This article is taken from the October 2024 issue of The Critic. To get the full magazine why not subscribe? Right now we’re offering five issues for just £10.

---

Liberal authoritarianism is in the ascendancy. From Brazil banning X over concerns about “disinformation”, to Keir Starmer’s early release of violent prisoners in order to lock up people for intemperate social media posts following the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport, not to mention the proposed resurrection of “non-crime hate incidents”, the global liberal left is in full prosecutorial mode. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent admission that he had bowed to calls to censor non-compliant posts on Facebook during Covid also reveals what many of us already know.

Luke Conway’s Liberal Bullies is therefore timely. If anything, I wish it had appeared earlier, as authoritarian states and vigilante citizens persecuting vendettas against political enemies are already far advanced. But we are never without hope, and Conway’s book serves as both a careful diagnosis and a positive cure. As anyone who has been unfortunate enough to encounter a liberal bully, personally or institutionally, this book is an excellent and persuasive account of how these people think and act — and what to do about it.

Arguing that “left-wing authoritarianism is a real and pervasive problem”, Conway begins with a sharp takedown of the biases of academic studies of authoritarianism.

What, in the first place, is the authoritarian mindset? Authoritarians want simply “to exert power over others to restrict their freedoms” — something we saw at scale in the lockdowns, with invocations of “the science” and “the experts”. Why then do we first and foremost associate the tendency with the right, with dictators and strong leaders?

Conway notes that “no psychologist has written a comprehensive book on the psychology of left-wing authoritarians”. Peter Suedfeld warned 30 years ago that the field was “too blasé about left-wing authoritarianism”, and Conway argues academics have “really, really botched the research”. How did this happen? The scales used by researchers into left and right authoritarianism, it turns out, “weren’t remotely comparable”.

There is a flaw in the design and assumption of the entire field that make it appear as though those on the Left are less authoritarian than those on the Right. This is shocking stuff, and the book is worth reading for this detailed critique alone, as the author takes apart study after study in granular detail.

Conway also usefully differentiates between authority — which has its place, in the care of children, most obviously — and authoritarianism, which seeks control for its own sake.

How do authoritarians think? They are, Conway suggests, intellectually lazy, suffering from “cognitive rigidity”. Authoritarians hate thinking, reflection, debate and dialogue. They seek to punish those who dissent — and Conway cites studies showing that 62 per cent Americans are afraid to say what they think. Every cancellation serves a warning: you could be next.

Taking examples from higher education, schools, the collapse of Wikipedia into “a misinformation political machine” and the rise of “misinformation” as a now dominant term of control, he makes an alarmingly convincing case for how liberal authoritarian propaganda works as political bullying.

Living with incompleteness, curiosity, questioning and epistemic humility — which we must do if we are to understand anything at all — is painful for the authoritarian, who seeks certainty and a black-and-white world: good person, bad person, correct idea, wrong idea. Authoritarians “really, really dislike uncertainty”, Conway writes.

Eschewing ambiguity and ambivalence, authoritarians use simpler language than non-authoritarians, and their frameworks (Critical Race Theory for example) reduce everyone to “oppressor” and “victim”, which, as Conway points out, is self-defeating and wildly reductive.

Authoritarians are also tribal and hypocritical, refusing to apply the same standards to someone on their “own side” as they do to perceived enemies.

One of the major findings thrown up by the field is that whilst right-wing authoritarians are perfectly willing to admit their political orientation, on the other side, “the more authoritarian liberals are, the less they believe they are authoritarian”. Left-wing authoritarians cannot see their own reflection. Instead, they project authoritarianism onto the “enemy” out-group whilst at the same time behaving in an increasingly authoritarian manner.

What can we do about all this? Conway is clear: we cannot fight authoritarianism by taking a moderate position. We must be courageous in our defence of complexity and principles. We must oppose all laws that call for censorship. We must take up the sword to punish, but without becoming that which we oppose.

Truly pathological people launder their sadism through left-wing concepts, destroying society as a whole

My one criticism of Conway’s book is that it doesn’t say enough about the apex authoritarians: the truly pathological people out there who launder their sadism through left-wing concepts, destroying institutions, individuals and society as a whole.

These are the authoritarians who who make people fear job losses and social ostracism whilst the silent majority go along with it. Again, this is projection. As Conway insightfully suggests, those who believe that the world is dangerous are more likely to be authoritarian.

Thus, we cannot fight fear with fear. Both left and right authoritarianism must be opposed at the same time. Humanity possesses natural resistance to authoritarianism in the form of reactance (the desire for freedom) and a mistrust of sources that seek to mislead for their own gain. Authoritarian societies are ultimately self-defeating because people don’t want to live in fear: whilst the edifice appears strong, the structure is very fragile.

There are practical ways of opposing left-wing authoritarianism: fighting back using legal methods (think of all the women who have — after much struggle — won their cases defending the reality of sexual difference); defending the diversity of political views everywhere and always — including in everyday encounters; and building alternative institutions. All of these positive things are happening: many people now see through cancel culture and other illiberal tactics.

Liberal authoritarianism is, ultimately, bullying. It is anti-social behaviour that wears politics as a skin-suit. The bullies may be pretending to be victims or to speak in the name of the oppressed, but their tactics are inhumane, violent and stupid.

Conway concludes with a series of principles (“actively seek common ground”, “win gracefully”) and suggests that “we can win this fight”. Our hope, though, must wear pragmatic armour, because it is a war. And we are running out of time.