It’s a little difficult to put myself back in that mind. But I think it was the sense that intuition is a good thing, or something worth valuing, that ultimately led me toward studying Carl Jung at Essex University. And I basically still have the same sense—that intuition is something valuable, interesting, something worth thinking about.

           There is a parallel between intuition and small “c” conservatism. Carl Jung is often thought of as the father of the New Age, in particular a distinctive brand of American liberal spirituality—ironic, as Jung was a quintessential small “c” conservative. Take, for example, the conservatism parable: if you find a fence across a field, don’t tear it down just because you see no use for it. First ask why someone put it there—only then can you judge whether it should stay or go. This is a typical Jungian sentiment: that any tradition, institution, way of doing things, or cultural norm should not be destroyed for the sake of it, but rather interrogated, and only destroyed if there is a very good reason to do so.

           I live in the United States in 2025. That is a thing. It’s such a thing, it’s very difficult to say anything. I don’t know where to begin, and as such, I find myself rarely beginning at all. Which is to say, I find myself writing much more than I “publish.”

           I use the word ‘liberal’ to describe myself. But much the same way I feel about the word ‘Christian,’ I feel the same about the word ‘liberal’: I’m a Christian, but not that kind of Christian, and I’m a liberal, but not that kind of liberal.

           Writing this brings to mind the scene from Civil War (2024): “What kind of American are you?” It feels like religiosity is playing a large part in the current situation. MAGA is like a religious movement: it’s not about policy, it’s about belief, it’s about faith in the cause, in the man. Almost all the discourse has nothing to do with reason, argument, or policy—and if it is, it’s all a smoke screen, just words in defense of whatever is happening. It doesn’t seem to matter; everything is defended regardless. The cause can do no wrong.

           I am hyper-aware of the fact that I personally exist between two cultural milieus, broadly that of liberal America and liberal Britain, and as such I find myself very much at odds with both. And more than capable of offending both—I’m sure I will. Being a fish out of water makes me all the more aware of the games everyone is playing: the way people signal their positions in order to receive adoration. I think whenever someone states the blindingly obvious liberal truism just to receive some adoration, a bit of my soul dies. That might be more of a me problem.

           I don’t want to suggest a false equivalency—that would be absurd. But I do think western liberalism broadly also has a religious component. There is a kind of universality which I think is problematic—this sense that whatever the true liberal position is, is correct regardless of who or where you are in the world.

           At heart I’m a postmodernist. Its strength lies in rejecting meta-narratives: the insistence that there is one correct view into which everyone must be folded. I think this is a terrible idea, and yet it seems to remain the mainstream western liberal perspective—that we are correct, and everyone must agree with us.

           I have a sense of conservative intuition, and it pulls against this blanket perspective. It is alienating to them. It causes rage to bubble. As much as conservatives perceive postmodernism to be the enemy, I think it can be the solution. Everyone needs to abandon the universal project—you can’t win that game. But here, in community, locally, I think we can go further than ever.

           Here’s where I risk offending. Let’s take the LGBT cause. I think it’s absurd to fight this at the universal or nation-state level. No conservative American is going to affirm transgenderism, for example, and I don’t think they need to. The expectation or demand that they must is, frankly, unrealistic. A postmodern perspective allows for different communities to take different positions, each catering to different people. The battleground doesn’t have to be federal; it can be about allowing a multiplicity of communities to exist side by side. Whether the current administration actually permits this multiplicity is another matter. But the existence of communities that, for example, do not affirm transgenderism—those communities also need to be acknowledged as legitimate.

           Is this a kind of allowance? I don’t think it should be thought of as such. This is what it means to live in a pluralistic society. Or indeed, it may get us back to the original idea that states should be politically and culturally independent from one another. I hate this homogeneity. Everywhere is homogeneity! It is terrible. I want a world with liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats! I want the plurality!