By Gillian Schutte
The nexus of contemporary political ideologies presents a postmodern paradox, where traditional distinctions between left, right, and liberal ideologies have become increasingly blurred. Nowadays, it’s common to see liberals dismissing leftist critiques of US hegemony and geopolitical strategy as right-wing conspiracy theories. Simultaneously, liberal positions often contain elements of conservative sentiment, while conservatives sometimes advocate for more progressive values than their liberal counterparts. On the fringes, neo-intersectional discourses are promoted by those who view their focus on identity politics as inherently radical, yet inadvertently reinforce the privileges of the corporate elite at the expense of collective interests. Unfortunately, all of these perspectives tend to dismiss authentic leftist and Black consciousness ideologies as forms of patriarchal violence. This situation resembles absurdist theater, with US hegemony exerting significant influence over the narrative.
In this absurdist terrain of contemporary political discourse, the collapsing of the scaffold between elite liberalism and conservative ideologies presents a formidable challenge to progressive movements and people’s rights worldwide. From the halls of power to the corridors of media influence, the convergence of these supposedly disparate forces has reshaped the landscape of political debate and perpetuated systemic inequalities, modern-day genocides and a rise of liberal fascism. This perfidious phenomenon warrants a critical exposure of the inherent contradictions and power dynamics at play within this neoliberal nexus.
At the core of this critique lies the ascendance of elite liberalism, a brand of political ideology that cloaks itself in the trappings of progressivism while perpetuating the status quo. Elite liberals, often occupying positions of influence within political establishments and media conglomerates, wield considerable power in shaping public discourse and policy agendas. However, their purported commitment to liberal values of democracy, equality and justice often rings hollow in the face of their complicity in upholding existing power structures and advancing neoliberal agendas.
A hallmark of elite liberalism is its alignment with corporate interests and the perpetuation of neoliberal economic policies that prioritise profit over people. While paying lip service to social justice causes, elite liberals have overseen the erosion of workers’ rights, the dismantling of social safety nets, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a privileged few. The economic orthodoxy, championed by elite liberals and conservatives alike, serves to entrench inequality and undermine the prospects of meaningful social change.
Furthermore, elite liberals’ approach to geopolitical issues, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reflects a convergence with conservative narratives that prioritise security concerns over human rights and justice. By framing Palestinian resistance as terrorism and uncritically supporting Israeli policies of occupation and colonisation, elite liberals align themselves with conservative agendas that perpetuate violence and oppression in the region. This alignment exposes the hypocrisy of elite liberalism, which claims to champion progressive causes while disregarding the plight of oppressed communities facing systemic injustice and colonisation.
Let’s not overlook the second-tier gatekeeper class within liberalism, which acts as a buffer between the elite liberals and the marginalised masses. These individuals wield Master of Arts (MA) degrees and occupy leadership positions in Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and their staff. Their role is to maintain an upper-middle-class status by holding influential positions in civil society, often earning CEO-level salaries. They do so while simultaneously pacifying and disempowering the underprivileged through meticulously organised and branded programs that ultimately fail to uplift the lives of those in need.
The inconsistency in the stance of these gatekeeper liberals, who mostly support causes like Palestine but do not show similar solidarity with countries like Russia, reflects a broader ignorance of geopolitical dynamics and the complex history of US/NATO interference in the sovereignty of other nations. This inconsistency highlights the selective application of principles and their utter failure to critically engage with the underlying power dynamics at play in global affairs.
In the case of Palestine, these liberals, unlike their elite liberal counterparts, rightly recognise the plight of the Palestinian people and the need to address systemic injustices perpetuated by Israeli occupation and colonisation. However, when it comes to conflicts involving Russia, such as the situation in Ukraine or Syria, liberals automatically adopt a more hawkish stance, aligning themselves with narratives that demonise Russia and overlook Western interventions and violations of her sovereignty.
It is this changeability that underscores a lack of understanding or wilful ignorance of the complex geopolitical realities at play. It reflects a tendency to view conflicts through a simplistic lens of good versus evil, rather than engaging with the historical context and power dynamics that shape these conflicts. By failing to critically examine US/NATO invasion of and interference in the sovereignty of other nations, liberals unwittingly (or not) perpetuate narratives that serve Western hegemonic interests and undermine the prospects of meaningful dialogue and diplomacy.
Their selective application of solidarity with oppressed peoples reveals a deeper ideological bias within liberal circles. While Palestinians are seen as deserving of support in their struggle against occupation and other terrorised communities, for example, those affected by internal oppression such as the persecuted Russian-speaking communities in regions like The Donbas, are often overlooked or even vilified in mainstream discourse. This reflects their utter failure to recognise the interconnectedness of global struggles for justice and liberation, and a tendency to prioritise certain causes over others based on mainstream propaganda.
