It once came to pass that I had a bit of a squabble with an acquaintance of mine who also happens to be a respected figure in the broader socio-economic political conversation. This person will remain nameless due to wishing them no personal or public ill will, and I do not in any way want this article to do anything but demonstrate a difference in common understanding of what is acceptable in the more publicly visible political conversation. However, this particular encounter so perfectly encapsulates the issue at hand that it seemed unfeasible to not use it as my example. So, what happened? Well, I read an article (a reprint from a different publication, it would later be pointed out to me) that argued in favor of the now-growing false narrative of the self-destructive liberal. To be more specific, what was being argued in this article was that Trumpism, and all of the anti-immigrant, anti-trans, and anti-social justice rhetoric it has pulled from the shadows, is largely the fault of college progressives and their judgmental approach at activism. My immediate response was two-fold. Firstly, I pointed out that this position amounts to nothing more than victim-blaming, as many of the most vocal activist groups with campus presence today exist solely as a response to oppressive behavior against minority groups. Secondly, I opined that I found it very unfortunate that the publication behind this (republished) opinion piece has also housed many voices who take the exact opposite position.  

In comes my well-connected acquaintance. Their response to my naysays amounted to the following: that I was incorrectly hoisting the blame for the article’s message onto the shoulders of the publication itself as a whole, which was sloppy and detrimental to my position. On the one hand, this is absolutely right. After all, if corporations are not in fact people (a hotly debated notion I happen to agree with), then they cannot hold opinions. However, this was not exactly what I was trying to say. I went on to further qualify my initial response to the article, and made the point that a collective understanding on the editorial side of things at this particular publication seemed to be that contradictory views on the issue of the cause and necessity of social justice were going to be published (and republished) side-by-side, and therefore, in a sense, a political publication of this type was representing itself as an entity that brushes elbows with two opposing sides of a very important, politically-connected issue. I find that to be a contradictory and unhelpful “branding,” if you will, for an organization that claims to represent specific political philosophies. Some room for broadness at the outset is obviously expected, but when pinpointed arguments both for and against specific causes and activism seem to be given equal credence in the eyes of a given editorial board, the danger of losing one’s audience or breeding stymieing divisiveness within one’s own readership should be immediately clear. 

Nevertheless, my perspective still seemed to be misread by my sparring opponent in this instance, as the same point was simply reiterated on their end: I was being sloppy by blaming an entity for an individual’s viewpoints, and I needed to stop it. Fair enough. If that is how my position came across to this person, then it very well might come across that way to others as well in shorthand form. Therefore, perhaps I should decidedly write a precise argument against mixed signals and in favor of unified fronts in political messaging. Furthermore, I should qualify what I mean by “united fronts” and explain why I think it is important. So, without further ado, let’s jump to it.

Whenever a social cause is argued for, the conversation cannot help but become somewhat political. Indeed, it might even be the case that any social cause worth fighting for is itself political in implementation. The repercussions of rattling the cage of the status quo are often severe and, if successful, transformative, which means that the most frequent forums for arguing in favor or against said causes end up being political publications and public debate spaces. This is a good thing, as it ensures that the most people can reached at once and in the proper settings. Public forums of discussion also tend to breed a very cooperative atmosphere where the prospect of having one’s mind changed by good evidence is more likely to be seen as something positive rather than threatening to one’s metanarrative. However, I would argue that for too long, this approach on the public stage has bled into its print publication counterparts, and it is there that such a ‘big tent’ approach to the political discussion can at times do more harm than good to the cohesion of a given stance on specific socio-political issues. 

When debating a single topic at a time on a stage, political opponents with differing stances can spar in real time on any number of specifics, and the nuances can be addressed when necessary. On the other hand, when a publication chooses to print two opposing views on the same topic weeks apart from each other, that engagement is lost and the housing of conflicting opinions loses much of its productive utility. In the case of a larger news publication for the masses that also happens to publish op-eds (think The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal), this discrepancy is far more forgivable and understandable. But if said publication builds its entire brand around a particular political identity, perspective, or party (think something more along the lines of The Weekly Standard or Slate), then suddenly these sorts of contradictions become more puzzling and less helpful. If the point of the publication is to encourage debate and challenge conventions even within a given political movement, that’s commendable, but then shouldn’t said publication frame the opposing articles in that manner so as to clearly delineate that purpose to the readers? I argue yes. Unfortunately, when it comes to certain politically slanted publications, it would seem that the point is not to precisely orchestrate useful debate, but rather to simply allow all varied perspectives within a broader movement so as to not leave any voice out of the conversation. This too is a noble concept, but I no longer agree with it in application. 

My own past experiences as an opinion writer (and in some cases, editor) for various libertarian publications has likely jaded me somewhat into my current perspective, but I believe for good reason. I used to cringe and bear through it whenever a fellow writer would type up a completely baseless screed arguing against trans rights, or calling Black Lives Matter a terrorist group, or attempting to pigeonhole feminism into its most extreme right-wing heteronormative depiction, or weaving any number of laughable conspiracy theories, etc. The reason why I had to bear through it? The attitude in general at many of these places was that it was unfair and ‘unlibertarian‘ of them to limit the voices of their guest writers. The big tent was pitched and standing strong—to a fault. As a result, more and more right-wing extremists began to cozy up to the idea of libertarianism as a catch-all realm for conservative rejects, and the once-clear libertarian message of social liberalism merged with fiscal sanity became muddled. After a while, I could no longer stay faithful to the broader, looser interpretation of what being a libertarian meant and still feel intellectually honest. I no longer felt like I was a part of something making a positive difference or fighting for precise social outcomes to specific plights. I was simply checking the grammar and spelling of a variety of writers with starkly contrasting opinions of numerous social issues. The united front of the cause I thought I belonged to had eroded, and along with it, any hope that tangible social outcomes would germinate. 

