A blogger over at Creative Deduction makes very clear why libertarians ought to leave virtue signalling to the left. It is advise that would especially serve the weak-kneed lillies over at organizations like Reason, Cato and others that try to play footie with mainstream progressive sentiment in order to come across as “reasonable” (hint: libertarianism will never be regarded as reasonable by inveterate statists of the left and right, no matter how politically correct you are.)
As CD puts it:
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. First, the idea that unless you specifically disavow these fringe movements you are implicitly showing them support, is simply not a fair assessment – and the left knows it: after recent Muslim terror attacks in London and elsewhere, the (broadly correct) consensus from the left has been that these are actions of single individuals who do not represent an entire religion – in other words, no-one from the demographic of the attackers is guilty by association. Yet the left does not extend the same curtesy to their political enemies: after the Charlottesville march, all of the right – or even all white people – were called upon to speak up or be deemed silent accomplices. The double standard is plain to see. The mere fact that libertarians feel compelled to speak, up out of fear of the backlash if they don’t, in some ways serves to acknowledge a kinship with actual racist factions such as the National Socialist Movement or the KKK. Why should a libertarian be more obligated to react than people with any other political affiliation?
In libertarian philosophy, nobody is in any way obligated to have any position whatsoever on anything, other than private property rights and the non-aggression principle. While outside of the realm of libertarianism-qua-libertarianism, people can be appealed to, to morally condemn any action, it can only be done as individuals. Not as whites; not as right-wingers and not libertarians. None of these latter groupings or affiliations have any kind of collective responsibility or guilt for what happened in Charlottesville, and therefore also no obligation to openly condemn the right-wing or white groups involved.
As CD justifiably states; to answer affirmatively to the left’s demands that whites, right-wingers or libertarians as a collective condemn the alt-right groups involved in Charlottesville, is to implicitly, but unjustifiably, acknowledge that indeed you have some ties to these alt-right groups. The left is calling you (as a group) out, and you placate them; does this not prove their point that there is indeed a connection. If the shoe fits, after all. And that is even without the clear double standard of the left’s own refusal to take collective “responsibility” for extremist left-wing groups involved.
Therefore, from a libertarian viewpoint it is absolutely justified that if president Donald Trump condemns any pariticpant in the Charlottesville debacle, he would condemn them all, and not merely the alt-right. To only condemn the alt-right is to play into the left’s hands of leftists not being in any way culpable of immoral behavior, threaths, intimidation and violence, merely by virtue of being leftists. Anybody that demanded that Trump solely condemned the alt-right, is someone with clearly leftist Social Justice Warrior sympathies, or a spineless coward catering to leftist demand, as usual. In the case of a number of mainstream Republicans, the latter ought to be obvious. They have been spineless cowards catering to leftist demands for decades, and continue to be.
Second, and most important, is the acknowledgement of the SJW left’s narrative that lies in the calls for vocal condemnation: that if you are not explicitly on the diversity and social justice band wagon, then you are under suspicion for being a closet racist or bigot. This is why the left calls everyone they disagree with “Nazis”; they actually believe that you cannot be honestly against the virtue signalling SJW agenda without it implying that you are against equal rights and opportunity per se. But we are not virtue signalling and do not aspire to be so, and speaking up against a specific event just because others are is just that: making an effort to align yourself with the virtuous view, for no other reason than to demonstrate to others that you are pure of thought. There are untold evils in the
world, and addressing one specifically, just because your political opponents demand it, is accepting their narrative – a narrative of political correctness which we should vehemently resist, because PC is not about kindness and respect, but about thought control to further a left-progressive agenda.
To put it in simple terms, the left bascically says: “Placate us by giving in to our demands, and maybe we consider you to be more alike ourselves. If not, you’re racists”
But libertarians, right-wingers, and at least as a collective, white people do not care about being more like the left. They do not care about being Social Justice Warriors who try to impose thought control over society. So why should any one of us even be interested in giving the left what it wants? Who cares what they want, and who cares what they think?
This is the whole problem of modern society: even those that disagree with the left, are often too spineless to come out and say that they don’t give a crap what the left says, thinks and wants. And that they have no interest in becoming more like them. Maybe it is because they fear the prospect of intensified ideological and social conflict, and prefer to keep the peace. Maybe they still fear the stigma of being branded a Nazi, racist or fascist even though they already know about themselves that they aren’t. Certainly it is because the left has succeeded its “long march through the institutions” and whatever institution you visit, sneering leftists will be very likely at the helm looking down on you, whether its media, academe, politics, the entertainment industry, or the arts. In some cases, even churches.
But there is no peace to keep with voracious ideologues that will not stop before they get all they want. And that is what society as a whole needs to start getting. Those vituperated by the left will always be called every bad thing under the sun, because this is not truth but tactic.
The crocodile will not stop trying to eat you just because you try feeding it scraps. It wants you whole. Once you start treating it like the crocodile it is, you will realize not to even attempt to feed it.
Political correctness is not about tolerance, diversity or inclusiveness. By now it should be abundantly clear that the left does not care about these things at all, because unless you accept the whole kit and kaboodle of their agenda, they have absolutely no tolerance for you, and inclusiveness and diversity of those with different ideas are off limits. Political correctness, as CD states, is about mind control and furthering the left’s agenda. It wants to ban and criminalize outright any thought or expression that contradicts it. Catering to it, is giving the left the very weapon with which it will gag you and enslave you.
We should oppose other people’s views when we find it appropriate to do so, but let’s leave virtue signalling to the left. Don’t call on the left to disavow statements and actions by radical elements on their side. It is fine to point out their hypocrisy when they are silent, but call on us to speak up – but we should be very clear that we do not require anyone to advertise their righteousness. Virtue is a private matter and we believe in individual responsibility. The consistent position is to reject the left’s narrative of political correctness.
To wit, not to cater to their self-important demands. Those on the alleged “right” that joined the left in their chorus of boos against Donald Trump for dealing out condemnation across the board, are either deliberately or unwittingly accepting the left’s narrative of political correctness, and are complicit in imposing this blight further upon society. They are accepting the left’s narrative. They’re modern day useful idiots and should be treated as such, to a man.