There seems to be a rather persistent misunderstanding of the rationale behind rejecting Leftist framing among conservatives. It is a deep-rooted confusion that would greatly benefit from a more rational discourse. After all, the goal of the Right-wing movement is not to “find the real racists.” The goal is to reject such a framework in its entirety.
The problem with Leftist framing is that it introduces variables that literally force you to a specific conclusion. There is an ever-growing litany of Left-wing buzzwords that point its users down a narrow path. Conservatives often complain about the “vagueness” of these terms, yet this misguided frustration only results from accepting the assumptions in this narrow worldview. Instead, the framing itself ought to be uprooted in its entirety.
But before we deconstruct this Left-wing framework, we must first remind ourselves of the rules of fallacies. A false dilemma, or false binary, is a fallacious premise that misrepresents your available choices. It often simplifies complex issues into black-and-white decisions, leading to a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the actual scenario. However, properly recognizing a false dilemma is easier said than done. In fact, I would argue that the more significant problem for conservatives is that they often mistake real dichotomies for false ones. When we mistakenly label a nuanced issue as a false dilemma, we inadvertently contribute to the myth of neutrality or impartiality. This mislabeling serves to normalize the status quo by suggesting that there’s a neutral ground where, in reality, none exists.
Consider the Leftist conception of “misogyny.” The very usage of the term suggests that our actions are either hateful to women (misogyny) or loving (philogyny). For conservatives, the temptation is to reframe the issue in such a way that a third option presents itself: Neutrality. It is an enticing proposition, no doubt, but one that plays into Leftist framing rather than overcoming it.
The Myth Of Neutrality
The rejection of the myth of neutrality has played a significant part in the rise of the Christian Right. Sometimes referred to as “one of the most pernicious and evil myths to plague the human race,”1R. J. Rushdoony, “The Myth Of Neutrality” – https://chalcedon.edu/resources/articles/the-myth-of-neutrality the myth of neutrality posits itself as a solution to a false dilemma. By introducing a third, neutral option, any dichotomy can become a scale. The people on both sides of the issue are labeled “extremists,” leaving indifference as the only available position. Mislabeling a false dichotomy forces us to create a myth of indifference. For Christians and conservatives, this myth only serves to undermine our ultimate goal.
Consider again the debate between misogyny and philogyny. If Leftists are framing the issue as a wedge—forcing voters to choose between men and women— then crafting policies that appeal to a neutered, “third gender” is dodging the issue. Either a genderblind society is good for women, or it is bad. There is no in-between. Generations of feminists have, of course, capitalized on this neutral ideal. To them, misogyny means “to oppose feminism,” but feminism is merely “gender equality.” Nowadays, conservatives who rejected the miso/philo dichotomy find themselves at war with a creature of their own making: the policies of the third, neutered gender masquerading as feminism. As fears of “transphobia” now make their way through the political discourse, one can only wonder how many dichotomies these conservatives will be able to avoid.
Conservatives have often held that you can dodge the Left-wing trap by evading the term entirely. But in reality, this maneuver has resulted in more problems rather than less. Indifference feeds the myth of neutrality. I have no doubt that if conservatives were intent on normalizing and maintaining the status quo, they would not change a thing. If you love the status quo, stoking fears of falling into a fallacy would open up an easy path to inaction.
Pseudo-Intellectuals
At some point, we have to ask ourselves whether or not egalitarianism, the “middle ground,” is the ideal. Yet many washed-up commentators seem to do everything possible to avoid this question. Rather than facing the issues head-on, several disaffected thinkers have instead attempted to forge a new label for those who do: the “woke right.” Also called the “reactionary right,” the name was quickly picked up among pseudo-intellectuals as a designation for those who directly responded to the Left’s framing. The premise was absurd on its face. It operates with the assumption that directly opposing a framework is actually in support of it.
Racism, for example, is routinely used to illustrate this full-circle methodology. They argue that anti-racism, like racism, is actually racist. They claim that the antonym of racism should be some sort of “colorblind meritocracy,” replete with egalitarian values. In short, both the word racism and its antonym anti-racism are viewed as two equivalent sides of a false dichotomy. For egalitarians, combatting racism and anti-racism is done in precisely the same way, by appealing to racial indifference.
Those of us on the Christian Right who prefer to battle the issue head-on are quickly smeared as “woke right,” “racists,” or “reactionaries.” Andrew Torba, CEO of Gab, recently found himself in the midst of an online firestorm for directly confronting the Leftist framework. Rather than accusing his political opponents of a fallacious premise, Torba had merely recognized the choices for what they were.
“My post is not a call for hatred or division, but rather a call for White people to engage in self-preservation and the pursuit of a prosperous future for their own like everyone else. So make the choice, and it is absolutely a binary choice—you can be “racist” or you can be replaced by those who are.
Andrew Torba, “Be ‘Racist’ or Be Replaced”2December 30, 2024 – https://news.gab.com/2024/12/be-racist-or-be-replaced
The Leftist framework is a circle. To be racist is racist, and to oppose racism is also racist. The only things that matter in this framework are indifference and maintaining the status quo. I am sure that such a proposition is quite appealing to today’s brand of conservatism. For the Christian Right, however, such a suggestion is preposterous. We have no interest in egalitarian myths.
To reject the Leftist framing, we will reclaim our ideals, not neuter them.
Sources:
- 1R. J. Rushdoony, “The Myth Of Neutrality” – https://chalcedon.edu/resources/articles/the-myth-of-neutrality
- 2December 30, 2024 – https://news.gab.com/2024/12/be-racist-or-be-replaced
Leave a Reply