THE GREAT BETRAYAL

How I messed with progressive perfection.

Through most of my adult life I suffered from the (Peace-Love-Civil Rights) Sixties hangover. My casual attitude towards social norms, enthusiasm for individual freedom, and free-wheeling creativity might have been more at home in Berkeley or Greenwich Village, than Bangalore or Kollam, India. I was a creature of the time- even if not the place. My behavior (in the mid-nineties) would have been normal for teenagers- except that I was already in my mid-thirties. I would continue with my liberal, freethinking ways for another decade.

I honestly believed that Liberals were uniquely selfless and altruistic- motivated by freedom, justice, equality and eradicating human suffering. Unlike conservatives, the orthodox, or fundamentalists, we liberals fought for dissenters, outliers and underdogs. We were for independent thinking, social progress and the advancement of humanity. I was a Liberal, therefore I was good.

Which is why people who know me are shocked at what they see as rank disloyalty to the liberal cause. They feel betrayed by my blasphemies. Some have even called me the dreaded ‘C’ word.

Was I always a closet Conservative?

Not being a public figure, until recently few people cared about my opinions. However, ever since I started (first) gently questioning (and later) challenging liberal shibboleths, people have been waking up to my obnoxious views:

“Ashok why are you being sexist/ racist/ transphobic/ Islamophobic?”. “How can you say such terrible things about progressives- we just want to protect the historically marginalized”. “By using conservative talking points, aren’t you aiding and abetting the Rightwing?”.

And best of all, “Are you against minorities?” The last was asked by a very senior mediator and law professor who thought I was betraying ‘our people’ (i.e. people of color) by questioning aspects of the DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) party line. Oh, and, by the way, she also stopped talking with me. In this however, she was in good company, those who preach empathy, compassion and inclusion, don’t seem to extend those courtesies to conservatives. Just as those who teach ‘active listening’, ‘consensus building’, and how to have ‘difficult conversations’- tend to practice these skills only as long as it is billable.

When people talk about ‘speaking truth to power’, they must mean as long as it doesn’t affect their careers. When they talk of standing up for ‘principles’, they must mean as long as their friends stand with them. When they talk of ‘integrity’ they must mean not being swayed by contrary evidence.

To be fair some folks have told me (privately) that they agree with some (or all) of what I say- they just can’t say so publicly for fear of upsetting peers, employers, spouses, or their (woke) kids. I’m guessing courage (like truth itself) is a relative thing these days.

So, no, there you have it- I am no longer a Sixties man, even if the music and mythology of that era still moves me. But neither am I an economic or political conservative. Most people are ‘conservative’ about the things they love and the things that work for them. As Rod Laver once said, “You don’t change a winning game”. That is, if you are leading 6-3, 6-4 at Wimbledon, you stick with whatever you are doing for the third set. As I said last week, to be a conservative is to wish to stick with what has stood the test of time. Conservatives are wary of innovation for the sake of innovation. If I have acquired even a smidgin of a conservative trait it is this- I have become wary of destroying things (that I cannot wholly understand the purpose or value of), merely because I fancy something better.

To use the parable of Chesterton’s Fence.

“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” G.K. Chesterton

The funny thing is that there was, really, no betrayal. I have always been a liberal, what some folks call a classical liberal- not the latter-day version. While I have always advocated for women’s equality, minority rights and clean energy (to mention just a few issues), I have never been a card-carrying Progressive- eager to ‘dismantle’ all unjust institutions. My enthusiasm for equality and justice came out of my commitment to reason and critical thinking. My morals took the cue from my thinking- not the other way around.

Everything has a cost- even thinking for yourself.

So, while this essay has been a long time coming- it has been triggered by a well-meaning friend who asked me why I take on positions that upset people. I mean, she asked, “Why do you continue to say things that make people hate you?” The short answer is that I am not trying to piss people off. Like most people I, too, would like to be liked, respected, and allowed to earn a living. However, our adamant insistence to view everything from the lens of inequity and oppression (“The Personal Is Political”) has reduced me to a cardboard cutout of other people’s perceptions. I accept that have little influence over the beliefs of those who eschew reason for ideology or tribal talking points.

What I can do is to continue to make sense of our messy world and teach those who are curious about nuance and complexity. As I see it, there are two factors that make being a liberal today challenging and interesting. On the one hand in a world veering towards authoritarianism and uber-nationalism, democratic habits and progressive mindsets developed in the mid-late 20th century are no longer as relevant. On the other hand, fifty years of endless progress and belief that the ‘arc of justice” will somehow bend towards justice, is a hard vision for people to jettison. Attempts to question progressive assumptions can resemble the proverbial irresistible force (of liberal reason) running up against the immovable object (of progressive dogmas). As we well know, dogmas, whether Talibanic, Maoist, Seventh Day Adventist or Progressive, don’t respond well to reason, dialogue or debate.

Reason, I’ve discovered might well be a force, but it is scarcely irresistible. Dogma, by definition is immovable. Game, set and match.

A few people have sincerely asked me: “But by using conservative talking points, aren’t you helping the Rightwing?” For a liberal, a real liberal, this is an astonishing question. The idea that one’s side and its values cannot be criticized, is a notion that I associate with Islamists, Stalinists and Maoists- hardboiled ideologues who are dedicated to the utter destruction of their enemies. The last time I looked, liberal democracies were based upon reason, debate, negotiation, and compromise. The nuclear option is generally speaking frowned upon. As a liberal I have to be able to see value in my opponent’s views, even if in doing so my own views might be proven false. This is why we also call the Age of Reason, The Enlightenment, not because everyone was wise, but because for a brief shining moment Western societies had determined that objectivity, reason and argument were more useful than subjectivity, emotional reactivity and violence.

But this confidence in reason and debate is a historical oddity, most societies have been and continue to be sustained through a combination of brute strength and tribal cohesion. Loyalty to one’s tribe (or cause) and the destruction of one’s enemies doesn’t require our complex liberal democracy with its constitutions, separation of powers, rule of law, and checks and balances. If we wish to dismiss those we disagree with because they are beyond the pale, we might as well live in China or Saudi Arabia- or overthrow the US government and create a dictatorship of the Progressive.

Despite my confidence in debate, dialogue and reason, I am acutely aware that I might be hopelessly wrong. “After all, if so many people are turned off by my views, could it be that the problem is me (and my views) and not them (or their views)?” Tomorrow, someone might well show me that I am terribly and devastatingly mistaken. My world view may be proved to be skewed, my assumptions mistaken, and my axioms false. But until such time, until someone deigns to persuade me through clear/ robust reason, I have no choice, but to follow the path crafted by my mind.

Needless to say, these past years have provided much occasion for reflection, and I am forced to take minor comfort in what the theorist and cybernetician Stafford Beer’s said about responsibility:

“Every time I have been called irresponsible, the situation arose because I exercised my personal, deeply felt sense of responsibility, to the utmost.” Stafford Beer.

So, I plod on, teaching small groups how to think better, how to look at our complex world with more curiosity and less certainty. So, I am sorry if I keep on offending you, that is certainly not my intention. However, if I have to choose between maintaining my sense of integrity (and responsibility) and not offending other people, I think I will have to (most regretfully) choose the former.

Make no mistake about it, it would be hard for me to lose you, but it would be so much worse for me to lose myself.