Written by In any political group or movement, you’re going to have some amount of infighting. Libertarians, a group which I would say came together around the most consistent and coherent political philosophy of all, are certainly no strangers to this phenomenon. Whenever many thousands of people with egos big enough to think they are uniquely qualified to radically alter the whole of human society come together, there will be, at a minimum, a certain number of personality conflicts and rivalries over attention, resources, and issues.
Add to your political philosophy a series of inherently contradictory doctrines, and it’s like putting metal in a microwave.
A philosophy that simultaneously holds two or more diametrically opposed positions might do well when it argues against its more coherent enemies. There is a real tactical advantage in debates that comes with being able to confuse an opponent or an audience, and never being entirely nailed down to one particular stance. When an opponent catches you in a contradiction, you can just say something completely different, derail the conversation, and avoid being held accountable for your incoherence.
This doesn’t work nearly as well within your own camp, however. Social justice warriors, and the left overall, clearly suffer from this phenomenon. When one starts from the position that all human beings should be “equal” despite all evidence that this is factually untrue, some very serious mental gymnastics must be deployed. Build a coalition of ethnic minorities, women, gays, poor people, and other “oppressed” classes, tell them the enemy is whatever the opposite of their identity might be, and it can’t be long before they begin realizing their teammates are largely comprised of the supposed enemy. This inevitably leads to social justice cannibalism.