This reads to me insightful and true.
The Economist: Liberalism inherently tolerates its detractors. Yet online culture is so virulent, does this undermine the viability of liberalism?
Ms Nagle: Spend some time on Twitter or looking at YouTube comments and youâll find it hard to maintain a belief in liberal enlightenment ideals for long. The reality of what we are like when we are given the freedom to say what we like is actually extremely ugly. Public discourse has never been as idiotic, cruel, irrational and utterly pointless in my lifetime as it is now.
The point the culture wars have taken us to is really a war between two irreconcilable sides and each side wants a world that the other would rather die than accept. When you reach that point Iâm not sure if a liberal public sphere is possible anymore. Those arguing for it tend to really be motivated by faith that their ideas will triumph under those conditions. But liberalism is extremely weak right now and I think much stronger ideologies are likely to trample it in the coming years.
The Economist: Does the restrictive nature of political correctness inadvertently push people away from progressive politics?
Ms Nagle: No serious person can really deny that it does at this point, if theyâre being honest. Many people are attracted to progressive politics because they see that the world is unequal and unfair and they want better wages or education or healthcare. But they quickly find out that this isnât enough. In order to not be purged they have to learn an ever more elaborate and bizarre set of correct positions they must hold on a range of issues and they must continue to carefully and fearfully walk on eggshells to avoid the call-out.
No humour or intellectual exploration is any longer possible in that environment. Think of any progressive intellectual of any significance from the last century and try to imagine them surviving today. Theyâd just be purged. Theyâd have to dissent on some issue and it wouldnât be tolerated.
The Economist: How has the far-right used irony to spread transgressive ideas? Does the far-left do something similar and if so, how? (And if it doesnât, why not?)
Ms Nagle: Irony and transgressiveness have been aesthetic tools mostly used by the political left for a long time, certainly theyâve been ever-present since 1968. I write in the book about how the right has for a long time been dominated by a genteel kind of conservatism and that the pro-Trump rightist youth politics marked a break from that. It took the liberal cultural mainstream and the left by surprise.
Suddenly when Trump got elected, liberal or left leaning journalists were trying to catch up and work out what was ironic and what was real. So for example, punks used to use the swastika ironically in the 70s, and many of those bands have become part of the progressive canon, but when the alt right and the various pro-Trump online subcultures emerged with a similar style, it was hard to know which flirtations with fascism were ironic.
The Economist: It often seems like the culture wars are driven by young men with diminished economic prospects and an inability to find a sexual partner. Is that a problem that can be solved by policies or do liberals simply need to discover a new tone?
Ms Nagle: One of the darker products of the sexual revolution is that you have a generation of young men raised on very grim pornography and being able to be like the Marquis de Sade in the virtual or imaginary world but in the real world they have less agency, less human contact, fewer prospects and less stake in their community and society than ever before. You have unprecedented levels of celibacy and childlessness too among millennials, including women.
Unfortunately itâs near impossible to have a sane or good faith conversation about this because of how heated the culture wars have become online, but the longer term social implications, which apply to men and women, are surely going to be very significant as millennials get older. I think there are economic solutions to some of it but it also requires a major shift in the culture at this point. Young people need to be able to have families and a home and some kind of job stability. We also need to restore the dignity of ordinary people.
Ruthless competitive individualism is being applied to the romantic and private realm and itâs deeply anti-social. Ultimately though, the emergence of all of this is really about demographics and race. Though Iâve been guilty of it myself in the past, I would now caution that these issues should be considered before diving straight into the psycho-sexual interpretations.