In effect, Murray is saying that disillusioned leftists simply do not agree with significant parts of the standard conservative position. But why would they—and why should they? Why does a deep aversion to identity politics necessarily imply a willingness to adopt right-wing positions on abortion, or gay rights, let alone more traditional left-wing issues focused on inequality like how redistributive the tax system should be, or the proper role of government in the economy, or foreign policy?
Two decades ago Thomas Sowell, the well-known black American conservative intellectual, wrote a book titled A Conflict of Visions which sought to explain the propensity of those committed to ideological positions to line up on the same side on multiple issues often bearing little logical relationship to each other.
Sowell thought he had an explanation in the Left and Right being bound to "open" and "constrained" visions of human possibility respectively. He makes an interesting case, but I think he is only partly right—I do not think it is that coherent, more to do with the role of group dynamics ("groupthink") leading to conformity with the total left/right packages rather than judging each issue on its merits. Or as another writer put it, ideological stances are like "McHappy meals, with no substitutions allowed".
There are a number of possible answers to this question. The first, which many conservatives would offer (while no doubt patting themselves on the back), is that Maher somehow lacks the bravery or courage needed to commit such an act of apostasy. He may have moved Rightwards, but he is not willing to concede as much.
The second answer, which I imagine Maher himself might offer, is that he hasn’t left the Left — the Left has left him. He has stayed precisely where he was, and remains as true to his principles as ever. There is, perhaps, some truth here. But this still fails to address the key question: why, in the face of the current Leftist orthodoxies, are so many on the traditional Left reluctant to admit they now have more in common with the Right?After all, previous generations of American public figures had no problem with making a move from Left to Right and admitting as much. Both Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz flirted with Marxism before coming out for conservatism. British public life is also peppered with individuals who made similar journeys without any embarrassment: Malcolm Muggeridge, Paul Johnson and Kingsley Amis, to name but three.
Yet in America today, such apostasy is almost unheard of. There have been semi-regular defections from the Right, especially during the Trump era, when people such as Max Boot broke publicly with their own side to support a Democrat president. But there is a glaring absence of any movement in the opposite direction.
Bill Maher, Bari Weiss and a slew of other liberals who have fallen out with their own tribe have chosen not to identify as conservative. And that should be a cause for concern. Rather than ignoring this trend, conservatives need to ask themselves: what is it about the Right that is so unappealing that people who agree almost entirely with its views resile from joining its ranks?