The united front doesn’t just need to happen for political parties and movements wholesale; it also needs to come through for specific groups, causes, and individuals who still suffer in this world precisely because not enough larger causes will hold the line for them. In the case of the LGBT community, and trans people even more specifically, holding that line on as many political fronts as possible is crucial to the long-term normalization, acceptance, and celebration of who they are naturally. If the general attitude and mindset surrounding the trans experience does not shift positively and broadly, then the fight for legal representation and protection will, on its own, take needlessly longer to bear fruit. When faced with this realization in my own experience, it meant that I had to leave behind a world that I once thought was beneficial to a broader cause I believed in. It meant that I had to divorce myself from a frontline that did not concern itself with specific plights of marginalized people, but instead with larger philosophical ideals that were generations away from becoming reality. Missing the woods for the trees had never been laid bare as such a ubiquitous occurrence as it was for me in those moments of realization. Since then, I’ve actively argued for united fronts on specific issues rather than disjointed fronts on broader concepts. I now believe this is the more effective and immediate approach one should take if one truly considers oneself an activist for a given cause or people. 

When I attended CPAC in 2017 for the purpose of finding common causes between different political identities, it was an earnest attempt. And much to my initial delight, there were indeed trans activists in attendance exercising their First Amendment rights to represent the trans experience within a movement (American conservatism) that has been far too slow to accept said experience as the natural occurrence it is. My plea at the time was for the conservative movement to continue down this path of allowing as many voices as possible at the table, and I argued that fiscal conservatism did not require social conservatism, and that a legally enforced version of the latter was arguably incompatible with actual small government idealism. The issues that ultimately matter most to supposed small government conservatives should be those that directly deal with the law’s overreach into avenues it does not belong. And yet, at CPAC, I saw disturbingly little embrace of these aforementioned fellow conservative activists—all because they happened to also be trans, and the social narrative within conservatism at large is still one laden with reductionism, scientism, and more general anti-queer prejudice.  

This attitude prevails to the peril of conservatism in the 21st Century, as it does nothing but erode discourse and confuse messaging; what salvageable elements might exist within the larger pool of conservative principles are all but discredited through their concomitance with such hate and ignorance as that expressed by the so-called “skeptics” within the “red-pilled right” regarding issues on gender, race, and sexual orientation. It is precisely due to a lack of cohesion on specific social issues that the face of conservatism in America is one of ingratiating shallowness, with hot eruptions of divisive bigotry bubbling just beneath the surface. And yet, I personally know many self-described conservatives who are just as disgusted by these elements to their movement as I am. Where is their representation? Are they not just as valuable to the health and long life of their political home as anyone else? Yet here we find the most crucial point of concern: when every perspective on a specific issue receives equal credibility, then the issue itself is mistreated. There is little wrong with giving every perspective equal time and exposure in public forums, so long as such formalities are qualified as being out of respect for free speech, but the moment that equal time is confused for equal veracity, the conversation becomes an exercise in ostentatious dramaturgy designed to play at being open-minded rather than actually determine the truth behind a claim.  

Turning back to my initial example of a specific political publication with a specific identity: allowing for completely contrary perspectives to coexist unchallenged and presented as equally valuable to the same cause is the literary and journalistic equivalent of confusing equal stage presence for equal soundness of argument. Without a productive debate between the two perspectives wherein one directly engages the other, the utility of housing both views in this sort of forum is counterproductive and confounding. If we want true progress on specific sociocultural frontiers, then we must find a place of legitimate solidarity on the issues that color said frontiers the brightest.  

Why this matters even more to the LGBT community, the trans community more specifically, and its allies is evident in the prior examples of identity confusion that occurs on political fronts when these positions are left ambiguous and unpinpointed. Can an ally be of much good if the political movement he belongs to is not fully behind his stance on, say, the trans bathroom bills? What about trans identity itself? What if said ally’s primary activist circle is significantly divided on these fronts? What hope does he really have to make much progress through activism and common cause appeals from his present political location if his lot is only primarily concerned with broader philosophical stances that bracket the social discussion much too loosely as to ever solidify a united front on trans rights? How moral is this person for choosing to stay in such a movement?  

These questions, among others involving similar tests of conscience related to other social causes, are what I ultimately had to ask when I found myself in just such a situation. My decision was to leave behind the previous political labels I once felt comfortable with, as I had come to realize that mere labels only tell part of the story and that the substance, specific stances, and actions tell the rest. United fronts like those I am advocating for in this instance do not amount to a call for senseless collectivism or stripping of one’s individuality. Rather, they function as a filter between rhetoric and understanding; familiarity and solidarity. They mark the final step along the path toward true activism in the name of positive change for specific causes. May we all embrace walking that path, and may we continue to recognize those who reject it.