“What Happened To You?” It’s a question that frequently populates my Twitter feed, often laced with accusations. “When did you veer so far right?” “Why embrace white supremacy, transphobia, and misogyny?” Or the less subtle: “Aha! Knew it was just a matter of time before the mask slipped!” Much of it is online trolling, of course. But beneath the surface noise, it’s a weaponized phrase, wielded by certain elites as a form of emotional coercion, reminiscent of tactics first honed on college campuses. However, a year removed from my departure from New York Magazine due to perceived political transgressions, the question warrants a genuine response. Because, frankly, the real question should be redirected.
The more pertinent inquiry isn’t what happened to me, but rather: what happened to you?
The ongoing debate surrounding Critical Race Theory (CRT) is merely the latest ripple in a tempest that has been gathering strength for approximately half a decade. Certainly, some critiques from liberal quarters regarding a Fox News-fueled campaign are valid. Is the CRT issue being strategically employed as a wedge issue by the GOP? Undoubtedly. Is the term “critical race theory” being cynically marketed as a manufactured bogeyman? Quite likely. Are there subtle dog whistles embedded within the rhetoric? A few, perhaps. Are sweeping bans on public servants’ speech potentially perilous? Absolutely. Do the majority of those sounding the alarm even possess a working knowledge of Derrick Bell’s scholarship? Almost certainly not.
But does the presence of political opportunism and misinformation negate the existence of a genuine underlying issue? Unequivocally not.
Let’s take a step back and consider the broader trajectory of our public discourse since roughly 2015. Setting aside CRT for a moment, ask yourself: is the current climate solely attributable to Republican manipulation and propaganda? Can we genuinely overlook the possibility that the Republican party, while undoubtedly acting strategically, is also reacting — reacting to a discernible phenomenon unfolding before our very eyes?
What is this phenomenon? It is, I contend, the abrupt, rapid, and profound transformation in the belief system held by American elites. This ideological shift has plunged society into a state of significant cultural disorientation. At its core, it’s a persistent moral panic centered around the specter of “white supremacy,” a label now, astonishingly, applied to the most expansive, free, and successful multiracial democracy in history.
Decoding the “Successor Ideology”
The reality of this shift is undeniable. Elites, increasingly concentrated within a singular political party and a homogenous media ecosystem, educated in institutions that have become echo chambers of left-leaning thought, have undergone a “social justice reckoning” in recent years. This reckoning has triggered a sweeping ideological transformation with far-reaching and cascading repercussions.
Consider the perspective of Kara Swisher, a prominent voice at the New York Times, who recently celebrated that “the country’s social justice movement is reshaping how we talk about, well, everything.” Her assessment is accurate, particularly regarding the NYT and mainstream journalism in general.
This media landscape now serves as the central hub for the “social justice movement.” The fundamental tenet of this movement, its essential point of departure, is the assertion that liberalism is no longer sufficient. More than insufficient, liberalism itself is cast as a mechanism for perpetuating “white supremacy,” intentionally designed to oppress, harm, and terrorize minorities and women, and therefore in urgent need of dismantling. This is a seismic shift in perspective, and it clarifies much of the current social and political turbulence.
“Critical race theory” serves as a reasonably apt descriptor for this emergent orthodoxy because the very genesis of CRT, as articulated by Derrick Bell and others, stemmed from a frustration with liberalism’s perceived inability to eradicate racial inequality within a generation. Kimberlé Crenshaw subsequently broadened its application beyond race to encompass every conceivable dimension of human identity, coining the term “intersectionality.”
This framework introduced the specter of invisible and irrefutable “systems,” “structures,” and “internal biases” casting a shadow across society. While some aspects of this critique offered valuable insights, such as highlighting the enduring legacy of redlining and the stark reality of the wealth gap, much of it leaned heavily into tendentious postmodern theorizing. Ta-Nehisi Coates’ influential essay on reparations in The Atlantic and his emotionally charged memoir, “Between The World And Me,” marked a pivotal moment in popularizing these ideas. He masterfully fused the worldview and vocabulary of CRT with the visceral reality of his personal experiences. Coates’ undeniable talent as a writer resonated deeply, even if, in my view, the sheer power of his prose obscured for many the radical implications of the ideology he embraced, a period some of his long-time blog readers referred to as his “blue period.”
Illiberal Principles of the Successor Ideology
This movement transcends race, as anyone navigating contemporary discussions around sex and gender can attest. Wesley Yang’s term, “the successor ideology,” aptly captures this blend of postmodern thought and therapeutic culture that has gained prominence among liberal white elites. “Structural oppression” is often attributed to white supremacy, but this can be expanded, following Crenshaw’s framework, to encompass a hegemony saturated with “anti-Blackness,” misogyny, and transphobia, all within a broader context of “cis-heteronormative patriarchal white supremacy.” The term “successor ideology” is particularly fitting because it underscores the movement’s fundamental aim: to supersede and replace liberal society and democracy.