From a leftist perspective, it becomes essential to engage in a relentless challenge of this inconsistency and advocate for a more principled and coherent approach to international solidarity. This means recognising the shared humanity and interwoveness of struggles for justice and liberation, whether they occur in Palestine, The Donbas, Syria, Sudan, DRC or elsewhere. It also requires a commitment to confronting imperialism and militarism in all its forms, including US/NATO interventions that undermine the sovereignty and self-determination of other nations.
Another area of contention is the terrain of advocacy for women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights. These projects, often championed as symbols of progress and equality, have been cynically hijacked and weaponised by powerful elite liberal actors to justify intervention and aggression in other countries. Under the guise of humanitarian intervention or spreading Western values, certain nations have exploited these causes as pretexts for military interventions or political meddling, ultimately furthering their own geopolitical interests. This manipulation not only undermines the genuine struggles for gender and sexual equality but also perpetuates the imperialist agenda of imposing Western norms and values onto diverse cultures and societies. In doing so, it perpetuates a form of neo-colonialism that undermines the sovereignty and self-determination of other nations, all while betraying the principles of solidarity and empowerment upon which the movements for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights were once founded.
Add to this the denigration of grassroots movements, such as the truckers’ protest in Canada, by elite liberals and gatekeeper liberals alike. Their disparaging view of such movements underscores their disconnect from the concerns of working-class individuals and their complicity in suppressing dissenting voices. By dismissing legitimate grievances and resorting to demonisation tactics, elite liberals not only betray their purported commitment to democratic principles but also alienate potential allies in the struggle for social justice.
Not unsurprisingly, this convergence of elite liberalism and conservative ideologies is perhaps most pronounced in the territory of media and communication. Mainstream media outlets, controlled by corporate interests aligned with elite liberals, serve as echo chambers for neoliberal narratives while increasingly marginalising alternative perspectives. By strategically perpetuating a narrow range of ‘acceptable’ discourse and silencing dissenting voices, these media outlets reinforce existing power structures and undermine the prospects of meaningful social change while ensuring their hegemonic hold over the global narrative.
A glaring example of this is the dichotomy between elite liberals advocating for content filtering on platforms like YouTube in Canada and the US while conservatives are pushing for unrestricted content access. Traditionally, classic liberalism has been associated with notions of free speech and limited government intervention, advocating for minimal regulation of media content. In contrast, today’s elite liberals, while claiming to be championing progressive causes, have increasingly pushed for measures to filter and moderate content on online platforms in the name of combating misinformation and hate speech. This stance positions elite liberals as the new guardians of establishment values, seeking to maintain control over the flow of information and uphold mainstream narratives. By advocating for content filtering, they align themselves with powerful corporate interests and perpetuate a status quo that serves their own agendas.
Conversely, conservatives, by pushing for unrestricted content access, position themselves as defenders of free expression and alternative viewpoints, challenging the dominance of elite liberal narratives. While their motivations may vary, including a desire to circumvent perceived censorship and promote their own ideologies, their stance reflects a rejection of elite liberal attempts to control the narrative – which paradoxically, aligns with leftist views of freedom of expression.
In this context, elite liberals and gatekeeper liberals can be viewed as the new alt-conservatives, wielding their influence to shape and regulate discourse in a manner that preserves their own privilege and reinforces existing power structures. As such, the battle over content moderation on platforms like YouTube reflects not only ideological differences but also a broader struggle for control over the dissemination of information in the digital age.
What becomes clear is that in this convoluted landscape of 21st-century politics, the absence of clear demarcated ideologies ultimately serves as a method of control, enabling the perpetuation of power structures and the suppression of dissenting voices. As the West, under the banner of democracy and human rights, increasingly employs draconian measures to censor conservative voices, progressive movements and leftist ideology, it becomes evident that the purported commitment to liberal values is overshadowed by a desire to maintain the status quo. In this Orwellian scenario, the authentically left are brutally silenced and their calls for collectivism, worker rights, race justice and egalitarianism are dismissed as fringe or extremist.
Ironically, the very forces that decry fascism abroad often exhibit authoritarian tendencies at home, revealing a hypocrisy that undermines the principles of democracy and freedom they claim to champion. As the gap between rhetoric and reality widens, it becomes more and more imperative for those committed to social justice and liberation to resist this encroaching tide of repression and reclaim the narrative in pursuit of a more equitable and just world.