In today's politically charged environment, being a centrist and independent thinker can feel isolating. It often seems that the extremes of the political spectrum drown out moderate voices, making it challenging to find a common ground. This isolation is particularly pronounced for someone like me, who has friends and family with diverse political affiliations and has experienced various cultural contexts across different regions.

While I may not align with their views, I often find the political Right easier to understand. Their positions, even if overly simplistic at times, resonate more closely with my own experiences as a straight, white, middle-class male. Although I may disagree with many of their stances, I can relate to their background and motivations, having shared experiences in social and professional settings.

In contrast, the Far Left presents a more puzzling perspective. Despite being surrounded by their ideologies—often promoted in my workplace—I find their values and beliefs to be markedly different from my own. This divergence leaves me seeking clarity rather than making assumptions.

To clear up my confusion, I've devised five questions that I hope will encourage dialogue and provide insight into their viewpoints.

1. How can anyone be expected to advocate for their own disadvantage?

In our contemporary "woke" society, it appears that a prevailing notion among the Left is that white men are responsible for numerous societal issues. Movements addressing anti-racism, feminism, and others often convey a message that white males should step aside and accept blame for historical injustices. While I understand the rationale behind this sentiment—recognizing the historical dominance of white males—I struggle to see how this can be a rational expectation moving forward. If progress is framed as a zero-sum game, how can we expect anyone to willingly embrace a diminished role?

Moreover, the messaging often feels reminiscent of religious proselytization: filled with guilt and judgment. The Left seems to dismiss a significant portion of the population as "deplorables" while failing to provide economic solutions, instead targeting their pride in heritage. How can those who feel left behind be persuaded to engage when their contributions are met with scorn?

2. If capitalism is deemed harmful and meritocracy is viewed as flawed, what motivates individuals to excel?

Experiencing a workplace where promotions are based on tenure rather than merit can be demotivating. For instance, in Cuba, some doctors opt to become taxi drivers due to better financial incentives, illustrating how lack of meritocracy can lead to disillusionment.

Some argue that greed and laziness drive innovation, a perspective that aligns with capitalism's principles. Yet, there's a common belief among the Left that wealth redistribution is the solution to societal inequities. However, history shows that individuals who suddenly acquire wealth often lose it quickly. What mechanisms would prevent this cycle of wealth loss in a socialist framework?

Communism has failed repeatedly, often leading to authoritarianism. Could there be alternative methods to address wealth disparity without resorting to either extreme?

3. How can society ensure "positive rights" without infringing on others' "negative rights"?

Rights can be categorized as "negative," which protect individuals from interference, and "positive," which require active provision from the government. While advocating for rights like healthcare and education is noble, it raises questions about implementation. If individuals refuse to engage in professions that provide these services, how can such rights be guaranteed?

Furthermore, how do we balance providing positive rights without infringing on individual freedoms? For example, if someone chooses to engage in risky behaviors, should they be penalized for increasing healthcare costs for others? This leads to a slippery slope of regulations. Is there a way to allow individuals to opt out of certain rights in favor of personal freedoms?

4. If moderating hate speech is not considered censorship, who determines acceptable language, and what are the implications?

I stand firmly against censorship in all forms. It often assumes that individuals are incapable of discerning truth and morality on their own, leading to a paternalistic approach to governance. The push for "hate speech" regulation, while well-intentioned, raises concerns about who gets to define unacceptable language. Historically, attempts to suppress ideas based on offense have led to oppression of dissenting views.

Like the separation of church and state, we should allow ideas to compete without interference. If an idea is truly flawed, it should be easy to argue against it. How can we justify restricting speech when we simultaneously empower citizens to make critical decisions in a democratic society?

5. How can respect for democratic institutions be fostered while disparaging their founders?

Concerns about the state of American democracy are valid, especially in light of recent political developments. Yet, a growing trend to vilify the Founding Fathers for their historical actions undermines the respect for the institutions they created.

While acknowledging their flaws, we must also recognize their contributions to establishing a democratic framework. Tearing down monuments to these figures sends a contradictory message about valuing democracy. Can we not find a balance that allows us to critique their shortcomings while honoring their legacy?

These questions reflect genuine curiosity and concern. If progressives aim to broaden their influence and connect with a wider audience, addressing these issues could be crucial. I invite responses and hope for a fruitful exchange of ideas.

Colby Hess is a freelance writer and photographer from Seattle, and the author of the children's book, *The Stranger of Wigglesworth.

If you find value in this content, consider supporting independent voices like this one.