Within the framework of this successor ideology, there is no escape from the omnipresent nightmare of oppression and violence. Individuals are categorized as either actively combating this perceived evil and thus “on the right side of history,” or complicit in perpetuating it and therefore aligned with evil. Neutrality is deemed impossible. Skepticism is unwelcome. Debate is foreclosed. Even silence is condemned as violence – perhaps the most fundamentally anti-liberal slogan ever conceived.
This reveals the underlying power dynamic at play. Liberalism, in its essence, respects individual autonomy and allows for divergence. The successor ideology, conversely, seeks to exert total control. Liberalism is primarily concerned with actions and behaviors in the public sphere. The successor ideology seeks to penetrate and reshape minds, psyches, and even the innermost recesses of the soul. Liberalism permits individuals to pursue their professions and maintain private political beliefs. The successor ideology often mandates ideological conformity as a prerequisite for employment, sometimes enforced through mandatory struggle sessions or similar forms of ideological re-education.
My Liberalism Remains: It’s the Left That Moved
So, returning to the initial question: what happened to me? My principles remain consistent, and I still broadly support the same policies I did during the Barack Obama era. In fact, my positions on economic and foreign policy have arguably shifted leftward since then. It is the Democratic party that has executed a dramatic and sudden departure from its recent past.
Currently, I am in the process of recording the audiobook for a forthcoming collection of my writings spanning from 1989 to 2021, titled “Out On A Limb.” Reviewing these past writings, particularly from the Obama years, serves as a stark reminder of the profound transformation our political landscape has undergone. I recall my own assessment in May 2007, noting Obama’s presidential potential and the reasons for his broad appeal:
My favorite moment was a very simple one. He referred to the anniversary of the March on Selma, how he went and how he came back and someone (I don’t remember who now) said to him: “That was a great celebration of African-American history.” To which Obama said he replied: “No, no, no, no, no. That was not a great celebration of African-American history. That was a celebration of American history.”
This sentiment stands in stark contrast to the ideology of the 1619 Project, which actively rejects any notion of positive contributions from white individuals to Black liberation. In his Jeremiah Wright speech, arguably the most impactful of his career, Obama directly addressed Wright’s CRT-influenced critiques of America, stating:
They expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America aboveall that we know is right with America… The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.
This remains my core belief. Do you still share it?
A central tenet of the successor ideology is the assertion that “white supremacy” is the sole and exclusive cause of racial inequality. Factors such as culture, economics, poverty, crime rates, and family structure are dismissed as irrelevant, unless explicitly framed as mere manifestations of white dominance. According to figures like Ibram X. Kendi, even discussing these complex factors is considered inherently racist.
Obama, while acknowledging the historical impact of slavery and Jim Crow, also emphasized African-American agency and responsibility:
It means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
To articulate such sentiments today would likely invite immediate accusations of white supremacy and racism. This illustrates the extent of the leftward shift: Obama himself would now be considered an enabler of white supremacy by some contemporary standards. You continue to ask what happened to me? I remain an Obamacon, consistent in my liberal principles. The more pressing question is, in contrast, what has happened to you?
Evidence of the Left’s Radicalization: Policy and Public Opinion
Consider this insightful interview with Wesley Yang conducted by Matt Taibbi. Yang eloquently articulates the radical transformation in elite opinion, noting the evolving rhetoric: “So there’s a line in an n+1 essay, where the person is saying, ‘Oh, we are now menaced by whiteness and masculinity.’ Whereas in the past, we would have said, ‘Oh, we’re menaced by racism and sexism.’” He accurately identifies the core objectives of this movement: the erosion of due process, the rejection of even the aspiration of objectivity, the embrace of active race and sex discrimination (“equity”) to rectify historical injustices, the suppression of ideological diversity, and the replacement of liberal education with left-leaning indoctrination.
Yang perceives this as an attempt to dismantle the very foundations of liberal society and its institutions: “[The proponents of the successor ideology are] not trying to be malicious, but they are trying to basically annihilate a lot of the foundational processes that we depend upon and then remake them anew. You operate from the starting point that all the previous ideologies, methods, and processes are untrustworthy, because they produced this outcome previously, so we’ve got to remake all of them.” Precisely. This is a top-down revolution against liberalism itself.
The extent of the left’s assault on liberalism is evident across numerous fronts.
