The Folly of the Anti-Reactionary Progressives

The left should stop labeling its occasional critics “reactionary centrists”

Hundreds of climate protesters walk from Times Square to New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s office to demand more action against climate change on November 13, 2021 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Over the past few years, few epithets hurled online have rankled me as much as “reactionary centrist.” Not that I recall the term ever being directed at me specifically. But it is often aimed at people I consider to be ideological compatriots—writers of the center-left (Jonathan Chait, Matthew Yglesias) and center-right (David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan).

Now Chait has written a powerful critique of the term and the motives of those who deploy it (including authors Aaron Huertas, Thomas Zimmer, Michael Hobbes, and Jeet Heer). It’s a strong piece that I urge you to read, along with responses from several of its targets. (You can find links to many of the latter here.)

Tactics and Substance

As Chait describes the dispute, it primarily concerns left-of-center political tactics: Should progressives strike deals over legislation with moderates in order to build a broad-based consensus that will supposedly win them more votes down the line, thereby assuring ongoing movement in a progressive direction? Or should progressives push relentlessly for maximalist goals? According to Chait, those who favor the latter, maximalist approach seek to discredit those in the former camp by labeling them “reactionary centrists” for directing their critical fire toward the left rather than toward the right. This makes the move (presumably along with Chait’s counter-blast) the latest example in the long history of intra-left factional conflict.

But of course the dispute is about more than tactics. It’s also about substance, as we can see from the very fact that Chait is responding, most proximally, to having been labeled a reactionary centrist because of a recent essay about transgender issues. That piece criticized progressive activists for attempting to quash debate about whether and how quickly children who question their gender identity should be allowed to transition using medical interventions (including puberty blockers and surgery).

For the record, I’m fully on Chait’s side (along with journalist Jesse Singal; numerous medical professionals quoted in a recent story in the New York Times; and the governments of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, and France) in thinking greater caution should be shown in approving such interventions. On the other hand, unlike many on the right, and like Chait, I fully support the political rights of transgender people and have no objection to adults undertaking gender transitions.

So on this issue (and many others), I disagree with both progressives and conservatives. I’d say that makes me a liberal centrist situated somewhere between them. But I suspect many if not all of the progressive writers Chait highlights in his recent piece would be tempted to call me a reactionary centrist instead. But is this true? How would we know? Is it possible to be any kind of centrist besides a reactionary one? How would my ideological position or means of engaging intellectually in public debate have to change to move me from one camp to the other?

The Threat of Compromise

According to Huertas, the progressive activist who coined the term, a reactionary centrist is “someone who tries to hold a middle, neutral position in a debate – not necessarily a liberal one — while punching left.” Huertas’ main targets in his original 2018 essay were pundits who encourage Democrats to seek compromise with Republicans despite the fact that the latter now explicitly reject compromise in favor of pushing the Overton Window ever-further to the right. Under such circumstances, the practical effect of urging left-of-center politicians and groups to compromise is to facilitate the rightward drift of both parties.

I think this analysis is both smart and correct, provided it’s aimed at the legislative process in Washington with regard to climate change, health-care reform, and certain other areas of public policy. It is absolutely true that on lots of issues Democrats are exceedingly unlikely to reach a compromise with Republicans, and the pursuit of one will likely backfire, allowing Republicans to shift debate further in their direction.

But as the first half of the Biden administration makes clear, this isn’t true about infrastructure, on which several Republicans joined with Democrats to pass important legislation, not to mention several other examples of bipartisan deals over the past couple of years. It turns out that even at this late date, compromise is possible on lots of issues, even if not on some of the most pressing problems facing the country.

Neither does the refusal to meet Republicans partway on policy make much sense as a general principle when it comes to winning elections. Sometimes (in deep blue districts and states) staking out uncompromisingly progressive positions is the smart move. But in other, more moderate districts and states, it isn’t.  

What Makes Someone a Reactionary

But note that we’re once again focusing on political tactics when the epithet “reactionary centrist” has come to be used much more broadly. Extrapolating from essays, tweets, and podcast discussions in which it’s been used, I’d say the term has also come to be applied for purely polemical purposes to anyone who isn’t a self-described conservative and yet thinks that, on some issues, conservatives sometimes have a point.

So if Jonathan Chait votes consistently for Democrats, devotes the overwhelming majority of his writing to sharply criticizing the right, and also writes frequently in defense of the Democratic Party’s policy agenda, he can nonetheless be described as a reactionary centrist for occasionally conceding (in the name of liberalism) that conservatives are right to oppose progressive efforts to encourage a culture of censoriousness in universities and leading cultural institutions.

Likewise, Matthew Yglesias defends the Biden administration on nearly everything and clearly distances himself from nearly every element of the Republican policy agenda, but supposedly he can justly be labeled a reactionary centrist if he also thinks the “Defund the Police” slogan favored by some progressive groups in the summer of 2020 was both tactically stupid and foolish as policy.

I think it’s inaccurate to describe either writer as a centrist. Both are center-left liberals. But it’s the “reactionary” part of the epithet that really doesn’t fit—or rather, it only fits if we make a highly dubious assumption.   

What “Reactionary” Means