Osita Nwanevu’s July New Republic article, “The Willful Blindness of Reactionary Liberalism” which has made the rounds in left-wing circles expresses a view of liberalism whereby “associative freedom” is the key to pursuing justice for identity-based claims. I’ll say that it’s welcome that he, unlike others who dismiss critics of censoriousness, lays his cards on the table for all to see.
Nwanevu defines who is a "reactionary liberal" versus those who are wielding their liberal associative freedom to further progressive identity politics. Those reactionary liberals are people like Jonathan Chait, Andrew Sullivan and (perhaps) Matt Taibbi who are critical of what they see as censoriousness among liberals of many stripes who prioritize group identity as the terrain to fight for social justice. All three of these writers are of different ideological inclinations and seek different political ends and vary widely as credible messengers for universalism. Nevertheless, he lumps them together and does not address the formidable criticisms of radical liberalism made by Marxist socialists.
Andrew Sullivan has expressed unambiguous racist views during the latest dust-up caused by Sam Harris who claimed Charles Murray's "Bell Curve" simply shared "facts" and "science" and had been unjustly vilified. Sullivan and Harris shouted that they were being attacked personally and caused harm when criticized for their views, while at the same moment, publishing and speaking widely. Like the alt-right, they appropriated the language of open dialogue and "free speech" to seek the higher moral ground, to delegitimize their critics and position themselves as victims. Chait is the consummate neo-liberal Democrat who thinks the experts may only be questioned by other experts and the masses make it all too messy. Taibbi is something of a left fellow-traveller and unlike the others is not chiefly a pundit, but an investigative journalist, who wrote, “I Can't Breath: A Killing on Bay Street" about the police killing of Eric Garner among many other worthwhile books and articles.
Similar to Taibbi, there are many critics of so-called cancel culture within the socialist, primarily Marxist left, who are anything but enemies of racial justice. This is important, not only to foreground the fact but to establish a counter-narrative to liberalism and the problem of limiting debate and turning political disagreement among people who share many of the same goals into moral binaries so it becomes acceptable to damage someone's reputation or even get them fired. Nwanevu champions the associative freedom of advocates of progressive identity politics as the true liberals but does not address how those advocates sometimes threaten critics with behavior that goes beyond speech or group advocacy (e.g., the recent cases of Lee Fang, James Bennett, Adolph Reed Jr., and David Shor) and constricts debate.
He presses the idea that the key to liberalism is associative freedom and proponents of progressive identity politics may come together to call out publications and individuals about perceived expressions of racism and reaction. Of course, this is true but his worst enemies can do the same and take it further. Would Nwanevu consider it consistent with liberal values if a group of his colleagues at the New Republic went to his bosses and tried to get him censured for writing his "willful blindness" piece on the grounds that it is racist? Are they not partaking in associative freedom? Maybe he would not object but it is hard to see any kernel of liberalism when intimidation is in play. The New Republic and the New York Times are not worker cooperatives with fair and transparent processes to determine editorial decisions collectively.
As Nwanevu states the New York Times or private universities have no obligation to publish articles or provide space to speakers and hateful ideas that they do not want to be complicit with or countenance. Likewise, a socialist magazine will not give space to reactionary views for reasons that are self-evident. Yet, there is a stark difference between these examples and other speech that is plainly not racist but its main fault may be that it does not advance a preferred narrative, in this case, liberal identity politics. Nor is relying on the authority of private universities or corporate press (or Twitter or Facebook) desirable. A standard Marxist criticism of bourgeois rights is that the ruling class has the means to be heard loudly, that for the working class such liberal rights are abstract and limited. The history of the left is strewn with victims of repression of thought and speech at the hands of the ruling class. Turning to corporate media to advance social justice is turning this history on its head.
For much of the history of the Western left, the free expression of ideas has been a principle to defend, not only on account of the threat of repression but also because the left has been constituted on the proposition that we are stronger numerically and that reaction is the province of the minority, the ruling class. We have had confidence that we are on the right side of history and if we play our cards right we can make progress. Even in the aftermath, of the state violence which took the life of George Floyd, and continued to be unleashed on non-violent protesters in many parts of the United States, large majorities support the protests, even to the extent that a majority of citizens accepted the torching of a Minneapolis police precinct. Nwanvenu seems to suggest that multi-racial objection or outrage about police violence is the signal result of Black Lives Matter activism and white appreciation for the pain of the Other. Perhaps, but I'd suggest that it has more to do with universal notions of rights. Most people do not approve of the state killing and beating citizens.
The type of progressive identity politics Nwanvenu supports is not rooted in the historically-grounded idea that the working-class shares interests that it can unite around. Therefore, he is left to seek out an authority to delimit debate and is committed to a particular type of politics whereby liberalism sets the horizon and "parity" of treatment is the goal. Unlike socialists who only see the goals of "liberty, equality and fraternity" being fully realized with a transition to socialism, progressive identity politics are in the end about equality of opportunity. This is the rub: Nwanevu and radical liberals misdiagnose the causes of racial disparities as above all the consequence of discrimination and immoral conduct, past and present. While neither are in short supply, it causes him to misapprehend who and what is to blame and how best to go about changing it. Removing statues of Confederates (yay) or even getting an NYT editor to resign (nay) for publishing an opinion piece by a genuine reactionary is largely symbolic. They don't redistribute economic and political power. They don't even do anything about discrimination.
Nwanevu is certainly literally correct that “non-state institutions under liberalism" have no obligation to be "maximally permissive of opposing ideas." Yet, why would one not want to be "maximally permissive" at least to the extent that those ideas should be in plain sight and can be directly confronted? He never says. What is most troubling about this defense of circumscribing the circulation of ideas is not that Western Civilization as we know it will come crashing down as “reactionary liberals” claim, it is that important socialist ideas and analysis will be displaced by the more acceptable language of "parity" that Nwanevu employs (by which everyone has an equal chance to be exploited by capital), not based on their substance, but by fiats made by frightened private gatekeepers.
Leftists are well-aware of the power of the state, the ruling class and its ideological apparatus in media to shape ideas in the public imagination. However, that reality is categorically irrelevant to the question of the importance of open debate on the left or otherwise, even when judging the relative scale of their respective impact. We should not cede the ground of free expression and the idea of freedom generally to the right. They are traditional hallmarks of the left. No one likes to be controlled by others. A left that comes down harshly on violators is not attractive to the diverse working class. It suppresses freedom. It cannot succeed.