Due process, particularly for men on college campuses, is often disregarded. Privacy is eroded through anonymous accusations, public exposure of private communications, and intrusions into personal spaces. Non-violence is sometimes excused when directed at perceived “fascists.” Free speech is nominally protected, but dissenting voices often face professional and social ostracism. Free association is increasingly constrained by ideological litmus tests. Religious freedom is frequently dismissed as a pretext for bigotry. Equality is redefined as group equity, potentially justifying discrimination against individuals from “privileged” identity groups. Color-blindness is reinterpreted as a form of racism. Mercy is withheld from those deemed “oppressors.” Intent is deemed irrelevant in assessing harm. Objectivity is dismissed as a racist construct. Even science is sometimes framed as a manifestation of white supremacy. Biological sex is increasingly replaced by socially constructed gender, leading to the erasure of traditional understandings of sex and gender. The rule of law is selectively applied, often with exceptions for migrants or looters. Borders are deemed inherently racist. Viewpoint diversity is portrayed as a form of violence against the oppressed.
It is no coincidence that this illiberal ideology readily employs illiberal methods. The latter is a logical outgrowth of the former. Ibram X. Kendi, widely celebrated within establishment circles, even advocates for amending the Constitution to establish an unelected and unaccountable body of “experts” empowered to punish any individual or group deemed to be practicing racism, regardless of intent. Such proposals, promoting unaccountable and potentially totalitarian control, are embraced by elite institutions across America, often granting platforms to figures like Kendi without critical scrutiny. In many ways, Kendi’s intellectual framework and approach stand in stark contrast to figures like Obama – Kendi often appearing as simplistic where Obama is nuanced, crude where Obama is sophisticated, and authoritarian where Obama is fundamentally liberal.
Kevin Drum’s analysis of asymmetric polarization further illuminates this trend, demonstrating that Democrats, not Republicans, have demonstrably shifted further to the extremes on cultural issues since the 1990s.
On immigration, Republican positions have shifted moderately to the right, while Democratic positions have moved dramatically, by approximately 35 points, to the left. On abortion, the percentage of Republicans advocating for a total ban has increased slightly, while the percentage of Democrats favoring legality in all circumstances has risen by 20 points. Similar trends are evident on gun control, with Democrats exhibiting a more pronounced leftward shift than Republicans’ rightward movement.
This radicalization, as both Drum and David Shor have noted, is likely alienating moderate voters, including significant segments of Black and Hispanic communities. This may explain why even a robust economic recovery may not be sufficient to ensure Democratic electoral success in the near future.
We are witnessing the most significant radicalization of elites since the 1960s. This is not a grassroots movement; it is being imposed from above, amplified by a constant barrage of mainstream media messaging. Its victims often include the very populations it purports to champion – the poor, Black, and Brown communities. This ideological shift nearly cost the Democrats the last presidential election. Only Joe Biden’s perceived moderation, the pragmatic choices of Black Democratic primary voters, and the profound flaws of Donald Trump prevented a decisive victory for a demagogue who displays increasing contempt for democratic institutions.
However, as Wes Yang points out, Biden has also, in many ways, facilitated and legitimized this radicalism. His administration has implemented sweeping programs of overt race and sex-based discrimination across government policy, supports the erosion of due process in sexual assault cases on campuses, challenges religious freedom as a defense against anti-gay discrimination, advocates for gender identity to supersede biological sex as a legal category, and promotes maximizing mass immigration. In Yang’s blunt assessment, for the hard left, “what they saw is that with Joe Biden, who’s this throwback figure, the activists could all rush to him and get most of what they wanted from him anyway.”
Does this mean we should endorse the nihilistic tendencies emerging on the right within the GOP? Certainly not. Does it imply we should disregard their growing disregard for electoral integrity and democratic stability? Absolutely not. However, a crucial reason to defend liberalism against the successor ideology is that the latter’s extremes are demonstrably fueling and legitimizing a reactive fanaticism on the right. I fear that the successor ideology’s Kulturkampf is already paving the way for a Republican landslide in the 2022 midterms, potentially empowering a cultish and destabilizing GOP. Fighting against the successor ideology is, in this sense, also a fight against the resurgence of Trumpism.
My argument, however, transcends mere tactical considerations. It is rooted in a deeper moral imperative. We can and must continue to advocate for our beliefs: for a liberal democracy within a liberal society. This struggle will not dissipate if we simply ignore it, succumb to intimidation, or join the tribalistic fray. I will not apologize for confronting this ideology, regardless of its current popularity, just as I will not apologize for challenging the poison and nihilism emanating from the right. If you genuinely stand on “the right side of liberalism,” I urge you to join me in this defense.
