many conservative voters.
On environmentalism: Almost without exception, politicians on all sides advocate economic growth. The debate is usually about which policies are likely to be more effective. When population comes up in the United States, the most common concern is falling birthrates, not the problem of overpopulation. I argue that human survival depends on “fewer and less”—a dramatic reduction in the population and a dramatic reduction in aggregate consumption, with steps taken to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. I know of no politician from any party who faces the reality that the human future—if there is to be a human future—depends on our ability to shrink the economy, not expand it.
I realize that my race and sex/gender arguments are radioactive in some circles, and that demanding an ecological reckoning guarantees being ignored by most everyone in the mainstream. If unsuccessful center/liberal/left candidates had embraced these positions, they likely would have lost by larger margins than they did. But at least they would have lost gracefully, making principled arguments that may not carry the day politically but offer a model for honestly engaging difficult questions.
If I can’t promise electoral success in the short term, why should anyone bother with these critical perspectives? That’s a reasonable question, given that electoral success matters. I don’t believe that any of today’s politicians are going to magically solve our problems, but which politicians are setting policy today can either reduce the chances of a decent human future or carve out some space for hope.
My only answer: Responses I have received to the book tell me that there are people—not a majority, not even a significant minority right now—who are facing tough questions and want a space to explore this kind of politics without fear of being baited or insulted. It’s possible that from that small group, a more honest and graceful politics is possible.
